I just don't know who to belive anymore

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>On the one hand, I see video of U.S. soldiers tumbling statues of Saddam in front of his presidental palace and using his private bathroom to take bubble baths, yet the Iraqi Propag, ahhh, I mean Information Officer keeps insisting that Americans haven't entered Baghdad and are running away in horror from the 3 remaining Republican Guardsmen.

Ya know, it's almost as if he's lying to us. Which means maybe, JUST MAYBE, they were lying about having weapons of mass destruction too.

It's all very confusing.

Or is it?

Someone I know from another message board just posted this link http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/7/94052

So, let's see. Mass graves. Torture chambers. Chemical weapons. We've found all of these after being in Baghdad for all of three days. The inspectors found nothing in over 3 months.

What was that about giving them some more time?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>IF WE DON'T GET A WAY TO EDIT TYPOS IN THE SUBJECT LINE, THE TERRORIST WIN!!!!

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[TooCute]

What was that about giving them some more time?


If you really want to know, go back and read what people have said about it.

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

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>Don't have to, I remember perfectly well what people had to say about it.

Just wonder if people will be stand up enough to admit she was wrong?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[silera]

I think that we could have gotten the stuff without a war and without occupying their country. I also think that the stuff that they've found is no where near warranting the rush to war in the last few months, and the lack of a UN resolution to proceed.

I won't stop thinking that no matter what they find. I won't stop thinking that even once the weapons that they have are used against our troops.

The reason I won't is because in the 12 yrs that he has had these weapons, they were not used against us. The government has failed to prove a direct connection between the events of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein's reign. The torture chambers, and graves etc., were all known about for quite some time and our government was part of the problem from the beginning by turning a blind eye to it in many cases, or simply by walking away as was done with the Shiites.

That being said, I do belive the terrorists have won.



<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>

[TooCute]

Don't have to, I remember perfectly well what people had to say about it.

You obviously do.

Just wonder if people will be stand up enough to admit she was wrong?


I take it that was supposed to be aimed at me? Since I've clearly forgotten, but you haven't... What was I wrong about?

Here is a link to get you started: http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm?CurrentPage=4&forum=87&Topic=26381&RequestTimeout=500

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

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-7-03 @ 3:20 PM

[FiveB247]

How silly are you? How do you claim any sort or part of being correct if the US hasn't announced such items to be complete fact. Like the rest of us, sit back, and time will show what unfolded, whether true, false, correct or incorrect. Not you.

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>Silly? You did say silly, right??

I'll thank you to refrain from some harsh personal attacks!!!

How do you claim any sort or part of being correct if the US hasn't announced such items to be complete fact.

They have. Or at least soldiers and bio-chemist in the field have. http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp

Let's not get into a game of semantics. Chemical weapons have been found inside of Iraq.

Like the rest of us, sit back, and time will show what unfolded, whether true, false, correct or incorrect. Not you.

Yes me. And I'd be more likely to trust Newsweek than Time.



<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[high fly]

Ya know, it's almost as if he's lying to us

The Iraqi guy that's been spouting all that bilge about us not being at the airport or the Information Ministry today is quite the card.
I am reminded about a story I once read about Japanese propaganda in WWII.
The author was asking Japanese about how they followed the war and what they thought was really going on, and when they realized when the war was lost, what with the slanted "news" the government.
One person said he [or she, I forget which] knew they were losing when he noticed that the glorious victories the Japanese military were achieving were occurring closer and closer to Japan.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[CaptClown]

Just smirk, give a knowing look, and move on. don't waste your breath. There are more important problems to solve now. That is what I will do. Although I will think, "I told you so!!"

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

This message was edited by CaptClown on 4-7-03 @ 5:05 PM

[curtoid]

silera -

GOD DAMN!

That was the single most perfect reply I have read. THANK YOU for writing that.

This really could have been containted; Iraq was never a threat to us; they have had
12 years to do something and they haven't; we aren't there to liberate the people;
there is no connection to 9/11; Osama wanted this war - we were able to do what he
wasn't.

<img src="http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/354.jpg" border="0">



[KOP]







This message was edited by KOP on 4-7-03 @ 7:02 PM

[high fly]

Without a war, we'd be thinking about the economy

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

But what about those who have always said they believe that Sddam has WMD's and has always been trying to develop more, yet has at best a "fraction" of the WMD's he had in the 80's and early 90's, yet is presented as more of a threat TODAY than any other time in the last 25 years? I never doubted for a second he has the stuff or was trying to develop more. I just question the sudden rush to act NOW.

<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..."

[high fly]

Yep, Mojo, and you've asked in vain.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[GaryWyze]

I never doubted for a second he has the stuff or was trying to develop more. I just question the sudden rush to act NOW.

<font color=purple>And you're right to question it. I've questioned it myself.

But the answer, be it oil money or a way to make up for failing to Get Bin Laden, be it to prevent another 9/11 or to ensure a re-election next November, doesn't really much matter.

The bottom line is that Iraq had to be dealt with. Below the bottom line is the fact that Iraq should've been dealt with 12 years ago. And every year since.

