»

[Pu the Owl]

Originally posted by Preventer Wind
Oh and Rei you put down a couple of your anti-war supporters with that Academy Awards statement....

I guess she only wanted to underline an hypocritical attitude, not the event in itself. The kind of attitude that says "We're all concerned, but we keep on living our lives looking at glittery faces and worrying about our usual cheap values".

I have many doubts about the fact lives won't be wasted or that terrorism will be weakened. When it comes to these things, you can't really tell. Even if lives will be ruined, do you think the media will show anything to us, to make us blame the madness of the world's leaders? Of course not. If you control the media, you can give a new shape to events. Probably, terrorism won't be weakened at all, by this kind of action. If possible, it'll grow stronger. I agree that this war is definitely not against terrorists. For taking care of terrorism, there's no need to go and nuke a whole country, I suppose.

[Spank-A-Thon]

Originally posted by Preventer Wind

People do you not see what you have said? Yes, war is wrong, killing is wrong, stealing is wrong. But do you not know what these terrorists do? Not just to Americans but to their own country people! I think the war is one that is needed, but this might be the worst time for a war since WWII, at least for America. Our economy is in terrible shape, compared to a couple years ago. But look around at other countries and tell me if you can find 2 better off? It is not like it is that bad.

Preventer, there have been many cases of dictators performing terrible acts against their own countrymen. Take Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe for example - I don't see Bush or Blair rushing off to dispose him, yet he is gulity of inhumane acts against his own people.

Sadam should have been taken care of a while back. For those that think war has been the only attempt at killing him you are wrong. You don't think his own people have tried to kill him? He is getting old and will die soon according to research. I am afraid he might want to go out with a bang.

It was said that the British SAS was within striking distance of Hussein during the last Gulf War, but were ordered not to assasinate him. If they can do it once, they can do it again. Why not give the UN another 40 days or so? I can't see how he can be anymore of a threat in 40 days time. At least with UN backing the world will not see it as Blair & Bush going it alone.

Another thing that makes me sick is that everybody is pinning this thing on Bush and Blair. This is not a dictatorship; they are not the only ones that make decisions in their respective countries.

Bush and Blair ultimately have the power in their countries - they are the decision makers. They have chosen to ignore the UN, and chosen to ignore their country. In a recent Gallup poll, more than half of the UK population are against war in this way.

And I don't want to hear, "I've got a relative that is in the army. He could die.". I feel sorry for that person only if he or she was FORCED to join a service. Which, even then, is impossible. They joined knowing full right that they COULD die. Chances are not likely though. Given that a nuke would be one of the only ways to die, and that right there justifies the war. Give a mad man some toys and he will want to play.

I really don't care if that is cruel. It is how I feel.

That is quite possibly one of the most insensitive things I have ever heard... Being in Her Majesty's Armed Forces is my brothers job, and yes - both we and he realise it is a job he could be killed by.

But if my brother's life is to be lost in a war, at least let that war be a moral, and justifiable war - not that utter farce that this current situation is shaping up to be.

If war is the final option then I will support it. I'm not one of these tree-hugging hippies who preach about peace all the time. It's just that I do not believe that every option has been explored. It Blair/Bush would agree to a further 40 days or something then I would support whatever actions they then decide to take - but right now I can't.

Tony Blair said it's a moral crusade to rid the world of a madman - but if the war goes ahead, we may well be rid of a madman... but we'lll still have 2 left.

- S

[XxmandykissezxX]

I'm not the type of person who should be all excited about this upcoming war, but for the first time..I actually agree with President Bush's decision. Yes, innocent lives will be lost...but it will be for a good cause. We shouldn't live our lives in fear. Sadam needs to be stopped, this has been going on long enough.

[Daniel Legge]

Originally posted by Spank-A-Thon

For those of you who know my more serious posts, I have a confession - I was wrong....

At first I was for the war, but then I researched things so I could make my own informed decision. I'm very disappointed at what has transpired.

The UN is now nothing more than a shambles. Bush and Blair have totally disregarded the rules and are now playing their own game.

There is no doubt that Hussain is an evil man, but he can be removed by other means than war. I simply do not believe they have explored all options. He is not going to be more of a threat in X amount of days.

At least during the previous Gulf War there was a valid reason (the invasion of Kuwait), this time I'm not so sure.

'War on Terrorism' is not a reason. For startes, Saddam is a completely different type of Muslim to Al Qu'ada. He has made NO aggresive moves towards other nations. Hell, North Korea are more of a threat right now.

