PDA

View Full Version : the march 5th national moratorium against the war


janey
Mar 4, 2003, 10:03 PM
everyone get all your friends and family members to join thousands of people nationwide as we protest the war on Iraq...war is not the answer!
refuse to go to work, walk out of school, organize protests in public areas!!!! this is your chance to speak out against the war!

http://www.nion.us/ - Not in Our Name Project

http://www.moratoriumtostopwar.org -More on the nationwide moratorium

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 4, 2003, 10:20 PM
Sorry after ignoring 17 resolutions and the UN, War is the only answer Saddam will understand. If he wont comply then war it is.

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Sorry after ignoring 17 resolutions and the UN, War is the only answer Saddam will understand. If he wont comply then war it is.
WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!
you wanna live during a nuclear winter?
you wanna die?
fine.

Kwyjibo
Mar 4, 2003, 10:29 PM
I think war is the answer we need to do something were the only country with enough guts to do anything. I'm typically liberal but i've really ocme full circle. I mean after seeing the softball Sadaam interview last week I have to ask two questions

Who would waste their time at a hippie rally agaisnt a war.

Can I get my hour back?
Why did we need only filler if you have nothing to hide why nto address the controversy..oh wait oyu can't cause your actually doing all those things ...

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
Who would waste their time at a hippie rally agaisnt a war.
I would. I respect the President, nevertheless war is NOT the answer to everything. It's not a hippie rally and the last time i checked there were thousands if not millions of people nationwide, no WORLDWIDE, who are against the war.

Kwyjibo
Mar 4, 2003, 10:40 PM
so if millions of people jump off the bridge then I should too, i think war is the answer every once in a while we need a good war to show our capabilities i'm not sure sadaam will listen.

3rdpath
Mar 4, 2003, 10:49 PM
good for you uber....do what you think is right.

check out www.moveon.org too.

MrMacMan
Mar 4, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
so if millions of people jump off the bridge then I should too, i think war is the answer every once in a while we need a good war to show our capabilities i'm not sure sadaam will listen.

That = Mass conformity.

'I Think our Military needs another battle, bigger than afganistan. LET GO AFTER IRAQ'

GEEZ do you have to go alone? NO. Not at ALL.

I don't want people to die, how about you?

And calling it hippie is just over the top, really.

Kwyjibo
Mar 4, 2003, 11:00 PM
millions of people die everyday in africa and i'm not crying for them everyday why shoudl I cry about a few hundred people that might die in this encounter. In the 1993 conflict in Somalia we lost 19 men and estimate have us killing about 1000 natives so i'm not worried about losing a fewppl. and hippies is justifed

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
so if millions of people jump off the bridge then I should too, i think war is the answer every once in a while we need a good war to show our capabilities i'm not sure sadaam will listen.
well the majority of people worldwide don't give a damn about the war. Out of the people who do, the majority thinks that it is not the right thing to do.
I don't jump off the bridge because everyone is doing it. I protest the war because I think that no matter what no country has the right to do something like this! Why attack the whole country instead of taking down Hussein and his cohorts?
War never was and never will be the answer to anything.

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
millions of people die everyday in africa and i'm not crying for them everyday why shoudl I cry about a few hundred people that might die in this encounter. In the 1993 conflict in Somalia we lost 19 men and estimate have us killing about 1000 natives so i'm not worried about losing a fewppl. and hippies is justifed
So tell me why this country goes nuts because 6 people die in the war in Afghanistan? This country doesn't know what it means to kill people. When you kill people they DIE and you can never bring them back. You're saying that KILLING is nothing to worry about? what are you gonna say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, dying a slow painful death after saddam nukes us?

dotcomlarry
Mar 4, 2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
what are you gonna say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, dying a slow painful death after saddam nukes us?
What are you going to say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, or, say, die from some horrible chemical or biological weapon, because we didn't do anything about Saddam?

Kwyjibo
Mar 4, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
what are you gonna say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, dying a slow painful death after saddam nukes us?

if i'm disintegrating atom by atom I will begin to pray and i don't think that if i'm coming apart at the atoms I will have many concerns

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by dotcomlarry
What are you going to say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, or, say, die from some horrible chemical or biological weapon, because we didn't do anything about Saddam?
If we start the war Saddam will do it.
If we don't he might or might not.
What would you say?
Oooh a thousand people dead no big deal i don't care

Kwyjibo
Mar 4, 2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
If we don't he might or might not.

I like 'dem odds. He may or he may not wow i can goto sleep safe at night knowing that its quite possible for him to do sometihng despite no action on our part. andab out nuclear winter, in chicago were used to stron winters.

janey
Mar 4, 2003, 11:42 PM
you even know what a nuclear winter is? it doesn't snow. :rolleyes:

macfan
Mar 5, 2003, 12:27 AM
There is not going to be a nuclear war in Iraq. There is not going to be a nuclear winter. You need a whole lot of detonations to get enough debris in the air to get that effect. There were many above ground tests over the years, and there was no resulting nuclear winter. Besides, wouldn't that be a solution to global warming? ;)

"War is not the answer" is a marketing slogan if there ever was one.

Sometimes, war is the answer!

AmbitiousLemon
Mar 5, 2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Sometimes, war is the answer!

sure. sometimes war is a necessary evil. however in this case it is most certainly not the answer.

i am curious whether you have actually ever read anything about iraq the un the inspections.

sadaam is cooperating. sadaam has been successfully contained for years now. sadaam has not in any way threatened the safety of the united states. Bush has made no case that sadaam has weapons of mass destruction, in fact the only information he has released has been found by the UN to be wrong. there is no evidence of an immediate threat to the safety and well being of the united states.

iraq is completely surrounded and contained. they have no threatened the united states ever.

the majority of americans and the world is against this war. how can you claim it is justified when most of us do not want a war? the majority is not always right, but you have to wonder if americans dont want this war then why is bush pushing for it?

all war is evil. war can only be justified when there is reason to believe that only by war can a greater evil be avoided. this is not the case with iraq. you do not care about death? it sounds to me like you are the real moster here. consider the many thousands of civilians that will die as a result of this war. the UN estimates are for 500,000 civilian casualties and 2 million people displaced.

but perhaps all you care about is your own ass. then consider that this war to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction will undoubtedly result in the use of them. how is that for hypocracy? this war has a greater chance of triggering what we want to prevent than not going to war. how can you justify the war in this case? it is also likley to infuriate the Muslim world and solidify them against us. this war will undoubtedly stimulate more terrorism than it could possibily hope to prevent. we have already greatly damaged our relations with our allies by being the agressor in this situation.

people like to use hitler metaphors in this situation. but hitler was the one who attacked first. he even sold it as a preemptive strike. so if the us goes to war with iraq agaisnt all logic and international pressure to do otherwise, who here shoudl we be framing as hitler?

e-coli
Mar 5, 2003, 06:15 AM
N. Korea is a much bigger crisis right now than Iraq. They're one of the largest arms dealer on earth, and they're developing nukes. Now that's a crisis worthy of a war.

Bush is barking up the wrong tree, and alienating the rest of the world. That's why I'm opposed to war with Iraq.

I'm not a big fan of people who are completely anti-war in all situations. Sometimes war IS necessary. Like it or not.

748s
Mar 5, 2003, 07:00 AM
Here is a one question multiple choice test. In the answer you will
find the value of bombing Iraq.

World History 101 - Mid-term exam

This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question (so you better
get it right!) Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has
bombed since the end of World War II.

China
Korea
Guatemala
Indonesia
Cuba
Congo
Peru
Laos
Vietnam
Cambodia
Guatemala
Grenada
Libya
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Panama
Iraq
Sudan
Afghanistan
Yugoslavia

----------------------------------------------
NOW HERE IS THE QUESTION:
In how many of these instances did a FREE government, respectful of
human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following:

(a) 0
(b) zero
(c) none
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1

G4scott
Mar 5, 2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by übergeek
everyone get all your friends and family members to join thousands of people nationwide as we protest the war on Iraq...war is not the answer!
refuse to go to work, walk out of school, organize protests in public areas!!!! this is your chance to speak out against the war!

http://www.nion.us/ - Not in Our Name Project

http://www.moratoriumtostopwar.org -More on the nationwide moratorium

War is not the answer we want, but it is the only thing that Saddam will understand, and it is the only thing we can do to keep him from doing something to kill thousands of innocent people. Wake up. Not everybody on this planet loves you. Terrorists and most Iraqui's won't think twice about attacking the US. Nice guys finish last.