When all is said and done, an incredibly menacing threat will have been removed. A nation held hostage will have been freed. And we all got to see lots of cool explosions on CNN.

When all the answers are right, the question becomes kinda moot.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[TheMojoPin]

The world doesn't work like that. It can't. Or we at least can't expect it to if THIS is the example we're going to provide. You can't expect to have any semblance of stability in the world if the new standrad is to run in, guns-a-blazin', and then decide what the ultimate goals were definitively AFTERwards.

Nobody's questioning the fact that if Iraq is left with at least something resembling a stable government, it will be better off for the people. They deserve it. But we can't just sit back and pretend that that's all that matters here. We've pissed off some of the more powerful countries in the world over this and burned a lot of bridges. People may want to sound and act tough and pretend like that doesn't matter, but it's going to do nothing but hinder us down the line. Hell, if you want to stick with the "the only thing that matters here is freeing the Iraqi people" line of thinking, realize that our actions here are going to hinder any hope we may have to repeat this down the line.

<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]

I 'd like to think like that Mojo, but then I think about 9/11 and I go all retarded.

[TheMojoPin]

I have no problem with killing the hell out of those behind 9/11, or could readily pull off something similar. If our government comes out with proof that Saddam was backing these groups, or was planning to strike at us directly, boom, I'm wrong. But until that shows up, this whole war ends up seeming very diversionary to what should be our ultimate goal of striking as hard as possible at those that are already planning to attack us, not those who just "might." 9/11 proved that there's far worse than that out there NOW, yet attacking Iraq makes it seem like we're going in the wrong direction, and I feel LESS safe because of it.

<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..."

[curtoid]

I was also wishing for that elusive connection - something concrete. Something more
than evedence that some random cells were training in the north of Iraq. Hell, we have
had random cells training in OUR north (Albany, right?)

[KOP]

[GaryWyze]

if you want to stick with the "the only thing that matters here is freeing the Iraqi people" line of thinking, realize that our actions here are going to hinder any hope we may have to repeat this down the line.


<font color=purple>I never said that. I've never thought it. Freeing the Iraqis, maybe making an ally of a country which has long since been a foe, is a bonus. A big bonus, but certainly not THE reason behind our actions here.

You're asking why go to war now, while not really disputing our right for having done so. At least I think that's what you're doing.

And, honestly, I don't get it. If you're agreeing that Iraq was in violation of 1991's cease-fire agreement, what difference does it make when we decided to enforce the penalty for violating it?

Because the problem had been neglected for so long, does that negate the need for eventually dealing with it? Today, tomorrow, a year from friday.... how is this really a point of contention?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[HBox]

Because the problem had been neglected for so long, does that negate the need for eventually dealing with it? Today, tomorrow, a year from friday.... how is this really a point of contention?


When the whole world is against it, when that region of the world is screaming at you not to do it and threatening retribution. It doesn't matter whether or not we are justified in doing this. It seems like it is costing us more than its worth. If it seemed like leaving Iraq alone for a couple of months would result in disaster, that is when it is worth it. I haven't seen anythng to make me believe we were in imminent danger.

[TooCute]

Freeing the Iraqis, maybe making an ally of a country which has long since been a foe, is a bonus.

Which is why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?

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

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-8-03 @ 12:18 AM

[TheMojoPin]

Because the problem had been neglected for so long, does that negate the need for eventually dealing with it?

Because it wasn't really a "problem" the begin with. Frankly put, the guy was never a threat to us, probably never would have been in his lifetime, and we could have put it off until we actually gained a little more support from our more powerful allies. I think it IS a good thing to take him out...but as it's been said, we're "losing" so much more by taking him out in a relatively minor and insignificant victory now than if we just waited another year or so. Again, there's been zero evidence he was any closer to being an impending threat against ANYONE than he had been in the last 12 years, and I doubt any will ever show up. This is the first war we've ever engaged in based on "maybe's" and "could be's" and guesses and assumptions, and I have no doubt we'll pay dearly for it in numerous ways down the line...and THAT'S a guarentee. Instead of this demonstrating our "strength", I think these latest actions on our part will make us significantly weaker in every area EXCEPT the millitary. Grand.

<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..."

[Se7en]

Punch out, Gary, you're being outnumbered here and they're ganging up.

<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

[TheMojoPin]

We're only a gang when there's some bitchin' choreography. I know, it's hard not be jealous of our tight, gyrating buttocks...

<img src="http://course1.winona.msus.edu/pjohnson/h140/studentsf01/westsidestory/the%20jets.jpg"width=450>

<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..."

[silera]

We're only a gang when there's some bitchin' choreography. I know, it's hard not be jealous of our tight, gyrating buttocks...

I love it when you talk dirty.



<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>

[GaryWyze]

Which is why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?

<font color=purple>Just a PR move. Besides, what's in name?

Do they juice 'gators to make gatorade?

Grind ham to make hamburgers?

Is it really the World Series if it's only played in America?

Ever see a table dance take place on a table?

The argument put forth has always been about violating the cease-fire agreement, the production of biological and chemical weapons and the inevitability of them being used against us.

