Well is he? There's already signs of the world ending IE All the fucking hurricanes... so does anyone have any input on this?

it's more likely Bush is.

No, Bush just likes to blow shit up... Kerry seems more like the antichrist to me, read the bible and you'll understand.

I have.

No, I think your mother is the anti-christ. I'm pretty damn sure on this.

Lol, I think bush is the antichrist. What with all the people dying. Not a normal weather phenonina.

HAHA... Kerry...

No. Just... no.

I don't believe he is. He's too ignorant, and not enough people like him.

The latter could be said of Bush as well.

In Revelation, it states that he will be liked by almost everyone, thus giving him the power to unilaterally control the world with his "One World Order" mentality.

I don't believe Kerry is smart enough...and neither is Bush.

quote:Originally posted by jer:

I have.

Then you have once again proven your inability to accurately understand the text.

Ssshhhh...

quote:Originally posted by Cpt.Winters:

Lol, I think bush is the antichrist. What with all the people dying. Not a normal weather phenonina.

ALL the people dying ? I believe (and correct me if I am wrong here) that there have been LESS deaths during this war, than any other, save Kosovo.

Care to post some statistics ? That is the most outlandish thing I think anyone has said on this site so far.

EDIT: Duplicate post that I didn't see until now. SORRY !



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-12-2004).]

Gees...

For goodness sake, there hasn't been a real war in more then 50 years.

For goodness sake, Korea and Vietnam both kick the shit out of this current little skirmish, and world war 2... its on a completely different scale.

We are talking MILLIONS dead in that.

In this little Iraq thing, we are talking 10's of thousands total, only about 1000 American dead.

Although the entire thing sickens me, if your going to talk about it, get things strait.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Well, Digital Savior was wrong!!!

It wasn't just Kosovo, the first gulf war was a peewee war too.

^^

Eh guys, the point is that War in general, and loss of human lives in general is a bad thing.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

^^

Eh guys, the point is that War in general, and loss of human lives in general is a bad thing.

Yes, it is.

I totally agree with you.

But it isn't an indication of the apocalypse.

It's happened before, and to a much greater extent. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our utmost to reduce its impact and prevent it in the future, but for goodness sake, it isn't the end of the world (so to speak).

The troubling thing is not the horrible death toll, which addmittedly is fairly modest for a "war".

The horrible thing is the fact that as long as Bush or someone like-minded is in power, it's never going to end. Once Iraq is done, well start fighting wars against countrys that ACTUALLY have an army, none of which are countries responsible for 9.11.

It's also troubling to me that the US press is FORBIDDEN from attempting to count the Iraq loss. It's estimated at more than 10,000. Does that bother anyone? That means the human cost of this was has been 11,000+ (not including Afghanistan), and it was allowed to happen because 3,000 Americans died. Well, what happens when the American loss reaches our loss on 9.11? Who's the real terrorist here?

It reminds me of something a very intelligent person once asked:

How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

On sept. 11 5,000 people died from terrorism. We now have a multibillion dollar, international war.

On Sept. 11 50,000 people died poverty related deaths. Why don't we have a war on greed?

On Sept. 12 50,000 people died poverty related deaths. Why don't we have a war on poverty?

On Sept. 13 50,000 people died poverty related deaths. Why don't we have a war on selfishness?

On Sept. 14 50,000 people died poverty related deaths. Why don't we have a war on apathy?

Those aren't the US's problems, they're world problems.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

^^

Eh guys, the point is that War in general, and loss of human lives in general is a bad thing.



No, that may have been the underlying point, however the ACTUAL point is that there are "so many people dying" in this war, when in comparison, it is dwarfed by almost all other wars in our nation's history, yet no one is screaming about THOSE.

Sure, the deaths are abhorrant. No way around that...but I have YET to see someone post a legitimate, logical alternative to this war.

ANYONE ? PLEASE ? *looks around*

it's too late for the alternative

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

The troubling thing is not the horrible death toll, which addmittedly is fairly modest for a "war".

The horrible thing is the fact that as long as Bush or someone like-minded is in power, it's never going to end. Once Iraq is done, well start fighting wars against countrys that ACTUALLY have an army, none of which are countries responsible for 9.11.

It's also troubling to me that the US press is FORBIDDEN from attempting to count the Iraq loss. It's estimated at more than 10,000. Does that bother anyone? That means the human cost of this was has been 11,000+ (not including Afghanistan), and it was allowed to happen because 3,000 Americans died. Well, what happens when the American loss reaches our loss on 9.11? Who's the real terrorist here?

