Shock and Awe

[LowerCaseRepublican]

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO you are right on apu lets see how long saddan can beat around the bush, lie, kill, build more weapons. you are just a big push over that let people play mind games with you.

 

has for me goin to war myself i support it but i would not be able to serve because i myself probally could never kill someone but i understand it needs to be done, thus being said i have a great apreciance for our troops over there.

Maybe you had one too many joints today, 420.

 

We sold him the weapons. If he's got them, then Rummy has the receipts. Also, take into account that Doug Rokke and Scott Ritter said that Iraq had over 95% compliance in 1991-1998 until they and the other UN inspectors were ordered out by the UN. And according to our own CIA, it is astronomically impossible for them to have a working nuclear program and the sarin, VX, etc. all has passed it's shelf-life so it's goo pretty much.

 

Tell me, 420, if you are the leader of a country...and a much larger country comes out and says "get rid of weapons or we will beat the s*** out of you" and then threatens you as the "Axis of Evil" and that they intend to oust you if you get rid of weapons or not, are you going to be apt to get rid of weapons?

 

It's like the Yankees demanding to play the little league all stars but refusing to play them until they give up their gloves and bats.

 

And if this war is so important and the threat so imminent, then why did the US and the UK find the need to lie to the US public so often and so very convincingly in order to galvanize support? Why couldn't they tell the truth if it was needed?

[soxfan420]

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO you are right on apu lets see how long saddan can beat around the bush, lie, kill, build more weapons. you are just a big push over that let people play mind games with you.

 

has for me goin to war myself i support it but i would not be able to serve because i myself probally could never kill someone but i understand it needs to be done, thus being said i have a great apreciance for our troops over there.

Maybe you had one too many joints today, 420.

 

We sold him the weapons. If he's got them, then Rummy has the receipts. Also, take into account that Doug Rokke and Scott Ritter said that Iraq had over 95% compliance in 1991-1998 until they and the other UN inspectors were ordered out by the UN. And according to our own CIA, it is astronomically impossible for them to have a working nuclear program and the sarin, VX, etc. all has passed it's shelf-life so it's goo pretty much.

 

Tell me, 420, if you are the leader of a country...and a much larger country comes out and says "get rid of weapons or we will beat the s*** out of you" and then threatens you as the "Axis of Evil" and that they intend to oust you if you get rid of weapons or not, are you going to be apt to get rid of weapons?

 

It's like the Yankees demanding to play the little league all stars but refusing to play them until they give up their gloves and bats.

 

And if this war is so important and the threat so imminent, then why did the US and the UK find the need to lie to the US public so often and so very convincingly in order to galvanize support? Why couldn't they tell the truth if it was needed?

well if i was kill my inocent civilions i suppose i would handle it the same way has suddan. but if he wasnt killing inocent people i would understand your point on anti war.

 

 

 

But since he has used womd on his own people something must be done. its kind of like if bush set off a nuke in the middle of new york city. would that be ok with you???

[Spiff]

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO you are right on apu lets see how long saddan can beat around the bush, lie, kill, build more weapons. you are just a big push over that let people play mind games with you.

 

has for me goin to war myself i support it but i would not be able to serve because i myself probally could never kill someone but i understand it needs to be done, thus being said i have a great apreciance for our troops over there.

Maybe you had one too many joints today, 420.

 

We sold him the weapons. If he's got them, then Rummy has the receipts. Also, take into account that Doug Rokke and Scott Ritter said that Iraq had over 95% compliance in 1991-1998 until they and the other UN inspectors were ordered out by the UN. And according to our own CIA, it is astronomically impossible for them to have a working nuclear program and the sarin, VX, etc. all has passed it's shelf-life so it's goo pretty much.

 

Tell me, 420, if you are the leader of a country...and a much larger country comes out and says "get rid of weapons or we will beat the s*** out of you" and then threatens you as the "Axis of Evil" and that they intend to oust you if you get rid of weapons or not, are you going to be apt to get rid of weapons?

 

It's like the Yankees demanding to play the little league all stars but refusing to play them until they give up their gloves and bats.

