Bush's Address... Reactions? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

FUNKMAN

03-17-2003, 04:46 PM

He sounded and looked sincere. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is moving forward in the best interest of our country and not for any personal gain.

I agree with his statement towards the Iraqi Military that they do not need to fire a shot. If they just allow us to locate the weapons and either capture Saddam or chase him away, those are really our only objectives.

I believe Saddam will go into hiding. He has had many years to build a hideout underground or to secure a safe haven in another country. The man has no shortage of money.

I guess if he hid away it would serve the same purpose as capturing or killing him, he will not be in power any of these ways.

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/allthe100.gif">

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 3-17-03 @ 8:55 PM

FMJeff

03-17-2003, 04:56 PM

zzzzzzzzzz.....

all i wanted to hear was "We're going to war." The whole "Saddam, meet me after school in the parking lot or I'll beat your ass" tough guy posture doesn't suit a leader of a country. Bush is pathetic. I've never seen a less intimidating man in my entire life. He has all the charisma of wheat thins and all the machismo of Ru Paul. American dignity is circling the toilet bowl on its way down into the shit tank and Bush has his hand on the flusher. I couldn't be more ashamed of my country than I am right now.

Oh and don't think I didn't notice you replacing the word war with the innocuous "military conflict", you fucking pussy. Next time I'm going to beat someone's ass, I'm just going to say "Hey you! You better leave here before I conflict with you in a serious manner."

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
 
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. </center>

Bergalad

03-17-2003, 05:41 PM

He said all the things he was supposed to say. Good speech, well delivered. For once a President delivers a speech about war from somewhere other than behind a desk. I think it is outstanding, no matter what one's opinion on the war is, that Bush has the nuts to stand there and just call everyone's bluff on this thing. His actions are only increasing my pride in this country.

HordeKing1

03-17-2003, 05:50 PM

Bush never fails to disappoint.

Another deadline.

It's like parents threatening to punish their kids if they don't stop misbehaving by the time they count to 3, then going, 1...2...2 1/2...2 3/4...etc.

At least he only mispronounced one word.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

HBox

03-17-2003, 05:50 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I want to hear more about these rape rooms. Sounds really hot....

LiquidCourage

03-17-2003, 05:52 PM

I didn't hear it, but I want SOMETHING to happen.

Either full scale war or let's just go home.

Captain Rooster

03-17-2003, 05:53 PM

Get ready...war is 2 days away. So it goes.

<img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/EagleClawSIG.jpg>

JiZ

03-17-2003, 05:54 PM

fuckin finally. a man needs to pay consequences for his actions

I can't wait to someday hear what "actions' he took.

"Peace will come only when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews"
Israel's Former PM
Golda Meir

HBox

03-17-2003, 05:56 PM

On a serious note, how long before protestors go apeshit about Bush asking the Iraqi military not to touch the oilfields?

Bergalad

03-17-2003, 05:59 PM

On a serious note, how long before protestors go apeshit about Bush asking the Iraqi military not to touch the oilfields?

He also asked them not to use WMD on the Iraqi people. Which one do you think the Left will scream about?

peacefrog081

03-17-2003, 06:03 PM

by "actions" i meant lack of actions. and lack of disarming. i also meant the actions of attaining all those weapons and biological agents.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/latinspicexox/images/peacrfrogwhitesig.jpg">

peacefrog081

03-17-2003, 06:03 PM

mason

03-17-2003, 06:07 PM

i have never been a fan of george w., but he finally delivered a rather compelling arguement. he was sincere and serious, something i have had a hard time saying about bush. so, i guess we are going to war. there is no way suddam and his sons, who are crazier than he is, are leaving. i just wonder, if bush gave the u.n and other countries a little more time, would they have finally agreed?

however, i am still worried about the aftermath of this war. who will run iraqi when suddam is ousted? how will this person/body take care of the people. also, how can bush and his cabinet take care of a foriegn country when this country is having problems? our economy is getting worse and worse and the unemployment rate is rising day by day.

My friends look out for me like family
My mom's been struggling since I was 3
Am I scared, am I pushed, am I worried?
Another day, another year so what's the hurry?
- H2O 5 Year Plan

Captain Rooster

03-17-2003, 06:08 PM

lack of disarming

that's Bush's fault?

<img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/EagleClawSIG.jpg>

Fallon

03-17-2003, 06:15 PM

He seemed pretty badass. No way Saddam is leaving though, so the countdown has begun.

<center><img border=1 src="http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnet50.jpg">
"Once it hits your lips it's so good!"
-Frank the Tank</center>


This message was edited by WWFallon on 3-17-03 @ 10:16 PM

HBox

03-17-2003, 07:35 PM

The relevant issue about threatening the Iraqis is not because we want the oil afterwards, but bruning all that oil would be an ecological nightmare. Remember the problem we had with that burning oil tanker in Staten Island a couple of weeks back? Imagine burning 100 times that much oil over a much larger area. Everybody against the war will say its because we want the oil, and that is why nobody takes the opposition side of the issue seriously. I really do question my stance sometimes with the amount of idiots on the antiwar side.

Bergalad

03-17-2003, 07:45 PM

I really do question my stance sometimes with the amount of idiots on the antiwar side.

"Come into the light! All are welcome!"

billyio

03-17-2003, 07:46 PM

I thought it was a strong speech, considering that he did demand Hussein and his sons to leave. How many times do you see that in this politically correct age?That was historic! I liked when he warned the Iraqi military as well. I feel that the U.S. should demand the dissolution of the Ba'ath party,since it is Hussein's "mafia" anyway. The Iraqi people will still have to deal with their tyranny afterward. Unless we completely occupy the country. We shall see. I hope that this will all be as bloodless and quick as possible.