It reminds me of something a very intelligent person once asked:

How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

If Iraq was not ACTUALLY a formiddable opponent, do you think we'd still be there ?

The Militants seem to reproduce themselves...for every one that dies, ten more appear. *lol* (that was a joke guys, so I don't want to hear it)

Bush, or someone like-minded ? You mean someone that isn't going to withstand the bullying of a country that has the capability, and the money necessary to produce weapons that could potentially annihilate us ? You think he's wrong for that ?

What happened to the ideal, "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE !" ?

What course of action do you feel he should have taken, that hadn't already been taken prior to his presidency ?

Look, I don't think it's cool that we went to war, but based on the information out there, I'd say there was very little else that could be done.

I think the LOW DEATH TOLLS indicate our extreme care in killing as few Iraqi's as possible. We could have just blown them to pieces, but we didn't. We have been systematically singling out the militants, and I think that is commdendable. THEY WANT TO FIGHT. This could have been over long ago...but they believe in supporting a regime that brings merciless suffering to their own people. If not just for the innocents who don't deserve to live like that, then I find the course of action chosen to be grudgingly acceptable.

"Meanwhile, Iraqi police said two Italian women and three Iraqis were abducted Tuesday by kidnappers dressed as Iraqi National Guard members.

An Italian intelligence source said the women worked for the humanitarian organization A Bridge to Baghdad.

Italian authorities identified the women as Simona Torretta and Simona Pari, both 29, according to media reports." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/iraq.main/

"The govenor of Baghdad, Ali Al-Haidary, escaped an assassination attempt unhurt Tuesday when his convoy was attacked in a western district of the capital. Video from the scene showed at least one body being placed in an ambulance." (same article)

"Masked gunmen Tuesday assassinated Abbas al-Husseiny, deputy director of Baghdad's Al-Karama Hospital, Iraqi officials said. He was killed while eating breakfast at a restaurant in al-Thahab district." (same article)

Yep, they sure do want peace ! (these activites were going on BEFORE we even got there, so please don't start blaming Bush for these radical acts.)

"In northern Iraq, unknown assailants shot and killed the son of Nineveh provincial Gov. Duraid Kashmoula, Mosul police said. Laith Duraid Kashmoula was driving to work when assailants pulled up next to his car and opened fire with small arms, police said. He was an employee in the Iraqi government's anti-corruption office in Mosul, the largest city in the northern Iraqi province. The governor's cousin, Usama Kashmoula, was shot dead in an ambush two months ago." (same article)

In contrast, "Cluster bombs used in Iraq by US and British forces caused "hundreds of preventable civilian deaths", many of them in cities, despite pledges to avoid such indiscriminate weapons in populated areas, a human rights group alleges in a report published today.

In a study of civilian casualties from the Iraq war, Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that although the air force use of cluster bombs had become more careful since fierce criticism of civilian casualties in Yugoslavia in 1999, the US and British armies continued to use such munitions extensively, firing thousands of artillery shells and rockets, each filled with hundreds of explosive bomblets, or grenades." http://www.peacectr.org/Cost_of_Iraq_War.html Read the report: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

And WHY, we ALL ask ? I don't agree with this methodology, any more than you guys do.

The fact that innocent civilian lives were lost because of this is ludicrous. And I don't see the point.

11,000 some odd civilians have been killed by this war, and not a sinlge one deserved it, in my opinion. But these people also didn't deserve the treatment they received under Saddam's tyrannical rule.

So, the articles above represent what is happening currently...let's take a step back in time, and look at some of the things that happened before the war, under the leadership of Saddam. (SEE THE POST AFTER THIS ONE. NO SENSE IN REPEATING MYSELF)

Then, we have people spending countless hours compiling garbage like this:

- http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-front.jpg

But one thing we all must consider is that the MAJORITY of all the members of the armed forces joined of their own accord. Because they had faith in their Commander in Chief, George W. Bush. They believed in the necessity of a governmental overhaul, in order to deliver Iraq from it's constant suffering.

They chose to defend the freedom that so many of us take for granted.

They weren't drafted, they VOLUNTEERED.

Which means the majority of the members in our military that are currently fighting in the war AGREED that war was an appropriate course of action to take.

"I feel a great sense of pride, helping the people of Iraq..." -http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/postcards/hilliardpostcard.pdf (Beth Hillard, program analyst for the Restore Iraqi Electricity Directorate of the Gulf Region Divison

"...glad that I was able to come back and work for the Gulf Region Division." - http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/postcards/wrightpostcard.pdf (Steve Wright, Chief of Public Affairs)

"...someday freedom and democracy will prevail in Iraq and the Arab world as well...we are making a positive difference." - http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/postcards/gerberpostcard.pdf (Commander Roger Gerber, Gulf Region Southern District)

The intent of the invasion of Iraq was exactly what is being accomplished.

