George Bush and the Great American Electorate Swindle

[Morgoth]

As anyone who has recently seen the Israel and the focal point of conflict thread recently will already know my views on Bush. This thread is for people to express their opinion on Bush and his cabinet, plus opinions on the war. And the rigged election. And his violation of UN authority. Nuff Sed. Enjoy.

[Tar-Elenion]

What proof do you have that the election was rigged?

[Morgoth]

The proof is
a) The Supreme Court Judges were republican, and it was they who stopped the recount, and they were friends of Bush Sr. who told them to stop the recount.
b) The Bush Clan struck people off the voting roll who had criminal offences to their name, the majority of which were democrats.
There is other things, but read the book Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. It explains it better than I do.

[Anamatar IV]

Frankly, I couldn't care less who the new president is was will be will never be or anything or that sort. I plain out don't. Osama Bin Laden could be ruling the country. I couldn't care less.

As for the rigged election (?), after the 3rd or 4th recount I don't think anyone cared who won! I didn't. I remember waking up one morning saying to my parents "do we have a president yet?" when they said yes I said "oh. that's nice." Who really cares if it's a rigged election? would it even matter? Gore forfeited. No rigging required.

As for the war: it's inevitable. Whether it will be with Iraq or North Korea or Palestinians: there will be war. I just think it'd be best if we attacked before getting bombed like in WWII.

[Morgoth]

I completely agree with your last point. But surely you care who your president is? He is the one that will be making the choice that could possibly end up with you being dead. Think about that.

[Anamatar IV]

The president won't drop a bomb on his own country and I am not impressed by the launching capabilities of our enemies. I never think through every war America will have that I will die in one of them.

When it comes down to it every president will make the same decision: if a plane is coming towards us with a bomb every president is going to have it shot down. It we are attacked every president is going to bomb those to attacked us. The only difference between presidents is what they will do with the country. The economy and all that. And even if America does go into another depression: hey, things are cheaper!

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Morgoth
The proof is
a) The Supreme Court Judges were republican, and it was they who stopped the recount, and they were friends of Bush Sr. who told them to stop the recount.
Really? The whole Supreme Court? You do realize that there was a 7-2 decision in which it was found that the recount process violated the Consititution don't you?

b) The Bush Clan struck people off the voting roll who had criminal offences to their name, the majority of which were democrats.
The Bush Clan? You mean the elected officials following the law?
You do realize that the process of purging the voter rolls of those ineligible to vote was set up by the previous adminstration in Florida, which happened to be a Democrat administration?
And so what if the majority of these criminals you mention were democrats? Do you think they should be excused for their criminal acts because they are democrats?

There is other things, but read the book Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. It explains it better than I do.
Ah, I see. Perhaps you should check up on facts rather than spin.

[Morgoth]

Jeez, you know your stuff. My apologies if I have offended you in any way. But I still believe that the elections are rigged. And DO NOT patronize me saying that my facts are based on spin. I read newspapers daily. And where have your 'reliable' facts come from? Republican run newspapers? Or are you, in fact, Dubya himself?

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Morgoth
Jeez, you know your stuff. My apologies if I have offended you in any way. But I still believe that the elections are rigged.
Your 'beliefs' do not constitute _proof_, or even evidence.

And DO NOT patronize me saying that my facts are based on spin. I read newspapers daily.
The why did you cite a book that is filled with spin?

And where have your 'reliable' facts come from? Republican run newspapers? Or are you, in fact, Dubya himself?
Yes, those notorious 'Republican run newspapers' such as the Washington Post, New York Times and S.F. Chronicle.

[Gandalf White]

The proof is a) The Supreme Court Judges were republican, and it was they who stopped the recount, and they were friends of Bush Sr. who told them to stop the recount.
Let's get this straight, as I can't figure out why people still rant over this.
1. The Supreme Court stops the recounts (several had already been conducted) and Bush wins the election.
2. The recount goes on, and as proven by several recounts after the election, Bush wins. Either way Bush wins! Which of course is EVEN MORE proof of the rigging that went on.
The Bush Clan struck people off the voting roll who had criminal offences to their name, the majority of which were democrats Yes, maybe we should go into detail about the voting fraud committed by the Dems, how they closed voting early in Republican counties, but left them open late in heavily Democratic areas, hmmmm? Or how the militaries ballots were largely ignored because of their heavily Republican voting? Hmmm?:rolleyes:
And don't you find it interesting that most Democrats are criminals??.....erm....let me rephrase that, ...most criminals are Democrats?:D

[Morgoth]

I suppose you think that's funny. But that is a typical example of small-minded republicanism. By the way, I am further left than a democrat, I am a COMMUNIST. You like that? Thought not.

[Morgoth]

Sorry, that was slightly harsh. I'm in a bad mood. Don't let any of this get personal by the way. Keep it political. I know you will.:D

[Gandalf White]

Yeah, no problem. I always manage to cool down after a while! :D ;)

[FREEDOM!]

You really don't want too get me started on this..

For starters Bush is a great pres. He was voted in perfectly legally...if you want too talk about illegal votes then lets talk about how the Democrats pay the Mexicans in California to vote more than once for them.

[Sador]

Do you really think that any other Pres. would be so keen to get Saddam?
Saddam is a nasty Tyrant, sure , but there are lots of nasty tyrants in this world and I don't see the US Gov. doing anything about them.
It's the price of oil and daddy's unsettled score.
To act without UN sanctions would be a criminal act.
Mr G.W. Bush is about to become a war criminal.

[Gandalf White]

Do you really think that any other Pres. would be so keen to get Saddam? Saddam is a nasty Tyrant, sure , but there are lots of nasty tyrants in this world and I don't see the US Gov. doing anything about them. It's the price of oil and daddy's unsettled score. To act without UN sanctions would be a criminal act. Mr. G.W. Bush is about to become a war criminal Oohahahahaaa. Yes, but Saddam is 1 of only 2 nasty tyrants with bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and he's crazy enough to use them!
Oh, and just to let you know Sador, it is not a crime to declare and fight a war on another country (provided you have the right reasons) without the UN's approval. That is simply laughable!:p I have said it before and will say it again, "I would not trust the UN with anything the way they act.

The following script is in no way meant to poke fun or disrespect at the US or anyone who participated in the events of Pearl Harbor, it is mean simply to illustrate the UN! ;)

Imagine.... December 8, 1941....

US: we want to declare war on Hitler and Japan!
UN: NO! there is no smoking gun!
US: But there are smoking battleships!
UN: But that is not a gun!
US: But there are guns on them!
UN: NO! Hitler's mustache is too cool! :eek:

:D Sorry, I couldn't help myself!!! :D

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Sador
Do you really think that any other Pres. would be so keen to get Saddam?
Do you mean like Mr. Clinton in '98?

Saddam is a nasty Tyrant, sure , but there are lots of nasty tyrants in this world and I don't see the US Gov. doing anything about them.
Which ones do you want us to go after? Or would you just complain about it if we did?

It's the price of oil and daddy's unsettled score.
Canard. The oil can be had with no war. If it was just oil alll that would need to be done is what the oil companies have wanted, have the UN lift the sanctions and allow the oil to flow freely. Even if it were just about Mr. Bush Sr. so what, Mr. Hussein did attempt to have him assassinated.

To act without UN sanctions would be a criminal act.
Mr G.W. Bush is about to become a war criminal.
Then it must be a good thing that there are UN sanctions already in place.