See Ya!

TheMojoPin

03-17-2003, 07:51 PM

Right, because Berg is just surrounded by the intellectual cream of the crop...

I only heard it on the radio, and I guess it was a pretty impressive speech. A lot of it smacked a little too closely to his dad's "Iraqi people, rise up against Saddam, and we WILL help you...*wink!*" but if he actually goes ahead with the follow through, it'll be all good.

So we've got the date. I'm just ready for this whole thing to hopefully be over with (At least in terms of active, large-scale combat) soon. Right now the only thing I'm thinking about are the soldiers who are headed into the fire. Let's just hope the "hype" is true and the world actually IS a safer place after this is all over. Let's bring 'em home safe and victorious.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

jocefus

03-17-2003, 07:54 PM

hes had 12 years to disarm.. bout time someone took action and backed a treaty that was signed... you'll find out that france has been selling illegal goods to the iraqis for years even though the were under an embargo

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/joesig.jpg

www.mp3.com/mollydoll

honk if your horny

FiveB247

03-17-2003, 09:19 PM

It's been obvious the US has been pushing and moving towards these actions. I mean they passed it in Congress in October regarding the use of military action, if necessary. I hope the war will come and go quick with little death and such. On a side note, anyone worried about the economy? I read something today that mentioned this war along with Bush's tax cut plans will put us back into deficit of $1.82 trillion dollars (these figures on the next 10 yrs projected by Congressional analysts) where we previously had a surplus of $890 billion.

JerryTaker

03-18-2003, 06:23 AM

Bush looked like Cheney's arm was stuck way up his ass an working his mouth like a sock puppet, which is actually fine, because, grizzled warmonger or not, I trust him and Powell more than dubya....

I just hope we're not sending our troops into a death trap, so far this is not my war to fight, but I'd rather we just leveled the entire Middle East and left it at that, and I've been saying that before 9/11...

also, everybody be careful, because you know they will activate all the sleeper cells in the US, be on the lookout for ticking arabs...

*sigh* and I work on the campus of NJIT, which has a large Muslim & Palestinian population. I know I'll be watching my back, and hoping nothing happens here...

...good luck people, let's see where blindly following our leaders gets us...

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

TooCute

03-18-2003, 07:03 AM

He didn't really say anything that Colin Powell didn't already say earlier yesterday, except for actually say what the deadline would be...

What the HELL is wrong with his EYEBROWS??!!!!

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

FiveB247

03-18-2003, 07:14 AM

Bush amost looked crossed eyed cause he was stairing at the camera...haha

Did anyone also notice his hair looked alot darker then normal?l

stickyfingers

03-18-2003, 07:25 AM

i've seen two references, in this thread, relating the U.S. to the role of a parent...i think that is why we recieve a lot of resentment

I can't wait to someday hear what "actions' he took.

http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=52&Topic=25811

"lemme tell ya sumpin" -CW

pinkyfloyd

03-18-2003, 07:39 AM

Very, very scary. I really hope that we're doing the right thing. My opinion changes from second to second. Right now I think that Saddam has to be taken down. He's a sadistic bastard that's been in power for way too long. I was relieved to hear President Bush last night, give this ultimatum to both Saddam AND his sons, because it was worrying me that they would leave the sons behind, only to have them take control of the country. Let's all enjoy these last 2 peaceful days we'll have for a long time in America.

pinkyfloyd: Waging War Against The Sigpic Since April 2002.

Oh, by the way, which one's pinky?

I am a straight girl, not a gay guy.

Back 'n jack. Alright?!

Death Metal Moe

03-18-2003, 08:18 AM

I love this.

You people against Bush are only able to mount PERSONAL attacks now. He disappointed. His eyebrows are fucked up. Some wheat thins comparison?
Hey, just like I had to watch the presidency become a joke during the Clinton era, you have to grin and bear it when Bush makes Conservatives look good now during HIS term. He's our president, like it or not. How about you TRY to support our country. It's not hard! It actually feels pretty good! Red WHite and Blue? Remember?

You saw a STRONG LEADER last night tell Saddam what he has to do OR we will take him out. Point blank. Is that being a "cowboy" or honest?

It's not an Oil war, that's for the French to try again, and fail.

It's not "revenge" for his dad. That's more retarded than the oil argument. I doubt VERY much that he and his cabinet would even entertain this.

We're not going to occupy Iraq for years as we control the flow of oil. The world community wouldn't stand for that and Bush has said over and over again that the oil belongs to the Iraqis. And there are people in place in Iraq who can rebuild their country, or so I heard on the news.

Now instead of ATTACKS, OPINIONS and EDITORIALS, how about some FACTS:

12 years later Saddam has STILL not complied with the articles of surrender his country agreed to in order to end the Gulf War in the 90's.

17 UN resolutions that have not and will not be backed by force due to the actions of a few nations who ALL VOTED for 1441 which said "use of Force" was in order if compliance was not delivered to the UN.

He kills his own people in BRUTAL, SADISTIC ways. Shoot, torture, rape, drug and all other forms of happy shit.

Al Queda members were trained in Iraq and he is sympathetic to other terrorists around the world.

His VERY EXISTENCE in Iraq will continue to keep his people under trade sanctions and stricken with poverty.

Is there more? I'm sure I left shit out too.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

travis151

03-18-2003, 08:34 AM

You're right Moe once again people will start with the personal attacks. If people ever bothered to read the constitution the President by law MUST PROTECT THE CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES. Also now the French are saying they'll send troops if Saddam uses any type of chemical weapons the French will never change jumping on the side of the Allies.
This war will be quick and the Iraqi people willbe dancing in the streets when Saddam is gone.