In the beginning, you were saying that it wasn't the war, per se, that you were against, but rather that we didn't allow the weapon inspectors more time. I didn't buy it. Not from you, and not from all the protesters who were alleging the same thing.

Fast forward 3 weeks, we have since found the smoking gun. Hand Blix, the chief inspector, is said to feel terrible about his crew's failure to do so.

He shouldn't. Short of a full scale invasion, the weapons were never gonna be found. And it was only a matter of time before the man who pays off the family of suicide bombers, started supplying terrorist with W of M D for use on American soil.

Can you envision any scenario in which you'd see that this war was a just one?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<



This message was edited by GaryWyze on 4-8-03 @ 12:19 PM

[FiveB247]

Fast forward 3 weeks, we have since found the smoking gun. Hand Blix, the chief inspector, is said to feel terrible about his crew's failure to do so.

He shouldn't. Short of a full scale invasion, the weapons were never gonna be found. And it was only a matter of time before the man who pays off the family of suicide bombers, started supplying terrorist with W of M D for use on American soil.

Can you envision any scenario in which you'd see that this war was a just one?

None of the 'smoking guns' have been 100% confirmed as of yet. Stop jumping the gun in order to try and prove your point. None have been completely confirmed as factual. They are all possible, maybe and could be's.

You are also presuming in the scenario's in which Saddam would supply weapons to hit American soil. There's no proof of anything regarding anything like that, nor has there ever been.

I can envision a scenario like that....but I can also envision me banging Pam Anderson, Alyssa Milano and Drew Berrymore all at once too. Doesn't mean its going to happen though.

[TooCute]

In the beginning, you were saying that it wasn't the war, per se, that you were against, but rather that we didn't allow the weapon inspectors more time. I didn't buy it. Not from you, and not from all the protesters who were alleging the same thing.


You didn't "buy it"? As in, you think I was lying?

Can you envision any scenario in which you'd see that this war was a just one?

I have never once said that I thought it was an unjust war, if by unjust you mean that Saddam Hussein does not or did not deserve to have his ass taken out.

Once again, I encourage you to go back and read the thread in the link that I posted earlier in this thread and read what my, and other peoples', thoughts on the war were and still are.

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

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-8-03 @ 12:39 PM

[TooCute]

Do they juice 'gators to make gatorade?
Named after the UoF Gators.
Grind ham to make hamburgers?
Named after Hamburg. Like a Sandwich.
Is it really the World Series if it's only played in America?Back when they started calling the winner of the "World Series" (shortened from World's Champion Series")the World Champion, baseball was only played in America.
Ever see a table dance take place on a table?
Sure, if you want to call the stripper's platform a table :)

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

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-8-03 @ 12:57 PM

[TooCute]

I can envision a scenario like that....but I can also envision me banging Pam Anderson, Alyssa Milano and Drew Berrymore all at once too

Gross.

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

[Uncle Smokey]

Not to break up the table dance discussion, which believe me, I could watch for hours, but I have a question. By a question, I DONT MEAN that I personally hold this opinion, rather I think it is an issue which hasn't been fully addressed. Does anyone here agree with the Wolfowitz/Podhoretz/Cheney position that seeding the region with democracies, essentially by any means necessary, will serve to increase American security in the long term?? If so, the WMD issue and the ignored UN resolution is an apt pretext, and 9-11 is a prime motive force that provides significant moral air cover. If such actions serve to liberate oppressed people from the ravages of dictatorial regimes, while at the same time increasing our long term security (again, long term..short term things are still gonna be dicey) why shouldn't we do it?

<IMG SRC="http://www.jrsfilm.com/bishop1.asp">

[GaryWyze]

You didn't "buy it"? As in, you think I was lying?

<font color=purple>No, not at all. Poor choice of words on my part.

I said at the time that most of those people who were out there protesting in the rain, were doing so because they oppose war, not because they favor more time.

I think that's true more times than not. I don't think that's true of you. You come across as someone who opts for reason over emotion. When I asked you if you could ever envision a scenario where you'd come to think that this war was justified, I wasn't being facetious. I'm honestly asking what would it take?

I have never once said that I thought it was an unjust war, if by unjust you mean that Saddam Hussein does not or did not deserve to have his ass taken out.

That isn't what I mean. I wouldn't expect even the most emphatic of protesters to be in favor of Saddam.

By a just war I mean that nothing short of an invasion was going to uncover his stash of chemical weapons and ensure that they never make their way to American soil.

It just seems to me that people who were legitimately concerned with the reckless loss of human life, would see this war for the unfortunate necessity it so obviously is.

Well, obvious to me anyway. I honestly thought by now it would be obvious to you too.

When time permits, I will go back and re-read some stuff, but what am I going to find that differs from anything anybody is saying right now? The only thing that's changed is that we seem to have found the weapons some believed didn't actually exist. Other than that, it looks like we've all been repeating ourselves for the better part of three weeks now.

Some think the war is wrong. Others think anything Bush does is right. Some just like to see Arabs die.