TOO MANY have died, but at what cost ? The freedom of those who have been oppressed for decades ?

How many more would have lost their lives at the hands of Saddam and his regime, had

we not intervened ?

I am not justifying civilian deaths, but the intentions were good (and so are the results). Doesn't that carry some merit ? Keeping a blind eye to their suffering is far more irresponsible than implementing a regime change.

"...you must learn to measure the progress in miles, not inches." - http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/postcards/PostcardLowdermilk.pdf (Scott Lowdermilk, Transatlantic Programs Center)

And what of those Americans who sacrificed their OWN lives, not only to defend this country against terrorism, but to bring freedom to the people of Iraq ? ARE THEIR DEATHS IN VAIN ?

Look at what has been accomplished ! http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/index.html

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



No, that may have been the underlying point, however the ACTUAL point is that there are "so many people dying" in this war, when in comparison, it is dwarfed by almost all other wars in our nation's history, yet no one is screaming about THOSE.

1. One word: Vietnam.

2. Obviously, since the Vietnam War, US conflicts have met with more resistance because people have enlightened their brains to the fact that Wars are not all black and white. The notion of their government being the “good guy” is being shattered.

quote:

Sure, the deaths are abhorrant. No way around that...but I have YET to see someone post a legitimate, logical alternative to this war.

ANYONE ? PLEASE ? *looks around*



1. You would have your alternative if you indeed followed the words of the Christ. That you see no other alternative, or that you deem others "not logical" just proves you do not follow his teachings.

Surprisingly, I, a materialist who does not believe in a single word uttered in the bible about the paranormal, is following Jesus’ teachings in this aspect more closely than a self professed Christian.

What other alternatives where there?

1. Not help Saddam come into power.

2. Not support Saddam in the first place.

3. Not help him achieve chemical/biological weapons in the first place.

4. Not support Saddam later, even after he had committed attrocities and the U.S. knew about them.

But lets put ourselves in Bush Jr's positions, where all of this had already happened. What then? How about not invading?

There was absolutely not evidence of Saddam plotting to attack the US. There was no evidence of Saddam currently having WMDs. The mobile labs? False. Bunkers with WMDS? False. Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons? False. Iraq plotting with Al-Qaeda? False. Iraqi palaces full with evidence? False. Yellow cake? False.

Just in case... "False" means either : "BOLD FACED LIE" or "UTERR INCOMPETENCE".



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



1. You would have your alternative if you indeed followed the words of the Christ. That you see no other alternative, or that you deem others "not logical" just proves you do not follow his teachings.

Surprisingly, I, a materialist who does not believe in a single word uttered in the bible about the paranormal, is following Jesus’ teachings in this aspect more closely than a self professed Christian.

What other alternatives where there?

1. Not support Saddam in the first place.

2. Not help him achieve chemical/biological weapons in the first place.

But lets put ourselves in Bush Jr's positions, where all of this had already happened. What then? How about not invading?

There was absolutely not evidence of Saddam plotting to attack the US. There was no evidence of Saddam currently having WMDs. The mobile labs? False. Bunkers with WMDS? False. Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons? False. Iraq plotting with Al-Qaeda? False. Iraqi palaces full with evidence? False. Yellow cake? False.

You have tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit my motives and my faith.

It is time for you to try another tactic, because this one isn't working for you.

The LOGICAL alternative from an American, separation-of-church-and-state, type of standpoint would be what ?

You can't bring the teachings of Jesus into the equation, because "that's not allowed."

I didn't ask what was dogmatically logical, in this situation. Based on our current policies, and our diplomatic status in the world, what could have been done ?

Do you ignore the various attempts from Saddam to thwart our weapons inspections ?

- U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until the country's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles have been destroyed. U.N. weapons inspectors are preparing for a possible return after a four-year hiatus.

- February 24, 1991 The Persian Gulf War ends, liberating Kuwait. Iraq agrees to end weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to U.N. inspections(okay, still lookin' good)

- But wait...uh, oh ! On October 29, 1997, American members of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspection team are expelled from Iraq, only to return November 20.

- January 13, 1998 Iraq temporarily withdraws cooperation, complaining the inspection team has a disproportionate share of U.S. and British members. A week later inspectors are refused access to presidential sites.

- February 20-23, 1998 U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures full Iraqi cooperation and access for inspectors.

- October 31, 1998 Iraq ceases cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission but allows inspections to resume 14 days later.