G4scott
Mar 5, 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by übergeek
If we start the war Saddam will do it.
If we don't he might or might not.
What would you say?

If we are quick, and do things right, we can eliminate any chances of Saddam doing anything against the US. He hardly has the capabilities to attack the US.

Originally posted by e-coli
N. Korea is a much bigger crisis right now than Iraq. They're one of the largest arms dealer on earth, and they're developing nukes. Now that's a crisis worthy of a war.

Bush is barking up the wrong tree, and alienating the rest of the world. That's why I'm opposed to war with Iraq.

I'm not a big fan of people who are completely anti-war in all situations. Sometimes war IS necessary. Like it or not.

Not necessarily. We know where N. Korea's weapons are. They aren't hiding any. We don't know where and what exactly Saddam has. N. Korea is just using their weapons to try to gain leverage, and make themselves seen as a more powerful country. They're practically blackmailing us. They're like some psychopath with a gun. He'll shoot if you get close, and if you try anything he'll go bezerk. N. Korea is like a child with a tantrum. They need a b*tch slap from the international community, and they need to have their nukes taken away. N. Korea would only use their weapons as a last resort, since they know they'd be fuct if they actually used them. China, the US, and probably Russia would all find themselves attacking N. Korea. The stakes are too high for them to actually use the weapons, but their leader is a weirdo, so there is the possibility he may use them, but the chances are slim...

GeeYouEye
Mar 5, 2003, 05:21 PM
Here (http://www.studentsforwar.org) is a much better site, IMO. Oh, look at the content, not just the title.

EDIT: Another good piece (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html)

job
Mar 5, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
Why attack the whole country instead of taking down Hussein and his cohorts?

You have Bill Clinton and his wonderful Presidential Directives to thank for that. As a result of legislation signed into law with his signature, it is illegal to assasinate any leader for any reason.

War never was and never will be the answer to anything.

In the face of oppression, war is neccesary, whether you agree with it or not. Are you willing to tell me that we should have sat back and watched the Serbs "cleanse" Kosovo and Bosnia of ethnic and religious minorities? Do you actually believe that diplomacy, not airstrikes, could have solved that conflict?

job
Mar 5, 2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
well the majority of people worldwide don't give a damn about the war.

I think the Shiite Muslims in Southern Iraq and the Kurds in Northern Iraq, both of which have been persecuted by Saddam, "give a damn."

Without the no-fly zones and our discreet support, you would have ethnic cleansing not seen since the Third Reich. Would you be willing to have their blood on your hands?

Out of the people who do, the majority thinks that it is not the right thing to do.

Is the majority always in the right? Last time I checked, the Founding Fathers during the Revolution were the minority. Are you somehow connecting "majority" and "right?"

job
Mar 5, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
So tell me why this country goes nuts because 6 people die in the war in Afghanistan?

The spectre of Vietnam still haunts the United States.

I've always wondered though if CNN had been around during the Second World War and had been live at the Normandy landings, would patriotism and support for the Second World War been as high? Probably not.

This country doesn't know what it means to kill people.

Oh really?

I could name off all the wars the United States has been involved in, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

This country knows what it means. It has killed British Regulars to Iraqi and Afgan civilians. Even if the killing of innocent civilians is immoral, it nevertheless happened. This country has killed and most certainly understands what it means.

What makes us so different when it comes to killing people when compared to the Chinese or the Iranians. Do some countries magically "understand" what it means to kill while others don't?

When you kill people they DIE and you can never bring them back.

Thank you for stating the obvious to those of us who have lost loved ones. What an absolutely brilliant insight. People die every day, so what's your point?

You're saying that KILLING is nothing to worry about?

I can understand your outrage. However, if we do not stand up to tyranny, the genocide and political persecution in Iraq will continue.

what are you gonna say when you start to disintegrate atom by atom, dying a slow painful death after saddam nukes us?

So I assume from that comment that you believe that Saddam does have WMD, but you are still unwilling to go to war to disarm him...or did I miss something?

shadowfax
Mar 5, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
you wanna live during a nuclear winter?
you wanna die?
fine.

i thought this one was a reason for GOING to war with iraq? they are trying to start a nuclear program. they don't have one now. they have made efforts to hide everything they are doing from us. they aren't going to stop, no matter what france and Germany think (you do realize that the president of France is on GOOD terms with Saddam, that man of Hitleresque intentions, right?).

is war the answer? what's the question? should we attack an innocent good-willed nation for no reason? of course not. i don't think that's the issue here.

war is a heady proposition, one that should turn your stomach upside down. i don't want people to die. i hate the idea of it. but i know that if the sovereignty of the UN is compromised by men who comprise some of the greatest evil this world has seen (only shrouded by a weakness hitler &c didn't have), there will be a lot more killing than the US would commit in overthrowing the Iraqi government.

there is one man i was really impressed with--Britain's UN embassador. he admonished the UN to remember the failure league of nations, perhaps to consider Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" pact with Hitler. if you let twisted little s**ts like Saddam defy you because you're worried about "looking like oil-guzzling, self-absorbed americans," well, i pity you. i've never liked bush much, but i think he has a competent administration, and i think that the world should rise to stop Hussein. France has crippled the UN by playing good ol' neville, and it angers me that bush has suggested bypassing the UN, but we do need to stop Hussein. and not by saying "pretty please."

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:01 PM
i understand that hussein is not a good person and if i had the chance i would kill him with my bare hands for what he did to his own people. But the act of going to war, killing innocent and poor civilians and just letting the guilty and rich bastards who control the government go away with nothing more than a warning is not right. There are other ways to get rid of people like Hussein and eventually war will be the only way but while we have a chance why not just destroy hussein not the civilians.
The US cares about 6 people who died in afghanistan...but they don't care about the thousands of people they killed "by accident". We as citizens of the united states HAVE NO GODDAMNED RIGHTS but we must fight until it is evident that war is THE only answer.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:06 PM
i attempted to stage a walk-out at my school today (convinced 300 people to join me and four other people) and eventually got reprimanded by the principal, two assistant principals and the magnet coordinator who said that we have no rights at all and that the next time we do such a thing we will get expelled :mad:
They also compared the first amendment with the 4th(?) amendment that states that we have the right to bear arms.
Then they said that we were brave and very smart and that they wish there were more people like us in the world...yet they got so mad at us for telling other people the other side of the story. :rolleyes:
So does that mean that school rules overrule the constitution, the amendments to the constitution and supreme court rulings?

MacFan25
Mar 5, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
There are other ways to get rid of people like Hussein and eventually war will be the only way but while we have a chance why not just destroy hussein not the civilians.
The US cares about 6 people who died in afghanistan...but they don't care about the thousands of people they killed "by accident". We as citizens of the united states HAVE NO GODDAMNED RIGHTS but we must fight until it is evident that war is THE only answer.
What are the other ways to get rid of Saddam? I think that right now, it seems that war is the only way that we are going to be able to get rid of Saddam.

And, I think that the US does care, if civilians are killed.

What do you mean, that we, citizens of the United States have no rights? We have lots of rights and freedoms. And, I think that we have fought until war is the answer. We have given Saddam time, and I think that war is inevitable.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
What do you mean, that we, citizens of the United States have no rights? We have lots of rights and freedoms. And, I think that we have fought until war is the answer. We have given Saddam time, and I think that war is inevitable.
what rights do you have? everything stated in the bill of rights? well i'm sorry to break this to you but no goddamned thing in the bill of rights does apply to unted states citizens...the USA patriot act basically says that if you wanna use your bill of rights you will get arrested as a terrorist
WE HAVE NOT FOUGHT UNTIL WAR IS THE ANSWER!!!!! Overthrow the government, destroy the government but YOU DON'T KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS BECAUSE YOU WANNA GET RID OF SOME STUPID BASTARD!

MacFan25
Mar 5, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
So does that mean that school rules overrule the constitution, the amendments to the constitution and supreme court rulings?
The constition can only go so far. In saying this, I mean, there should be some restrictions that go along with the consition. When one of the amendments says "the right to bear arms", do you think that everyone should be able to carry a gun around with them at all times where ever they go? I don't think so.

MacFan25
Mar 5, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
Overthrow the government, destroy the government but YOU DON'T KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS BECAUSE YOU WANNA GET RID OF SOME STUPID BASTARD!