[Sador]

What makes you think that there are only two dictators in the world with Biological/chemical/nuclear weapons or that Saddam is the only one crazy enough to use them?
Any tinpot tyrant with a lab. can build biological weapons.
My point is If you attack Saddam, then you have to attack N.Korea, then China, then North Africa, the rest of the Middle East, Eastern Europe then once the world is a smoking ruin the cattle farmers of Texas can run their herds of cancerous Longhorns for a couple of months until the fall out finally does them in.
Sorry if I sound like a raving loony, but I happen to think that no one can win this war.

[Gandalf White]

What makes you think that there are only two dictators in the world with Biological/chemical/nuclear weapons or that Saddam is the only one crazy enough to use them? Can you name more?
Any tinpot tyrant with a lab. can build biological weapons. Hmm, what about the chemical and nuclear weapons. And don't forget he must have a means of launching them at his targets. Saddam has all three, and as found he has many missiles exceeding the allowed range.
My point is If you attack Saddam, then you have to attack N.Korea, then China, then North Africa, the rest of the Middle East, Eastern Europe I can't agree with this, as N. Korea is the only one that needs to really be dealt with next. I am unaware of any tyrannical, insane leaders in North Africa, the Middle East or China. Yes, they may pose threats, but they are very slight, especially when compared to Saddam's. (The last statement very possibly excludes N. Korea)
then once the world is a smoking ruin the cattle farmers of Texas can run their herds of cancerous Longhorns for a couple of months until the fall out finally does them in. wow :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I just don't believe if we attack Saddam, that the rest of the world will have to be attacked to. Once we're done with Saddam, we will deal with N. Korea, and hope they show themselves better than Saddam has during the past years (although there appears little hope for this)

[Sador]

Ever heard of Mugabe? Arap Moi? Mahathir? The Saudi Royal Family?
I don't mean that the US is planning to attack all those other places, but that once you start, those other places start taking sides and before you know it your'e in a war with no clearly defined areas of engagement and no easily identifiable enemy.
Its not as if there will be a battlefield between two hills and a general shouting charge!!!
The enemies will be all around, there will be no front line.
You can't defeat an enemy you can't find.

[Morgoth]

Amen to that Sador. Finally someone who agrees with me! It's quite apparent that alot of the american users here love their president alot more than I'd like to believe. But I still don't trust him as far as I could throw him. And about this 'Bush dropping a bomb on his own country' as people have interpreted one of my posts to say. That's not what I meant. I meant a foreign threat, and didn't mention a bomb. I was referring more particaularly to biological and chemical terrorism, not nuclear war. It's a far more realistic threat

[Morgoth]

Gandalf White, you said that Saddam posed the greatest threat to american security. Since he became dictator, he has made not one action against the US to my knowledge. He was making weapons of mass destruction not for use on you, but for Iran and Kuwait. And as for 'no dictators' in North Africa, please! Ever heard of Colonel Gadafi. Your government deemed him so dangerous that they put him up as a possible suspect for 9/11 before they found out bin Laden did it! And no threat from China? Your illustrious president managed to screw up a decade of improving realations between america and China. Well done Dubya.

[Gandalf White]

Ever heard of Mugabe? Arap Moi? Mahathir? The Saudi Royal Family? Actually yes I have. Mugabe may be unbalanced, but he doesn't have the weapons. The Saudi Royal Family may have the weapons, but they aren't insane. No other leaders are as dangerous as Saddam and N. Korea, in my opinion.
BTW, what is your suggestion for dealing in world affairs, instead of just creating more problems?

[Gandalf White]

Gandalf White, you said that Saddam posed the greatest threat to american security. Since he became dictator, he has made not one action against the US to my knowledge. He was making weapons of mass destruction not for use on you, but for Iran and Kuwait. Ah, yes, you're like so many others willing to wait for the smoking gun. Well I for one am not.
And no threat from China? Your illustrious president managed to screw up a decade of improving realations between america and China. Well done Dubya. :D You make me laugh with this statement, Morgoth! Seriously :D You want to know why relations improved. CLINTON WAS GIVING AWAY OUR SECRETS!!! The relations are down because "Dubya" has a backbone, and a sense of honesty to his country, unlike Clinton.

[Hadhafang]

As an American I must admit that all of this international dislike of Bush has some merit. Bush has alienated a large number of our allies. Why? For oil. This whole war on Iraq idea comes down to easy access to oil. The terrorism thing is a front to "scare people into supporting an "oil war."
I do think that Sadaam has to go. I just wish that the U.S. could do it in a more unified way. Alienating our allies who helped us out so much wirh the war on terrorism is a bad idea.
Bush is also wagging the dog big time. While we are all busy posting threads about war we are neglecting other important issues such as economy, environment, and a corporate republic infiltration of the white house.

[Morgoth]

Gandalf, you are showing signs of double standards. Clinton was giving away your secrets was he? Oh, poor America! So it's alright for America to have secrets, but not Saddam Hussein. :confused:

[Gandalf White]

Gandalf, you are showing signs of double standards. Clinton was giving away your secrets was he? Oh, poor America! So it's alright for America to have secrets, but not Saddam Hussein. Let me be a little more clear. What I actually meant was weapons technology, which Clinton sold by the box. And no, it is not alright for Saddam to have secret supplies of weapons of mass destruction:rolleyes:. The US has no hidden arms, neither does any other nation (except N. Korea).

[Gandalf White]

As an American I must admit that all of this international dislike of Bush has some merit. Bush has alienated a large number of our allies. Why? For oil. This whole war on Iraq idea comes down to easy access to oil. The terrorism thing is a front to "scare people into supporting an "oil war." First off I don't believe the war is about oil. We are scared of Saddam's weapons, and so must take them out, because Saddam has refused to do so. I am all for going in with the UN and other nations, and would much prefer it that way. However, that said, the UN and other nations have proved to be incapable. France does not want to go because they do billions in trade with Iraq, and even supply Iraq with parts for weapons of mass destruction. Russia also is financially involved, and the UN ignores breach after breach. If they don't shape up, and quick, I'm all for US and Britain alone.

[faila]

This thead made me cry because of its insane dillusions. Morgoth, the election wasnt rigged the supreme court happened to be enforcing the constitution, but being a communist you wouldnt care about the constitution. Iraq needs to be taken care of or they can harm us,being proactive is not bad.

Morgoth if you were on any other forum except for this one you would be flamed to death, an I would be one of the ones flaming, I hold my toungue here becuase I respect the moderators and owners of this board. But any way communism doesnt work, it never had, never will, history shows us this. My guess is that you are a delluded kid.

[Eliot]

Hmmmmm....... He's only 15. Not too surprising.

[Lantalasse]

Ok I'm sorry about this, it's not really my place to discuss things since i'm not american but i would like to know what faila thinks communism is. just out of interest.

[Hadhafang]

We are scared of Saddam's weapons, and so must take them out
During the Gulf war we killed 100,000 Iraqis in less than 100 days. In that time period we knocked the size of his military from fourth largest in the world to nearly nothing. His Republican Guard elite troops surrenderred to journalists. His factories, bridges, and power facilities were basically all destroyed.
He has not really had any ability to improve upon his 'phantom' weapons of mass destuction. He doesn't have even one-hundredth of what is being reported to us. Nowadays our military is bigger stronger and better than the 1990s. When we attack the death toll will be higher, Islamic countries will hate us more, and we will have rights to the cleanest, richest oil fields in the world. I seriously do not feel that our government is afraid of this idiot. Otherwise we would have taken care of him in round one.
The oil companies, military contractors, and other various big business swine are more than eager to start war so they can earn wealth off of the destruction of tens of thousands of human lives. Our president also knows that he will be receiving enormous payoffs from them in the form of campaign financing. Our president isn't "afraid"...he's laughing his way to the bank.