I think Saddam and his weapons had to go. You don't necessarily disagree, but wonder about the timing and ulterior motives. As does MoJo. Perhaps you've noticed that you two are the only ones I've been responding to with any regularity.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<



This message was edited by GaryWyze on 4-8-03 @ 1:28 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Hey, I HOPE I'm proven wrong...it would be a good thing for my country as a whole, and Lord knows we need the brownie points these days...

Ultimately, if we can "pull off" this operation in Iraq, and leave them with something that looks like a stable government and have it not look like we're "stealing oil", it could lead to a lot of changes in the Middle East. I strongly believe that our actions in the first Iraqi conflict greatly influenced the environment that led to the Israeli/Palestinian peace accords of the mid-90's, the closest those two have come to peace EVER...

<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..."

[grandzu]

Let's not get into a game of semantics. Chemical weapons have been found inside of Iraq.


New U.S. tests indicate that substances found at sites in central Iraq are not chemical weapons agents as first suspected, U.S. military sources said on Tuesday. One officer had said on Monday that they might turn out to be simple pesticides

Just wonder if people will be stand up enough to admit was wrong?


So what did we learn today kids?

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>Pesticides are chemical weapons, aren't they?

If I'm wrong, I'll have no problem saying so.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[curtoid]

"Hey, I HOPE I'm proven wrong...it would be a good thing for my country as a whole,
and Lord knows we need the brownie points these days..."

Amen...this is what I've been saying all along.

However, while that may be enough to help repair the damages between us and our
allies in the short-term (which we, more than likely, will then RUIN because a bunch of
micro-dicked uber-Patriots will feel the need to gloat), to the Arab countries they will
simply point to the fact that Saddam had not used them in the 12 years that he could
as proof that, if anything, he was holding onto (or developing them) the WMD as a
means of defence in the even that Iraq is attacked; then they will also point out that
Iraq was invaded and that they weren't used, and (at least with that part of the
world) Saddam will become a martyr to people who (prior to the war) had more reason
to loathe him than we do/did.

Nevertheless, to help bring more of THIS country back together I really hope we do
find SOMETHING.

[KOP]

[high fly]

Pesticides are chemical weapons, aren't they?

Yes, they have been used on the battlefield by Iraq in the war with Iran.
Export of some of the most virulent were approved for export to Iraq, as well as botulin, anthrax, and other chemical weapons by Ronald Reagan.
See the Dec. 30, 2002 front page article in the Washington Post.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Def Dave in SC]

First off, I'm impressed that this thread has remained civil. Bravo.

Second, The argument that "Reagan sold them the weapons" is not a valid argument that the US should not be over there.

Yes, Reagan sold them many weapons so that a secular Gov't could be in the region. Reagan was wrong, and it was a terrible idea. Because we sold him the weapons, we know he has them. Because he has them, we have to get them.

Yes, we made a huge mistake, and need to make it right


The Montgomery County Mobster
<img src="http://members.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/```def.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Much Love to my Homie dcpete

Its Like Having a Football Helmet Inside Your Head

[TooCute]

By a just war I mean that nothing short of an invasion was going to uncover his stash of chemical weapons and ensure that they never make their way to American soil.
I've never disagreed with this. I have disagreed that the weapons were or are going to make their way to American soil this very moment. Like, let's go to war now, rest of the world be damned.

It just seems to me that people who were legitimately concerned with the reckless loss of human life, would see this war for the unfortunate necessity it so obviously is.
Perhaps, perhaps not. As in perhaps such people would, perhaps they wouldn't. Some people believe there is always an alternative to war.

Also as in, perhaps it is/was necessary, perhaps it isn't. NOBODY can answer this question. You don't know if diplomatic or some other means would have worked eventually. I don't know.

We gave them 12 years, right? And they didn't comply, so obviously diplomacy didn't work?

Doesn't seem to me that the US was pushing for disarmament as actively for those entire 12 years as Bush's administration was in the past few months leading up to the war. Who is to say that a bit more continued pressure wouldn't have worked? I don't know. But neither does anyone else because it wasn't tried, and I am of the opinion (don't bother disagreeing with me because we have all seen the numerous people who disagree with the statement and it doesn't need to be rearticulated) that waiting a little while longer was not going to change anything as far as Saddam using the weapons he might or might not have in a way that could harm us.

The only people perhaps who can answer this are in the government, but they have yet to tell us anything that would answer this question concretely. I really hope that they knew something that we and the rest of the world didn't.

Well, obvious to me anyway. I honestly thought by now it would be obvious to you too.
If it is so obvious to you, I think you are probably oversimplifying the issue or know something that I don't.

When time permits, I will go back and re-read some stuff, but what am I going to find that differs from anything anybody is saying right now?

You won't find me saying anything different. You will find that I said differently from what you seem to recollect me saying, however. It would save a lot of unnecessary discussion if you didn't accuse me of saying things and believing things I never did.

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

[TheMojoPin]

Ultimately, the odds are pretty even as to whether Saddam would or would not have EVER used any WMD's he had, so how can one side ever truly claim they were "right"? Nobody will ever know...

<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..."