I don't want to kill innocent civilians either.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
The constition can only go so far. In saying this, I mean, there should be some restrictions that go along with the consition. When one of the amendments says "the right to bear arms", do you think that everyone should be able to carry a gun around with them at all times where ever they go? I don't think so.
the constitution is THE supreme law of the united states and it overrules every state and federal law. Read that "right to bear arms" amendment, because it says you can only bear arms for certain reasons only...most people don't read the other half :rolleyes:

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
I don't want to kill innocent civilians either.
the united states does. they killed tons of civilians and the governments that they founded in those countries are unsuccessful.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18 PM
amendment two:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

from http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

MacFan25
Mar 5, 2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
the united states does. they killed tons of civilians and the governments that they founded in those countries are unsuccessful.

They shouldn't have killed civilians.

If there is a war, it should be a war with the Iraqi government. The United States should give aid to the civilians. And I think that they probably will do that.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
They shouldn't have killed civilians.

If there is a war, it should be a war with the Iraqi government. The United States should give aid to the civilians. And I think that they probably will do that.
that's my point. unfortunately "accidents" happen so that will be impossible.
many civilians died in almost all the wars that the US was in...except for the cold war i think.

MacFan25
Mar 5, 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
that's my point. unfortunately "accidents" happen so that will be impossible.
many civilians died in almost all the wars that the US was in...except for the cold war i think.

Yes, accidents do happen. And that is one of the bad things about war.

How do you think that we should deal with Saddam without going to war?

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
we have no rights at all and that the next time we do such a thing we will get expelled

As minors, you and I have no rights.

None. Nada.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover anyone under 18.

Do you really think that the Constitution allows minors to bear arms? :rolleyes:

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by hitman
As minors, you and I have no rights.

None. Nada.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover anyone under 18.

there is no age restriction. no matter how old you are the constitution applies to you because you are a citizen of the united states.
And of course people are gonna bitch about the fact that minors have no rights...we do, through our parents.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
many civilians died in almost all the wars that the US was in...except for the cold war i think.

civilians have always been subjected to death and suffering in any armed conflict, not just the ones the united states has be involved in.

****** happens. death happens. what can you do about it?

protest a war that may possibly help end the persecution and killing of iraqi citizens and religious/ethnic minorities?

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
there is no age restriction. no matter how old you are the constitution applies to you because you are a citizen of the united states.

you are a citizen of the united states.

as a result you have the right to vote.

do you? can you? obviously the answer is no.

as much as you would like to believe that an age restriction does not exist, it does.

are you allowed to bear firearms? are you allowed to join the military?

again, age plays a central role.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by hitman
you are a citizen of the united states.

as a result you have the right to vote.

do you? can you? obviously the answer is no.

as much as you would like to believe that an age restriction does not exist, it does.

are you allowed to bear firearms? are you allowed to join the military?

again, age plays a central role.
right to vote..amendment says that people under the age of 18 cannot.
the military? parents probably wouldn't allow it and besides you're too young.
firearms: since when were people allowed to carry firearms? it is not a constitutional right!

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
the governments that they founded in those countries are unsuccessful.

another gross generalization.

what about the post-war governments in japan and germany?

they seem to be doing fairly well.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
firearms: since when were people allowed to carry firearms? it is not a constitutional right!

as you yourself quoted:

second amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


it is a right. period.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
right to vote..amendment says that people under the age of 18 cannot.

as i stated before, until we are of legal age, we technically have no rights as individuals.

through our parents/guardians we glean certain rights, however we are not covered by the entire amendment.

age is the lynchpin.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by hitman
another gross generalization.

what about the post-war governments in japan and germany?

they seem to be doing fairly well.
japan's government is so f*cked up. they're dumb too.
they're not doing so well right now.
it is not another gross generalization.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by hitman
as you yourself quoted:

second amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


it is a right. period.
yeah but the constitution doesn't say that everyone can. you left out the first and the most underrated part of the amendment.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
japan's government is so f*cked up. they're dumb too.

they are dumb?

not with the worlds second largest economy.

they're not doing so well right now.

well, no one is right now.

look at the way both germany and japan were able to industrialize with the financial and material support of the united states during the 1950s.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
yeah but the constitution doesn't say that everyone can. you left out the first and the most underrated part of the amendment.

you mean this part?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

it ties in with the right of every adult american citizen to bear arms.

an organized militia was originally described as a civilian army to be kept in case the united states became as oppressive as the british monarchy. it allows every citizen to bear arms in order to prevent an oppressive government.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by hitman
you mean this part?



it ties in with the right of every adult american citizen to bear arms.

an organized militia was originally described as a civilian army to be kept in case the united states became as oppressive as the british monarchy. it allows every citizen to bear arms in order to prevent an oppressive government.
that is probably the least flexible amendment and that is what it still means. we can use firearms to prevent an opressive government but why does the NRA think it applies to everyone and everything?

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 07:47 PM
This really should be in the political section but anyways. Ubergeek you know very little of the country you live in, let alone the world. A student in school does NOT have full constitutional rights. This has been declared over and over again in Supreme Court rulings. For one most of the students are not even adults. Two in order for the safety and structure of a school system you leave your full rights behind when you step onto school property. You DO NOT have full freedom of speech in a class room. You are not allowed to disrupt the class with vulgar language or the like. You ARE required to attend school until of age. This means that a walk out is violating that requirement. There are no search and seisure laws in a public school. Due to bomb threats and occurances like Columbine it is essentially that administration and police can search anything and everything. Wh rights DO you have? MANY! Don't be foolish and discredit your country so quickly. You live a rather comfortable life I'm sure because of your rights and the rights of your parents. You have many rights OUTSIDE of your public school. If after school is over you want to go stand on the sidewalk and yell about things you don't understand you have every right to. Men and women have died so that you have that right. Funny that you use your right to oppose the thing that gave you the right in the first place.

As for the rest of the world. The blanket statement of "war is not the answer" is foolish. War WAS the answer when Germany started invading the rest of Europe and "cleansing" the nations. You babble about Nuclear winter. N. Korea is the country with whom we are having issues about nukes not Saddam, lets keep our current affairs straight please. Also, nuclear winter is a theory from the cold war when it was us vs. USSR and there were hundreds if not thousands of nukes pointed both ways. If all of those had been launched (double death theory) then there would be nuclear winter. One bomb does not equate to nuclear winter. Two were dropped an Japan. Many have been test exploded by various countries. Are we in a nuclear winter? I didn't think so. It's nice you don't want people to die. Niether do I. But the world is not perfect. We can't just say "please stop killing your people and attacking other countries. Please stop paying off the families of suicide bombers who kill israeli children." If it were that f'n simple we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we. You have to think about the greater good. Will lives be lost on both sides? yes. However, in the long run more lives will be saved by a war in Iraq and the entire world will be better off for it. Also note, the countries who disagree with us do not do so in a worry about lives to be lost. They are woried about not getting their pockets lined. France, Germany, and Russia have money invested in Iraqi oil that they get cheap due to the current situation. Turkey gets Iraqi oil smugled into it almost daily. Study the facts and get over the propaganda wafting out of hollywood and you'll have a much better understanding of things.

People should have another answer ready before saying "war is not the answer" I ask you than what is the answer. Nobody has a legitimat response. It's just the same talking in circles. They'll tell you diplomacy. You ask what they mean by diplomacy. They say inspections, or sanctions. You explain to them that has been the attempt for 12 years with no effect. They say well lift all sanctions let him run free. What will that get us? Allowing Saddam more freedom to torture his people and build chemical/bio weapons will solve nothing. It will only set us up for a nastier war later when he decides he has amased a good amount of WMD and can start bombing the crap out of everyone and anyone. So I ask again what to do. In response I get "war is not the answer" Wait, isn't that where we started? See my point?

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
why does the NRA think it applies to everyone and everything?

the amendment does apply to everyone. just as the first amendment covers every american citizen, so too does the second.

if you were 18 right now you could walk into store and legally purchase a firearm because you are protected under the bill of rights.

the second amendment protects everyones right to be able to arm themselves.

do you think that the bill of rights somehow excludes certain people from legally carrying firearms?

job
Mar 5, 2003, 07:54 PM
hey leprechaunG4 check your email.

i just sent you a mail. :)

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 07:59 PM
As for you other argument here uber, it is a two part ammendment. 1. As a citizen you have a right to bear arms (you are not a full citizen until you are 18 however) 2. You have the right to form or join a malitia for the protection of your country. This mostly equates to the National Guard in current day.