Red Sox=More Better

FiveB247

03-18-2003, 09:05 AM

Moe my previous post regarding the way he looked on tv was meant as an observation. Not taking shots at him as you call it.

I stated my feelings about his speech orginally as well as some other thoughts regarding the economy.

You might also want to read this Moe...It's from the council on foreign relations and regards the US making business deals where typically the UN would pursue action and contracts (not a particular nation).

Will the U.N. participate in the aftermath and clean-up of a war?

Probably. Ambassadors to the U.N. and U.S. officials have said they envision a U.N. presence in Iraq after any military action, particularly in the area of humanitarian assistance. Referring to the rebuilding of Iraq, Bush said in the Azores Sunday: "To achieve this vision, we will work closely with the international community, including the United Nations and our coalition partners.." But U.S. companies will also play a major role. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the Bush administration has also been working on a reconstruction plan that could sideline United Nations development agencies and other multilateral organizations by awarding lucrative rebuilding contracts to American companies.
(http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq.php)

I couldn't locate the actual story from The Wall Street Journal cause I don't have an account there. But it's apparent that France, Germany and Russia aren't the only ones making deals and contracts as you like to think.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 3-18-03 @ 1:36 PM

HBox

03-18-2003, 09:36 AM

Give me a break with this whole lay off Bush crap. Clinton was nothing but a conservative pinata. Nobody paid attention to what he did for this country. When he was President, the whole world didn't hate us. When he was President, people had jobs. When he was Prsident, there was actually movement on Middle East peace. Is it a coincidnece the whole thing fell apart once Bush came into office? But all we heard from conservatives is the sexual shit. Was it embarrassing? Yeah. Is Bush's constant mauling of the English language embarassing? Yeah.

And don't anybody try to say 9-11 was Clinton's fault. I didn't see Bush doing anything about airport security or increased intelligence until after 9-11. We were all, as a country, completely caught off guard.

FiveB247

03-18-2003, 09:50 AM

good lord Hbox...let the arguements begin....hehe

silera

03-18-2003, 09:50 AM

I'll give you an analogy.

My son asks me for chocolate cake. I say no. He proceeds to eat the chocolate cake.

Why bother asking for permission to do something, if you'll only do what you wanted to do in the first place?

The US requested for the UN to approve military action against Iraq, when things did not go as they expected, suddenly the US does not need UN approval to proceed because what we're doing is for the good of mankind.

I question our motives. I question the haste. I'm concerned that the US is once again proceeding with military action and unprepared to deal with the effects of such action not just in the immediate future, but 20 years down the line when the government that we help create in Iraq should our actions be succesful becomes our next monster.

I have read excerpts from Bush's speech, and it is very convincing and motivating but in my gut I know that we don't have all the facts and they're feeding me bullshit.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

jocefus

03-18-2003, 09:50 AM

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 10:08 AM

I don't question the awful, awful fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil bastard. I just still question (As does our own intelligence forces) whether or not he is linked with Al Queda. He IS linked to Palestinian terrorists. He IS a direct threat to his neighbors and Israel. He is NOT, or at least it has not been shown, that he is a threat to ME. My concern now is with the people who managed to pull of 9/11. If after we invade and conclusive proof is found that Saddam IS somehow involved in all this, hey, more power to Bush, he was right and I was wrong. I'll readily admit that. But until then, THE PROOF IS NOT THERE THAT IRAQ IS A DIRECT THREAT TO AMERICA ITSELF. Facts are being muddled...Iraq IS ruled by an evil bastard...Iraq IS a threat to its neighbors...but how the FUCK is Iraq a threat to us? They weren't a threat to us 12 years ago, or before THAT, when their WMD program was in full swing. It's great that this is being painted as "Iraq is being freed by America"...that is honestly a fantastic mentality. But I'm sorry, it shouldn't be our priority. We need to go after those that have actually ATTACKED us, and not just talked smacked about us on TV or threatened to attack Israel. WE are the priority here.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-18-03 @ 2:20 PM

travis151

03-18-2003, 10:18 AM

Mojo just answer this question its yes or no. Do you feel Saddam Hussien would give money or weapons to a terroist organization?
All I'm saying is I think he has already I don't feel that any terroist organization should be harbored in any country. That includes Ireland were I personally saw when I lived there from both sides the IRA and British extermists. Terroism is wrong and I feel that the wholw world should fight against it. Another ting France's company Total Elf Fina has exculsive rights to oil feilds in Iraq (the Majoon) so does Russian company Lukal in West Kurna these contracts worth Billions these are facts not made up. If you don't believe me just look it up.

Red Sox=More Better

Se7en

03-18-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:
On a serious note, how long before protestors go apeshit about Bush asking the Iraqi military not to touch the oilfields?

He also asked them not to use WMD on the Iraqi people. Which one do you think the Left will scream about?

I noticed that Ron and Fez were quick to bring up the oilfield comment. It was one of the earliest comments they made.

That disappointed me, but I wasn't surprised.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

travis151

03-18-2003, 10:29 AM

Mojo just answer this one question Do you think Saddam has ever funded a terroist organization? If he has which I know he did.It not only threatens Americans abroad but other human beings no matter if your American , Iraqi,French, etc. These type of people must be stopped and the world should be unified no it won't happen over night but it can happen terroist organizations from Asia, to the Middle East , Ireland and from all walks of this earth need to be stopped . Also the French company Total Elf Fina has exclusive rights to many oil fields in Iraq (the Majnoon) so does Russian company Lukal in the West Kurna fields this is not made up just look it up. I think it was important that Pres. Bush brought the oil fields in his speech I do agree we will take some oil but it does mean if Iraq wants to rebuild they do need these oil fields.