- December 16, 1998 The U.N. Special Commission removes all staff from Iraq after inspectors conclude Iraq is not fully cooperating.

- December 17, 1999 The United Nations replaces the U.N. Special Commission with the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Iraq rejects the resolution.

- November 2000 Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.

- August 1, 2002 In a letter from the Iraqi government to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Hans Blix is invited to Iraq for discussions on disarmament issues.

- August 6, 2002 Secretary-General Kofi Annan writes to the Iraqis, pointing out that their proposal is at odds with U.N. resolutions and asking that Iraq accept inspections.

- September 12, 2002 In an attempt to build a global coalition for action against Iraq, President Bush pushes for a new U.N. Security Council resolution and for action within weeks but doesn't lay down any deadlines for returning weapons inspectors to the country.

President Bush tells the United Nations it must rid the world of Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear arsenals, or stand aside as the United States acts.

SO, Saddam gets to act like a brat for over ten years (at least), and now there is finally a president in office that wants to do something about it, and he is wrong for it ?

Is it not evident that Saddam wanted no part of the U.N. inspections, which would lead us to believe he had something to hide ?

Perhaps it was all a bluff (since we haven't found any WMD to date), but should we have continued to endure his blatant disregard for U.N. policy, and hope that nothing actually DID happen ?

"Before the Gulf War, Iraq had a highly developed chemical warfare program with numerous production facilities, stockpiled agents and weapons, binary (precursor chemical/solvent) capabilities, multiple and varied delivery systems, and a documented history of chemical warfare agent use. A month before the war began, then CIA director William Woolsey estimated that Iraq possessed 1,000 tons of poisonous chemical agents, much of it capable of being loaded into two types of missiles, the FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) and the SCUB B (SS-1).

On July 30, 1991. Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, Director of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (the organization charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and nuclear arsenals), told the Security Council that U.N. inspectors found chemical warheads armed with nerve gas and that some warheads were already fitted onto SCUD missiles. Chemical warfare munitions and agents which either supplied the allied bombings or were inventoried and returned to the Muthanna (Iraq) facility for destruction included: - 13,000 155-mm artillery shells loaded with mustard gas (H) - 6,100 rockets loaded with nerve agent - 800 nerve agent aerial bombs - 28 SCUD warheads loaded with nerve agent Sarin (GB) - 75 tons of nerve agent Sarin (GB) - 60-70 tons of nerve agent Tabun (GA); and - 250 tons of mustard gas and stocks of thiodiglycol, a precursor for mustard gas U.N. inspectors concluded that Muthanna plant was capable of producing two tons of Sarin (GB) and five tons of mustard gas (H) daily. " (report written in July 1995, by H. Lindsey III, PhD. who worked in the Pentagon as a civilian advisor to the Under Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.)

So, if Saddam was capable of it back then, what about in 2002 ?

Do you think the American public is privvy to the intelligence reports that help the leaders of our country determine whether or not action must be taken in the form of war ?

Just from the report that I provided alone, one must come to understand the heightened level of intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. And it must NOT have appeared promising.

After all Saddam's game playing, and "Cheat, Retreat" mentality with regards to weapons inspections, let's take a look at:

- http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/08/iraq.saddam/ Saddam's arrogance in 2002

He is hostile, beligerant, and downright uncooperative.

How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?

And let's go back now, and take a look at his PAST, against his OWN people.

"The discovery of mass graves in Iraq graphically testifies to the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the challenges of building a more pluralistic and law-based state. Both the dead and the living are victims of the crimes that are buried in these graves. We cannot bring back the hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis. However, identification of as many bodies as possible and accountability for the circumstances of their deaths will enable them to move forward to build a society that respects and protects fundamental human rights and dignity.

Most of the graves discovered to date correspond to one of five major atrocities perpetrated by the regime.

- The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.

- The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.

- Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.

- The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shi’a Muslims after the Shi’a uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.[i/]

- [i]The 1991 Kurdish massacre, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.[/b]" http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

"Jews were victims of Nazi oppression and “ethnic cleansing”, the result of which was the extermination of over five million Jews. By perpetrating such a heinous crime Hitler engraved his name in history as one of the most notorious criminals who immersed himself in the blood of innocent people... We are not going to dispute that. In fact, we, more than anybody can fully grasp the agony of the holocaust. We have had a first hand experience with the very same horrors. Freshly dug mass graves bare witness to the plight of the Shi’ites. They have been subjected to a systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder. Iraq has once again revived those shocking memories.



We must endeavor to permanently imprint the memory of those killed by Saddam and his regime in the hearts and minds of generations to come in order to prevent such human catastrophes from being repeated.