[Eliot]

Hadhafang, we didn't take out Iraq in 1991 because the UN wouldn't allow that. The US is not scared of Saddam Hussein.

[Eliot]

Ok, that didn't come out right. :D

I mean, the US is concerned about Hussein's growing power, but we're not scared to take him out.

[Ciryaher]

Oh good grief. You pacifistic, left-winged idiots really need to get over it. Bush won, now just move on.

Since he became dictator, he has made not one action against the US to my knowledge. He was making weapons of mass destruction not for use on you, but for Iran and Kuwait.

This is the biggest load of poop I've ever seen. Do you not recall that he gassed several thousand Kurds, wiping out several towns? Do you not recall that Hussein used chemical weapons on the Iranians? Do you think that it's ok for WMD's to be used on the Kuwaitis or the Iranians? Where do you draw the line? As long as your people aren't being massacred it's ok? You can't let murderers sit and do what they please, making a mockery of the democractic way. If you had any respect for humanity you wouldn't have said:

He was making weapons of mass destruction not for use on you, but for Iran and Kuwait.

[Morgoth]

By no means am I saying that Saddam is a good guy. He is one of the most evil, insane people that the world has ever seen. Taking him out would be a good idea. I simply disagree about an invasion over oil. And Falia, Communism was working perfectly well until Stalin became leader, then it all went wrong, because, he, like Saddam Hussein, was crazy. ***edited by Grond***

[Eriol]

I do not feel comfrotable in giving any opinions about the subject of the thread since I am not American. But on the subject of Communism I'd like to invite all interested to an old thread named "Communism", in which I argued with Húrin Thalion about it.

[Hadhafang]

Hadhafang, we didn't take out Iraq in 1991 because the UN wouldn't allow that.
I am not seeing what that has to do with Bush invading for oil. Also I am hearing too many anti U.N. slogans on these boards for that argument to hold water.
You pacifistic, left-wing idiots are beginning to get on my bad side. You can't let murderers sit and do what they please, making a mockery of the democractic way.
I have stated that I am in favor of removing Sadaam by force in a more unified way. It makes laugh me that you don't think of the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis as murder. The sad part is we're going to do it again...for oil. Our president is a murderer too. He's going to kill a heck of a lot of people in this conflict that you seem so eager and excited to support. That is a little disturbing.

[Gandalf White]

Taking him out would be a good idea. I simply disagree about an invasion over oil. Ok, let's try this again. This war is NOT over oil. It is over Saddam's weapons. How do you suggest we take him out? By waiting for the rest of the world for the next 50 years? Saddam has breach after breach of UN sanctions, and all they do is pass more.

I have stated that I am in favor of removing Sadaam by force in a more unified way. Yeah right. WE TRIED! France sells Iraq the parts to make weapons of mass destruction, and doesn't want to go to war. Russia does big trade. The UN passes meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution, and ignores breach after breach. I suggest you find a better argument, that one doesn't hold water any more.

[Hadhafang]

WE TRIED!
If the rest of our powerful allies as well as the U.N. does not see him as a threat then maybe going to war for oil isn't such a good idea.

[Gandalf White]

It makes laugh me that you don't think of the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis as murder. No, it is not murder to kill 100,000 enemy troops when they are fighting against you. And let me just point out that it was a coalition including, the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea, Spain, Poland, Norway, Pakistan, Bahrain, Great Britain, ....you get the point.
I am tired of all the whining and complaining. Why don't you guys state what we should do with Hussein, instead of just throwing up problem after problem.
BTW, Hadfang, explain to me exactly how we will control Iraqui oil if we invade. Maybe we will set up a colony in Iraq? :p

[Gandalf White]

If the rest of our powerful allies as well as the U.N. does not see him as a threat then maybe going to war for oil isn't such a good idea. Funny how I have to repeat myself, because you leave most of my post out. Great Britain is with us. France supplies Iraq with weapons parts. Russia does big trade. Germany does big trade, as well as hide behind a "can't attack" thingamajig. Who else is there?

[ms Greenleaf]

Alright every body I think bush is an idiot. He got elected in by a system that is so out of date it is sad... even the Canadian election system works better than it does. Anamatar way back you said he would not blow up his own country well if he actually followed his own veiws the USA would no longer be existent for the following reasons

1 -The USA has the most Weapons of mass destruction of well anywhere--- has bush offered to maybe give up part of the USA's WOMD so that other countries will... no he threatens countries with very few and arguably no weapons of Mass destruction with his own weapons of Mass destruction

2 the USA has the most terrorists of anywhere in the world... I beleive Canada is in second

Finally I do not like Bush because he is not joining with Kyoto and although he is trying to "help" the environment now he is doing it in a very screwed up fashion that does not work. Sure he will make fuel-cell cars but to make them he will use gasoline...how does that work?

done ranting.

[Morgoth]

Firstly, Gandalf, how can you say the war isn't about oil? Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on earth, and America is the worlds largest oil consumer. You do the math.

[ms Greenleaf]

Yah i would have to agree with Morgoth it is ALL about the oil

[Eliot]

If the US was really going to start a war over oil, we'd attack Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. You guys (Morgoth, ms Greenleaf, and whoever else is on their side) are such stupid morons.

[ms Greenleaf]

Thanks I appreciate it but the reason that they are not attacking Saudia Arabia is that as stupid as Bush is and as stupid as his war idea is he is not QUITE stupid enough to go to war against a country without an excuse. I mean the people of the USA would kick him out...I hope,

ps how old are you...just the language thing

[Morgoth]

You also say Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN resolutions. So is Israel. Bomb them

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Morgoth
And as for 'oh, he's only 15', gimme a break, your ideals are far more immature than mine are, with your small minded right wing president. I know, why don't we all join the KKK, you rednecks.

I can't believe you would even suggest joining the KKK. Even if you were just joking, saying that made YOU look like an immature fool.

Where exactly are you from?

[Bombadillo]

and the US can get to the oil in saudi arabia.. but it can't reach the oil in Irak... and wasn't it strange that a month ago shell said to be interested in "building up" the oil fields in Irak after the war??

[ms Greenleaf]

Well you kinda asked for it Elliot; exactly my point Bombodil... t I am going to put up another thread where I will ask people who have read and /or responded to this thread to vote for or against Bush.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Thanks I appreciate it but the reason that they are not attacking Saudia Arabia is that as stupid as Bush is and as stupid as his war idea is he is not QUITE stupid enough to go to war against a country without an excuse. I mean the people of the USA would kick him out...I hope,

ps how old are you...just the language thing

I'm 14, and you are currently 17, 18 in July. You probably think I'm pretty stupid, but I don't care. That's what everybody thinks about me. Oh, and where are YOU from.

I think it would be VERY stupid to invade Saudi Arabia. I don't really want to. But, I'm just saying that if we really wanted a lot of oil, we could easily take the Saudis oil.

The people of the US can't "kick out" a president. The only human beings on this planet who could actulally force an American President out of office is the US Supreme Court.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
and the US can get to the oil in saudi arabia.. but it can't reach the oil in Irak... and wasn't it strange that a month ago shell said to be interested in "building up" the oil fields in Irak after the war??

Well Elmo, I never exactly heard about that. I think that's a stupid idea.