I'm all for removing Hussain from a position of power, but war is not the answer. My brother is in the British Army, he's a Tank Commander, and he will be sent once it kicks off. My brother could die in Iraq - I don't want that to happen.

I have never trusted Blair... This truly is a sad day in my relatively short life...

- S

my bruv is in the birtish army, if there is a war he wont be sent in straight away but if it goes on for a while then he cud well be in Iraq to i know how u feel.....

[ssjtrunks13]

Originally posted by XxmandykissezxX

I'm not the type of person who should be all excited about this upcoming war, but for the first time..I actually agree with President Bush's decision. Yes, innocent lives will be lost...but it will be for a good cause. We shouldn't live our lives in fear. Sadam needs to be stopped, this has been going on long enough.

I agree with you, but I also agree somewhat with the other people. Personally I think the last election here in the US had two people that none of the voters really wanted to be president, but they somehow had to pick one of them. It also doesn't really matter to me if we go to war or not, but I feel maybe I'll have to choose or maybe not. The future is unceratin and it is uncertain that we might be bombed with somethin', all I know is anything is possible. The school I go to has demonstrated today what will happen if that ever does occur, does anyone else go to school that has taken safety precautions in case we get bombed during school? or has anyone else heard about this possibility? I'm just curious to know.

[Preventer Wind]

Originally posted by Spank-A-Thon
It was said that the British SAS was within striking distance of Hussein during the last Gulf War, but were ordered not to assasinate him. If they can do it once, they can do it again. Why not give the UN another 40 days or so? I can't see how he can be anymore of a threat in 40 days time. At least with UN backing the world will not see it as Blair & Bush going it alone.

Another 40 days! How many 40 days does he get!? The UN is weak as it is because it has no army to stop countries with in it. Giving another 40 days gives Sadam more time to hide his weapons or to strengthen his defenses or to come up with some crazy plan. Maybe in that time North Korea or some other country joins them.

If they truly were in striking distance and had a legitimate chance then I see no reason why they couldn't do it again. But reporting about it makes it hard for me to believe.

That is quite possibly one of the most insensitive things I have ever heard... Being in Her Majesty's Armed Forces is my brothers job, and yes - both we and he realize it is a job he could be killed by.

But if my brother's life is to be lost in a war, at least let that war be a moral, and justifiable war - not that utter farce that this current situation is shaping up to be.

I don't care if it is insensitive. Why should I be sensitive to a killing machine? After all some of them like to be called that. My point is that they took a pledge to kill when they were told where they are told to do it and with what they should do it. Maybe not to those exact words but what I am saying is that person had a choice as to what they wanted to do and they chose to join the military knowing (I hope) the consequences of what could happen. My Grandfather was in the Army for the Korean War and the Vietnam War. My dad was in the Navy, my brother joined the army for a brief time, and my Uncle is in the Air Force. If you think I am being insensitive because I have no one that is or has been in the military then I guess you know now.

Originally posted by Fortune
guess she only wanted to underline an hypocritical attitude, not the event in itself. The kind of attitude that says "We're all concerned, but we keep on living our lives looking at glittery faces and worrying about our usual cheap values".

I know what she meant. I just wanted to point out that some other anti-war people have different views on how to go about this. Like the MLB and NCAA are thinking of delaying the start of the NCAA tourney and opening day (Though a pole on ESPN.com said that about 75% of the people who voted did not want to see the tourney delayed. Might have reached a decision by now.)

I have many doubts about the fact lives won't be wasted or that terrorism will be weakened. When it comes to these things, you can't really tell. Even if lives will be ruined, do you think the media will show anything to us, to make us blame the madness of the world's leaders? Of course not. If you control the media, you can give a new shape to events. Probably, terrorism won't be weakened at all, by this kind of action. If possible, it'll grow stronger. I agree that this war is definitely not against terrorists. For taking care of terrorism, there's no need to go and nuke a whole country, I suppose.

Lives are not wasted unless it is abortion... It will just take a lot of deaths to make people see that this is not a good idea. The media wont show it but there are rumors that Sadam has a group dressed like the American army that are supposed to kill civilians while someone tapes it. That is sickening.

Who exactly are we fighting then? I guess you can call it an organized army. But we are still fighting terrorists. Does it take another 9/11 to change people's opinions? Because you know that stuff happens all the time around the world and even in the US every day, only on smaller scales.