Red Sox=More Better

El Mudo

03-18-2003, 10:56 AM

but how the FUCK is Iraq a threat to us?

How was Serbia a threat to us when we bombed them a couple years ago cause of Milosevic?

Sure didnt hear people screaming like this back in 98 when we were bombing Iraq under Clinton...

Trying to stop talking like a grizzled 1890's prospector..

HBox

03-18-2003, 10:59 AM

hbox...guess you dont remember the embassy bombing or the bombing on the uss cole when clinton was president...he could of went after bin laden but didn't.. good ol bill decided it was ok to down size the military and stop inspections in iraq....many,but not all of the problems we have now u can thank bill for..

Clinton didn't decide to take out inspectors. Iraq kicked them out. And what exactly is your point about Clinton not getting bin laden? Did Bush try to get bin laden during his first nine months of the presidency? With the full force of the military behind him, has Bush caught bin laden yet? We invaded a country for the spicific reason of getting bin laden and crippling al Qaeda and we've done neither. And what does downsizing the military have to do with anything? I didn't like it when Clinton decreased military spending but it has nothing to do with this argument. Our military was still good enough to get the job done if need be.

My only argument is that if Bush really was aware of the dangers of terrorism before 9-11, why didn't he do anything? It was a wakeup call for the entire nation. No one saw it coming and no one, not Bush, Bush Jr., or Clinton, did anything that could have prevented it.

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 11:12 AM

Mojo just answer this one question Do you think Saddam has ever funded a terroist organization?

Am I talking to myself? I've stated over and over again that it's PROVEN he funds and support Palestinian terrorist groups because theyir primary target is the destruction of Israel. There's never been any indication he supports or finances or willingly (Remember, he really doesn't even control all of Iraq) offers harbor to Muslim extremists along the lines of Al Queda...to them, he's almost as bad an enemy as Israel or American or other Western nation.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 11:14 AM

How was Serbia a threat to us when we bombed them a couple years ago cause of Milosevic?

Sure didnt hear people screaming like this back in 98 when we were bombing Iraq under Clinton...

I actually protested both the Clinton Iraq attacks AND the mistake-riddled bombings in Afghanistan after the embassy bombings in Africa. To me, they were nothing but blatant and shallow and non-effective diversionary tactics to draw attention away from the mountain of scandals that fat mong was getting himself into seemingly week after week. But I guess that doesn't count, right?

My issue is with who we're going for given we're in the most danger our nation has been directly at threat from in well over a decade. When we stepped in against Milosevic we were fortunately in a position where we could go out of our way to help countries that were being oppressed by tyrants. Iraq NEEDS to be liberated. But my concern right now is with who most directly threatens ME and those around me, and off the top of my head, that's organizations like Al Queda, North Korea and even Iran. It may sound selfish, but the safety of this nation, MY nation, should take precendent.

This whole thing just smacks of taking advantage of an abnormal international political climate. I want to feel safe, and so far our president doesn't seem to want to make that his top priority.

And if we're going to blame Clinton in hindsight, we can just as easily blame Bush for not initially taking out Saddam 12 years ago. Hindsight's a bitch. Live in the now before it bites you in the ass.

My issue isn't with oil (A red herring if there ever was one...and these moronic anti-war protesters need to realize it, PRONTO) or the US attempting to free the people of Iraq (Lord knows they need it)...it's just going to war over "coulda", "woulda" and "shoulda's" when we've got more pressing and more deadly concerns that need to be dealt with.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-18-03 @ 3:45 PM

TooCute

03-18-2003, 11:16 AM

Oh fuck. I commented on Bush's eyebrows, so I guess I don't support my country and I'm anti-American. I can't even keep track of all the anti-American acts I've committed.

You know what? I'm so sick of this "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" bullshit that all the pro-war fanatics are spewing that I'm going to say that I'm against war simply so I'm not associated with them.

It's not a simple issue. Don't try to make it one - you only show your inability to grasp complex issues.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

FiveB247

03-18-2003, 11:18 AM

What does companies owning or having oil contracts have anything to do with Saddam having/ or not having ties to terrorism? Don't combine the 2 separate issues. If you want to believe that France or other nations have ties to oil contracts and therefore don't want to go to war that's fine....but that has no barring on whether Saddam supports or doesn't support terrorism.

Mojo said the exact truth in his post, Saddam poses a threat to Middle East stability and is a tyrant. But he is not a direct threat to the US. And assuming he will someday sell, or give WMD (if he actually has them which remains to be fact) to terrorists is arguable. Has he supported terrorists in the past...Yes. Does he still do such things? It hasn't been proved by anyone at all. Although it has been made clear he gives money to families of suicide bombers. (But you should also recognize that it is Israeli policy to burn the homes of the families of bombers which most of the time don't know of plans or such involving the bombings). So Saddam giving money to families isn't support for terrorism. It doesn't support weapons or the groups doing these actions. There are many nations harboring terrorists, funding terrorists, etc....just as bad as Saddam (some of which we consider allies), but the US wishes to remove Saddam from Iraq now. Many countries which have previously supported terrorism or conducted acts of aggression have changed policies, leadership and even become more peaceful and diplomatic. Look at Jordan, in 67' they were attacking Israel to push them to the sea....nowadays they are helping in the peace process and want a peace in the area.

A.J.

03-18-2003, 11:18 AM

THE PROOF IS NOT THERE THAT IRAQ IS A DIRECT THREAT TO AMERICA ITSELF.

Why does the threat need to be direct? Isn't that part of what this war on terror is supposed to be about -- rooting out those who harbor and support terrorists in any way shape or form?

Perhaps Iraq has only supported Palestinian groups. Fine. Maybe they may also unknowingly be funding al Qaeda, thinking it's simply another Palestinian group.