[ms Greenleaf]

Firstly before you say we are stupid and wrong read what we have to say I am from Canada though I think I said Afghanistan when I signed up I say I am 17 for all you know I am 15, or 899 or 59 does it really matter...?

[Morgoth]

Elliot, saying that the US supreme court are the only people who can evict Bush is nonsense. You thing if a time came, where the will of the people was to go up against Bush, or any other President, that living in a Democracy, you could be stopped. And what's this **** about me being 15, when you're only 14. Grow up. And where am I from? I am the person you see on the street with a sad look in their eye, but somewhere, still has hope.

[ms Greenleaf]

Oh and by the way that is my biggest problem with the american electoral system...some presidenmts are not cut out to be president for whatever reason and yet for howmany years is it the president is the equivilant of a dictator.

[ms Greenleaf]

Morgoth is right but if the people all uniteed against someone even a dictator can be kicked out.

[Eliot]

I'm talking legally. To get rid of a President legally, the Supreme Court has to do it.

[Morgoth]

Elliot, you strike me as someone who has bought into all the propaganda that has been forced down your throat. Start questioning your views, and accept the views of others. I don't appreciate people calling me a stupid moron because of my views. Who the hell do you think you are? You're going to have to accept the beliefs of others, and not insult those who disagree with you. Otherwise, you're going to get yourself hurt by someone who really takes offence, and not someone thousands of miles away, over an internet connection.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Firstly before you say we are stupid and wrong read what we have to say I am from Canada though I think I said Afghanistan when I signed up I say I am 17 for all you know I am 15, or 899 or 59 does it really matter...?

Actually, no it doesn't. You could be 21, 64, 93, maybe even 5 for all I care.

Originally posted by Morgoth
And where am I from? I am the person you see on the street with a sad look in their eye, but somewhere, still has hope.

I see a lot of people like that. Which one are you?

Another thing, stop putting 2 L's in my name. There's only one. If you don't, well, I won't be surprised.

[Morgoth]

Talking legally? Give me a break, if you rose up against Bush, I doubt he'd be able to take the people of the US to the Supreme Court.

[ms Greenleaf]

YES ITT IS REALLY SAD HOW MUCH PRopagana there is going around... especially pro bush stuff

So do nto be naive make your own choices using facts you can trust.

Oh god i sound like one of those be smart be safe commercials

[Hadhafang]

If the US was really going to start a war over oil, we'd attack Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. You guys (Morgoth, ms Greenleaf, and whoever else is on their side) are such stupid morons.
Last I checked we already had colonized Saudi Arabia. After all we have an enormous military presence over there. Guess what would happen if the royal Saudi family demanded that we leave...
I think our evil president would invade that country to get at his 'precious'......OIL.

[ms Greenleaf]

Yepyep... you are outnumebered ElLiot...

[faila]

Originally posted by Morgoth
By no means am I saying that Saddam is a good guy. He is one of the most evil, insane people that the world has ever seen. Taking him out would be a good idea. I simply disagree about an invasion over oil. And Falia, Communism was working perfectly well until Stalin became leader, then it all went wrong, because, he, like Saddam Hussein, was crazy. And as for 'oh, he's only 15', gimme a break, your ideals are far more immature than mine are, with your small minded right wing president. I know, why don't we all join the KKK, you rednecks.
Lets look back in the past, what had a better standard of living, the us now, or communism in its prime. And calling me a redneck is insane, for all you know I could be black..... Im not but thats besides the point, but I am not a redneck. I respect all races and religions, but not all philosophical and political ideas, especially those which can be disproved.

Communism is theivery in the end. Trading money for a service is not, but it is wrong for a group to do anything that is wrong for a person to do. If I walked up and stole everyones money in the united states and then distributed it so all the people have the same out of money, I still stole money, and stealing is WRONG.

And to those who asked if I knew what communism was, I have read the communist manifesto, so yes I know what communism is.

THe war may be about oil, but hey we get oil, we are obviously better than them in practically every way, as long as we dont occupy, but still get their oil for a profit for THEM than it matters little if thats why we attack, heck we are freeing an opressed people as long as we dont occupy we are helping.

[ms Greenleaf]

To me Communism would be perfect if humans were not so damn gready and by the way the USa 's system does not work right now.

Poor people get poorer

People die because they can't pay their docter bills.

Those sorts of things do not happen as often in more left-wing countries...

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
To me Communism would be perfect if humans were not so damn gready and by the way the USa 's system does not work right now.

Poor people get poorer

People die because they can't pay their docter bills.

Those sorts of things do not happen as often in more left-wing countries... It has nothing to do with their greediness it has to do with their imperfectness and born unequality. (no offense, but some humans truly are better than others, though they should be considered equal by the law.) Yes thats because the poor are lazy bums, they need to go out and get a job. But in general they are worse off than the people here, our standard of living is higher. And last time i checked many people died of starvation during communism.

[Gandalf White]

Jeez, I leave the computer for the afternoon, and it gets flooded with posts! :eek:
1 -The USA has the most Weapons of mass destruction of well anywhere--- has bush offered to maybe give up part of the USA's WOMD so that other countries will... no he threatens countries with very few and arguably no weapons of Mass destruction with his own weapons of Mass destruction 2 the USA has the most terrorists of anywhere in the world... I beleive Canada is in second Finally I do not like Bush because he is not joining with Kyoto and although he is trying to "help" the environment now he is doing it in a very screwed up fashion that does not work. Sure he will make fuel-cell cars but to make them he will use gasoline...how does that work? Hmm, this is laughable! :p
1. Yes, USA has the most weapons, but Russia and several European nations, not to mention China, have very many as well. We don't go around threatening any small country, we merely are concerned with chemically imbalanced leaders who wield weapons of mass destruction and create a danger to the world. And you think it's wrong? :rolleyes:
2. USA and Canada have most terrorists in the world. Ahahahaha :rolleyes: :D Name a terrorist group founded in the US or Canada. We all know the Middle East is the most terrorist populated. (at least most of us :rolleyes:
The only thing I can possibly agree with you on is the Kyoto thing. Still, the US is not "required" to join. It levels huge sanctions on us, and barely any on China, which creates more 'pollution' than we do. Go figure.

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
YES ITT IS REALLY SAD HOW MUCH PRopagana there is going around... especially pro bush stuff

So do nto be naive make your own choices using facts you can trust.

Oh god i sound like one of those be smart be safe commercials Your info seem reliable, you probobly think what gore wrote in his book is correct. Its spelled Propoganda their is a d in it, and that normally refers to incorrect information, which most of the information given is not incorrect.

[Gandalf White]

YES ITT IS REALLY SAD HOW MUCH PRopagana there is going around... especially pro bush stuff Yes, perhaps you don't realize that the media is almost totally left-wing propoganda. :rolleyes: Fortunately we have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to truly inform and keep us alert. THANKS GUYS!
Ok, I lose. I never really win political debates anyway. Eliot, you don't lose just because you can't spew off enough stuff to keep up with three people. Never apologize for your beliefs, never give in, don't go with the crowd.
Oh and by the way that is my biggest problem with the american electoral system...some presidenmts are not cut out to be president for whatever reason and yet for howmany years is it the president is the equivilant of a dictator Yes, how would you have us choose our President? You don't think the US population is capable? :rolleyes:
Talking legally? Give me a break, if you rose up against Bush, I doubt he'd be able to take the people of the US to the Supreme Court. Boy, Morgoth, you really don't get it, do you?