It was Saddam’s rise that paved the way for his venomous sectarian hatred to be materialized. The Shi’ites were subjected to ethnic cleansing of an unsurpassed scale. For them the punishment for political crimes started with execution and ended with a lifetime of anguish under the brutal torture apparatus of Saddam's notorious penitentiaries. The list goes on to brutalities of detention without trial, torture, and as the west has now come to discover; mass executions and burials.

Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam’s regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba’ath era alone." http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

- http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf (U.S. Agency for International Development; "Iraq's Legacy of Terror: MASS GRAVES")

Now, can you honestly tell me that he should have been allowed to continue to rule Iraq ?

Did thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have to die ?

PROBABLY NOT. But I am not a war strategist. I am a reailist.

And realistically, you cannot justify NOT taking action against Saddam.

1. Not Support Saddam in the First Place.

A. Ummm...ok. What has that got to do with Bush ?

2. Not help him achieve chemical/biological weapons in the first place.

A. Again, is Bush responsible for that ? I think not.

3. Not invading.

A. Again, you fail to reveal your master (LOGICAL) plan for removing Saddam from power, and making a democracy of Iraq. You are GREAT at telling us all what Bush SHOULDN'T have done, but have nothing to replace his actions with.

4. No evidence of Saddam plotting against the U.S.

"Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It says bin Laden sent ‘emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.'' At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, ''Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al-Qaida.’ [¶] The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al-Qaida-affiliated National Islamic Front.” (October 27, 2003 Defense Department memo to Senate Intelligence Committee, as reported by the Weekly Standard, as reported in WorldNetDaily, November 15, 2003.)

“In November [2003], the Weekly Standard reported a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.” (2004 WorldNetDaily.com, May 27, 2004, citing the Weekly Standard, November, 2003, citing Senate Intelligence Committee memo.)

There are at least “50 instances of contacts between senior al-Qaeda officials and Iraqi operatives – starting in 1990 and continuing right up to March 2003.” (Weekly Standard, Nov. 15, 2003 )

“In what could go down as the Mother of All Copyediting Errors, Babil, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, last fall published information that appears to confirm U.S. allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda." http://www.inreview.com/archive/topic/24188.html

- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts

- "According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

- "Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323

Shall I post more ? I will, if you'd like.

5. Saddam having no WMD, currently.

A. I agree with you on this point, except for one aspect. Though I cannot find a justifiable reason for doing so, it is reasonable to believe that the information that concludes that Iraq housed WMD was not publicly distributed. I am not saying this information exists, I am saying that our government has never been terribly adept at clueing us in on what is actually going on. And this should be considered.

So, on this one, I must humbly say, "Who knows ?"

6. Everything else you listed.

A. Going to bed ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

it's too late for the alternative

My point is, there wasn't one.

By the time Bush assumed the role of President, the damage had been done.

Someone should have taken care of Saddam long ago.

ANY PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FLACK FOR THIS. It's not Bush...it's our nation's newfound tendency towards apathy.

You think ANYONE wishes for war ? C'mon..be realistic.

Sitting around waiting for the next attack wasn't going to happen.

My apologies to the Original Poster...we ran away with your topic.

To get back on it, Kerry isn't intelligent enough to be the Anti-Christ.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If Iraq was not ACTUALLY a formiddable opponent, do you think we'd still be there ?

iraq shouldn't have been a formidable opponent. america spends more on the military budget than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED. our arsenal, training, and special forces are the undisputed best in the world, wielding the most advanced technology. if our goal was to defy the rules of the geneva convention, the wishes of the u.n., and international laws of war in order to dispose of the baath regime, why not assasinate them one by one with covert ops and finish it in a couple of weeks? iraq was allowed to become a formidable opponent by terrible strategic planning.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Militants seem to reproduce themselves...for every one that dies, ten more appear. *lol* (that was a joke guys, so I don't want to hear it)

too bad, it wasn't funny. i think you mean for everyone we murder, ten more rush to avenge, and the country becomes a better place for terrorists.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Bush, or someone like-minded ? You mean someone that isn't going to withstand the bullying of a country that has the capability, and the money necessary to produce weapons that could potentially annihilate us ? You think he's wrong for that ?

you mean someone who lies about the designs of a nation to produce weapons that could NEVER come close to annihilating us? iraq didn't have WMD's!! chief u.n. inspector hans blix testified to it endlessly before we marched off... and there was no fertile soil for terrorist idealism until AFTER we occupied it. saddam hussein was an egotist and a megalomaniac, but he had no delusions of his complete inability to challenge the military might of the u.s. he was ruthless, not idiotic. well, in one respect he was - i don't think he foresaw the u.s. violating all internation protocol and even its own policy of not initiating war.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What happened to the ideal, "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE !" ?