Do you really think the drafters of the constitution would make it unconstitutional to own a gun. Many if not all of them owned weapons as did the great majority of the population. Gun ownership was never an issue until misguided people such as yourself chose to attack the gun instead of the actuall issue of violence/crime. Violence and crime has always existed and will always exist, with or without guns. Wow you are naive and close minded. Have you ever considered the benifits of a family hunting trip, or trip to the skeet range? You oppose so stubbornly all of that which you don't understand.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 5, 2003, 08:00 PM
The time for action was 12 years ago but since we listened to all the pansies of the world we left Saddam the infamous Butcher of Baghdad in power. After ignoring resolution 1-17 its time to wake him up. yeah he is giving the impression that he is doing something only after we have for the 2nd time massed troops all around him. And that crap he doesnt have a nuclear program? how the hell do you know? Did it ever occur to you that this program and many others have gone underground both in operation and actual tunnels underground. Im sure the chemical and bio's are there. The germans had massive complexes underground dont you think Saddam does? Let me remind you even that stumble bum blix and the gang found a scientist with over 3000 pages of nuclear related documents hidden in his house no less. Its been past time for war. Bush was trying to be a nice guy and listen to the doves in his administration. what he didnt count on was all the opposition from the governments that have been making under the table deals with this guy. France,Russia,Germany. The U.N has no relevance. that was shown in bosnia and now Iraq. You dont win against Tyrants by appeasing them. Its Time for Freedom for the Iraqi people, and Saddam to meet his maker. War does suck, no doubt about it but sometimes there is no other way. Saddam has chosen this path not us.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
This really should be in the political section but anyways. Ubergeek you know very little of the country you live in, let alone the world. A student in school does NOT have full constitutional rights. This has been declared over and over again in Supreme Court rulings. For one most of the students are not even adults....
okay okay. i know that...it's just insane and i dislike it a lot.
and you are right...this should be in the political section.
gawd you write a lot...:)

job
Mar 5, 2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4 As for you other argument here uber, it is a two part ammendment. 1. As a citizen you have a right to bear arms (you are not a full citizen until you are 18 however) 2. You have the right to form or join a malitia for the protection of your country. This mostly equates to the National Guard in current day.

you get my mail? ;) :)

GeeYouEye
Mar 5, 2003, 08:19 PM
übergeek, you are one of the most brainwashed people I have ever 'met'. I pity you. I really do. You take in the leftist line and spit it right back out with vehemence. You attack some of the right things, such as the USA-PATRIOT Act, but for the wrong reasons, and for the wrong issues.

<snip>So does that mean that school rules overrule the constitution, the amendments to the constitution and supreme court rulings?

In a word, yes. As minors, we have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. Remember the whole part of the freedom of assembly: "The right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be abridged." It does not specify what "peaceably" is. The school gets to decide that. And if it's a private school (I don't know that yours is, but just to point this out), you have no constitutional protection whatsoever; the school is not controlled by the government, thus it has no government benefits.

the united states does. they killed tons of civilians and the governments that they founded in those countries are unsuccessful.

contrary to the liberal line, the US goes out of its way to prevent civilian deaths. Shocking as it sounds, the government is not all about "kill, kill, kill!".

Numbers added for clarity
1. what rights do you have? 2. everything stated in the bill of rights? 3. well i'm sorry to break this to you but no goddamned thing in the bill of rights does apply to unted states citizens...the USA patriot act basically says that if you wanna use your bill of rights you will get arrested as a terrorist
WE HAVE NOT FOUGHT UNTIL WAR IS THE ANSWER!!!!! 4. Overthrow the government, destroy the government but YOU DON'T KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS BECAUSE YOU WANNA GET RID OF SOME STUPID BASTARD!

1. None, and neither do you. The adults in this country have more rights than anyone in this world however.

2. No, and we never have. The 9th and 10th amendments have been constantly ignored for the past 150 years. However, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th have all been upheld since 1787, with any violations being promptly overturned. (You could, theoretically argue that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for 5 years, however, closer examination reveals the words "except in emergency situations" after "... shall not suspend the writ of habeas corpus") Hell, the 3rd amendment has never been violated at all. The 2nd amendment today is a shadow of what it was supposed to be, unfortunately.

3. Strange... you're not in jail... and neither are those thousands of protesters. I guess there really are no rights anymore. And yes, the USA-PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, but for few if any of the reasons the left likes to spout. It is unconstitutional for the changes in the checks and balances system; it vests way too much power in the executive branch of the government.

4. See, the difference is, the Iraqi people would be systematically murdered if they tried to overthrow Saddam, or even tried to stage a protest against him. And if we do go into Iraq, it will be Saddam doing 99+% of the civilian killing.

amendment two:

I'd love to get into this one, since my views are at what many would call extreme, but it's not the question at hand.

I pity you übergeek. I wish you could see what you are saying. But that, alas, will likely never happen. Good luck in it though, if you ever try.

EDIT: oops, that's what I get for waiting over an hour to click submit.

Kethoticus
Mar 5, 2003, 08:23 PM
Oh please. First of all, he doesn't have full-scale nuclear capabilities--yet. But if he does, that is plenty reason TO attack his gov't. This logic is anything but.

Secondly, Saddam is NOT being contained. That is a myth. He is believed to have smuggled some of his WMDs into Syria in an effort to hide them. Containing does NOTHING to stop him from smuggling his WMDs across his border. And a nuclear suitcase can easily be delivered into downtown Manhattan. Please.

And I refuse to join the anti-war protests. They're moronic. The only anti-war argument I see any kind of wisdom in is the one that questions the aftermath of the conflict. It will be an uphill battle for us to establish a humane, democratic gov't in Iraq. And there's no guarantee it'll endure the test of time--or al qaeda. But other than this uncertainty of the outcome, I see plenty of reasons to attack this psycho. Prevention is the best cure.

Of course, if Saddam does smuggle a nuke into NYC via an al qaeda or Islamic Jihad representative, then all the anti-war people will be asking why the Republican president didn't do anything to prevent it. At least that's what people were asking after 9/11.

For those who say that we need a good war every once in a while to show off our capabilities, that's insane and inhuman. War is like surgery. It's delicate, risky, and while it can bring about an ultimate good, there's also the risk that things can get worse. You do it when you need to, and not any other time.

GeeYouEye
Mar 5, 2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
many civilians died in almost all the wars that the US was in...except for the cold war i think.
:eek:15 million civilians died during the cold war. Did we kill them? No. Stalin's and Krushchev's USSR did, not to mention the 60 million Stalin had killed before the second World War. A pity there were no laws about human rights violations back then...

Kethoticus
Mar 5, 2003, 08:32 PM
4. See, the difference is, the Iraqi people would be systematically murdered if they tried to overthrow Saddam, or even tried to stage a protest against him. And if we do go into Iraq, it will be Saddam doing 99+% of the civilian killing.

I heard on the news this morning that Saddam brought troops in when Baghdad residents tried evacuating. How DARE those people try to save their own skins when they SHOULD be sticking around to act as Saddam's human shield!

Everyone!! Let's defend Saddam and join his ever-growing human shield! This racist, oil-mongering war must be stopped, even if it means Saddam's unGodly treatment of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens or a possible nuke in NY or Wash DC! Peace! Love! Everywhere there should be flowers!! Except for our enemies of course, whom the anti-war protesters seem to feel have a right to do the evil things they do.

Kethoticus
Mar 5, 2003, 08:44 PM
japan's government is so f*cked up. they're dumb too.

Dude, what is the name of your alternate universe?

shakespeare
Mar 5, 2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Kwyjibo
millions of people die everyday in africa and i'm not crying for them everyday why shoudl I cry about a few hundred people that might die in this encounter. In the 1993 conflict in Somalia we lost 19 men and estimate have us killing about 1000 natives so i'm not worried about losing a fewppl. and hippies is justifed

I am crying about the people in Africa, and I am crying about the people in Iraq, and I am appalled that there are people in this world who aren't.

We absolutely mustn't go to war. War is an immature, excessive, archaic - and, if we are to be truly modernistic, unjustifiable - solution to a problem wholly soluble through peaceful ends. The response "we need to show Saddam who's boss" should be uttered by no one over the age of eleven. And the argument that we are in danger unless we attack first holds no water whatsoever - Saddam Hussein could never bring an attack to our soil without our government's stopping him, and military-protected U.N. inspections, given time, will be more than enough to find and destroy Iraq's missiles, even if Mr Hussein will not do it voluntarily.

If I could give my life to save the lives of the multitude of Iraqis who would be killed in such a war, I would. I mean that very solemnly.

In one hundred, or maybe two hundred, years, the concept of war will be unthinkable. We spend millions of dollars every year creating machines whose goal is to kill people. I do not want to share an America with people who think that this is not only acceptable, but good. Perhaps I'll move to France.