Consider: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Maybe I'm reaching here (as is the administration). Maybe we're being inconsistent in our message by not addressing the IRA, Hamas, whatever with the same vigor as we are with al Qaeda. However, I'd rather the government err on the side of caution by removing a belligerent regime rather than explain away another unforseen attack on Americans overseas or at home.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 11:29 AM

But AJ, I don't want the "war on terror" to be that broad yet. I'm selfish as hell when it comes to this. Get the ones that are most likely to kill me and my family first, THEN branch out. And it IS incredibly hypocritical of our government to not address the continuing threat of Irish extremist groups (The IRA is not even the worst one these days...it's all the splinter groups that appear each time a peace treaty or cease-fire is declared, like the "True IRA" or "Blue Army" or "Orange Army"...they're just as bad as Palestinian extremists)...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-18-03 @ 3:32 PM

HBox

03-18-2003, 11:31 AM

Look, I support our troops. Everyone who evens pretends to love this country should support them. Even if you disagree with this war you should support them. They are willing to put themselves through hell, willing to die for this country. I will always appreciate and admire them. A true American supports the troops.

A true American doesn't, however, have to sit by and support Bush. This guy is an embarrassment. This guy took the world sympathy we had after 9-11 and flushed it down the toilet in months. Now the world hates us more than ever. The admistration is flat out lying about Iraq in some cases.

Did anyone see Dick Cheney on Meet The Press? He said, and I quote, "we believe Hussein has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Moments he says, and I quote, "it's only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMNED MIND FOR CHRISTS'S SAKE! I'm not even going to mention the forged documents that the U.S. submitted to the U.N. Why do they need to lie about the danger if it's as great as they say?

So, in closing. Don't tell me I'm Unamerican for not supporting Bush. He is an idiot and I don't trust him. But I love this country and will support our military no matter what Bush tells them to do.

Se7en

03-18-2003, 11:34 AM

Why does the threat need to be direct? Isn't that part of what this war on terror is supposed to be about -- rooting out those who harbor and support terrorists in any way shape or form?

Well, that's what I thought the war on terror was about, but apparently, many of my esteemed colleagues here believe differently.

BTW, I'm with Mojo here - there's nothing more RETARDED than the argument that Saddam doesn't fund ANY terrorism. There's irrefutable PROOF that he funds terrorism, mainly in Palestine. Trying to argue otherwise only makes one look ignorant and stupid.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

A.J.

03-18-2003, 11:45 AM

But AJ, I don't want the "war on terror" to be that broad yet. I'm selfish as hell when it comes to this. Get the ones that are most likely to kill me and my family first, THEN branch out.

I agree Mojo but it seems to me that in order to do this it has to become very "broad".

Let's face it...this is new for us.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 11:46 AM

BTW, I'm with Mojo here - there's nothing more RETARDED than the argument that Saddam doesn't fund ANY terrorism. There's irrefutable PROOF that he funds terrorism, mainly in Palestine. Trying to argue otherwise only makes one look ignorant and stupid.

Exactly. But you'll notice Bush never once has ever really directly mentioned this, because then douchebags around the world will take it as us just trying to help out Israel, and then we'd have even less support than we do know. Ah, good ol' reliable anti-semitism...bah.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 11:57 AM

Let's face it...this is new for us.

Agreed. And it IS pretty scary when you start thinking of just how massive the scope is of what we need to do...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

03-18-2003, 12:00 PM

Agreed. And it IS pretty scary when you start thinking of just how massive the scope is of what we need to do...

Which is why we need the rest of the world not to hate us so much. We can handle Iraq by ourselves, but like it or not, we need the rest of the world, and even the UN, to help.

peacefrog081

03-18-2003, 06:54 PM

one of my favorite lines from TOPGUN comes to mind right now where at the end of the movie the officer says:

how true that is right now and in the upcomign hours

"GENTLEMAN THIS IS THE REAL THING, THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TRIANED FOR, YOU ARE AMERICA'S BEST, MAKE US PROUD"

<img src="http://members.aol.com/latinspicexox/images/peacrfrogwhitesig.jpg">

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 07:01 PM

one of my favorite lines from TOPGUN comes to mind right now where at the end of the movie the officer says:

"You can ride my tail ANYtime!"

<img src=http://www.topgun-lefilm.com/cast-infos/valkilmer.jpg>

How do you quote a teeth-click?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

ChickenHawk

03-18-2003, 07:15 PM

<IMG SRC="http://www.duke.edu/~bis/img/spam.gif">

<IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/fathernoel/.Pictures/parodysig.gif">
SIG CURRENTLY STUNTING * NEW SIG COMING THIS SPRING

Death Metal Moe

03-18-2003, 07:39 PM

I think my fucking head is about to explode.

I'm so happy Gore lost and you people in the Anti-Bush/Anti-War minority have no real say.

Please bitch about hanging chads again. That's so whitty.

Oh, and your boy Dashle is making you all look so good. Or prehapse you'd prefer to rally behind Ted Kennedy? Your choice.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 07:44 PM

I think my fucking head is about to explode.

I'm so happy Gore lost and you people in the Anti-Bush/Anti-War minority have no real say.

But Moe, I'd be just as opposed to this kind of millitary action if it was being initiated by Clinton or Gore. I'm not judging based on party affiliations...I just judge based on whether or not the guys in charge piss me off.

And quit telling "us guys" to "run to" Daschle or Kennedy. I don't assume you automatically answer to and support all the Republicans, so why assume the same of us?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

03-18-2003, 07:52 PM

And speaking of Moe and hanging chads, how the fuck is he catching up to my post count so fast? I smell a "vast, right wing conspiracy" afoot...TO THE PINKO-MOBILE!!!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

03-18-2003, 08:01 PM

I'm so happy Gore lost and you people in the Anti-Bush/Anti-War minority have no real say.