uh, what happened to the ideal of freedom? no one voted for the war in iraq. polls in april of 2003 indicated the majority of americans were unsupportive of the decision. the decision was not made by our elected representatives in congress. the constitution of the united states gave the authority to declare war solely to our reps in congress. and the new paradigm of preemptive war would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What course of action do you feel he should have taken, that hadn't already been taken prior to his presidency ?

none, it wasn't his decision to make, and it only distracted us from the supposed first priority 'war on terror'... remember that guy osama bin laden? in fact, it wasn't OUR decision to make. the pretense for the war was iraq's violation of u.n. resolutions... well, we went against the will of u.n. security council in order to defend it????

???

??

the least bush could have done was to coalesce world opinion in our favor through diplomacy in order to really make headway in the war on terror. how are you going to suppress a heartless tactic, a debased mindset, without a clear, shining example of its alternative? we should be focused on uplifting those who are borderline fanatics to choke off the source of terrorist ideals. plunging into the most volatile region of the globe with guns blazing is not the answer. 'he who lives by the sword...'

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I think the LOW DEATH TOLLS indicate our extreme care in killing as few Iraqi's as possible. We could have just blown them to pieces, but we didn't. We have been systematically singling out the militants, and I think that is commdendable. THEY WANT TO FIGHT. This could have been over long ago...but they believe in supporting a regime that brings merciless suffering to their own people.

11,000 is just the number plucked from actual combat. the toll as a result of indirect factors such as starvation, lawlessness, the destruction of vital supplies and infrastructure, etc, is much greater. not to mention that many if not most of the militants we face today have no allegiance to hussein's government. they just see the u.s. as a foreign entity whose motives may be much more sinister. the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The intent of the invasion of Iraq was exactly what is being accomlished.

what was the intent? wmd's? liberation? terrorism? those were the reasons given prior to the INVASION, and each of them has proven to be bullshit.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am not justifying civilian deaths, but the intentions were good. Doesn't that carry some merit ?

if they were the real intentions, maaaaybe. oh, btw, did you hear about how 1/3 of all supplies sent to iraq by the pentagon and a few billion dollars went missing for months, only to have been discovered in use by halliburton? of course not.

this war is about peak oil. that's it and that's all. the age of petroleum is over. what we are witnessing is the beginning of a mad rush for the last scraps off the carcass.

every reason given for it is a lie. it's not even a real war, it's a raid, a plunder... and "I doubt that you can win it," --our president.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 09-12-2004).]

Digital... just. No.

1. Sadaam killed a rediculous majority of those people while the US still supported him.

2. I highly doubt that any signifigant number of people joined the armed forces out of a faith in a president, who until 9/11 was pretty much universally held as a joke. Most went to pay their college tuition, or because the military is one of the best options for poor families.

3. There are dozens of dictators in the world. Some actually have the capability to harm us. Kim Jong Il has nukes, and selective breeding bred western looking spies. There are genocidal massacres going on in several parts of the world. But we go into Iraq. Why? Every reason that was given prior to war (WMD, et al) has been proven to be a complete fabrication. Now Bush says, after the fact, that it was to "free the Iraqi people"? Bullshit. The level of guerilla activity proves how much they want us there.

4. Osama bin Laden. That should be enough said, but if I don't spell it out, you'll fall back on ignorance of what I mean. Where is he? Why have we been IGNORING HIM FOR THREE YEARS?

5. It is not America's role to police the world. The deaths of American soldiers were not in vain. They were abused and thrown away by our child-idiot president. Wasted on oil, and by his own words, revenge for the assination attempt on his father.

6. You can't try to leave the religion out of this. You can't just use it when it's convient for you, then claim that it's not relevant when you can't respond to a criticism. I've allready challenged you once before, to explain how you can support this war, and this president, when you have "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" spouting out of your mouth at "Islamic" attrocities. You choose to let a topic die rather than answer that, because you couldn't. Neither Rust or I am trying to use religion as a justification. We're demanding you be consistant in your arguements, instead of crapping out whatever rhetoric supports your world view.

7. Iraq folded with barely a fight. Then, began a guerrilla campaign. What the hell do you think they should have done? There was no way they could have held out against us, but they DO NOT WANT US THERE.

8. Alternatives for the war in Iraq. The entire point is that it shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. There is so much more serious shit to begin with, but the Bush administration had that war in the works from the moment they took office, well documented too. Bush RAPED the memory of 9/11 with this war, but you'll buy it because he hates fags and baby-killers, right?