[GaryWyze]

It would save a lot of unnecessary discussion if you didn't accuse me of saying things and believing things I never did.

<font color=purple>I don't think I've done that. But feel free to show me one quote that I attributed to you that was in error.

When you ask a question like "why now?," it's rather obvious that you're not asking it out of curiosity or in the hopes of getting a legitimate answer.

That's what you were doing on day one of this war. And several times since.

Be it *innocently* asking "why is it that anyone who doesn't support the war called a Saddam lover and anti-american" or claiming to need an education as to what is a Liberal, a Conservative, a Democrat, a Republican.

It's an annoying way of taking a position, without really taking a position. And allows for a real easy way out when somebody calls you on it.

Although at least today you've actually given a solid opinion, even if it was followed with a "don't bother to disagree with me" advisory.

And you're right, I wont.

I said <b>nothing short of an invasion was going to uncover his stash of chemical weapons and ensure that they never make their way to American soil.</b>

You said <b>I've never disagreed with this.</b>

But go on to say <b>who is to say that a bit more continued pressure wouldn't have worked?</b>

Ahhhh, I think you just did. Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

See, here's your chance to tell me that by saying that you never disagreed with that, you're not actually saying you agree either.

We really should take this to the Game Room.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

This message was edited by GaryWyze on 4-9-03 @ 6:19 PM

[HBox]

When you ask a question like "why now?," it's rather obvious that you're not asking it out of curiosity or in the hopes of getting a legitimate answer.


No. Its a legitimate concern. Why now? Would it do any harm to wait a few months, if just to try and get more support? Was there any imminent threat that necessitated immediate action?

It seems as if you are just ignoring questions you have no answer for.

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>It's a question that doesn't need answering. Besides, if not now, when?

The U.N. had 12 years to ensure compliance with the cease fire agreement. They failed, horribly, to do so. It's retarded to think that that was gonna change if given a little more time.

At some point, enough is enough.

And I don't see World support as that big an issue here. Last I heard, Luxemburg wasn't exactly considered a target for terrorist. It's pretty easy for the World to take a "wait and see" attitude. They're not the ones most likely to suffer the consequences.

If it was the right thing to do, it was the right thing to do... with or without the World!

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[Dudeman]

Doesn't seem to me that the US was pushing for
disarmament as actively for those entire 12 years as
Bush's administration was in the past few months leading
up to the war. Who is to say that a bit more continued
pressure wouldn't have worked?


exactly. the pro-war groups (ie. the "hawks"- rumsfeld,
wolfowitz, etc.) kept saying that after 12 years, more time
would not help. and that is true. but more pressure and
more effort and more inspectors and more money (yet still
less than 75 billion $) might have helped.

[HBox]

It's a question that doesn't need answering. Besides, if not now, when?


Yes it does. There are selfish nations who would always be against this war (FRANCE), but there are others who believed, correctly or not, that inspections would have worked. Giving them a little more time probably would have brought more on our side.

But we pissed them off by ignoring them and damaged relationships. Like it or not, we need other nations on our sides in the war on terror. Iraq is a small drop in the bucket in the world of terror. We need others cooperation in capturing terror leaders and cells. Why should they help us if we ignore them?

In my opinion we damaged our relationship with the world and took an unneccessary burden upon ourselves to take out what was, at the time the war began, a small threat. It simply wasn't worth it, and timing had everything to do with it.

[TheMojoPin]

It's a question that doesn't need answering.

Well THAT'S convenient.

At some point, enough is enough.

WHAT'S enough?

<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 4-9-03 @ 7:15 PM

[GaryWyze]

WHAT'S enough?

<font color=purple>http://us.imdb.com/Title?0278435

Enough hemming. Enough hawing. Enough stalling. Enough fruitless inspections. Enough games. Enough tortures. Enough time.

Enough said!

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[TheMojoPin]

What now? Again, if we REALLY want to seem consistent, there's gotta be at least a baker's dozen of other countries just as bad or worse than Iraq...that's my biggest issue with the "why this NOW?"-aspect of the conflict...

<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..."

[high fly]

The argument that "Reagan sold them the weapons" is not a valid argument that the US should not be over there

Who ever made that argument?

enough time

While I agree that Hussein is a bastard that just has to go [and I need not repeat all the reasons], I came to the conclusion that the war was a mistake.
War must be a final option, and I am not convinced that the US government tried all it could to use other methods to get rid of him.
3 things short of war that could have gotten the job done and spared a lot of American lives, national treasure, and some of the destruction that we will pay for, at least partially are:1] popular revolution like what brought down the Soviet empire, 2] coup d'etat, 3] assassination.
Our troops have done great and I am proud of them.
Now we have to put the country back together, bring order, put in a government and help it get off the ground etc.
The rosiest estimates say we'll be there 2 years with tens of thousands of troops scattered around the country.
This is the part I dread, and I hope I am wrong.
I think we are looking at a situation that will degenerate into a situation that resembles the West Bank, with our guys getting hit with the mines, the suicide bombers, the snipers, etc.
Many terrorist groups and hostile governments in the neighborhood will see it as in their best interests to see that happen.