And you call US unamerican.

Well, we'll see what happens when the public isn't forced to rally behind a moron like we were after 9-11. We'll see what happens when there is a choice.

Death Metal Moe

03-18-2003, 08:06 PM

Yea, I call you UnAmerican.

Anyway, It's not a conspiracy on either side Mojo, just a lot of lonely posting.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

Bergalad

03-18-2003, 08:32 PM

Well, we'll see what happens when the public isn't forced to rally behind a moron like we were after 9-11. We'll see what happens when there is a choice.

I'm sorry, who "forced" you "to rally behind a moron"? I didn't see any gun-toting G-men running around making US citizens worship Bush, but I may have missed it. What a idiotic statement to make. Bush is the President and he's doing a good job under unforseen events. You think you can stop criticizing for a few minutes and wake up? He's a moron? Who the fuck are you? Maybe you should just sit back, shut the hell up, and let him do his job. If not, then do something about it in 2004. Calming down now...

This message was edited by Bergalad on 3-19-03 @ 12:42 AM

RocOutWithYACockOUT

03-18-2003, 08:39 PM

DON"T Believe the hype!!!

GGGGGGG-UNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FiveB247

03-18-2003, 09:47 PM

This is just absurd.

Moe, I'm beginning to believe you work PR for Bush and other US officials. Understand this simple fact, the UN HAS NOT GIVEN THE US APPROVAL FOR INVASION! Stop associated or citing parts of laws without including the entire scope of the laws. The US is acting unilaterally and in its own interests. Multilateral action includes UN approval, not interpretation of dialogue, or just a gathering amongst nations for war.

You also forgot to leave out these items when stating the facts.

Saudi Arabia and Yemen also harbor terrorists, but they are our "allies".

The UN fully put an end to Iraq nuclear program in 98'. All through inspections that you mock as unhelpful and regard as appeasement.

You also failed to mention the US's shift in policy throughout the diplomacy. They originally said they wanted Iraq disarmed. As time pressed on, these policies were changed to removing Saddam from Iraq and regime change. That is an important and vital difference.

Ps...I also noticed you passed over the post and failed to respond when there is mention of US business interests in Iraq. Comment?

On a side note, We bombed Serbia with intentions of stopping ethnic cleansing and killings being carried out. Some people also mention the idea of freeing Iraq. That is a complete BS argument if there was one. It's just one of the cause and effects of the US removing Saddam as a threat. I highly doubt we'll be rescuing ever country due to their tyrant leaders.

I also noticed many people combine Inspections with US policy. They are completely separate. Inspections are directly from the UN.

Others have made mention of terrorist ties to nations, whether direct or indirect. The US aids and supports many governments which suppress their citizens as well as harbor terrorism. Are we to include ourselves in War against terrorism?

A.J.

03-19-2003, 03:30 AM

Oh, and your boy Dashle is making you all look so good.

Moe, I'm "saddened" that you would rail against Senator Daschle at a time like this. "Saddened" and "disappointed".

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

Bergalad

03-19-2003, 05:52 AM

Your definition:
The US is acting unilaterally and in its own interests. Multilateral action includes UN approval, not interpretation of dialogue, or just a gathering amongst nations for war.

The dictionary definitions:
Unilateral: Performed or undertaken by only one side.
Multilateral: having many parts or sides.

Hmm...now the US has 30 other nations assisting it against Iraq. 30. Yeah, that's the right definition of unilateral. Nice work.

FiveB247

03-19-2003, 06:01 AM

Bergalad, You obviously have no grasp of international law. If you can't decipher the difference between multilateral actions and unilateral actions when talking of politics and international diplomacy, don't comment on it as if you do understand it.

Apparently, you'd justify The Axis in WWII (Japan, Germany and Italy), simply cause it involved more then one nation? Your logic, reason and understanding of some of these notion we discuss have more holes then swiss cheese.

JerryTaker

03-19-2003, 06:14 AM

Oh, and your boy Dashle is making you all look so good. Or prehapse you'd prefer to rally behind Ted Kennedy? Your choice.

As opposed to Bush, whose Overt posturing and "Yee-Hawing" with both guns a-blazing is going to look real good when he starts WWIII IV and V? He's an idiot. Plain and simple, but once we level Iraq, and all the other nations are breathing down our throats, then what? This isn't a Tom Clancy book or Medal of Honor on PS2, dude, this is real diplomacy! This is Bush making the US look anti-Muslim, do you have any Idea what these fanatical freaks can do to us? you know that 9/11 was NOTHING compared to what they can do from within? How far do you live from the Indian Point plant?

If a plane goes into it, or a C4 laden van, not far enough...

I agree that there will be no peace until Saddam and the other perputrators of fanatical behavior are taken out, but this was not the way to do it. it should have been done silently, and we should have gotten to the Saudis and Yemen first, and we look rediculous because these are the people that destroyed (that's right, destroyed, mark my words) New York City. The city will be bankrupt within 2 years, sucking a gigantic chunk of the nations economy with it; but we call these countries our "allies"? friends like these, huh?

And why did they attack? because the son of Bush, the "Muslim Hater" was in office, people have to stop denying that, the Muslims have it in for Bush as bad as he has it in for hussein

As for being "unamerican"? I love this country, that's why I hate Bush, because he's killing it, and us

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

This message was edited by JerryTaker on 3-19-03 @ 10:31 AM

TheMojoPin

03-19-2003, 08:06 AM

Apparently, you'd justify The Axis in WWII (Japan, Germany and Italy), simply cause it involved more then one nation? Your logic, reason and understanding of some of these notion we discuss have more holes then swiss cheese.