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by shakespeare
I am crying about the people in Africa, and I am crying about the people in Iraq, and I am appalled that there are people in this world who aren't.

We absolutely mustn't go to war. War is an immature, excessive, archaic - and, if we are to be truly modernistic, unjustifiable - solution to a problem wholly soluble through peaceful ends. The response "we need to show Saddam who's boss" should be uttered by no one over the age of eleven. And the argument that we are in danger unless we attack first holds no water whatsoever - Saddam Hussein could never bring an attack to our soil without our government's stopping him, and military-protected U.N. inspections, given time, will be more than enough to find and destroy Iraq's missiles, even if Mr Hussein will not do it voluntarily.

If I could give my life to save the lives of the multitude of Iraqis who would be killed in such a war, I would. I mean that very solemnly.

In one hundred, or maybe two hundred, years, the concept of war will be unthinkable. We spend millions of dollars every year creating machines whose goal is to kill people. I do not want to share an America with people who think that this is not only acceptable, but good. Perhaps I'll move to France.
Here you see your typical anti-war zealot. So blatantly naive. The fact that you have the right to say everything you just said came from, you guessed it WARS. The simple fact of the matter is you cannot lie back and expect the world to be a happy nice little place. Inspections given time will be more than enough to find and destroy Iraq's missiles????? News flash they've been trying that for TWELVE YEARS! It's had absolutely no effect, hence our current situation. Is war a good thing? No. Dopeople like war? I sure as hell hope not. Is it sometimes the only choice? Yes. You claim that every problem in the world can be solved via your "peaceful ends." I truely wish the world was that damn simple. So tell me what are your "peaceful ends." How do you intend to deal with the problem. Like always the anti-war rhetoric has been blabbered with no offer of alternative solutions, let alone an effective solution.

shadowfax
Mar 5, 2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by shakespeare
Perhaps I'll move to France.

LOL LOL LOL LOL.

last year, at the height of the violence in israel, more Jews were killed in France than in Israel. good call. you move to France.

your arrogant tomfoolery will sit well with the government, who will wend your zealotry to the economic greed they have that rivals if not surpasses the United States'.

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
okay okay. i know that...it's just insane and i dislike it a lot.
and you are right...this should be in the political section.
gawd you write a lot...:)
Yes I get going sometimes and write a good amount. I would just like to open your eyes to the other sides of the story. I know as a student you are pounded with one sided and uniformed rhetoric. My college campus is a mass of absurdity. I'd imagine your high school is quite the same. It's not necessarily your fault that you've been harraunged with these baseless theories, but it is best if you start looking deeper into issues at this point in your life, and truely be able to form your own opinion. I look at both sides of everything. I have had many conversations about this topic. I have friends who are very liberal, a couple self deemed Socialist. We have great conversations leanring from each others points of view and both walking out better informed. There are political discussion on the campus and I am often begged to attend as I am generally the sole "conservative" voice. Even though the rest of the group at these discussion is generally a liberal majority they love to hear me speak because I offer them another point of view. We really learn alot from each other. Iv heard so many "I never thought of it like that. " and "I didn't know about that." or "that actually does make sense if you explain it." See it's all about knowledge. In fact the College recently asked me to attend a North East college convention about politics on campus. Kind of a get students more involved more informed kind of thing. There are only a handful of kids picked from each school. As you guessed it I am the sole "conservative" mind going from my school, but it's cool because the other people going I know and they are great. I have some of my best conversations with them. The faculty member that insisted on having me go is infact INCREDIBLY liberal, but she is such a great person. She actually said to me, "Well, it's proably going to be a bunch of us liberals, but please please please still come." I laughed so hard. But it's cool with me. Even if I am 1 out of a 1000 I'll do my best to keep everyones eyes and minds open to all sides of the story. There's a saying: Closed minds should come with closed mouths. I think that's a pretty good saying. Well damn here I am writing too much again. Sorry. You get my point the, just be open to looking at all sides of the story.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 10:32 PM
you people. i don't give a damn about the ******** war i just don't want the results of the war to be bad. :rolleyes:

leprechaunG4: i'm not a high school student :rolleyes:

job
Mar 5, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
you people. i don't give a damn about the ******** war i just don't want the results of the war to be bad. :rolleyes:

not to be an ******* here, but i'm just going to quote the first line from your first post:

everyone get all your friends and family members to join thousands of people nationwide as we protest the war on Iraq...war is not the answer!

sure sounds like you give a damn about the war.

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by hitman
not to be an ******* here, but i'm just going to quote the first line from your first post...sure sounds like you give a damn about the war.
not anymore.

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
you people. i don't give a damn about the ******** war i just don't want the results of the war to be bad. :rolleyes:

leprechaunG4: i'm not a high school student :rolleyes:
Not in high school huh? I thought I remembered a post about principle etc. Please don't tell me they're barraging the junior highs and grade schools with rhetoric. Or was that a big past tense on the walkout thing??

If you are in grade school. My advice: try not to worry too much about war YET. Cherish the youth, damn I'm just gonna be hittin' 20 here in a week or two and I'm dreamin of the days when I was a kid. God I don't wanna know what 40 is gonna feel like!

leprechaunG4
Mar 5, 2003, 10:41 PM
sorry double posted somehow

janey
Mar 5, 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Not in high school huh? I thought I remembered a post about principle etc. Please don't tell me they're barraging the junior highs and grade schools with rhetoric. Or was that a big past tense on the walkout thing??

If you are in grade school. My advice: try not to worry too much about war YET. Cherish the youth, damn I'm just gonna be hittin' 20 here in a day or two and I'm dreamin of the days when I was a kid. God I don't wanna know what 40 is gonna feel like!
yeah there's something called a profile.
anyway, i've been totally anti-war since september 11. let's see...that would be from 7th grade.

job
Mar 5, 2003, 10:42 PM
[edit: nevermind this post]

carry on, there's nothing to see here.

topicolo
Mar 5, 2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4

As for the rest of the world. The blanket statement of "war is not the answer" is foolish. War WAS the answer when Germany started invading the rest of Europe and "cleansing" the nations.

War was the answer in the second world war because it was RETALIATORY. Don't forget that the US was attacked first before they were drawn into the fight. This time, the US is pre-emptively attacking another country because they "could" have WMD and that "could" be bad. Pre-emptive strikes are not good excuses for war. If they were, why isn't Russia attacking a strengthening China before they get too powerful? Why isn't China, South Korea, and Japan attacking North Korea because they have WMD?

Practically all of the Arab leaders hate Saddam and yet they don't think that war is the answer because they KNOW that he can be contained as he had be the last decade.

The US does not control the rest of the world. Instead, it is a part of an international community and it should act accordingly. America may not need to respect the goals of other countries, but it should if it ever wants to truly destroy terrorism.

Osama bin Laden would never have existed as we know him now if the US did not attack Iraq in the first place. Think about how many other bin Ladens are out there, waiting to be converted into terrorists after this war. How many more future catastrophes will this war open the doors to? I shudder at the thought of that.

GeeYouEye
Mar 5, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by übergeek
i've been totally anti-war...

Why? Why are you anti-war?

topicolo
Mar 5, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus

Of course, if Saddam does smuggle a nuke into NYC via an al qaeda or Islamic Jihad representative, then all the anti-war people will be asking why the Republican president didn't do anything to prevent it. At least that's what people were asking after 9/11.



If Saddam can do it, so could Kim Jong Il, or *gasp* Pervez Musharraf. Let's go attack North Korea and Pakistan after Iraq! Lets also go spend another $180 billion dollars in addition to the $90 billion we're projected to spend on Iraq!

How about using that $90 billion to increase homeland security, enhance counter-terrorism, and to promote goodwill towards the US around the world? Or, *GASP* we can feed some of the poor. Wait, that's not right, let them starve because we need the money for more stock dividend tax cuts so that the richest 5% can buy more Porsches and yachts (Not that I mind tho, I own dividend bearing stocks)

I think that would be a much better investment.:rolleyes:

shadowfax
Mar 6, 2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
War was the answer in the second world war because it was RETALIATORY. Don't forget that the US was attacked first before they were drawn into the fight. This time, the US is pre-emptively attacking another country because they "could" have WMD and that "could" be bad. Pre-emptive strikes are not good excuses for war. If they were, why isn't Russia attacking a strengthening China before they get too powerful? Why isn't China, South Korea, and Japan attacking North Korea because they have WMD?

Practically all of the Arab leaders hate Saddam and yet they don't think that war is the answer because they KNOW that he can be contained as he had be the last decade.