[Vicious_2003]

Well i tend to disagree with all of you on a regular basis and it hasn't changed on this subject. Why all the emphasis on how much you "HATE" Bush. He is our fu*ing PRESIDENT people. Show some respect !. We (American Citizens) elected him for Christ sakes (Thats only for the US citizens here). Why dont we talk about how sadistic Saddam is or how shitty the situation is for the citizens of the middle east every day due to thier lack of governmental intervention. The way I see it If you hate the leader of this country then you know where the door is find a better country to live in. Go live under a monarchy or something !. I agree the situation in iraq isnt as urgent as the American government would like you to believe but there is a situation and why not deal with it. lets face it weapons inspectors are a joke. they see only what Saddam wants them to see. And you talk about the US undermining the U.N. Pfff please the U.N is a joke. And its been made a Joke by corrupt deals between countries like France , Russia, and Im sure the U.S and many other countries. Bottom line is Germany would Veto anything that endangered thier billions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. So nothing good is going to come from the U.N beside half assed Resolutions that dont do enough for the people of the middle east. I know people whove served and been stationed in Iraq in the past. They said the conditions are deplorable, the bulk of their people dont have enough food to eat. They had Iraqi soldiers that switched sides when they were offered food !. The people of the middle east live like shit, they dont know it really becasue theyve never tasted anything better but the bottom line is they have a governement that allows thier people to live the way they do and who also oppresses them. There are many reason to invade iraq, pick one and be content. Weather its oil, freeing thier people, Fighting terrorism, the list goes on and on and on. The end justifies the means . This whole idea of doing the hip thing and over promoting peace and love is redicoulous where do these people live, clearly not in the real world. All I hear is oh im not anti war im not anti Bush im just pro peace. I say who the hells not Pro Peace !?. We all want peace. How about the afghani women whos struggling to provide for 5 shilderen in a society that oppresses her and takes her rights, think she wants peace ?. I bet she does and it will NEVER happen with Saddam in power

[BlackThornn]

"We" HATE Bush because he stole the presidency! He committed heinous voter tampering in Florida and EXPLOITED the Electoral College system so that his arse could sit in Gore's House! He is an evil bastard who has made a mockery of our country, burned bridges to old allies, and increased the hatred directed at us from other nations in the world. And that's not even to mention what he's let the economy turn into, and the fact that he is an utter moron in the first place! He scored 600 cumulative on his SATs! That's tantamount to having a big sign over his head with an arrow pointing down that says "IDJIT!"!

Nobody has to like Bush's smirky arse to be patriotic, just like they don't have to be 'God fearin' christians' to be as much.

I will not respect an american president who said upon learning that there was a web site making fun of him "There should be limits to freedom" and has appointed fascist beasts to the huge Orwellian organization of Homeland Security to strip away our rights to privacy and nonviolent dissent!

And France, Russia, and Germany might be a bunch of stubborn buggers, but our government is making fools out of us by devoting attention to RENAMING FOODS IN THE CAFETERIA! These dumb shytes should be concentrating on repairing the economy and/or finding another route to peace other than WAR not sanctioned by the UN! If we had some people actually TALENTED with political manuvering we could have manipulated UN resolution voting to give another 40 days then go into Iraq ACTUALLY looking like riteous liberators, not totalitarian warmongers! Bush's obsession with Iraq (Iraq's been there for 12 years with no major invasions taking place, then alluva sudden Bush takes power and his spidey senses tell him that Saddam's up to something) is going to get more americans killed both in the War itself and afterwards when a bunch of pissed off Islamic fanatics join up with Al Quaeda like organizations to kill more innocents.

I don't care if it is insensitive. Why should I be sensitive to a killing machine? After all some of them like to be called that. My point is that they took a pledge to kill when they were told where they are told to do it and with what they should do it. Maybe not to those exact words but what I am saying is that person had a choice as to what they wanted to do and they chose to join the military knowing (I hope) the consequences of what could happen. My Grandfather was in the Army for the Korean War and the Vietnam War. My dad was in the Navy, my brother joined the army for a brief time, and my Uncle is in the Air Force. If you think I am being insensitive because I have no one that is or has been in the military then I guess you know now.

Alright, slingblade. LISTEN UP. Soldiers are soldiers, very few of them are "killing machines" who enjoy slaughtering people in wars that are in NO WAY JUSTIFIABLE OR NOBLE! I have friends who joined up with the Army after 9/11 so they could DEFEND THE COUNTRY, not kill a country that is over 50 percent children! They took a job where they RISK DYING then they should RISK DYING for something more than OIL INTERESTS and an idiot president's obsession! Bugger your insensitivity, you're being stupid.