Why is it both sides of the war issue are trying ti use examples from WW2, but both are using them almost ridiculously incorrectly? The whole "appeasement" one is especially enjoyable.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

A.J.

03-19-2003, 08:30 AM

The whole "appeasement" one is especially enjoyable.

http://www.english.mankato.msus.edu/larsson/gr%20images/jpk.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

FiveB247

03-19-2003, 08:52 AM

Why is it both sides of the war issue are trying ti use examples from WW2, but both are using them almost ridiculously incorrectly? The whole "appeasement" one is especially enjoyable.

I merely mentioned the WWII Axis in reference to Bergalad's definition and understanding of what multilateral action is when refering to international affairs. Obviously, just because a group of nations get together and act in some way doesn't coencide with what multilateral action in relations means.

TheMojoPin

03-19-2003, 09:57 AM

AJ, he attempted to appease a nation that had already begun to take over his neighbors! It was a pathetic attempt to cut off an out-of-control powermonger. Saddam might WISH he could be that aggressive, but let's face fact...he hasn't done dick outside of his borders in 12 years. The only way that comparison would be vaild is if people were saying "hey Saddam...we've discovered you've got WMD's...now we want you to sign this treaty that will let you keep all of the WMD's you have already...as long as you pinky-swear-promise NOT to build anymore, 'kay?" And though many on the pro-war side may think this is what the anti-war people are doing, NOBODY in their right mind is thinking that. I for one want Saddam's power curbed, I just wanted to see all options explored in how to do so. And they weren't.

Oh well, now we have to sit back and see if this doesn't degenerate into a even worse mess than it is already. What's done is done.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-19-2003, 10:10 AM

Mojo...thank you! I'm glad you posted that. Sometimes people can hear a message from 2 separate places, yet only one is believed or regarded. I was trying to convey the message that Saddam hasn't done or stated such objectives. Comparing it in that manner is ridiculous. People always want to use association in order to show what things will be like in the future if we don't stop it now.

A.J.

03-19-2003, 10:24 AM

AJ, he attempted to appease a nation that had already begun to take over his neighbors!

I know. But your mention of "appeasement" made me think of the ol' Ambassador.

However, like Saddam, Der Fuerher showed aggressive tendencies toward his neighbors, violated treaties his nation signed in good faith (Treaty of Versailles), and was oppressive and murderous toward his own people.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

Se7en

03-19-2003, 10:48 AM

If the war begins tonight, than I officially proclaim tomorrow "Saddened Day" in honor of the "honorable" Sen. Daschle.

Remember, you must be saddened on "Saddened Day". It's a day of saddening. I'm saddened we have to be saddened on "Saddened Day", but that's the nature of the holiday.

because the son of Bush, the "Muslim Hater" was in office, people have to stop denying that, the Muslims have it in for Bush as bad as he has it in for hussein

Yep, yessirree, Bush hates Muslims.

I won't even get into arguing with you. It would be pointless, and my time would be wasted.

I bet you think we're just going to war to make our Israeli friends happy to, huh? The Vast Jewish Conspiracy influence the decision to go to war?

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

El Mudo

03-19-2003, 10:57 AM

Why is it both sides of the war issue are trying ti use examples from WW2, but both are using them almost ridiculously incorrectly? The whole "appeasement" one is especially enjoyable.

I would compare it exactly to WW2 in that World War 1 never really ended, they just signed an armistice like at the end of the Gulf War, and we don't know if Saddam has truly gotten rid of all of his WMD...do you really think he would with Iran in the region?

On another point, Khalid "Ice Cream" Sheikh Mohammed is a Pakistani Baluch, as is Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, and Abdul Hakam Murad, who they both conspired with unsuccessfully to bomb 12 US airplanes. As Sunni Muslims, the Baluchs have long standing ties to Iraqi intelligence, because they hate the Shi'ites in Iran....heres an interesting article about Mohammed's ties to Baghdad...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213

Trying to stop talking like a grizzled 1890's prospector..

Bergalad

03-19-2003, 11:08 AM

Bergalad, You obviously have no grasp of international law. If you can't decipher the difference between multilateral actions and unilateral actions when talking of politics and international diplomacy, don't comment on it as if you do understand it.

It is possible with these such things and notions and such, that maybe you have more such experience in these notions, but I doubt it and such notions such.

Bush is acting MULTILATERALLY. That is the definition of what he is doing. Multilaterally does not equal UN supported, it means he has others working with him. Your definitions are the problem here, so try and get that straight.
**EDIT**
Wanted to throw this from CNN into the mix as well:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that Iraq is fully responsible for the current crisis in the Middle East, the Kuwait News Agency said.
Now back to the post...
Apparently, you'd justify The Axis in WWII (Japan, Germany and Italy), simply cause it involved more then one nation? Your logic, reason and understanding of some of these notion we discuss have more holes then swiss cheese.

Again, wrong usage of the definition for multilateral. I submit that it is you who should figure out what these words mean, and when you do maybe then you can come sit at the big people's table with the rest of us.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 3-19-03 @ 6:49 PM

Bigden

03-19-2003, 11:22 AM

I am always amazed that people don't perceive Saddam as a threat. He doesn't have to invade a country to be a threat to us.
What about all that VX, Sarin & Anthrax? What would keep Saddam from supplying other like-minded zealots with these deadly agents? It would only take more suicide bombers.
Doesn't everyone know by now that terrorism (Yes he is one of them- see Gassing of Kurds) is something we must be proactive in fighting. Yes it is messy and it will take a long time, but I feel our children & their children deserve the effort. We must sacrafice as generations before have to keep our country safe. Freedom comes at a price. Its our time to "belly up to the bar."