 

And if this war is so important and the threat so imminent, then why did the US and the UK find the need to lie to the US public so often and so very convincingly in order to galvanize support? Why couldn't they tell the truth if it was needed?

that is an awfully slanted and simplistic view

[Chisoxfn]

One quick thing, we did give them weapons but that was because of fear of something else and sometimes you have to get in bed with the bad guy to get rid of an even worse evil. Thats exactly what my most liberal history teacher said last semester and he's from the middle east. He's way against the war, but in terms of selling the weapons, he even thought it was something the US had to do.

[cwsox]

One quick thing, we did give them weapons but that was because of fear of something else and sometimes you have to get in bed with the bad guy to get rid of an even worse evil.  Thats exactly what my most liberal history teacher said last semester and he's from the middle east.  He's way against the war, but in terms of selling the weapons, he even thought it was something the US had to do.

You don't have to get in bed with bad people sometimes.

 

Never let yourself get f***ed for a short term goal.

 

I disagree with your teacher, respectfully, on that.

 

To arm Saddam so he would fight with Iran was stupid, f***ing US policy and no one needed to climb into that bed. Saddam was a whacko tyrant from day one. That what we would do by arming him would come back to haunt us (as well as what he did to his own people) was as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

[cwsox]

There is nothing simplistic about the following except to those who resist facts becasuse it interferes with their rants:

 

We sold him the weapons. If he's got them, then Rummy has the receipts. Also, take into account that Doug Rokke and Scott Ritter said that Iraq had over 95% compliance in 1991-1998 until they and the other UN inspectors were ordered out by the UN. And according to our own CIA, it is astronomically impossible for them to have a working nuclear program and the sarin, VX, etc. all has passed it's shelf-life so it's goo pretty much.

 

Tell me, 420, if you are the leader of a country...and a much larger country comes out and says "get rid of weapons or we will beat the s*** out of you" and then threatens you as the "Axis of Evil" and that they intend to oust you if you get rid of weapons or not, are you going to be apt to get rid of weapons?

 

And if this war is so important and the threat so imminent, then why did the US and the UK find the need to lie to the US public so often and so very convincingly in order to galvanize support? Why couldn't they tell the truth if it was needed?

[soxfan420]

There is nothing simplistic about the following except to those who resist facts becasuse it interferes with their rants:

 

We sold him the weapons. If he's got them, then Rummy has the receipts. Also, take into account that Doug Rokke and Scott Ritter said that Iraq had over 95% compliance in 1991-1998 until they and the other UN inspectors were ordered out by the UN. And according to our own CIA, it is astronomically impossible for them to have a working nuclear program and the sarin, VX, etc. all has passed it's shelf-life so it's goo pretty much.

 

Tell me, 420, if you are the leader of a country...and a much larger country comes out and says "get rid of weapons or we will beat the s*** out of you" and then threatens you as the "Axis of Evil" and that they intend to oust you if you get rid of weapons or not, are you going to be apt to get rid of weapons?

 

And if this war is so important and the threat so imminent, then why did the US and the UK find the need to lie to the US public so often and so very convincingly in order to galvanize support? Why couldn't they tell the truth if it was needed?

i already answered this but here you go

 

well if i was kill my inocent civilions i suppose i would handle it the same way has suddan. but if he wasnt killing inocent people i would understand your point on anti war.

 

 

 

But since he has used womd on his own people something must be done. its kind of like if bush set off a nuke in the middle of new york city. would that be ok with you???

 

 

 

We sold him the weapons so now we are cleaning up our mess The us created? should we just let him keep killing people when we gave him the stuff to do it no. you fix problems not watch them get worse. its like watching a leaking pipe you watch a little water trickle out do you fix it then or let it turn into a flood?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

i already answered this but here you go

 

well if i was kill my inocent civilions i suppose i would handle it the same way has suddan. but if he wasnt killing inocent people i would understand your point on anti war.

 

 

 

But since he has used womd on his own people something must be done. its kind of like if bush set off a nuke in the middle of new york city. would that be ok with you???