[ssjtrunks13]

All I know is if it does come to war then go ahead, but if we can avoid it even better.

[Harry]

I'd like to write a long, good post here, but I've seen many of you wrote the things I wanted to write.

So, here are just random throughts. You can't fight terrorism with terrorism. History teaches that you can't export democracy with war; it never worked. Believing that Bush (but more than Bush, all the men and powers he represents) is going to start a war that will cost 200 billion dollars (or even more) for the only interest of bringing democracy to Iraq is naive. Believing that a war against Iraq will stop terrorism is even more naive: sorry, no, it will not save your from fear. After the attack, I think fear will grow bigger and bigger in the next days, months, years and decades.

And I'd like to express all my appreciation for the Pope. No, I'm not catholic, but in these days, this old Man has the stature of a tragic hero. A Man who says that this war will be a "crime", a "defeat for mankind", something "neither morally nor legally justified", a Man that says "never again war" has all my love and respect.

I don't like Saddam, but I also don't like Bush. I don't like the lack of respect for countries like France and Germany. I don't like this war that stinks like a big mountain of shit in the heat of summer.

[Infernal Mass]

it's amusing the way some on the left act as though France is motivated by purely humanitarian considerations. France and Russia were the two major powers responsible for the breakdown of the previous inspection regime and are two of the leading oppositionists to forcible regime-change in Iraq.

Both are motivated, in significant part, by commercial considerations.

Part of me would love to see a future free Iraq rescind all oil development contracts with French firms and repudiate all debt owed to France. The cheese-eating surrender-monkeys deserve no less.


On another note..

Did anyone else read the news when many of these vaunted human shields decided to leave Iraq when it seemed like they may actually be used as human shields. Didn't it occur to this band of leftwingers that the Iraqi regime would more than welcome the opportunity to take advantage of them? Lenin had a term for leftwingers in the West who dissimulated for the USSR. He called them " useful idiots. " That term applies here as well.

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Anti-war 'shields' in Iraq go home

By Philip Sherwell
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

Published March 2, 2003

BAGHDAD — Almost all the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home yesterday after deciding that their much-heralded task is now too dangerous.

Two red double-decker buses, which symbolized the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity two weeks ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain, carrying most of the 11 protesters with them.

Nine out of the 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials yesterday to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Two left immediately by taxi, and six more were on the buses last night, bound initially for Syria.

Among those departing yesterday was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, who received an emotional farewell from workers at the Baghdad power plant where he has slept for the past week.

Mr. Meynell, a former high sheriff of Derbyshire,said he was leaving out of "cold fear." He had been summoned, along with 200 other shields from all over the world, to a meeting at a Baghdad hotel yesterday morning. Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organization that is officially host to the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or leave the country.

The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam's officials that about 65 of the volunteers had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts.

It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Mr. Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find that it stood next to an army base and the strategically crucial road south to Basra.

Many shields had earlier asked to be stationed at sites such as schools, hospitals or orphanages, but Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding low-risk targets in any aerial assault.

Iraq's decision to force the pace was welcomed by some of those remaining in Baghdad. "It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a British college teacher who is one of the team leaders. "We've come here as shields to defend sites, and now the Iraqis are asking us to make our choice."

Pentagon officials have said that in the event of war the United States could not be deterred from attacking militarily significant sites by the presence of human shields. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the deliberate use of human shields by Iraqi officials would be grounds for war-crimes prosecution.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved

DigiMortal

- Here's something to ponder. When Iraq is liberated and a fuller picture of the Baathist regime's crimes against Iraqis are revealed, will the leftwing-doves feel even a bit of shame for being so stridently opposed to military action in Iraq? They're standing on the wrong side of history and, in my view, will be judged harshly in the future.

[Preventer Wind]

I, personally, do not like to talk bad about other countries because when most people do they talk about the country as a whole and not just that country's government or their leaders. But, in my opinion, France has been the worst "allied" country the last 100 years.

Now back to the war.....

I am glad to see some people actually agree with me (Even if it is just in part)

Originally posted by BlackThornn
Alright, slingblade. LISTEN UP. Soldiers are soldiers, very few of them are "killing machines" who enjoy slaughtering people in wars that are in NO WAY JUSTIFIABLE OR NOBLE! I have friends who joined up with the Army after 9/11 so they could DEFEND THE COUNTRY, not kill a country that is over 50 percent children! They took a job where they RISK DYING then they should RISK DYING for something more than OIL INTERESTS and an idiot president's obsession! Bugger your insensitivity, you're being stupid.