[Gandalf White]

You also say Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN resolutions. So is Israel. Bomb them Oh, yeah, I forgot this. Could explain to me where exactly Israel is in breach. Cuz if they were I'm pretty sure that the UN would be breathing down their backs.

[Ciryaher]

If I hear one more insult, this thread will go the way of Communism and the members in question will be given a hefty sum of warning points.

Firstly, George W. Bush is not evil. To say that he is a dictator, evil, or stupid is to proclaim your ignorance in the loudest of methods. He is not a dictator, and he is certainly not evil. He may have a bit of trouble speaking perfectly (which seeing as many of you can hardly spell, GW's speech is laughable to criticize), but he is not stupid. I have seen him in the first person, and I listened to his speech. This is not a man with sinister ambitions, nor demented plots. Bush is a man who simply wants to do the best he can, and the best he can do is all that he can do, and I commend him for that.

This war is not about oil. Again, anyone who thinks show is once more blatantly proclaiming their ignorance. If this whole situation had been about war, there wouldn't be oil sanctions on Iraq, and we would currently be occupying the entire region. This is about taking out a guy who has proven to be unafraid of using chemical (and possibly biological) weapons.

And by the way, the President can be removed by the Congress and Senate, as well as by the People. In fact, in the Constitution, the People can constitutionally remove the entire government from power and replace it, if they feel that the people are no longer being represented.

[ms Greenleaf]

Gandalf fair enough points
Faila here are some points

Once you are poor, ie born into a poor family it is very hard to get out of that kind of situation...I am lucky I was born into an okay family some people are not that is like saying that someone who is born to an abusive father is not as good as a person born into a family with a good father. It is therefore said girls fault for being hurt.

Also some very smart people are poor because they are in proffesions that pay very little...poets for example. Are you saying that they are any worse than those people who are rich because they did eeny meeny miny moo and happened to put all there money in to a good stock. I disagree strongly with your statement and hope others will back me on that one.

[ms Greenleaf]

Couple of more things

First I have not read the Gore thing I am not an American and would be very happy if none of this affected me but it does...or will anyway.

I just want you people to give me the FACTS that we have. Things that we know for sure alright. Not stuff that so and so might have. Not stuff that bush says we have while witholding evidence just the Facts.

Oh and I was not comparing Bush to a dictator i was saying that the way that Bush and all presicdents are elected they are given to much power for my tastes

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
If I hear one more insult, this thread will go the way of Communism and the members in question will be given a hefty sum of warning points.


You pacifistic, left-wing idiots are beginning to get on my bad side.
Now who said that directly to a forum member.

[Ciryaher]

You is plural. I didn't attack a member.

Too much power for your tastes? You seem to think that a President can act alone. There is a thing called the system of checks and balances. The supreme court, the legislature, and the president can all check eachother, that way no branch is all-powerful.

[Nóm]

You did something that I, as an observer, deem an insult upon (among others) a forum member. I did not mean to imply that it was an attack, just an insult.

[Gandalf White]

I just want you people to give me the FACTS that we have. Things that we know for sure alright. Not stuff that so and so might have. I really think you should start giving the facts, but here goes...
1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He himself says he has none, yet warns us he will use them if we attack. Go figure.
2. Saddam is a madman. He has killed and maimed his own people with chemical weapons. He ruthlessly invaded Kuwait, killed many innocent people, set up a human shield, not to mention his burning and dumping thousands and thousands of gallons of Kuwaiti oil.
3. He has refused to cooperate with inspectors, and breaches resolution after resolution with no consideration.


That's a start, and enough for a reason to invade. If only the UN would straighten up along with France and Germany and Russia, and realize that he is a threat.

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Gandalf fair enough points
Faila here are some points

Once you are poor, ie born into a poor family it is very hard to get out of that kind of situation...I am lucky I was born into an okay family some people are not that is like saying that someone who is born to an abusive father is not as good as a person born into a family with a good father. It is therefore said girls fault for being hurt.

Also some very smart people are poor because they are in proffesions that pay very little...poets for example. Are you saying that they are any worse than those people who are rich because they did eeny meeny miny moo and happened to put all there money in to a good stock. I disagree strongly with your statement and hope others will back me on that one. Its all lot easier to go from poor to rich in the US than any other nation in the world, because of the fact that any one can get a job, true that it is easier for the rich but its not really the governments job to change that. THen they should have a second job, a poet thats smart enough will do something else and write poetry on the side. They dont do eeny meeny miny moo you can tell when the company you are puting money in is worth it or not. The poor people can become un poor and rich people can become richer.

Constitutionally the president has very little powers in time of peace, read the constitution, it gives the set up for the best government in existence.

[Ciryaher]

I'm insulting the ridiculous ideas of appeasement and inactionism. Not the members themselves.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I'm insulting the ridiculous ideas of appeasement and inactionism. Not the members themselves.

While I wouldn't argue with you about the intended meaning, it seems clear to me that you named people as idiots.

"You pacifistic, left-wing idiots"

You are better with the English language than I am, but I expect that I am right in thinking that people were named as "left-wing idiots"... not left-wing ideas named as idiotic.

[faila]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I'm insulting the ridiculous ideas of appeasement and inactionism. Not the members themselves. I still think we should be able to ridicule members a bit...... but then again no one cares what I think. Heck you should be able to ridicule the ridiculous ideas of pacifist tremendously, its a extremely stupid thought.

[Ciryaher]

Well, Nom, all I can say is report the post and see what other Mods have to say about it. Until then, please don't clutter this thread uneccessarily.

[Beorn]

This thread is closed for a day to cool off. Anyone who participated in this thread, please read your inbox, as most of you probably have (or will have once I'm done) a PM from me in there.

Mike

[Beorn]

Ehh...close to a day...

[Morgoth]

Well, I feel I should say something about the events that came to pass in the 24 hours before the thread was closed. I'd like to apologise for the comment about the KKK and rednecks, it was just me getting angry. So, there it is, an apology. No more insults, please, and let's get back to the topic at hand.

[Gandalf White]

Ehhh, where were we? :confused: I've lost my train of thought!:eek:

[Morgoth]

It appears that alot of people have given up on this thread. Well, that's fine, i'll just stew in my own juices and vent my rage on Ms Greenleafs quality thread. By the way, if you want to post, do so, you'll get a reply from me at least

[ms Greenleaf]

Hear that Cirapher I have a quality thread.

[Ciryaher]

Yes, I agree that this is a quality thread, however, as far as I see it, the "Pro-America" camp has put forth more evidence and less rhetoric. I think the "Anti-America" camp should bring up a new point to discuss on the same topic (even though it will probably get shot down).

[Morgoth]

Well, the rhetoric was just against your "evidence". In this thread, I gave several pieces of "evidence", just as reliable as yours, but it was simply dissmissed by many as 'spin'. So I would like to question what constitutes as "evidence"

[Gandalf White]

Actually I found it rather funny how whenever I posted I got "fairly good points" for a response, or it was totally ignored, because no one could argue against it! :rolleyes: :p

[Morgoth]

That is, Gandalf, because you made some fairly good points. However one of your recent 'facts' has appeared to be complete rubbish. So that'll teach you to put forth false evidence.

[Gandalf White]

Now, now, no need to get 'uppity' :rolleyes:
Could you please give me the quote of my supposedly false fact?

[Ciryaher]

Firstly, your idea that this "war" is about oil has been shot down by the simple use of logic.

[Gandalf White]

Firstly, your idea that this "war" is about oil has been shot down by the simple use of logic. Cir, please tell me that you did not direct that statement towards me! :eek:

[Ciryaher]

No, I was talking to Morgoth, hehe. I'll be sure and include names in the future. No worries!