I'm going to bed. The fact that you dare even claim to be using logic pisses me off to much.



Oh, and Bush is pushing for an expanded nuclear weapons program. Real WMD's. I think the man with the greatest potential for anihilating human life qualifies as a candidate for the anti-christ. And I just mean in a general, non Biblical sense. SO leave your Revelations on the table by your bed.

quote:You mean someone that isn't going to withstand the bullying of a country that has the capability, and the money necessary to produce weapons that could potentially annihilate us ?

How could you possibly think that Iraq was a threat to you? That is truely, very sad and disturbing.

quote:Those aren't the US's problems, they're world problems.

Now that's really funny, becasue the US has done a really good job at conivicing the world that terrorism is a world problem.

You know what's even funnier? If they are world problems then they are also the USA's problems...especially as they are a major contributor to these problems.

Yeah Dig,

You keep talking about what alternatives we had, but the fact is for any other president, it wouldn't have even been considered. You don't need an alternative because you didn't need this immoral conflict in the first place. Afghanistan exists as the only major military action in the war on terror.

Read Paul O'Neill's book, Read Richard Clarke's Book, Read Bob Woodward's book, it's no secret that Bush has been itching for a war on Iraq long before terrorism became his motto. It's wrong.

Say what you want about Saddam, "he was a bad person", "he was a mad man", "he was a ruthless dictator". Sure, all those are true. But if you really believe that's a justification for this war, then i hope you're the first to enlist in the war against all dictators who abuse their power in the world, and i promise that's a war you will die fighting.

theBishop

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You have tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit my motives and my faith.

It is time for you to try another tactic, because this one isn't working for you.

The LOGICAL alternative from an American, separation-of-church-and-state, type of standpoint would be what ?

You can't bring the teachings of Jesus into the equation, because "that's not allowed."

Strawman. I never said America should follow the Christian doctrine, or any religion for that matter.

I'm talking about what America as a whole should have done (that is, not invade), and your contradictory beliefs (that you are Christian, but at the same time, support this war).



If you support this war, then you're not a Christian. Period. You haven't brought any argument against this, which I will take to mean that you agree... but don't want to admit it.

quote:

I didn't ask what was dogmatically logical, in this situation. Based on our current policies, and our diplomatic status in the world, what could have been done ?

I already answered: NOT INVADE.

quote:

Do you ignore the various attempts from Saddam to thwart our weapons inspections ?

No. Do YOU ignore that it was the U.S. who put a stop to the inspections done right before the war?

quote:

SO, Saddam gets to act like a brat for over ten years (at least), and now there is finally a president in office that wants to do something about it, and he is wrong for it ?

Is it not evident that Saddam wanted no part of the U.N. inspections, which would lead us to believe he had something to hide ?



Sorry, but all of that is irrelevant, since he was "cooperating" (the Inspector's own words) months before the war. Who put a stop to THOSE inspections? The U.S. Hence, you cannot claim that Saddam was hampering inspections, at least not now.

quote:

Perhaps it was all a bluff (since we haven't found any WMD to date), but should we have continued to endure his blatant disregard for U.N. policy, and hope that nothing actually DID happen ?

That's a call the UN gets to make not the U.S. The U.S. signed a treaty in 1991 that called for inspections and UN action not U.S. action. The U.S. stopped the inspections being conducted before the war, hence it cannot blame the lack of inspections on Saddam. That Saddam didn't cooperate before? Correct. But he was cooperating now and the U.S. was the one who stopped that cooperation.

quote:

"Before the Gulf War, Iraq had a highly developed chemical warfare program with numerous production facilities, stockpiled agents and weapons, binary (precursor chemical/solvent) capabilities, multiple and varied delivery systems, and a documented history of chemical warfare agent use. A month before the war began, then CIA director William Woolsey estimated that Iraq possessed 1,000 tons of poisonous chemical agents, much of it capable of being loaded into two types of missiles, the FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) and the SCUB B (SS-1).

On July 30, 1991. Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, Director of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (the organization charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and nuclear arsenals), told the Security Council that U.N. inspectors found chemical warheads armed with nerve gas and that some warheads were already fitted onto SCUD missiles. Chemical warfare munitions and agents which either supplied the allied bombings or were inventoried and returned to the Muthanna (Iraq) facility for destruction included: - 13,000 155-mm artillery shells loaded with mustard gas (H) - 6,100 rockets loaded with nerve agent - 800 nerve agent aerial bombs - 28 SCUD warheads loaded with nerve agent Sarin (GB) - 75 tons of nerve agent Sarin (GB) - 60-70 tons of nerve agent Tabun (GA); and - 250 tons of mustard gas and stocks of thiodiglycol, a precursor for mustard gas U.N. inspectors concluded that Muthanna plant was capable of producing two tons of Sarin (GB) and five tons of mustard gas (H) daily. " (report written in July 1995, by H. Lindsey III, PhD. who worked in the Pentagon as a civilian advisor to the Under Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.)