No, you listen up. I told you already what a soldier is. He is meant for killing. Yes they are meant to protect the interest of their country but it is THEIR OWN CHOICE FOR BEING THERE! By joining the millitary their only choices are to run away or do as they are told. And if they are told that they have to go fight then THEY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY AGREED TO DO NO MATTER THE CAUSE! Maybe it is to harsh for you to believe that but it is the truth. Maybe they aren't killing machines but they certainly are not pacifists! I have the highest respect for the men and women of the armed forces. They do a job that requires an insane amount of pressure. But do you hear them complaining about going to war? NO! Because they know it is their job. They are the armed forces. If they all walked out do you think we would go to war then?

We" HATE Bush because he stole the presidency! He committed heinous voter tampering in Florida and EXPLOITED the Electoral College system so that his arse could sit in Gore's House! He is an evil bastard who has made a mockery of our country, burned bridges to old allies, and increased the hatred directed at us from other nations in the world. And that's not even to mention what he's let the economy turn into, and the fact that he is an utter moron in the first place! He scored 600 cumulative on his SATs! That's tantamount to having a big sign over his head with an arrow pointing down that says "IDJIT!"!

You know what, SHUT UP! I would never vote for Bush but he was elected president! I do not care about this conspiracy thing. You people would be saying the same thing if Gore were president. Maybe he would not have gone to war this quickly but it still would have happened. Gore didn't carry his home state where he was in office for a while. It was a controversy either way it could have come out. I would much rather see Colin Powell as president or even Bill Clinton. But he is the president. Most everybody thought he was going to be a good president after his first year in office. And now that stuff has happened in which he has had little direct involvement in you people bite his head off. Sure he has called for the war but you know that a lot of OTHER PEOPLE had to influence his decision and AGREE with him.

And France, Russia, and Germany might be a bunch of stubborn buggers, but our government is making fools out of us by devoting attention to RENAMING FOODS IN THE CAFETERIA! These dumb shytes should be concentrating on repairing the economy and/or finding another route to peace other than WAR not sanctioned by the UN! If we had some people actually TALENTED with political manuvering we could have manipulated UN resolution voting to give another 40 days then go into Iraq ACTUALLY looking like riteous liberators, not totalitarian warmongers! Bush's obsession with Iraq (Iraq's been there for 12 years with no major invasions taking place, then alluva sudden Bush takes power and his spidey senses tell him that Saddam's up to something) is going to get more americans killed both in the War itself and afterwards when a bunch of pissed off Islamic fanatics join up with Al Quaeda like organizations to kill more innocents.

OK, now you have gone too far. What makes you think that by waiting 40 more days we would look like RIGHTEOUS LIBERATORS? That is going against everything you are saying. What difference is there in time over the righteousness of the war? More time given to Iraq will only give more time for Iraq to get themselves in position to do more harm. And if you think the UN has not already been manipulated then you should open your eyes.

If Bush has an obsession with Iraq then that is his problem. Do you know the US was close to going to war with Iraq in the mid-late 90s? Saddam's been up to something ever since he could walk and it is sad that brothers and sisters of fellow citizens have to suffer because they can not leave that place of terror!

And do not get into finances. This war will cost a lot of money and it will take lives. But do you really have to put a price on freedom? Maybe it is not your freedom but I think it is damn well worth for other people's freedom. Are you people really that selfish that you can only think of your freedom? Something that most of us have not earned and will never earn. The greatest gift I have been given is the chance to be able to live in a place where I can dream about things that actually have a chance at happening because I live in the U.S.A. If you people do not want other people to have that same opportunity then go on with your beliefs. But I ask you to think about what video game you played or what book you read or whom you talked to or how your day at school went. Think hard then ask yourself if you could imagine a life without video games or books or education. Then tell me if you still believe in freedom.

