http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/devil-baby-strikes-new-york-city-article-1.1580159
We should not attack Iraq
-
what has internal, national politics to do with international politics and warfare? Does the Congress rule supreme over the UN?
Well, it’s sounds like you guys are making this a “Bush vs. the world” situation, when in fact Congress HAS approved the use of military action. My point is that Bush is not simply a lone-gun going after Saddam cowboy style.
Can you punish a criminal with a criminal act?
Yes…capital punishment. :wink:
Who watches the watchman?
Interesting point. :)
-
I am not saying we go to war. I’m saying we shouldn’t rush into a pre-emptive war right now. Why?
First off, our country is experiencing some major problems, and because of this Iraq situation President Bush is not spending any time on them. The economy is still tanking, and past the first month, nothing has been done against Corporate Crime. And we are not combating terrorism!
Terrorism, yeah you know those guys who killed 3000 Americans that day? You know, the people who are being paid by Saudi Arabia. The people who are hiding out in Sudan and Pakistan.
However, President Bush looked around in August, and saw he had an election coming up. His party couldn’t win the Senate talking about real issues. So, hell look its Iraq! Votes… mhmm. And it’s worked hasn’t it?
I’ve been watching our Notorious Senate Race in New Jersey. On one side, we have Forrester. He only talks about two issues. One, Iraq, and two, how 'ole Franky Lautenburg is running on a bent law. that Republican Judges authorized. What is Franky running on? Real issues, The Economy, Terrorism, Corporate Responsibility, Bi-Partisanship, Education, Taxes, The Enviroment, Energy problems.
Every single Republican up for election talks about Iraq 95% of the time. Why? Because the Media sides with them, a war is the only issue The Media can keep going 24/7 for an extended period of time. Some media stations even have an hour a night devoted entirely to a war that, soonest, won’t come for 4 months.
There are far worse nations out there. Saudi Arabia openly puts more money into terrorism than 10 Afganistans. North Korea freely admits to having nukes. Sudan we all know harbors terrorism. Egypt kills democratic protestors in the streets.
And we support most of these countries! We need to take a stand against our “allies”, not against some backwater meaningless country like Iraq. We are only going to create more terrorism by attacking Iraq. And you know something, this time Saddam knows he’s going down, those Scuds going into Israel are going to carry Mustard Gas and Smallpox.
We’ve seen two incidents of foreign terrorism in the past 10 days. 180 Dead in Indonesia, Al-Quaeda blamed. Countless dead in an oil tanker explosion off Yemen (or was it Kuwait?).
We need to put our resources towards these issues, not toward votes.
-
I heard on the radio today that tourism is down (30%in some cities) in many parts of the country (Phoenix, Atlanta and Orlando were named specifically.)
From this I’d say the country feels insecure and is staying home. One way the president is working on the economy is by trying to give the Office of Homeland Security some teeth with which to work. However, the illegitimately Democrat controlled Senate (thank you Senator Jeffords!) will not allow Bush to juggle staff in a non-union setting. Though FDR was given approval to do so by the full congress of his time.
Most attacks mentioned here are economic blows to our countries …
the WTC … the Bali night club … The French (it was just a normal case of oil blowing up on its own) oil tanker. All countries in the fight will need to tighten security. -
Well, the Homeland Security bill has been delayed over Union rights. And hell, the reason it’s been delayed is President Bush is warning he’ll Veto it if he doesn’t get what he wants.
Though FDR was given approval to do so by the full congress of his time.
Because his nation was at war. We are not at war. And he was only given permission to do it until the war’s end. And it only applied to the Military, FBI, and all branches of both.
The rights the Democrats are fighting for are rights they already have in their current jobs.
Senate controlled illegitimately? Explain. It was a Republican who was fed up with his party and went Independent.
Tourism is hurt because of the failing economy, not the other way around. People no longer have the money to go on expensive vacations. My family is a perfect example, during the two years prior to 9/11, we went to Italy, England, Orlando, and Phoneix. Then the economy tanked, and we’re stuck at home.
-
We are not at war.
You’re utterly wrong. :x
We ARE at war, whether you choose to believe it or not. We’re not at war the same way we have been in past conflicts, but it’s a war nonetheless. -
who will be in charge after suddam?
-
American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose. -
@cystic:
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!
That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!
You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!
Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!
Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-? -
@Deviant:Scripter:
@cystic:
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!
no, you said it would be done. I don’t think it can, and i certainly don’t think that America will.
That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!.
Then the world should go after America, Russia, and any other country that stockpiles these. I think that we should go after Bush 'cuz he’s crazy, dictator-like, and is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Also because America goes around bombing everyone - something Iraq hasn’t done in 11 years.
You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!
sorry,
America vs. the world.Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-?But why stop at Iraq? There are enough nations out there that aren’t inline with American policy - enough that have weapons, anti-west sentiments (well, anti-US anyway - i have to wear a Canadian flag so i don’t get confused with you guys), and dictators who mis-treat their people.
-
Yanny& Falk & others,
…Well SUD,
i don’t agree with you.
If America takes up leadership (with action and without consensus) too early, that would be contra-productiv, if not stupid.
THe rest is too long to talk about from miy side ( and i am too lazy at the moment… maybe tomorrow) -
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
well, there are fewer of them. people who don’t attack/bomb other people are less likely to get attacked/bombed in retaliation. anti-war idiots/pacifists in general are a lot less likely to end up in the ER as the result of a barfight than pro-war idiots/other idiots. Canada, Portugal, Switzerland/ a hundred other countries don’t really get very many terrorist attacks. It might be b/c we’re small, however i’d guess that if we were as antagonistic, then we’d also get bombed more frequently.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff. -
Of course we are not at war.
We do not treat those captured as prisoners of war.
0% of our economy is focused on this war.
There are probably only 5,000 people fighting this “war”.
We have not declared war. -
@cystic:
@Deviant:Scripter:
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
well, there are fewer of them. people who don’t attack/bomb other people are less likely to get attacked/bombed in retaliation. anti-war idiots/pacifists in general are a lot less likely to end up in the ER as the result of a barfight than pro-war idiots/other idiots. Canada, Portugal, Switzerland/ a hundred other countries don’t really get very many terrorist attacks. It might be b/c we’re small, however i’d guess that if we were as antagonistic, then we’d also get bombed more frequently.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff.Hey CC, I have a Bio test on Tuesday. Think you can stop by tomorrow evening and help me study?
-
Hey CC, I have a Bio test on Tuesday. Think you can stop by tomorrow evening and help me study?
Hahahaha, looks like CC made a new friend. :wink:
-
sure EG - love to help. Trouble is, you’re nowhere near Winnipeg, and i have cardiology rounds for the next few weeks.
Any questions feel free to private message me.
what kind of biology? -
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff.I absolutely agree with you. This IS life and death stuff, therefore I don’t think we need to be releasing every single shread of evidence to the general public. Bush has told us is reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and has laid out the evidence. They’ve even gone as far as to show satellite photographs. Now, some people will not choose to believe him, and I don’t really have a problem with that. No president is going to get 100% for his actions, no matter the cause. There’s not much more this administration can do before they start compromising American lives.
Of course we are not at war.
How do you define war?
We do not treat those captured as prisoners of war.
I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass how the al-Qaeda prisoners are treated. Have you seen the sh*t that our military police have to put up with on a daily basis? It’s appalling.
We have not declared war.
Yes we have.
“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.” - George W. Bush -
Didn’t declare war in Korea or Nam, those must not have been wars either.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
Does that mean the US of A are not a peaceful nation?
Suggested Topics