" and they ask me why I drink"

[TooCute]

I don't think I've done that. But feel free to show me one quote that I attributed to you that was in error.
Not a single. But you keep posting responses to me, personally, that don't seem to address what I am actually saying.

When you ask a question like "why now?," it's rather obvious that you're not asking it out of curiosity or in the hopes of getting a legitimate answer.

That's what you were doing on day one of this war. And several times since.

Be it *innocently* asking "why is it that anyone who doesn't support the war called a Saddam lover and anti-american" or claiming to need an education as to what is a Liberal, a Conservative, a Democrat, a Republican.


Of course I want a legitimate answer, but what is very obvious is that there is no concrete answer to this question. I don't think that "legitimate" is exactly the word you're looking for, but I'll go on the assumption that you want it to mean "honest" or "serious".

I assume also that you understand that these questions really don't have concrete answers, at which point what you're taking issue it is the fact that I am asking questions that have no answers.

The reason is because generally when people attempt to answer specific questions they are forced to (hopefully) organize their thoughts, rather than simply spewing nonsense that may or may not really be answering any questions. Often in the course of answering questions you can become aware of the flaws in your arguments, as well, or, in a forum such as this, other people may point them out. It's generally called discussion - a back and forth of ideas

Unfortunately on this messageboard there seems to be less discussion and more name calling, although the name calling seems to have largely subsided in the past week, thank goodness.

It's an annoying way of taking a position, without really taking a position. And allows for a real easy way out when somebody calls you on it.
What position have I ever taken that I have backed out of?

Although at least today you've actually given a solid opinion, even if it was followed with a "don't bother to disagree with me" advisory.

And you're right, I wont.

I posted that same exact opinion a week ago (or whenever it was in that thread that I linked to that you apparently still have not read (or else we wouldn't still be having this discussion)), and I'll point out that I never backed out of it, either.

I said nothing short of an invasion was going to uncover his stash of chemical weapons and ensure that they never make their way to American soil.

You said I've never disagreed with this.

But go on to say who is to say that a bit more continued pressure wouldn't have worked?

Ahhhh, I think you just did. Or am I putting words in your mouth again?
I just did what. Disagreed with you? Let me try to restate:

1. I have stated that most likely inspections weren't going to uncover any WMD that Saddam may or may not have had. (opinion)
2. I have stated that it is likely (but certainly not the absolute that you make it) that nothing short of an invasion would uncover potential WMD (opinion)
3. I stated that nobody can possibly know whether something would have happened if the US had continued putting pressure on Iraq to disarm as it had in the few months leading up to the war. (fact)

You seem to be under the assumption that either 2 or 3 must be correct, and the other wrong. In doing so, you miss my point entirely: that NOBODY knows for certain. It is entirely possible to agree with all three statements. Disagreeing or not disagreeing with one also does not necessarily have to have any bearing on agreement with any other of those statements.


See, here's your chance to tell me that by saying that you never disagreed with that, you're not actually saying you agree either.You need to use less ambiguous "that"s in your writing; I don't know what you're referring to...

We really should take this to the Game Room.
Why?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/imag

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>We didn't have violations in our cease-fire agreements with those countries.

And those countries don't have oil ripe for taking. Or leaders who tried to kill our President's father. Or Palaces with solid gold toilet seats that will look off-the-hook on Air Force One.

Hmmmm, you sure do ask a lot of question. Can I see some I.D.?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[Gvac]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Evil lost big time in Iraq, and I thank God that we finally have a President who has the fortitude and foresight to deal with terrorism on ALL fronts. Our previous Commander in Chief seemed to have an "Ignore them and they'll go away" attitude after the first World Trade Center bombing, the sinking of the S.S. Cole, and having our military bases and embassies attacked all over the world.

I have no idea if Hussein was directly involved in September 11th, nor do I care. He has openly sponsored and supported Palestinian terrorists, so it's not much of a stretch to think he'd support and supply weapons to terrorists who wish to do harm here in America. His removal from power is nothing but a positive thing no matter how you look at it, so I'll never understand why everyone is so upset about this war.

http://gvac.50megs.com/images/militarysalute.jpg

[high fly]

I'd put Iran and Syria ahead of Iraq in that area as being threats to the US

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TooCute]

His removal from power is nothing but a positive thing no matter how you look at it,
Agreed. But whether the means were as positive is clearly debatable (and being debated).

so I'll never understand why everyone is so upset about this war

Nobody is asking you to agree, but if you want to understand, read this and other threads in this forum. I think that the reasons have been very articulately and very clearly stated over and over and over.

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

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-9-03 @ 8:12 PM

[high fly]

Anyone confident that the "Marshall Plan for Iraq" will turn out any better than the one for Afghanistan?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>

I don't think that "legitimate" is exactly the word you're looking for, but I'll go on the assumption that you want it to mean "honest" or "serious".

Oh cool, yet another game to play.

<b>Leúgitúiúmate</b> - being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false

And what is the opposite of false? Or another way of saying "exactly as purposed?"

Yep, honest and serious.