El Mudo

03-19-2003, 03:10 PM

Personally, I don't feel we can be safe without doing something...if we do nothing and Saddam takes out Isreal(which is pretty much our only good pal in the Middle East), or does something else bad the entire international community will be screaming why nothing was done to stop him...

Trying to stop talking like a grizzled 1890's prospector..

HBox

03-19-2003, 03:11 PM

I am always amazed that people don't perceive Saddam as a threat. He doesn't have to invade a country to be a threat to us.

Of course he is a threat. Is he a big enough threat to legitimize a preemptive war? Not in my opinion.

Bergalad

03-19-2003, 03:44 PM

Of course he is a threat. Is he a big enough threat to legitimize a preemptive war? Not in my opinion.

Let me ask this then: do you feel that the Israelis were correct in destroying the Iraqi nuclear reactor years ago? That was a pre-emptive strike in the purest sense, but most nations praise Israel for the attack now, even though at the time many were saying the same things people are ascribing to the US now. I think we need to give our government the support it needs, and the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the right thing for the world. 45 other nations now are supporting the attack, so just maybe the US is doing the right thing, just like the Israelis did.

HBox

03-19-2003, 04:01 PM

Let me ask this then: do you feel that the Israelis were correct in destroying the Iraqi nuclear reactor years ago?

I feel that was the right thing to do for many reasons. Iraq has no need for a Nuclear plant when it sits on all that oil. But, a bombing is much different from an invasion. An invasion will cost thousands of Iraqi and American lives.

Se7en

03-19-2003, 04:06 PM

I think we need to give our government the support it needs, and the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the right thing for the world.

If I saw certain people in here giving the current administration the benefit of the doubt on ANYTHING, the shock would probably kill me dead.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

HBox

03-19-2003, 04:36 PM

There is a big difference between supporting our troops, and supporting the adminsitration. But, seeing as we have just passed the unofficial official beginning of the war, I guess the time for arguing is over.

This message was edited by HBox on 3-19-03 @ 8:38 PM

c-dub

03-19-2003, 04:38 PM

(Yes this is going to be long...yes my Macintosh will format it in an unpleasing
way...sorry...)

Ok...let me get this straight...the five biggest enemies in the world right now are:

* IRAQ
* FRANCE
* THE DIXIE CHICKS
* OSAMA BIN LADDIN
* NORTH KOREA

Is that right?

Seriously, nine times out ten I am a hawk when it comes to these issues, but this is
one instance I have to side with my brothers and sisters urging for peace. This is a
dirty, ugly horrible situation, and one that our government has made happen.

* I DON'T WANT OUR SOLDIERS KILLED! This is a personal one, for personal reasons,
but bottom line for me is that I do not want one American life lost because of this war.

* America is not in the business of being an imperialist nation!!!!!!! Yes we have set up
regimes around the world (usually toppling democratically elected officials in favor of
dictators), but to start a war so out in the open is the ballsiest thing I can think of we
have done, and is an action that will haunt us.

* Half of the population of Iraq is under the age of 17 - I do not feel comfortable
having our country kill children to get to a dictator that we helped create (never mind
that 500,000 children have already died since 1992 due to the sanctions). Gee- is it
any wonder people in the middle east are suspicious of the United States?

* History will never view this as us liberating Iraq; eventually, even our own history
books, will reflect this as the single worst foreign policy mistake the United States has
made. We're not even doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

* The double-standard with North Korea - right now there is so much worse going on
in that country. When the truth comes out, about the active death camps there right
now, the world will be stunned that we have stood by and done nothing for so long.

BESIDES - WE KNOW THEY HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BUT INSTEAD WE
ARE GOING TO ATTACK A COUNTRY THAT WE THINK MAY HAVE WEAPONS???
BULLSHIT!!!

* Bush has made himself the bad guy in this! Not the democrats or the media or the
French or Barbara Streisand. His smugness has somehow made people forget that
Saddam is the bad man.

* This sets a horrible example - what are we going to do when China invades Taiwan,
or Pakistan invades India? Where is our moral ground after this?

* This gives strength to Russia, France and Germany (and maybe China) to form their
own united group...bad move pushing our friends away and taking a big old dump on
the UN.

* The cost to keep 260,000 troops over there, to occupy Iraq, is going to sink this
country. Not only the up front money to man this effort, but also the lost hours with so
many reservists that will leave their jobs behind - jobs that are required by law to not
rehire until they get back. You think the economy is bad now?? How about double-digit
unemployment.

* OUR REAL ENEMY IS OSAMA BIN LADDIN! HE IS THE MOTHER FUCKER WHO WAS
BEHIND 9-11! HIS FUNDING IS FROM SAUDI ARABIA AND THE SUDAN NOT IRAQ!!!!

* Hussein has had 12 years to sell weapons of mass destruction to the
fundamentalists and he hasn't - gee, why is that?

* Osama sees Iraq as a secular state, which to a fundamentalist like him as wrong as
the USA. Behind the United States and Israel, Hussein fears the Muslim fundamentalist
most. They are the ones who want his power, and in a really democratic society, they
will get it.

* OSAMA WANTS US TO DO THIS!!!! This war will accomplish his objective more than
9-11 ever could have, and that is unite the Muslim radicals. After tonight the world will
be much more dangerous. I am stunned we have sqandered the good will that the
world had towards us after 9-11.

* If Saddam responds by lobbing a scud into Israel, all bets our off. They will not take
it like they did in 1991; they will attack back in such a horrible way that OTHER nations
will be brought in, and before you know it, from Israel to Iraq through Iran on to India,
there will be WWIII ("Dubya Dubya 3")