[ms Greenleaf]

Well actually I beleiove the war is up for a LOT of different reasons Cir and one of them is Oil but anther is the People of the USA.. Bush wants to be put in power again and there is no betterr way to make people like you then by becoming a war hero think of the presidents in the WW"S another reason might be pschologically (sorry for any SP mistakes) Busth wants to end what his dad started..oh and the people are afraid of terrorist attacks which by the way do not always make them real...


By the way Cir when I said I HAD A QUALITY thread I ment Bush not this one
:rolleyes:

[Ciryaher]

I assume you mean "people like you" in a negative way. Assume that you are wrong, because you are. Bush isn't getting any brownie points with me, that's for sure. I'm not a big fan of the guy, although I think he's a decent president and he doesn't deserve most the insults that are directed towards him.

As I've stated numerous times, I'm against a war, but I'm all for removing Saddam Hussein, one way or another.

[Morgoth]

Then, Cir, why do you argue against me. I too believe that Saddam should be removed, but not by war. However, saying that logic has ruled out the possibility of a war for oil is ridiculous. Surely logic points towards the war being over oil.

[Ciryaher]

Logic points to everyone saying this war is about oil when it really isn't. As has been stated by someone else (not sure who, exactly) there is as much or more oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska than in the Middle-East. There goes the oil theory.

As for "Why just Saddam?", I have an answer for that, too. What other dictator in the world has the 5th largest army or greater? North Korea...that looks like about it. We're going after Saddam out of all the psychotic, evil dictators in the world because he's got a huge army and isn't afraid to use it.

[Morgoth]

Far more oil in Alaska and the Gulf? Where did you get that info? The fact is that IRAQ HAS THE SECOND LARGEST RESERVE OF OIL IN THE WORLD. That is undisputable, and has been verified by many independent agencies.

[Gandalf White]

I too believe that Saddam should be removed, but not by war. I find this o most interesting. Please explain how we are to remove Saddam from power without force. Are we to wait for him to die of old age? :rolleyes: :p

[Ciryaher]

Firstly, Gandalf White, he said "without war", not "without force". He could be dragged kicking and screaming out of his palace and then burned alive by the Iraqi people, for instance, or hefted up and carried out in handcuffs by UN special forces. Either way, it's force, but without a war (not initiated by us, anyways).

Second, the oil potentials of various locations in and around the US are very high, but unfortunately they can't be tapped, due to environmentalist anti-drilling campaigns. Unfortunately, these campaigns force us to rely heavily on the Middle-East for oil, rather than having a small amount of self-dependency.

[Morgoth]

Thank you for that, Cir, that is exactly what I meant. I know about the problems with the environmentalists, and they are a pain, with their 'not in my back yard' mentality. The majority of US environmentalists are only ever concerned if it is going to spoil their landscape. But I still don't advocate drilling for oil in Alaska. The Gulf is fine, just not Alaska.

[Gandalf White]

Sheez, a non-American, telling the US what to do with American soil. :rolleyes:

[ms Greenleaf]

Well gandalf why not look at it this way... having oil-feilds affects everyone. The airpolution is not just going to STAY in the USA its going to affect everyone so why not look at is someone from Earth telling someone else from earth what to do.

Anyways I realized something, Bush cannot back out of this war now because they would lose too much money so no matter what the Iraqi's dp the Americans will HAVE to start a war.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf

Anyways I realized something, Bush cannot back out of this war now because they would lose too much money so no matter what the Iraqi's dp the Americans will HAVE to start a war.
The money we have spent in ramping-up for this war is a sunk-cost - we are not getting it back no matter how we proceed from here. It has no effect on the decision.

[ms Greenleaf]

Actually the winner usually benefits financially in a war

[Morgoth]

In my abscence, the Bush thread was closed. I don't know why but it annoys me because some people were saying really stupid things on there that I wanted to argue against. So lets move the ruckus back into this thread, and get the last reasonable debate back online until Bush reopens.
Cheers.

[Gandalf White]

Sheez, where were we in the Bush thread.:confused: Didn't it kind of degrade into a "you hurt my feelings because you burn my flag" thing. Or was that the Gay Marriage one. I can't rembmber, it seems every political thread I get involved in gets shut down!:eek:

[Morgoth]

Oh yeah, the last absolutely distinguishable topic was about Saddam paying Palestinian families of suicide bombers. Where was the actual evidence for that? Was it Ciryaher that posted that? And what was this about Ciryaher sending a offensive private message to Hurin Thalion? Idiot.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Morgoth
And what was this about Ciryaher sending a offensive private message to Hurin Thalion? Idiot.
Just for clarification, to which idiot are you referring. Regardless, that's a dang nice glass-house you got yourself there.

Those kinds of statements will get this thread closed too.

[Morgoth]

The idiot to whom I was referring was Ciryaher, not because I dislike him, but because it was a stupid thing to do.
Regardless, that's a dang nice glass-house you got yourself there.
:confused: Please explain.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Morgoth
The idiot to whom I was referring was Ciryaher, not because I dislike him, but because it was a stupid thing to do.

:confused: Please explain.

You call Cir an "Idiot" for engaging in personal insults; you don't see a certain hypocrisy inherent there?

[Morgoth]

Ok, good point. The point i was trying to make was that the action was a stupid thing to do.

[Ciryaher]

Firstly, I would like to say that the person who you call me an "idiot" for insulting has given you a falsehood. I want to PUBLICLY bring this out, because I think that this has gone too far.

I sent a message to Hurin Thalion stating this (in paraphrase):

"And I think that it is a pity that the Nazis were not able to suppress Scandinavia.

You should think twice about insulting other people, because I won't be afraid to respond to snot-nosed, underhanded insults like that one."

This was definitely construed as an insult, a risk I considered, and therefore sent the message through the Private Messaging System, in order to prevent any public friction. However, Hurin Thalion proceeded to insult me in public, disregarding the fact that I sent him a confidential message.

The fact of the matter is that I APOLOGIZED. I did not do it in a rude or insincere manner. I expressed to him, in a private message, that I regretted allowing any implication that I lacked respect for the Scandinavian people and said that our relatives fought on the same side. I mentioned that it was a terrible thing that relations between once-close allies have fallen this low.

Disregarding the truth, Hurin Thalion reported to Ancalagon and the Webmaster that I had "degraded the victims of the holocaust, attacked my [Hurin Thalion's] nationality and spoken insulting to me [Hurin Thalion]. Not to mention his support of Nazi military expansion and thus murdering of civilian socialist, union leaders, jews, gypsies and homosexuals and many others."

Here is more:

He expressed a clear wish that even more of Scandinavia should have been conquered by scandinavia and thus that even more of my relatives should have been murdered.

He shows no respect what so ever to those that were killed. He has in this PM showed a lack of empathy, a lack of skills at dealing with people, a complete rudeness, self absorbedness and disrespect towards another person.

Now here comes the big lie:

Ciryaher sent me a rather rude respons, in which he further degraded my relatives and the victims of the holocaust, attacked my nationality and heritage. I snet a reply to this and he replied with another PM, as rude as the first but shorter, not recognizing that he had done wrong, apologizing or regretting anything.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Forum, though I may not agree with everyone as far as politics are concerned, I would never be hateful such as this. Never would I allow politics to cloud my vision so much as to dishonor the fallen in World War II, or any other war, for that matter.

I [Hurin Thalion] am still waiting for him to send me an apology.

