And when will you start supporting it?

[Bestinshow]

Now that we have found, terror camps, geiger counters, chemicals suits, the government is sponsoring homicide bombers, using human shields, at what point will people finally feel that the war is justified? Or is this not proof of a threat yet?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[furie]

And when will you start supporting it?


you probably should have put 'supporting the war' instead of 'it' because months or years from now someone might not get the subtext.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/us_flag_animated.gif">

[Bestinshow]

You are correct. Unfortunately I don`t think I can edit it.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[furie]

yeah, I learned that brutal lesson from "Why are most celebrates liberal"

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/us_flag_animated.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

Wow, all that stuff!!!

That we knew already. Grand.

So who's the next surefire, gonna-kill-us-TODAY "threat"? 'Cuz the list is at least in the dozens if we're standing them up next to Iraq...

<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..."

[Death Metal Moe]

War is bad!

Let's have a POST IN!!

Wait a minute........

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
666%

[silera]

Wow, all that stuff!!!

That we knew already. Grand.

So who's the next surefire, gonna-kill-us-TODAY "threat"? 'Cuz the list is at least in the dozens if we're standing them up next to Iraq...

Ditto.



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

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=white>

[Bestinshow]

You know what. All you antiwar people are right. There are other countries out there that are threats. Lets do nothing. Maybe if we hide under the blankets they wont know we are here and they will leave us alone. They haven`t done anything up to now. I`m sure they won`t do anything in the future. Brilliant. The antiwar people should be running the country. Better yet, lets let the UN run the country. I guess the war against terrorists is over. Thanks guys.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>



This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-2-03 @ 11:49 AM

[Bestinshow]

By the way, just in an aside, how many of you antiwar people were Bush supporters before the war? I think I have a good idea of the answer.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[HBox]

There are other countries out there that are threats. Lets do nothing


That's what we are doing. We are doing something in Iraq, and little to nothing with these other, larger threats.

[Bestinshow]

Do you really think that this is our last step? Nobody said it was. Hopefully we can use this as incentive for others to accept diplomacy but nobody said this was the end. Obviously you have to start somewhere. Where would you start? If you have the absolute answer to that then you are in the wrong business.
P.S. How do you know the others are larger threats? I like to think that our intelligence
thinks different. From their success since 9/11
they most know something. They are the reason we have had no attacks since 9/11.
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-2-03 @ 12:43 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Lets do nothing. Maybe if we hide under the blankets they wont know we are here and they will leave us alone.

Right, because that's what we're saying.

They haven`t done anything up to now. I`m sure they won`t do anything in the future.

You DO realize that this is just as likely as assuming that they WILL "do something", right? What makes your bet such a sure thing, sparkplug?

I guess the war against terrorists is over.

But this is the war on Iraq....right? Funny thing is, a lot of anti-war people use the argument that this war and the conflicts it will push us into down the line will DETRACT from the war on terror...but you're apparently ignoring that...and you end up basically making things up. Rah-rah-sis-boom-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]

By the way, just in an aside, how many of you antiwar people were Bush supporters before the war? I think I have a good idea of the answer.

I wasn't a Bush backer. Nor was I a Clinton/Gore backer. What, my opinion against this war only "counts" if I was a fan of Bush's? Still don't understand how not supporting Bush is "proof" that the anti-war protestors don't "count." Of COURSE the odds are they won't like Bush...he's the perputrator of the very thing they're protesting against! Way to go, Sherlocks...

<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..."

[Captain Stubing]

I wasn't a Bush backer. Nor was I a Clinton/Gore backer. What, my opinion against this war only "counts" if I was a fan of Bush's? Still don't understand how not supporting Bush is "proof" that the anti-war protestors don't "count." Of COURSE the odds are they won't like Bush...he's the perputrator of the very thing they're protesting against! Way to go, Sherlocks...

At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth I think the point about about the war protestors not being Bush supporters matters not because they don't like him NOW that he's pursueing a war in Iraq but rather that they don't like Bush, won't like Bush, never liked Bush, etc.

The implication is that no matter what policy Bush pursues there are a large portion of people (including some unknowable, but probably large, percentage of the war protestors) who would disagree with it.......regardless of the merits of the case. Reasonable people can and will always disagree about matters of policy but I have to agree with the point of the threat......some people will NEVER think this war is justified, no matter what is found, because Bush is the President who's in charge of it.

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[furie]

What, my opinion against this war only "counts" if I was a fan of Bush's?


don't put words in his mouth.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/us_flag_animated.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

don't put words in his mouth.

I don't have to. The implication has been there all along and will probably still remain the same.