[Vicious_2003]

Bush tampered with the votes ?. LOL. Wow people come up with some crazy completely curcumstantial unproven bull*it sometimes to try and prove thier point. The office of president in the united states DEMANDS a certain amount of respect. You dont have to like the man but for crying out loud you cant call yourself patriotic and say you "HATE" (A VERY powerful and negative word) our President and dont support our efforts in war. If someone says that to me out loud Im gonna speak up and let them know that there are other countries to live in . Being patriotic isnt just saying god bless america and having flag. You think you can go around speaking all this TOTALLY anti american shit and still call yourself very patriotic ?!. Give me a break . Theres no pleasing some people. And I for one would rather have our generation deal with the problem in the middle east then have My childeren deal with it in the future or thier childeren. Its as simple as a large population living under an oppresive government and it flat out isnt right. Then you throw in all the extras, unfair oil exportation policys, Possible terrorist links, etc. War is neccesary. I know MTV and alotta rock stars have turned rebelling against your governement and promoting nothing but peace into the hip new thing to do but really people open your eyes and stop making completely unproven claims about the Commander in Cheif Mr. George W Bush . (By the way I am not the biggest Bush fan either but I have a patriotic respect for a man who leads my country, its about respect and clearly many of you have NONE

[BlackThornn]

Originally posted by DigiMortal

it's amusing the way some on the left act as though France is motivated by purely humanitarian considerations. France and Russia were the two major powers responsible for the breakdown of the previous inspection regime and are two of the leading oppositionists to forcible regime-change in Iraq.

- Here's something to ponder. When Iraq is liberated and a fuller picture of the Baathist regime's crimes against Iraqis are revealed, will the leftwing-doves feel even a bit of shame for being so stridently opposed to military action in Iraq? They're standing on the wrong side of history and, in my view, will be judged harshly in the future.

Most of us know that Russia and France are motivated by thier own reasons and were being unreasonable, greedy wankers. Infact I've yet to encounter one person who says or acts like France was motivated by purely humanitarian reasons.

The point is that a UN resolution where the war with Iraq was sanctioned could have been reached if the current administration had any political ability at all. Appearing as the patient peacekeeper is much better than appearing a vengeful, raging, blind giant (or worse yet, the tool of a foolish usurper pulling a nation in a direction it doesn't want to go). War is supposed to be a final resort, not a first option. If this were another two months down the line and we willingly had given Iraq another 60 days to comply and disarm completely, and we simply requested more stringent inspection methods from the UN until then, then we would have likely gone in with a lot more support, even IF France and Russia had used thier vetoes.

And the only way I see proponents of peace and/or those against Bush's personal manuvering of the US military (not to mention his constant political blundering) being viewed harshly in the future is if they turn into the kind of hippie idiots seen during Vietnam and start sending hate messages and throwing dog **** onto the soldiers themselves. 'Cause as any reasonable person with an understanding of what Duty is knows that's pointless.

Bush tampered with the votes ?. LOL. Wow people come up with some crazy completely curcumstantial unproven bull*it sometimes to try and prove thier point.

Yah, it's pure circumstance, that dade county incident, with thousands of ballots going missing and that farce of a recount. Jeb Bush manipulated that whole damn state for his brother's ends, just 'cause there isn't enough evidence to convict in a court of law (meaning to prove beyond any reasonable doubt) doesn't mean it ain't true.

You dont have to like the man but for crying out loud you cant call yourself patriotic and say you "HATE" (A VERY powerful and negative word) our President and dont support our efforts in war. If someone says that to me out loud Im gonna speak up and let them know that there are other countries to live in .

Yah. Okay, sheep. I'm gonna go live in another country because I use my right to free speech to say I hate a person who has stolen the highest office in the land and sent thousands of citizens off to a war to kill and die for a short-sighted and greedy cause. And if I say that next to you and speak aloud what other countries there would be to live in I'd knock you into one of 'em. Freedom is what this country is about son. Freedom to speak one's mind about matters of policy and to even hate the president. You nor anyone else has the right to impose a will of silence upon us.

You think you can go around speaking all this TOTALLY anti american shit and still call yourself very patriotic ?!.

Yah. 'Cause peace is not unpatriotic. Being against an unnecessary war is not unpatriotic. This is not a dictatorship, you are allowed to disagree. Oh, by the way, did you see the quote I put up earlier? Here it is again.

"Of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from "Nuremberg Diary" by G M Gilbert.

Seem familiar? Hmm?

I do not respect a man who says there should be limits to freedom, but leads the bastion of freedom and democracy in this world. I'm just sorry that the only thing that has come close to taking him out of this country and this planet's hair has been a BAG OF ROLD GOLDS.

[Spank-A-Thon]

Originally posted by Preventer Wind

If Bush has an obsession with Iraq then that is his problem. Do you know the US was close to going to war with Iraq in the mid-late 90s? Saddam's been up to something ever since he could walk and it is sad that brothers and sisters of fellow citizens have to suffer because they can not leave that place of terror!