The US does not control the rest of the world. Instead, it is a part of an international community and it should act accordingly. America may not need to respect the goals of other countries, but it should if it ever wants to truly destroy terrorism.

Osama bin Laden would never have existed as we know him now if the US did not attack Iraq in the first place. Think about how many other bin Ladens are out there, waiting to be converted into terrorists after this war. How many more future catastrophes will this war open the doors to? I shudder at the thought of that.

i see a lot of your points, but to flee the middle east to their own devices seems just as suicidal and unconscionable. i think it would have much worse consequences both in human lives destroyed by ethnic cleansing and economically for us; Sure, arab nations hate us for interfering with them, but i doubt that stopping will help anything. they'll just hate us because we're rich, or secular, or christian, or something.

China is not attacking N Korea for obvious reasons. they basically put the damned government there in place. Japan is not attacking because it can't. do they even have a military of any mentionable proportions? they don't seem like that sort of country at all.

WMD is no excuse for war. this war would be an extension of the previous one, which was not preemptive. Iraq has not abided by the terms of the ending of that war in any way whatsoever. we've given them 12 years; i don't see any other way to force them into submission, or beg them into submission, or whatever. to sit idly by and watch them conduct things as they are is as much of an affront to a peaceful world as a preemptive war is.

macfan
Mar 6, 2003, 12:27 AM
Shadowfax,
I think you have it pretty much right on target, except that Japan does have a significant military. They could take on North Korea if they wanted. The North Koreans are only able to feed their army, and that only with food from China and others like the United States. Japan has said they reserve the right to defend themselves against North Korea, and I do not begrudge them that right.

I think that some of the Arab countries don't want an invasion of Saddam's Iraq in public,but they are supportive in private (thus their willingness to base US troops in their countries). Some, like Syria and Iraq probably are nervous about an invasion because they realize that their own people will become quite restless if Iraq transitions to a free and prosperous society. They are already nervous in Iran, with good reason.

shadowfax
Mar 6, 2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Shadowfax,
I think you have it pretty much right on target, except that Japan does have a significant military. They could take on North Korea if they wanted. The North Koreans are only able to feed their army, and that only with food from China and others like the United States. Japan has said they reserve the right to defend themselves against North Korea, and I do not begrudge them that right.

ouch! boy, was i off. but then, i guess you don't here about japanese military presences too often. i never read about that aspect of their recovery from WWII. good to know. thanks!

macfan
Mar 6, 2003, 12:45 AM
shadowfax,
You are not far off at all. They are restricted to having a "defense force" by their Constitution (remember, the US wrote it). However, that force is not at all insignificant.

shakespeare
Mar 6, 2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Here you see your typical anti-war zealot. So blatantly naive. The fact that you have the right to say everything you just said came from, you guessed it WARS. The simple fact of the matter is you cannot lie back and expect the world to be a happy nice little place. Inspections given time will be more than enough to find and destroy Iraq's missiles????? News flash they've been trying that for TWELVE YEARS! It's had absolutely no effect, hence our current situation. Is war a good thing? No. Dopeople like war? I sure as hell hope not. Is it sometimes the only choice? Yes. You claim that every problem in the world can be solved via your "peaceful ends." I truely wish the world was that damn simple. So tell me what are your "peaceful ends." How do you intend to deal with the problem. Like always the anti-war rhetoric has been blabbered with no offer of alternative solutions, let alone an effective solution.

Yes, that's true; Americans' right to freedom of expression was the result of a war with Great Britain. I have no objection to that. But that was about 225 years ago. Society can progress - things like slavery are unconscionable now, even though those same revolutionary Americans kept slaves nearly a century after the war. Someday, in the popular understanding, war will surely go the way of slavery. And that will be a great leap for mankind.

And, unless I am very much mistaken, U.N. inspections of Iraq have not been going on for twelve years; they have only been going on for a few months, after a four-year hiatus. The inspectors need more time to once again search a plot of land that size, and to investigate what Mr Hussein is hiding. And we should support and protect them wholeheartedly. When they give up utterly, perhaps we should start thinking about other means to the end of disarmament. But Mr Bush, in his hastiness to fight, seems to have some end other than mere disarmament.

The only time I think military fighting is acceptable is either in defence of our soil or our allies' soil - such as when Nazi Germany attacked the rest of Europe - or when it is necessary to protect people from genocide. If we are going to be bombed, we should shoot down the enemy's bomber. But we should not destroy the homes of all those who would bomb us. If America goes to war, then I, too, hate this country, although I love dearly the ideals on which it was founded.

Neither of those conditions for a just war is going on now. Our military should protect the U.N. inspectors, and our military should make sure Mr Hussein does not kill any of his citizenry as a bargaining tactic, but we must allow the inspectors more time. It is the only way.

Oh, by the way, I am an anti-war zealot. Thanks for the compliment. ;)

leprechaunG4
Mar 6, 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
War was the answer in the second world war because it was RETALIATORY. Don't forget that the US was attacked first before they were drawn into the fight. This time, the US is pre-emptively attacking another country because they "could" have WMD and that "could" be bad. Pre-emptive strikes are not good excuses for war. If they were, why isn't Russia attacking a strengthening China before they get too powerful? Why isn't China, South Korea, and Japan attacking North Korea because they have WMD?

Practically all of the Arab leaders hate Saddam and yet they don't think that war is the answer because they KNOW that he can be contained as he had be the last decade.

The US does not control the rest of the world. Instead, it is a part of an international community and it should act accordingly. America may not need to respect the goals of other countries, but it should if it ever wants to truly destroy terrorism.

Osama bin Laden would never have existed as we know him now if the US did not attack Iraq in the first place. Think about how many other bin Ladens are out there, waiting to be converted into terrorists after this war. How many more future catastrophes will this war open the doors to? I shudder at the thought of that.
Would you like examples where we weren't attacked, how about every other war in the 20th century. World War I we were not attacked. Korea we were not attacked. You theory of let the world destroy itself is disgusting. We can not sit idly by and watch other parts of the world be corrupted and terrorized. We have a responsibility. Saddam IS NOT being controlled. He still does as he pleases. Hence the problem here. America is not trying to control the world only prevent its destruction. Your accusations about terrorism is an outrage. I find it absurd and offensive that you attempt to claim that we casued terrorism. Think about the first war with Iraq, it was not even an attack on Iraq. They invaded another country, we went in and fought them back out of that country. Via a UN decision we did not invade into Iraq. You do not even understand the problems, let alone the necessaary measures of dealing with these problems.

shadowfax
Mar 6, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Would you like examples where we weren't attacked, how about every other war in the 20th century. World War I we were not attacked.

sorry to come in against you, as i almost wholly agree with you, but we WERE attacked in a very real way in WWI.

can you say "Lusitania?"
how about "unrestricted submarine warfare?"

the Germans were plaintively told that destruction of US shipping would be construed aas an act of war, and they did just that. it IS an act of war. it's state terrorism. if state one is at war with state two, state one cannot attack state three without going to war with state three.

on a lighter note, we did start the spanish american war (1898, i believe) and that was a fun one :rolleyes:

shadowfax
Mar 6, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by shakespeare
Neither of those conditions for a just war is going on now. Our military should protect the U.N. inspectors, and our military should make sure Mr Hussein does not kill any of his citizenry as a bargaining tactic, but we must allow the inspectors more time. It is the only way.

more time? hussein is making progress as the inspectors continue to be dumbfounded. cooperation is required for this to work without violence, and you're a complete idiot if you think that's going to happen without forcive (violent) action. twelve years is a long time. you cant even count that high with your hand.

and by the way, how are we to make sure Hussein doesn't kill any of his citizenry? jeez, man, it IS IS IS IS IS like Hitler's concentration camps over there. this man is every bit as evil as Hitler; they do commit atrocities against various minorities in their country.

Saddam, evil as he is, loves you, though. he designed his special Human Shield™ just for people like you. :eek:

leprechaunG4
Mar 6, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
sorry to come in against you, as i almost wholly agree with you, but we WERE attacked in a very real way in WWI.

can you say "Lusitania?"
how about "unrestricted submarine warfare?"

the Germans were plaintively told that destruction of US shipping would be construed aas an act of war, and they did just that. it IS an act of war. it's state terrorism. if state one is at war with state two, state one cannot attack state three without going to war with state three.

on a lighter note, we did start the spanish american war (1898, i believe) and that was a fun one :rolleyes:
Sorry, guess I was only thinking about attacks on American soil. So I guess WWI was a bad exmaple. How about the first gulf war, where we defended kuwait and Saudi Arabia. How about the Korean war. How about Kosovo. My point being that just because a strike on American soil has not occured does not mean that international laws are not being violated, and that national security is not at risk.

topicolo
Mar 6, 2003, 04:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Would you like examples where we weren't attacked, how about every other war in the 20th century. World War I we were not attacked. Korea we were not attacked.
I don't need to say any more about this, since you have already been debunked. BTW, the US involvement in the korean war was due to an unjustified attack on an ally, which I would classify as being retaliatary.