You need to use less ambiguous "that"s in your writing: I don't know what you're referring to...

I'm usually refering to the question or statement that just preceded it. Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Even less so in this case. One mo' time, from the top.

I said <b>nothing short of an invasion was going to uncover his stash of chemical weapons and ensure that they never make their way to American soil.</b>

You said <b>I've never disagreed with this.</b>

But go on to say <b>who is to say that a bit more continued pressure wouldn't have worked?</b>

Ahhhh, I think you just did. Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

See, here's your chance to tell me that by saying that you never disagreed with that, you're not actually saying you agree either.

That = the "this" you said you never disagreed with.

See, who throws the ball to what, who fires it off to i don't know, who shoots it back to who... double play.

Unfortunately on this messageboard there seems to be less discussion and more name calling, although the name calling seems to have largely subsided in the past week, thank goodness.

I agree. Snideness and some good natured sarcasm seem to suffice quite nicely. And for my part in all this, none of it is personal.

Btw, the "this" in "all this" = our exchanges within this thread.

Gonna hit submit now or I run the risk of cutting into my American Idol time.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

[TooCute]

Yep, honest and serious.


Fantastic. You didn't address the issue though.

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

[Gvac]

I think that the reasons have been very articulately and very clearly stated over and over and over.
Honestly, Aya, they haven't. People don't seem to understand the big picture - either because they don't want to or they are unable to admit it to themselves.

If I hear one more person say "Hussein hasn't used any weapons against us in 12 years, so why are we worried" I just may scream. It's NOT THE POINT. HE SUPPLIES AND SPONSORS TERRORISTS. How do we know he wasn't involved in the funding and training of the acts of terrorism committed against the United States over the past 10 years? We don't know if he was or wasn't, but he is a sworn enemy of America and getting rid of a despot who wishes to do us (and his own people) grave harm is a win-win. He is far more likely to give anthrax or some other chemical or biological weapon to a terrorist group than use it himself, but that doesn't make him any less guilty.

His removal was long overdue, and this is only the beginning. I remember President Bush speaking shortly after September 11th, and he clearly stated that this would be a world-wide war on terrorism that would take years and years. If we do not rip out the hearts at the root of this problem, it will never end.



http://gvac.50megs.com/images/militarysalute.jpg

[TooCute]

Honestly, Aya, they haven't. People don't seem to understand the big picture - either because they don't want to or they are unable to admit it to themselves.

If I hear one more person say "Hussein hasn't used any weapons against us in 12 years, so why are we worried" I just may scream. It's NOT THE POINT. HE SUPPLIES AND SPONSORS TERRORISTS. How do we know he wasn't involved in the funding and training of the acts of terrorism committed against the United States over the past 10 years? We don't know if he was or wasn't, but he is a sworn enemy of America and getting rid of a despot who wishes to do us (and his own people) grave harm is a win-win. He is far more likely to give anthrax or some other chemical or biological weapon to a terrorist group than use it himself, but that doesn't make him any less guilty.

His removal was long overdue, and this is only the beginning. I remember President Bush speaking shortly after September 11th, and he clearly stated that this would be a world-wide war on terrorism that would take years and years. If we do not rip out the hearts at the root of this problem, it will never end.

I should rephrase: I have stated over and over why I am against this war. What you just stated has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

[TheMojoPin]

I'm just sick and tired of the goddamn run-around. "We're going after the terrorists!" Yet our government doesn't really address the fact that this a guy who's support of terrorism mostly extends to giving money to the families of awful, awful suicide bombers. But somehow, the implication is that ANY DAY NOW Saddam would have kill ANY ONE OF US. Then it's "liberating the Iraqi people from an oppressive tyrant!" Which is all well and noble, but it really doesn't make sense when you tack up Iraq next to the dozens of other oppressive governments we simply tolerate or even happily ally ourselves with. China, anyone? What's the excuse THERE? It's practical? Tibet doesn't deserve to be "liberated" because too many celebrities that cause?

But it's such a nifty line of argument, because if you try and argue against it, it's so damn easy to decry the opposition with cries of, "why would you be against libertaing the Iraqi people? SHAME ON YOU."

This proved nothing. This solved nothing. We won an easy war we knew we'd wing to begin with. We're suddenly safer? Hell, based on what we know, even Israel shouldn't even feel any safer. And this "striking at terrorism anywhere it may dwell" is horseshit. You don't start with some piddling regime that MIGHT be supporting terrorists or COULD BE down the line, when we have more than enough targets who have and are still willing to kill as many of us as possible and CAN. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Malaysia? Indonesia? PSHAW! I have no deep inkling to think that this war is the result of some deep, dark conspiracy or truly malevolent notions...I think we did it just because we can.

It was a waste of time (Lordy, how I MUST hate the Iraqi people!), and it's serving to prolong the actual war on terror even longer. It sickens me, it frustrates me, and it most importantly, it leaves my very life at risk. Call me selfish for wanting a little more assurance that I won't DIE tomorrow, but that's the crux of my frustration, and that's not going to change, because quite frankly, unless Saddam somehow had the power to make things invisible, this is going to turn out to be a very minor victory where time was NOT of the essence, and we've caused ourselves far, FAR more harm than good. We NEED international support to actual FIGHT TERRORISM, yet we seemingly were willing to toss a good chunk of that support out the window for the easy win in Iraq. Grand. Good thing we have the UK! Since they've handled the IRA situation for the last century SO well...