 

 

 

We sold him the weapons so now we are cleaning up our mess The us created? should we just let him keep killing people when we gave him the stuff to do it no. you fix problems not watch them get worse. its like watching a leaking pipe you watch a little water trickle out do you fix it then or let it turn into a flood?

I love how you advocate the Nazi reasoning of pre-emptive war that was condemned by the world around 50 years ago.

 

Bush couldn't prove the case to the international community because Saddam doesn't have weapons. What about Pinochet? He killed hundreds of thousands Argentinians but wait wait wait...oh yeah, the US put him into power. Or what about Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia...oh wait, the US and Bechtel helped him to privatize the water supply and gave him the weapons to shoot protesters when they protested the price of water going up 300% (3 times their average yearly wage for 1 month worth of water). Or what about Pol Pot who killed millions of Cambodians? Or how about the Turks slaughtering our "good buddies" the Kurds? Or what about the Israeli Defense Force bulldozing Palestinian homes and running over pro-Palestinian activists with a bulldozer?

 

Why invade Iraq when we have and continue to sit idly by in cases of human rights abuses like these, not even mentioning the multitude in Colombia....but our foreign aid to Colombia grows larger every year and so do the amount of their human rights abuses. Trust me, anything Colombia does puts Saddam to shame.

[doubleM23]

Good to hear from you again, apu

[soxfan420]

not really the jews where completly inocent just like the iraqi people

[soxfan420]

the world isnt perfect but you gotta start somewhere

[soxfan420]

Good to hear from you again, apu

im sure it is he is alot better at debating than you double

[doubleM23]

Good to hear from you again, apu  

im sure it is he is alot better at debating than you double

Yes he is... He's way more informed than I am.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

not really the jews where completly inocent just like the iraqi people

Their claims of pre-emptive war were not excusing their murder of the Jews...but it was their reasoning for plundering Poland, et al. the lands they conquered saying "If we didn't attack, they might have attacked us sooner or later".

[soxfan420]

not really the jews where completly inocent just like the iraqi people

Their claims of pre-emptive war were not excusing their murder of the Jews...but it was their reasoning for plundering Poland, et al. the lands they conquered saying "If we didn't attack, they might have attacked us sooner or later".

we are not doing this in fear of being attacked we are doing this to save the iraqi people from him

 

 

also are you saying that if hitler didnt attack polland it would not have been stopped ?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

we are not doing this in fear of being attacked we are doing this to save the iraqi people from him

 

 

also are you saying that if hitler didnt attack polland it would not have been stopped ?

I am just saying the reasoning the Nazis gave during the Nuremburg tribunals...it was their logic, not mine. They were trying to justify their imperialism and at the same time try to make themselve look a bit more blameless.

 

We've said that we are fearful that he'll sell weapons and the such. The Bush administration has said numerous times that we are doing this for "homeland security purposes".

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This is terrorism:

 

 

 

This is "Shock and Awe":

 

 

 

Or is it the other way around....I can't see a difference, I'm confused.

[CubKilla]

I can't see a difference, I'm confused.

Figures you would be. But the big difference is that one is a military target and the other is civilian..... attacked because what it stood for. This post should prove to most on this site that you are not worth the time some of us spend on you.

 

And with that last post, I'm done with you. Even Iraqi TV has yet to report one civilian casualty as a result of the war. To compare what were doing in Iraq..... precision bombing of governmental security and military installations with hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC, which was filled with civilians..... is beyond good taste. Have a good life. The remainder of the bulls*** you post on this page will be quickly glanced over by me just to get to the next post. If you are a History major and you plan on teaching your f***ed up politics to young minds, then I weep for the future.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Figures you would be. But the big difference is that one is a military target and the other is civilian..... attacked because what it stood for. This post should prove to most on this site that you are not worth the time some of us spend on you.

 

And with that last post, I'm done with you. Even Iraqi TV has yet to report one civilian casualty as a result of the war. To compare what were doing in Iraq..... precision bombing of governmental security and military installations with hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC, which was filled with civilians..... is beyond good taste. Have a good life. The remainder of the bulls*** you post on this page will be quickly glanced over by me just to get to the next post. If you are a History major and you plan on teaching your f***ed up politics to young minds, then I weep for the future.