You theory of let the world destroy itself is disgusting. We can not sit idly by and watch other parts of the world be corrupted and terrorized. We have a responsibility.

If you want to be a policeman, you have to be a fair policeman, not turn a blind eye to the poor and the helpless. Where was this "responsibility" when the innocent civilians were getting their hands chopped off in Sierra Leone? Where was this "responsibility" when Eritrea and Ethiopia fought and continue to fight and mercillessly commit atrocities against each other? Where was this "responsibility" when Japanese soldiers stabbed, decapitated, and shot 300,000 people within 2 months in China during the second world war? Frankly, it's a double standard and it's hippocritical of you to say that.

Saddam IS NOT being controlled. He still does as he pleases. Hence the problem here. America is not trying to control the world only prevent its destruction.

So what exactly is your definition of controlled? If you mean annexing an entire country and letting your military leaders govern it like a police state, as the current plans suggest, sure that never happened. If you mean preventing him from using weapons of mass destruction, he has been controlled for the most part in the last 12 years. The only time he used his chemical weapons was against the Kurds, who tried to rise up against Saddam, only because they were PROMISED AID from George Bush Sr. THAT AID DIDN'T COME and they were GASSED because of it.

Your accusations about terrorism is an outrage.

Is it really? Are you so blind and mindwashed from all of the extremist right rhetoric that you see the world through Republican tinted goggles?

I find it absurd and offensive that you attempt to claim that we casued terrorism.

Frankly, I don't care if you're offended or not. If you're going to be offended by the truth, then I can't do anything about it. Bin Laden was FUNDED and TRAINED by the CIA during the 80's, when Russia was attacking Afghanistan. It's unfortunate that he took all of that training and bit back, but that's only because he was an ******* and the Iraqi war pushed him over the edge.

Think about the first war with Iraq, it was not even an attack on Iraq. They invaded another country, we went in and fought them back out of that country. Via a UN decision we did not invade into Iraq.
I didn't say that the first Iraqi war was unjust. I just wanted to point out that simple actions can have drastic consequences. The US won the first Iraqi war hands down and with very few casualties, but no one could have foresaw the events that war set in motion. If they did, they might have reconsidered everything. My point is that now that there is historical data, the US should use it. As they say, you need to learn from your mistakes.

You do not even understand the problems, let alone the necessaary measures of dealing with these problems.

Am I that ignorant, or are you the ignorant one? I think you're putting up a good effort in arguing with me, but you should do more research before harshly criticizing others.

topicolo
Mar 6, 2003, 04:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shadowfax
i see a lot of your points, but to flee the middle east to their own devices seems just as suicidal and unconscionable. i think it would have much worse consequences both in human lives destroyed by ethnic cleansing and economically for us; Sure, arab nations hate us for interfering with them, but i doubt that stopping will help anything. they'll just hate us because we're rich, or secular, or christian, or something.

Thanks. I agree that the US does need to do something about Saddam. He's obviously mentally unbalanced but I have to disagree on the method of ousting that SOB. The current approach the US is taking is a little too direct. What I think they should do is deploy only a sizeable force in neighbouring countries to keep the pressure on Iraq to disarm, while also sending peacekeepers into Israel to cool down the tensions there. With any luck, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will resolve itself with some US help and the arabs won't hate us as much anymore. This could give us more support in finding more subtle ways of getting rid of Saddam. I think the military will be useful, but only as a deterrent.

China is not attacking N Korea for obvious reasons. they basically put the damned government there in place. Japan is not attacking because it can't. do they even have a military of any mentionable proportions? they don't seem like that sort of country at all.

True, but that was half a century ago. Today, the relations between the two countries isn't too rosy. In fact, they've had quite a few large border skirmishes since then. I seriously doubt China still supports NK.

macfan
Mar 6, 2003, 05:14 PM
topicolo,

The only time he used his chemical weapons was against the Kurds, who tried to rise up against Saddam, only because they were PROMISED AID from George Bush Sr. THAT AID DIDN'T COME and they were GASSED because of it.

I don't have time to address each statment you have made, but the one above is false on several counts.

1. Saddam also used chemical weapons against Iran to end the war.
2. The Kurds were gassed in 1988, before George H W Bush was elected, and they were not gassed as a result of Bush's failure to back their rebellion with military force, though many were killed. Bush should have gone on to remove Saddam, but he did not.

The current approach the US is taking is a little too direct.

We have tried "indirect." We have tried "subtle" to control Saddam. Saddam does not understand "subtle." Part of that "indirect" and "subtle" was to have full relations with Iraq. Another part was to encourage the people of Iraq to rise up and overthow him. They tired, and it got a bunch of them killed. In your original quote, you criticize Bush 41 for not being direct enough in supporting the Kurds. While your facts on the gas are wrong, it is true that Bush tired a "subtle" approach, and it is true that you are now, rightly, I believe, critical of that approach. However, you are calling for much the same kind of subtle approach with inspectors and deterrence today that you criticize from a decade ago.

It is further worth noting that LeprechaunG4 was not debunked at all. We were not directly attacked by North Korea, and you can argue about the submarine warfare in WWI as to whether it was an attack on the United States No one attacked us before we bombed the crap out of Kosovo or took over Haiti. Granted, Noreiga declared war on the United States, but he didn't actually get around to attacking the mainland of the United States before he was taken out (and a democratic government restored, one might add).

leprechaunG4
Mar 6, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Would you like examples where we weren't attacked, how about every other war in the 20th century. World War I we were not attacked. Korea we were not attacked.
I don't need to say any more about this, since you have already been debunked. BTW, the US involvement in the korean war was due to an unjustified attack on an ally, which I would classify as being retaliatary.
As macfan already pointed out according to your original post I was not "debunked." Macfan also further described my point.

You theory of let the world destroy itself is disgusting. We can not sit idly by and watch other parts of the world be corrupted and terrorized. We have a responsibility.

If you want to be a policeman, you have to be a fair policeman, not turn a blind eye to the poor and the helpless. Where was this "responsibility" when the innocent civilians were getting their hands chopped off in Sierra Leone? Where was this "responsibility" when Eritrea and Ethiopia fought and continue to fight and mercillessly commit atrocities against each other? Where was this "responsibility" when Japanese soldiers stabbed, decapitated, and shot 300,000 people within 2 months in China during the second world war? Frankly, it's a double standard and it's hippocritical of you to say that.

Where did I say that I was ok with any of those things. Yeah, look back through my posts I don't see anywhere me saying I think it's ok for civilians to have their hands chopped off. As for Japan and China, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't we at war with Japan during the second world war. I'm sorry but I cannot find where you pulled this double standard or that I am a hippocrit from.

Saddam IS NOT being controlled. He still does as he pleases. Hence the problem here. America is not trying to control the world only prevent its destruction.

So what exactly is your definition of controlled? If you mean annexing an entire country and letting your military leaders govern it like a police state, as the current plans suggest, sure that never happened. If you mean preventing him from using weapons of mass destruction, he has been controlled for the most part in the last 12 years. The only time he used his chemical weapons was against the Kurds, who tried to rise up against Saddam, only because they were PROMISED AID from George Bush Sr. THAT AID DIDN'T COME and they were GASSED because of it.

It has already been pointed out that you do not have your facts straight about Saddams use of chemical weapons. I consider "controlled" to mean being able to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions, which he does not. If Saddam is not complieing with the UN resolutions he is obviously not under "control" He is doing as he pleases.


Your accusations about terrorism is an outrage.

Is it really? Are you so blind and mindwashed from all of the extremist right rhetoric that you see the world through Republican tinted goggles?

Did you not have any actual argument here? What kind of a point is right winf rhetoric and republican tinted glasses. You accuse that the first war with Iraq mad Osama Bin Laden a terrorist. That is ridiculous, as I was pointing out. You can't blame America for doing what is right because in your mind that created terrorism (something that existed long before the war in Iraq). If you are not going to do anything in life because you are afraid of the "might happens" then you need to crawl into your bed and pull the sheets over your face because you are going nowhere in this world without taking some risks for what is right.