<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 4-2-03 @ 2:50 PM

[Bestinshow]

I wasn't a Bush backer. Nor was I a Clinton/Gore backer. What, my opinion against this war only "counts" if I was a fan of Bush's? Still don't understand how not supporting Bush is "proof" that the anti-war protestors don't "count." Of COURSE the odds are they won't like Bush...he's the perputrator of the very thing they're protesting against! Way to go, Sherlocks
My dear Watson, You state that you don`t like or support Bush because he is the perpetrator of the very thing you protest against. Only you didn`t like him before the war. I guess you are not ready for your own detective agency. That was my point, most people that are against the war never liked Bush and wont like whatever he does. That is my opinion! There is nothing wrong with not supporting Bush and being antiwar. I feel alot of people are antiwar because they don`t like Bush. Lets see how many prewar Bush supporters are against the war now. I bet there wont be many. I hope I am wrong.
Right, because that's what we're saying.
What are you saying? I haven`t seen a valid solution in your threads. All you write is "He hasn`t don`t anything in 25 years. Why would he now?" Is your solution to wait?Sanctions?Inspectors? All been done. What is your solution?
You DO realize that this is just as likely as assuming that they WILL "do something", right? What makes your bet such a sure thing, sparkplug?
Like I said, sounds an awful lot like lets do nothing.
But this is the war on Iraq....right? Funny thing is, a lot of anti-war people use the argument that this war and the conflicts it will push us into down the line will DETRACT from the war on terror...but you're apparently ignoring that...
Once again, sounds like lets do nothing.What a surprise, no solution.Unless doing nothing is your solution. By the way, this is the war on terror.
and you end up basically making things up.
Show me one thing in my posts that I made up! Maybe you are reading somebody else.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>



This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-2-03 @ 3:15 PM

[TheMojoPin]

The implication is that no matter what policy Bush pursues there are a large portion of people (including some unknowable, but probably large, percentage of the war protestors) who would disagree with it.......regardless of the merits of the case.

At the risk of sounding like a dick...durrrr. Why is this supposed to be such a "revelation" for some people? It was true under Clinton, it's true under Bush...based on the fact that basically half of the country didn't vote for him, is it really all that suprising that so many people are just going to flat out not like him? It doesn't make their argument any more sound, but it also doesn't "prove the protestors wrong." Just because you dislike anything and everything about Bush doesn't mean you can't have an actual and legitimate gripe with the "why's", "what for's" and "how's" of this war. But the constant inferrence IS just that...if you don't like Bush, you must not REALLY be against the war, you're just picking on it because HE'S behind it. Horseshit. It's a lazy, dismissive way of thinking.

<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 4-2-03 @ 2:58 PM

[FiveB247]

I enjoy hearing the "let's do nothing" arguement as defense for pursuing war. I think it's a fair assumption to say those who are/ were opposed to going to war had an alternative in mind. Not just walk away from the situation like you make it seem.

Anyways, let's go along with your 'do something' technique and we'll hit nuclear fallout sooner than later. War shouldn't be they way we resolve these type of problems. Not in the 21st century. Sooner or later, we'll do something and it will be the end of us all. You can't blow up one country at a time in order to save the world. You'll end up just blowing up the world instead. Directly or indirectly.

[TheMojoPin]

I think it's a fair assumption to say those who are/ were opposed to going to war had an alternative in mind.

And plenty of us aren't opposed to the war itself, just the timing and the reasonings.

<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..."

[Bestinshow]

I enjoy hearing the "let's do nothing" arguement as defense for pursuing war. I think it's a fair assumption to say those who are/ were opposed to going to war had an alternative in mind. Not just walk away from the situation like you make it seem.

Okay, what`s your alternative?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

I believe with continuance of Inspections and strong international pressure, Saddam would either do one of two things. 1) Disarm in accordance to demand of strong international pressure and support or 2) Not comply in which case the US would have been welcomed by international agreement for invasion and war.

Either way you want to put it, it would have been to the US's favor to get international support as well UN compliance. Even if Saddam refused to comply, the UN Security Council would have agreed upon invasion. The US is setting a bad example of how not to act in regards to international standards. The US did not get international support with the UN and are seeing the 'anti-american' feedback all over the world with protests....and a lot more then normally occur or take place.

When it's all said and done, Saddam will be out of power. Who knows what holds in the future of Iraq and its reconstruction. But the US will look like we acted upon our interests, and created much anti-american sediment in places that was unnecessary. And who knows what the repercussions in the future will be of international law, compliance and the UN. If a Security Council member ignores its codes and laws...why should others? It's a dangerous precedent.

[Bestinshow]

I believe with continuance of Inspections
How many inspections do you want? What about the deception? Even Blix admitted they were not cooperative(Didn`t allow scientists to speak, didn`t account for missing items, etc.). The resolution stated that Hussein was to disarm of all forbidden weapons and was to give unfettered cooperation. He didn`t. The inspectors weren`t supposed to be cops, they were verifiers. They verified he wasn`t cooperating. How were they supposed to find chemicals disguised as talcum powder?
and strong international pressure,

What strong international pressure?
2) Not comply in which case the US would have been welcomed by international agreement for invasion and war.
He didn`t comply. The international community said, like you, do more of the same inspections and give more time , of which both accomplished nothing.
The US is setting a bad example of how not to act in regards to international standards.
International standards? International standards allowed the Nazis to run concentration camps for years. Thank god we don`t act on international standards. Our standards are much higher. With the findings of the chemical suits, geiger counters, terror camps, the government supporting homicide bombers you still don`t consider this regime a
threat. Or is that not the issue? I don`t think you would support this war no matter what they find. I know, more inspections. Thats the ticket.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TheMojoPin]

International standards? International standards allowed the Nazis to run concentration camps for years. Thank god we don`t act on international standards.

Uhm, bad example. The "international standards" involved with the camps include America AND Britain.

<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..."

[Bestinshow]

True. everyone turned their backs for years but that just proves that the international community isn`t always behind whats right. But thats the whole point. not to make the same mistake we made in WW2.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-3-03 @ 10:44 AM