You know Preventer, you have still yet to answer my question. If Bush & Blair are strictly approaching this from a humanitarian perspective, then why haven't they gone after Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? If it's about weapons of mass destruction, why haven't they gone after Kim Jong Il of North Korea?

If it's because of Iraq not complying with UN Directives, then why are the US (and the West in general) continuing to assist Israel? Israel were ordered 30 years ago by the UN to withdraw from Paletinian terrority - yet still haven't...

There is no doubt in my mind that removing Saddam is a good thing - but the means by which it is done is wrong.

This war is about oil first and foremost. France don't want to get involved because they'll jeopardise their oil contract with Iraq. The US and UK want to fight in order to 'modernise' the oil fields, and incidentally embed a new more 'West-friendly' regime.

Preventer, as I have said, if war is the only option then I will support it - but in no way has every option been explored.

- S

[Hero]

I agree Harry. I am Catholic, and from my Priest I had learned that there is always an alternative path to resolving your issues.

Watching movies like We Were Soldiers and Gangs of New York showed me two things. The first thing is, issues that we, in this time, feel are important, in due time will be long forgotten, and the key figures that played parts in those issues and conflicts will also be forgotten. America has seemed to misplace what they used to think was the only reason to fight. Happiness. America believed that fighting was necessary during times when another country's actions are preventing you from being free and happy.

My grandfather fought in Vietnam, and no matter how many times he used to tell me stories when I was young, the one thing I always remember him saying to me was... "You have no idea how painful it is to look into the eyes of another man, when you take his life... At that moment, you realize that he has family and friends just like you do. You realize that the tears that his family and friends will shed from his death, would have also been shed for you." He personally heard the stories from prisoner's of war of the otherside, saying that America didn't give them the chance they needed to take control of their own country. He told me that his wish from life was that he would die, forgetting the painful memories of the war. How they ran their government was not our business, and all we did was create more widows and ghosts.

War is painful for everyone, and there is never a need for it. Cry all you want about terrorism and unresolved issues, but the bottom line is that it's just one power hungry politician trying to flex his arm over another.

In war, pain and death, our skin color and nationality don't change the stain of blood or the shed of tears.

[Harry]

Originally posted by Preventer Wind
And do not get into finances. This war will cost a lot of money and it will take lives. But do you really have to put a price on freedom? Maybe it is not your freedom but I think it is damn well worth for other people's freedom. Are you people really that selfish that you can only think of your freedom? Something that most of us have not earned and will never earn. The greatest gift I have been given is the chance to be able to live in a place where I can dream about things that actually have a chance at happening because I live in the U.S.A. If you people do not want other people to have that same opportunity then go on with your beliefs. But I ask you to think about what video game you played or what book you read or whom you talked to or how your day at school went. Think hard then ask yourself if you could imagine a life without video games or books or education. Then tell me if you still believe in freedom.

We are not "getting into finances". I was highlighting the fact that when a country is going to spend 200 billion dollars, when the guide of this country is a president like Mr.Bush who inevitably represents the interests of big industrialists including oil barons and military industry, there is always much more than humanitarism at stake. And what Spank-A-thon said is one of the most evident proofs of this:

If Bush & Blair are strictly approaching this from a humanitarian perspective, then why haven't they gone after Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? If it's about weapons of mass destruction, why haven't they gone after Kim Jong Il of North Korea?

And yes, in U.S.A. you have freedom, lot of it, but U.S. is also one of the few big Western countries in the world WITHOUT a real social security system, and one of the countries where the differences between rich people and poor people is more striking. Don't you think 200 billions of your dollars might have been spent to FINALLY plan and create a better social security system? Is it freedom when only people who can afford health insurance and who are lucky enough to be eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare can assure them and their femilies the medical treatment they might need?

Sure, U.S.A. are a great country, but people who really love their country shouldn't accept blindly the words and decisions of their president. Bush is not god, you know.

A last thing: a phrase like "The cheese-eating surrender-monkeys deserve no less" is more than childish. Did someone lobotomize you? What's wrong with cheese? What's wrong with monkeys? Would you like being called "hotdog-eating warmonger-monkey"? Nobody is insulting American people, nobody is insulting Iraqi, nobody is insulting you. Who gives you the right to say things like this? What about the French people in the forums?

America was built on the blood of the English, the Italians, the Germans, the Irish, the French: don't forget this. And do you understand that nations have their right to say "No" to the U.S.A.? Like the U.S.A., France made terrible errors in the XXI century - first and foremost the war in Algeria - and now you can't call them surrenders: they don't like this war, surely also for commercial reasons, but at least the French president reflects the feeling of his people, unlike what's happening in Italy or in England. France is a country that suffered like few others in the World War II, and they know better than others the horrors of war. Show some respect.