Hell, by the logic of "Saddam MIGHT actually support terrorists like Al-Queda down the line," we should have Ireland pretty high up on our list. The Irish government was perfectly willing to attempt to ally itself with the Germans in BOTH world wars! NAZIS. NAZIS!!! I know I should have HK on my side by now...

Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, this war was waged AND opposed under flimsy, debatable reasoning at best, little was really achieved in terms of our most immediate threats and goals (Or what they SHOULD be!), and I and my family are probably still just as much at risk from ACTUAL terrorists before this whole thing started. And when you essentially run in the wrong direction and leave me and my loved ones at risk, it pisses me off. Yes, I AM selfish. I should be more important in the eyes of my government, because it's MY government, not the Iraqi government! I'M the priority! WE are the priority! Protect 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..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-9-03 @ 10:14 PM

[curtoid]

It's too bad Tibet doesn't have oil.


[KOP]

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck oil. It's an anti-war red herring, and it's getting annoying.

But seriously, why are we picking Iraq's people as being any more oppressed than anyone else living under an oppressive regime? I don't question the good that can come of this...just WHY this? There's been no indication that is the start of any kind of grand plan...

<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..."

[IrishAlkey]

There's been no indication that is the start of any kind of grand plan...

Yes, there has.

You just have to find it on your own.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee><font color=red size=4>2%</font></marquee>

[NewYorkDragons80]

Hell, by the logic of "Saddam MIGHT actually support terrorists like Al-Queda down the line," we should have Ireland pretty high up on our list. The Irish government was perfectly willing to attempt to ally itself with the Germans in BOTH world wars! NAZIS. NAZIS!!! I know I should have HK on my side by now...
For the record, the Irish were neutral in World War II. They offered some of their ports to the Germans, but you mustn't overlook the thousands of young Irish men (IRISH, not British-controlled Northern Ireland) who volunteered to fight (alongside a nation a who oppressed them for centuries) in the name of a free Europe. The Irish government was more in the interest of weakening the British than empowering the Germans. That being said, neutrality during World War II is a point of shame for me as an Irish-American, along with Irish refusal to join NATO and IRA links to Qadaffi. I appreciate Gerry Adams's contributions to the cause for a 32-county Ireland, but when he protests the Iraq War he sounds like an anti-British opportunist who seeks to latch onto any cause that will grab popular opinion.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

They were only neutral in the sense you could call the Swiss neutral despite their very active role in happily storing and banking Nazi funds and stolen loot. Irish terrorist groups (There's always been plenty besides the IRA) in both world wars offered Ireland essentially as a German base, offered to fully engage the British from Ireland to coincide with a German strike on British soil as long as Germany pledged to grant Ireland their own rule, offered use of Irish ports, and, most awful of all, happily accepted German arms and munitions to use against the British. Of course these people don't speak out for ALL of Ireland, but hell, the other Irish aren't doing enough to speak out and act against these terrorists, so they're essentially terrorists as well, at least according to certain "logic." (Not necessarily yours, Dragon) Hell, I'm so Irish it hurts, and this shames the hell out of me. A terrorist is a terrorist and collaboration is collaboration, right?

If someone is going to try and paint the current situations in the Middle East so black and white, they at least need to be consistent. American coming down hard on unmoving terrorist states that support or house terrorists? Ireland deserves a smackdown. American freeing oppressed people under a tyrannical regime? We'd better kick the shit out of China, pronto. There's no consistency! We took out Iraq just because we could, and that's about it.

<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 4-10-03 @ 11:12 AM

[TooCute]

But Mojo... they speak english and make Guinness in Ireland!!

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

[NewYorkDragons80]

But if you are going to point out the Irish tolerance of Nazism (Which was more anti-British than pro-Nazi), you must recognize the Irish who volunteered to fight alongside the British who hated them. In my opinion, the two actions balance each other out.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

But if you are going to point out the Irish tolerance of Nazism (Which was more anti-British than pro-Nazi), you must recognize the Irish who volunteered to fight alongside the British who hated them. In my opinion, the two actions balance each other out.

Very true.

Some need to do the same for the millions of Arabs that are Americans, work for our government, are in our armed fources, work for law enforcement, work as field operatives or informants and "in country support."

<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..."

[high fly]

Yeah, Mojo, and we're gonna need to recruit some of them Arab-Americans to infiltrate some-a them terrorist groups.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[NewYorkDragons80]

Some need to do the same for the millions of Arabs that are Americans, work for our government, are in our armed fources, work for law enforcement, work as field operatives or informants and "in country support."
I could not agree more. Furthermore, if someone is very zealous in support of Israel, they have no choice but to recognize Arab Israeli citizens who protect Israel, assimilate in their society, and serve in the parliament.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>