He forgot to mention that he was able to achieve those with U.S. help... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

So, if Saddam was capable of it back then, what about in 2002 ?

Every single country in the world is capable of making a WMD. I am cable of making a WMD. Do you therefore think that the U.S. should invade every country in the world?

quote:

Do you think the American public is privvy to the intelligence reports that help the leaders of our country determine whether or not action must be taken in the form of war ?

Of course not. And? It is up to THEM to show the public that war was the best alternative. They have not done so.

quote:

Just from the report that I provided alone, one must come to understand the heightened level of intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. And it must NOT have appeared promising.

After all Saddam's game playing, and "Cheat, Retreat" mentality with regards to weapons inspections, let's take a look at:

The treaty signed in 1991 called for Weapons Inspections. Saddam was letting weapons inspectors in months before the war. The treaty does not call for invasion.

quote:

- http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/08/iraq.saddam/ Saddam's arrogance in 2002

He is hostile, beligerant, and downright uncooperative.

What the hell do you expect him to do? Say "Yes, the U.S. SHOULD invade!" Of course he's going to be defiant in a speech!

But you are lying when you say that he was uncooperative, at least in 2000+. The own UN inspectors said he was cooperating with all of their demands.

quote:

How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?

And let's go back now, and take a look at his PAST, against his OWN people.

"The discovery of mass graves in Iraq graphically testifies to the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the challenges of building a more pluralistic and law-based state. Both the dead and the living are victims of the crimes that are buried in these graves. We cannot bring back the hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis. However, identification of as many bodies as possible and accountability for the circumstances of their deaths will enable them to move forward to build a society that respects and protects fundamental human rights and dignity.

Most of the graves discovered to date correspond to one of five major atrocities perpetrated by the regime.

- http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf (U.S. Agency for International Development; "Iraq's Legacy of Terror: MASS GRAVES")

The majority of all of those done with U.S. support and knowledge! Nice! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Part 2. The server was timing out because of the long reply:

quote:Now, can you honestly tell me that he should have been allowed to continue to rule Iraq ?

That he was an asshole? Of course.

But that tens of thousands of people should have to die because of it? Absolutely not. When the U.S. is completely to blame for Saddam? Absolutely not. When Saddam had stopped all these killings (the own White house has no figures of Saddam killing anyone else since 1999)? Absolutely not. When it wasn't even the main reason paraded around by the Whitehouse? Absolutely not.

To even think the Bush administration gave any importance to the humanitarian cause is ridiculous. They shifted their reason to that, because "WMDs" was proved to be bullshit.

quote:Did thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have to die ?

PROBABLY NOT. But I am not a war strategist. I am a reailist.

And realistically, you cannot justify NOT taking action against Saddam.

Then you're not a Christian. Period.

quote:A. Ummm...ok. What has that got to do with Bush ?

...

A. Again, is Bush responsible for that ? I think not.

Why are you acting all high and mighty? I already said that these had nothing to do with Bush, but the with US in general... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:A. Again, you fail to reveal your master (LOGICAL) plan for removing Saddam from power, and making a democracy of Iraq. You are GREAT at telling us all what Bush SHOULDN'T have done, but have nothing to replace his actions with.

I already revealed my plan. You apparently didn't read it. I said "not invade".



quote:Shall I post more ? I will, if you'd like.

Post more? You didn't post ANYTHING!

I said, a PLOT. Not communications which resulted in NO FORMAL/WORKING RELATIONSHIP with the two groups.

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/ntopic1237.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/iraq/main573801.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1325

There was absolutely no working relationship between the two.

quote:A. I agree with you on this point, except for one aspect. Though I cannot find a justifiable reason for doing so, it is reasonable to believe that the information that concludes that Iraq housed WMD was not publicly distributed. I am not saying this information exists, I am saying that our government has never been terribly adept at clueing us in on what is actually going on. And this should be considered.

You're forgetting the fact that the so-called "evidence" that they did release was proved to be false! So it IS NOT logical to assume they have any evidence, when the evidence they did share (which had the motive to prove their case) turned out to be false!

It is up to the administration to prove their case was backed up with evidence. They didn't.