I already apologized, and considering your behaviour, I shouldn't give you one, but anyways, I am sorry that you mistook my message as an attack on your ancestors. However, I believe that you are dishonoring them by calling me a liar when you know that I never said anything even resembling those things.

[Ciryaher]

FURTHERMORE, seeing as the UN has no citizens, I am NOT expressing hatred to any person for depicting the UN flag as burning. In fact, if you would read the text above it, you would realize that I am posing a question. I believe that the UN is a good way of the world's countries to come together to solve problems, but when nations refuse to pass ANY vote on an important issue, it not only defeats the purpose, but it basically burns the flag of the UN, it makes it a laughable and a disgrace.

To refuse to do *anything* about Iraq is folly, jeopardizing the lives of millions in the region.

For Bush's perserverence as well as his attempts to bring the UN together, I commend him. To say that America is breaking apart the UN is not true, because we're not the ones turning it into a joke like the League of Nations, which only APPEASED DICTATORS, rather than do anything about them.

[Gandalf White]

Thanks for the explanation Cir. I've been wondering what happened. For Bush's perserverence as well as his attempts to bring the UN together, I commend him. To say that America is breaking apart the UN is not true, because we're not the ones turning it into a joke like the League of Nations, which only APPEASED DICTATORS, rather than do anything about them. I totally agree with you.

[Morgoth]

Ciryaher, thank you for that explaination. I apologise about calling you an idiot, what i meant was the action of sending the PM was idiotic, not you. If I got an offensive PM, I would feel more intimidated than if i had an offensive post on my site, even if the PM wasn't meant to be offensive. Also, I found your UN flag on fire perfectly reasonable and unoffensive, and I disagree with anyone who says otherwise. It is simply freedom of expression.

[Morgoth]

turning it into a joke like the League of Nations
I agree with this. However, my arguement would be that America is the one walking all over the UN, and not Saddam. Let me remind you that Saddam IS disarming, just not as quickly as America would like.

[Ciryaher]

Saddam, nor the US are walking over the UN. France's decision to veto ANY action against Iraq is simply...baffling. They are obviously hiding (not too well) something, and there are ulterior motives here far more sinister than anything that can be lodged against the US. Why block help to Turkey? Why veto any and all resolutions proposed on Iraq? What is the big secret.

As for my avatar, I was forced to remove it. It seems as though people can have avatars involving the decapitation of Orlando Bloom, or an avatar telling me that God blesses me, yet I can't have the flag of an ORGANIZATION, NOT a country, burning. This is absurd, but until the Webmaster reverses his decision (if ever, not that I'm expecting it) I will comply.

I want everyone to know where I stand, because a lot of you are liars or ignorant and are saying completely untrue things about me:

1) I am not for war. War is a horrible thing that should be avoided at all costs.

2) I believe that Hussein must be removed from power and that a state, as was done in Afghanistan recently, should be established.

3) War, being a last resort to continued hostility, should be considered.

[Morgoth]

I agree completely. I think France was planning to sell a Nuclear reactor to Mr. Hussein. I agree with your three points. So tell me Ciryaher, why are you not on my side?

[Gandalf White]

I agree with this. However, my arguement would be that America is the one walking all over the UN, and not Saddam. Let me remind you that Saddam IS disarming, just not as quickly as America would like. Yes, the way he has been disarming for the past....er....how many years is it? :p
.1) I am not for war. War is a horrible thing that should be avoided at all costs. 2) I believe that Hussein must be removed from power and that a state, as was done in Afghanistan recently, should be established. 3) War, being a last resort to continued hostility, should be considered Wow, three things we all agree on!!!!! :D :cool: Hurray for us!!! Of course where we disagree is how Saddam should be removed, and how soon he reaches his limit.

[Morgoth]

Well I for one hate Saddam Hussein, and would like to see an assassin contracted to shoot him, even if you have to kill his impersonators to get to him. Not war. And no Israeli assassins. I would like this to be effective as soon as possible. In fact, i'll get on the blower to Tony right away.

[Morgoth]

Also, that US journalist who had that interview with him could have shot him.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Morgoth
I agree with this. However, my arguement would be that America is the one walking all over the UN, and not Saddam. Let me remind you that Saddam IS disarming, just not as quickly as America would like.
and he is only disarming under the threat of imminent war, remove that threat and what will he do?

[Ciryaher]

The sincere threat of war is more effective than empty threats in the past. Still, war should only be resorted to if Hussein once more says that he has nothing, and something is found.

Hussein must be removed in one of these ways, in order of my preference: 1. Iraqi rebellion, oust of Hussein; 2. UN/NATO special forces extract Hussein to appear before War Crimes Tribunal, as well as for crimes against humanity; 3. Assassination by non-Iraqi forces; 4. War

Morgoth, I'm not exactly sure what we disagree on, if anything. As long as my country isn't bashed (because as you've seen, I am not a warmonger) I am content to argue and discuss in a civil fashion. It is when I am insulted (as someone found out) that I get angry.

No hard feelings :) It's just unfortunate that you and I aren't the ones in power ;)

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by Morgoth
Well I for one hate Saddam Hussein, and would like to see an assassin contracted to shoot him, even if you have to kill his impersonators to get to him. Not war. And no Israeli assassins. I would like this to be effective as soon as possible. In fact, i'll get on the blower to Tony right away. The reason we don't do that is the extreme unstability it will create in the region. Not only would one of Saddam's equally evil sons probably take over, but the Kurds may try to revolt and things get messy fast. An assassination, no matter how cool, isn't the way.

[ms Greenleaf]

Well... I think the best way to get rid of Hussain would be for the Iraqi people to have a revolution of some sort and have a coup d'etat. Of course they like him enough that no one has been able to do that so he must have something that attracts the people and I think that before the USA blows them up they should find out what that something is

[Eliot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Of course they like him enough that no one has been able to do that so he must have something that attracts the people and I think that before the USA blows them up they should find out what that something is

Maybe they just act like they love him just so they don't get beheaded (kinda easy to figure that out).

[ms Greenleaf]

No because people retalliate under fear it is part of our nature...if it was only fear he would be gone by now.

[Ciryaher]

Then why did the Soviet people allow Stalin and the other Communist dictators to stay in power? I'm sorry, but the people of Iraq are terrified of the KGB-like network that would lead to their execution. A lot of Iraqis who have escaped say that the Iraqi people, except for the upper echelon and the Republican Guard who benefit from the totalitarianism, hate Hussein.

[Morgoth]

Then why did the Soviet people allow Stalin and the other Communist dictators to stay in power
Stalin had a massive army and KGB loyal to him (out of fear?) and used them to keep an iron grip on Russia. He killed 6 million in the Great Purges, and this kept fear in the Russian's hearts for a long time to come.It's just unfortunate that you and I aren't the ones in power
It is isn't it. :D

[Gandalf White]

It is isn't it. Hey, I really need to get in on this! :D ;)
No because people retalliate under fear it is part of our nature...if it was only fear he would be gone by now. I think you underestimate the power of fear.....

[legolasismine]

I am very very very indenial about the whole war thing and the stuff with Iraq I don't care at all infact I'm leaveing this country as soon as I can raise enough money yep thats right cause when this country was first founded it was founded on Godly principles then they all went up in flames so now I'm not sure how I fell about this country I live in anymore and I don't care how many people have to die for it and I just don't care and I think bush is war hungry those presidents before him never started anything they sat back and waited then when some country messed with them they got back at them so I think there really is no need for war but I also couldn't care less but the fact that I don't care makes me fell bad none the less I'm still living my life day to day going on,to me this war doesn't exist!