I never claimed that it was innocent Iraqis being slaughtered (in the photo). I was making reference to the families of the troops and such that have paid the ultimate price. I believe the total is up to 23 or so now from my last count.

 

These people weren't gung ho "Let's go slaughter the Iraqis!" Many were in it for the educational benefits and didn't expect that our West Texas jackass would have such piss poor diplomacy skills to get us involved in a war.

 

These families didn't expect their children to go into war and lose their children because of our moronic chickenhawk "president". That is terrorism. This war has destroyed the lives of the troops lost and decimated the families of our own troops...let alone the Iraqi families of troops we have killed. Rampant death and destruction and the horror it leaves is always terrorism, no matter what the cause of it. It's all human life.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm sorry, but anyone that is fighting for Iraq has problems. They are fighting for a dictator that murders his people, doesn't allow them to make money, and doesn't allow them to be free or have any what of a free opinion.

 

I thank my lucky stars that I live in this great country and I hope one day everyone can experience the great freedoms we have here.

 

As a matter of fact, I'd think this would be one of those things that people against war would be for, because we are getting rid of something that is the exact opposite of peaceful. Even if they weren't ever going to attack the US, the atrocities that regime pulled on its own people was worth the US and other countries getting involved.

 

To be honest, the next step in my opinion should be Africa, as that is a really sad situation. Those people were basically raped for 300 years during the colonization and then the slave trade and everything else. It put them back so many years as they never were able to industrialize, etc. Its really amazing how far back that part of the world is than anyone else.

 

All I know, is this war to liberate people that have only dealt with atrocities and the lack of freedom their entire lives is well worth it. This is a war that will allow others the freedoms that all of us enjoy, even those couple people from Canada (Matt and Kipster) cause they got it real good too up there.

 

I'm proud America is standing up, even if France doesn't think this is a worthy cause or if the protesters don't. I hope one day those that are against this simply because they think Bush is finishing something his dad started or just hate Bush will realize this was the right thing. In hindsight I could be wrong, but I honestly believe in what this country stands for and I think other people should have that right. God forbid I was born and had to live in a country like that where I could say what I want, do what I want or think what I'd want.

 

I'd rather be completely poor and free, then have to suffer every day of my life being poor and handcuffed.

[cwsox]

Jason, I would suspect that people fighting for Iraq include people fighitng for their country against an invading force. People may have all kinds of views of who their government is, yet kind of be ticked at other nations' troops invading and bombing their country. A strong caution is never to apply to others what one would presume their motives to be because of one's own position.

 

And knowing you as I have had the good fortune to do, I read you post knowing the innate goodness of your heart. If the desire to liberate were only so. If Reagan and Bush 1 and Rumsfeld and Dole and all of those of two Republican administrations had never supplied Saddam with arms and coddled him because of short term and short sighted policy goals fropm 1981-1990. But the ifs don't make it so.

 

This action has many motivations, all of them short shorted which will boomerang on this nation just as all the prior short sighted policy aims have, and the motives are not pure. This action by this administration is not worthy of someone with as good of a heart as you - by which I mean, to be clear, in a very real sense this war policy is a betrayal of people of pure intent as you are.

 

Interesting article is here, which suggests some of the motivations that lie behind what is happening:

 

 

 

why some want total war

[Spiff]

Figures you would be. But the big difference is that one is a military target and the other is civilian..... attacked because what it stood for. This post should prove to most on this site that you are not worth the time some of us spend on you.

 

And with that last post, I'm done with you. Even Iraqi TV has yet to report one civilian casualty as a result of the war. To compare what were doing in Iraq..... precision bombing of governmental security and military installations with hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC, which was filled with civilians..... is beyond good taste. Have a good life. The remainder of the bulls*** you post on this page will be quickly glanced over by me just to get to the next post. If you are a History major and you plan on teaching your f***ed up politics to young minds, then I weep for the future.

i echo that.