I'll personally remove all future posts containing insults against other countries and people.

Was I hard enough? Btw, less than ten hours to the attack.

[Vicious_2003]

The way i see it war IS necessary. For so many reasons that ive allready listed. And would you people get off the whole Bush stole the presidency thing !. He DID NOT steal anything he won fairly and squarely. Is i this fault that it was soo close and that people in Florida cant figure out punch cards ?. No its not. Sounds to me like a lot of you just enjoy being upset with your government. No war isn't absolutely 100% urgently necessary but I think you might feel differently if you saw how things are in Iraq. You know if we were in Iraq and we were all wealthy enough to own computers wed be fearing for our lives after having criticized Saddam !!!. Try taking your head out your and see the big picture here. PEACE is a goal here, Bush isnt just war mongering for the fun of it you dope. But the peace of the world is more important than just our peace here in the U.S or the Peace in England its about liberating an oppressed starved people. Try thinking of it in the positive sense instead of being so anti American and negative. And to whoever said that i was a sheep, your wrong. I dont go around talking good about our president all the time. I will defend the office of president in this country to a certain extent but im no sheep. I wouldn't have voted for Bush, he always seemed a bit unlearned to me. And Gore.......well I would never have voted for that robot either. But instead of whining bitching and moaning about it 24 7 ill just give him my support (Not that my support or yours is going to make a difference) . I respect everyone's right to have an opinion about the war, weather your for it or against it, there really is no right or wrong. So my word of advice to every anti American here is to try and see the bigger picture, stop crying for our soldiers (They knew war was a possibility when they signed up get over it) , and dont whine for the next 4 years about Bush .(lol I bet alot of you are from families where you all bought and hung the American flag for a month and then stopped all of a sudden) And if that dont work pull a sit-down in the street outside of a recruitment agency somewhere and ill come run your asses over . Buncha Hippies ! Oh yeah and god bless America.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally posted by Preventer Wind

I don't care if it is insensitive. Why should I be sensitive to a killing machine? After all some of them like to be called that. My point is that they took a pledge to kill when they were told where they are told to do it and with what they should do it. Maybe not to those exact words but what I am saying is that person had a choice as to what they wanted to do and they chose to join the military knowing (I hope) the consequences of what could happen. My Grandfather was in the Army for the Korean War and the Vietnam War. My dad was in the Navy, my brother joined the army for a brief time, and my Uncle is in the Air Force. If you think I am being insensitive because I have no one that is or has been in the military then I guess you know now.

Preventer, soldiers aren't just "killing machines". I understand your point that people join the military and know very well that they have to fight no matter what the cause is, but Spank and others who have loved ones going to war prefer very much if the cause was more justifiable than over a stupid reason (I think I'm repeating many people, sorry ). Maybe you're a little more realistic and patriotic when it comes to this topic, but to others they don't feel the same way. I know this one girl whose brother is stationed and ready to go to war if he's called to, but she's very upset about this because she doesn't want to lose her brother and can't stand the fact that the US has to go to war in the first place. And she's extremely religious, so...

Originally posted by Weapon_XZ84

(By the way I am not the biggest Bush fan either but I have a patriotic respect for a man who leads my country, its about respect and clearly many of you have NONE

I can see your point here, but can you really respect someone who does more harm than good to his own country? (Mind you, I'm not saying that's the case here) I know that Bush is the president and whatever decisions he makes is only for the good of the US, but what if they turn out wrong and for all the wrong reasons? How can one respect a person who leads their country into greater despair? If the result is terrible and everything is in more turmoil, I'm sure that people who followed Bush all the way would think "Hmm..maybe he should've thought about his choices more clearly". People right now are already doubting his abilities.

EDIT: Oh and after reading Weapon's recent post, let me say something: How will we know that removing Saddam will end all the terrorist actions and all that? Many believe it's because of this reason, but if so, how will we know that an even bigger threat won't come along after Saddam is gone? In the future, there may be a Saddam-like leader who's even worse...so going to war now won't change anything because it'll never end no matter how many times we go to war. It'll just be costing innocent lives.

[dan da man]

Originally posted by mark0



Wouldn't that make a great Cartoon?!

2DTV is close enuf


Only 3 more hours until war, shit man this is quick, lets just hope the evil is took out, not the innocent.