[Eliot]

Wow! I've never met someone who could talk so long without taking a breath! Hint: use periods. :D j/k

Another thing, don't mess with Bush. PM me your reasons for opposing the war. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just curious.

[Ciryaher]

Umm...actually quite a few presidents started wars or got involved when they shouldn't have...think Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, Vietnam...just to name the more notable ones.

The fact that you refuse to admit or recognize that people are dying painful and horrible deaths doesn't do a thing to stop them from dying, suffering, and being dealt a heavy hand by fate.

[Morgoth]

I think you underestimate the power of fear.....
I whole heartedly agree.
Umm...actually quite a few presidents started wars or got involved when they shouldn't have...think Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, Vietnam...just to name the more notable ones
Not to forget the most recent obvious American ****-up: Somalia 1993. What a waste of 19 lives.

[legolasismine]

Like I said I'm indenial about everything and my friends think its bad for me to not like my own country,but I'm just really really sick of the war thing I want everything to go back to normal.

((And lets not forget the korean war))

[ms Greenleaf]

Well I think that if the only thing that Hussein used to over-power these people was fear then they would have SOMEONE at least try to kill him. someone tried to kill HItler even if most people are afraid surely someone would try to kill him if they were truly against him and if that happened the media would gobble it up and we would know about it...

BTW if you want to talk about an evil ruler look in Africa there is a guy there who is starving to death all the people who did not vote for him

[Eliot]

I think that's Robert Mugabe. Well, it could be any of those evil African dictators. There's plenty of them all over the place.

[ms Greenleaf]

I find your sig interesting...it says to be PREPARED for war...I do beleive that Bushis more than PREPAred for war.

Here is a new (or I think it is new for this thread anyways) argument...If the USA goes in this war with only the support of the Americans and not the UN what happens in situations like these ... without a group to moderate what happens will their be more wars w/much less cause. I am not sure if I have explained this well but...

[FREEDOM!]

Well, we are not the only country that is in this war, e.g. Austraulia has said that if we go to war then they will support us and help.

[Ciryaher]

Well, legolasismine, things are not going to go back to normal. I don't know how many of you recall two septembers ago, but after that happened, things will never be the same. Trying to go "back to normal" is what happened after the first time someone tried to blow up the World Trade Center. If we go back to normal, people on airplanes will once more be terrified and will do nothing to resist hijackers. Now, however, nobody with even an ounce of sense would try to hijack a plane. I wouldn't be surprised to see them torn from limb to limb by passengers for trying.

No, things will not go back to normal, whether you ignore them or not.

And I don't know why you mention Korea as being a mistake. We won, and we saved the South Koreans from being taken over. Now they have one of the strongest economies in Asia, and North Korea has a lunatic dictator that is starving all his people in favor of a nuclear weapons program.

I have no idea what will happen if the US goes it totally alone...I know that Britain, Spain, Italy, and Austrailia (or at least the governments thereof) support action against Iraq, but if we were to lose *all* of our allies (except Israel, who would never abandon us) and still go to war...well, it's not like anyone could stop us, to be quite honest.

I hope, however, that wisdom will be shown and that the US will not go at this with just Israel at our side.

[legolasismine]

Thats funny my teacher always told me the Korean War was stupid and the Us should have never particapted in it and that it was useless,it even says so in my text books.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by legolasismine
Thats funny my teacher always told me the Korean War was stupid and the Us should have never particapted in it and that it was useless,it even says so in my text books.

Perhaps you're thinking Vietnam? My knowledge of post WWII wars is atrocious, but I know that many, many people feel that we should never have been in Vietnam....

Mike

[legolasismine]

Originally posted by Beorn
Perhaps you're thinking Vietnam? My knowledge of post WWII wars is atrocious, but I know that many, many people feel that we should never have been in Vietnam....

Mike


No its not that one its the Korean War they said that it mmade no sense for the us to particpate in it and that many men died for no reason at all,at least that was what I was always taught.

[Ciryaher]

Well then frankly, you've been taught wrong. The Korean War saved South Korea from being dominated by the North, and possibly stopped any aggression that the Communists might have aimed at Japan during the Cold War.

Vietnam, however, was a total diplomatic and military disaster. Instead of assisting Ho Chi Minh (who came to the US first, asking for help) in creating a nation peacefully, the US instead backed a dictator who was eventually killed, and that mess lead to the bloody Vietnam war which accomplished nothing but ending many lives horribly and creating a nightmare for those who actually "survived".

[Morgoth]

Yes, the Korean war did acheive what was set out to do. However, that does not mean that the S. Koreans would have been starving now, just because of Communism. Let me remind you that it not Communism starving the people, but the Dictator in charge. People Like Stalin destroyed Communism instead of building it.

[Morgoth]

Well, there's 24 hours of diplomacy left. One way or another, we're going to war. The UN is failing and the next few days will be written into history. The people of Iraq will be the ones who suffer, but we will be rid of a dictator. So is it justified?

[Gandalf White]

I just heard something interesting in the news at my Grandmother's today. Because of his use of the money he gets to research weapons, instead of using it for food (which is what he's supposed to be doing) 5,000 people are dying every month, approximately 3/5 of them under the age 5! Either way the Iraqui people will suffer, but I believe it will be much better for them if we remove Saddam.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
I just heard something interesting in the news at my Grandmother's today. Because of his use of the money he gets to research weapons, instead of using it for food (which is what he's supposed to be doing) 5,000 people are dying every month, approximately 3/5 of them under the age 5! Either way the Iraqui people will suffer, but I believe it will be much better for them if we remove Saddam.
I may have already posted this here somewhere (I have lost track of what exactly I have posted) - here are some of the numbers Gandalf speaks of on what "Peaceful Measures" have wrought for the people of Iraq. For me, the idea of continued sanctions as a means to solving this problem is tantamount to letting a curable disease kill someone because surgery would be just too painful over the short term, even though it would save their life over the long-term.

Deadlier Than War


By Walter Russell Mead

Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21



Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative -- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.

They are wrong.

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.

Wrong.

The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.

But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.

The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.

Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?

We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.

We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.

What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.

Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror -- with no end in sight.

This is disaster, not policy.

It is time for a change.

Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."

[Ciryaher]

Well, there you have it. All inspectors and UN staff have been ordered to leave Iraq by Kohfi Annan, and Mr. Hussein conviniently admitted that "we used to have weapons of mass destruction but we don't anymore". There will be no new UN vote on a peaceful resolution. There will now be a war.

I hope that the people in the UN who refused to do anything are happy, because in my eyes, this is blood on their hands.

[DGoeij]

So there's going to be a happy war and nobody dies? What's the point in going to war now, the sudden commitment of the US has somewhat suprised the world and now they should have rushed off to war?
Personally, I think mr. Hussain has the most blood on his hands, and could have been removed years ago. Nobody cared about the Iraqi's for 20 years, and now is should be over in a couple of days?

[Ciryaher]

Aye, Hussein has a couple hundred thousand gallons of blood on his hands. If only we'd just drag him out or have the Iraqi people kill him...alas.

[faila]

we will save peoples lives by this war. I fully and completely stand behind my president.

[Eliot]

Hear hear! I second that motion. :D

[faila]

wow someone agreed with me.

Elliot george washington almost had it right, War itself is the most effective means of gaining peace, but it is close.

[Eliot]

Yeah, you're right. I'll be changing my sig soon anyway.