I find it absurd and offensive that you attempt to claim that we casued terrorism.

Frankly, I don't care if you're offended or not. If you're going to be offended by the truth, then I can't do anything about it. Bin Laden was FUNDED and TRAINED by the CIA during the 80's, when Russia was attacking Afghanistan. It's unfortunate that he took all of that training and bit back, but that's only because he was an ******* and the Iraqi war pushed him over the edge.

You don't care if I'm offended? Good to know you are inconsiderate as well as misinformed. Again the war with Iraq did not create terrorism.


Think about the first war with Iraq, it was not even an attack on Iraq. They invaded another country, we went in and fought them back out of that country. Via a UN decision we did not invade into Iraq.
I didn't say that the first Iraqi war was unjust. I just wanted to point out that simple actions can have drastic consequences. The US won the first Iraqi war hands down and with very few casualties, but no one could have foresaw the events that war set in motion. If they did, they might have reconsidered everything. My point is that now that there is historical data, the US should use it. As they say, you need to learn from your mistakes.

Again, two points here:
1. War with Iraq did not create terrorism
2. You cannot be disabled by fear because then you lose before you start. That is EXACTLY what terrorists want.


You do not even understand the problems, let alone the necessaary measures of dealing with these problems.

Am I that ignorant, or are you the ignorant one? I think you're putting up a good effort in arguing with me, but you should do more research before harshly criticizing others.
I think we have gone through and pointed out your errors. You would like to call me ignorant because you have no real facts to base you various conclusions on. I have pointed out where your facts are false and misconstrued, showing you do not have a full understanding of the issues. You also offer no solution than do exactly what we have been doing which hasn't been working, meaning you don't have effective measures of dealing with these problems. You attack me and call me ignorant, however, on the fact that my comment about WWI does not fit with your re-definition of a retaliatory war. In your first post you state that WWII was ok because American soil was attacked. I point out cases where no American soil was attacked. Your response is that you meant that naval attacks and attacks on allies count as retaliatory war as well. Sorry, but that was not your original definition that I posted on. I know I probably sound liek a jerk here, I don't really want to, but you leave me little choice in responding to your posts.

shadowfax
Mar 7, 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leprechaunG4
[B]If you want to be a policeman, you have to be a fair policeman, not turn a blind eye to the poor and the helpless. Where was this "responsibility" when the innocent civilians were getting their hands chopped off in Sierra Leone? Where was this "responsibility" when Eritrea and Ethiopia fought and continue to fight and mercillessly commit atrocities against each other? Where was this "responsibility" when Japanese soldiers stabbed, decapitated, and shot 300,000 people within 2 months in China during the second world war? Frankly, it's a double standard and it's hippocritical of you to say that.

wait... are you arguing that because we haven't solved all the world's problems, that it damned well wouldn't be fair to start now? i'm sorry, but i think that's just totally bogus. this line of argument actually admits that the fair thing to do is interfere for justice, and then you say, "you can't do that because you don't always do that." nobody's perfect. that doesn't mean they can't help now.

and about mixing blood with oil, i don't think that's that big of an issue. i don't think going after iraq is going to help our oil situation. i do, however, think that not doing so is going to help a number of self-serving, insensitive leaders in France.

Kethoticus
Mar 7, 2003, 04:03 AM
...just to respond to some of the things you said...

If you want to be a policeman, you have to be a fair policeman, not turn a blind eye to the poor and the helpless. Where was this "responsibility" when the innocent civilians were getting their hands chopped off in Sierra Leone? Where was this "responsibility" when Eritrea and Ethiopia fought and continue to fight and mercillessly commit atrocities against each other? Where was this "responsibility" when Japanese soldiers stabbed, decapitated, and shot 300,000 people within 2 months in China during the second world war? Frankly, it's a double standard and it's hippocritical of you to say that.

We're a policeman when it comes to our own citizens. That's what an attack on Iraq is about. It's not about global justice. It's about preventing another 9/11 times 100.

But if we do act as a policeman (as Clinton did in Kosovo), it's because the true global police do not. That org can afford to hit injustices everywhere on the planet. We can usually only police those actions that are an imminent or potential threat to us.


So what exactly is your definition of controlled? If you mean annexing an entire country and letting your military leaders govern it like a police state, as the current plans suggest, sure that never happened.

And that police state will be far more just than the one that currently exists. And you and I both know it will be temporary, as it slowly gives way to a gov't that is constructed by the Iraqi people.


If you mean preventing him from using weapons of mass destruction, he has been controlled for the most part in the last 12 years.

You must be referring to how Saddam hasn't been able to smuggle his chemical weapons into Syria in order to hide them from the inspectors. Oh wait... our intelligence believes he has.


The only time he used his chemical weapons was against the Kurds, who tried to rise up against Saddam, only because they were PROMISED AID from George Bush Sr. THAT AID DIDN'T COME and they were GASSED because of it.

Um... I was under the impression that Saddam also tested such weapons on his own people, killing AT LEAST 1 million Iraqis. Are you saying this isn't true?

As for Bush's failures, I agree. He dropped the ball. Now we have to pick it back up. When you crap on the floor, it's foolish to leave it there.


Is it really? Are you so blind and mindwashed from all of the extremist right rhetoric that you see the world through Republican tinted goggles?

From everything I've read, their reasons for hating us are based on their own ignorance and poverty. The fanatical leaders come in an take advantage of their lack of education and frustration with their own lives. Hitler did something similar to the demoralized Germans in the 30s. And like the Nazis, those people need a scapegoat. And that scapegoat is us. (But granted, we never should have abandoned Afghanistan in the 80s, and it looks like we're making up for it now.)

There was an excellent story in the LA Times recently about Maan, Jordan that described these conditions.


Frankly, I don't care if you're offended or not. If you're going to be offended by the truth, then I can't do anything about it. Bin Laden was FUNDED and TRAINED by the CIA during the 80's, when Russia was attacking Afghanistan. It's unfortunate that he took all of that training and bit back, but that's only because he was an ******* and the Iraqi war pushed him over the edge.

And this makes 9/11 our fault?


The US won the first Iraqi war hands down and with very few casualties, but no one could have foresaw the events that war set in motion. If they did, they might have reconsidered everything.

No. If we could have foreseen the consequences, we could have also headed them off. WWII in effect caused the Cold War, leaving the world on the brink of atomic annhilation for several decades. There are always unfortunate consequences to things men do. If we could foresee them, we would not be men, but gods. The question we need to ask is, has the good outweighed the bad?


If Saddam can do it, so could Kim Jong Il,

You're right. And our N Korea problem ain't over yet.


...or *gasp* Pervez Musharraf.

Highly unlikely. He wants greater western ties, and his actions prove it. The only one kissing our behinds more is Tony Blair.

We hit what looks like a threat. Why don't we hit Israel or Russia or China? They have nukes. I'll tell you why: none of those nations have any intention to preemptively strike us.


Let's go attack North Korea and Pakistan after Iraq! Lets also go spend another $180 billion dollars in addition to the $90 billion we're projected to spend on Iraq!

$90 billion dollars now or possibly 100,000 American lives later. I'll let you decide which is more important.


How about using that $90 billion to increase homeland security, enhance counter-terrorism,...

We don't need that extra money for that. All we gotta do is take our troops out of Germany and S Korea and line them up along our Mexican and Canadian borders. And all at no extra cost to the American tax payer.


...and to promote goodwill towards the US around the world?

I'll grant you that Bush has been less than sensitive to others around the world. But $90 billion doesn't solve that. Greater diplomacy and greater respect for other peoples' points of view does--something I hope 9/11 started to teach him.


Or, *GASP* we can feed some of the poor.

Oh, you mean like we've tried to do all over the world, but that hasn't changed a frickin' thing in those respective countries, or where the leaders of those nations steal the food and lets his own people starve? Hmm... Saddam Hussein comes to mind for some reason...


Wait, that's not right, let them starve because we need the money for more stock dividend tax cuts so that the richest 5% can buy more Porsches and yachts (Not that I mind tho, I own dividend bearing stocks)

Well then you make a vile point. But that our gov't does crap sometimes is without dispute. This still does not justify what we've had to endure. The problem is that many around the world want to be at the top of the food chain, and they're jealous of the one who is.

I think that would be a much better investment.

But in all fairness here, I don't know much about our gov't's charity work. I have limited knowledge on the subject. But what I do know shows a spotted record: we've done some noble things and we've done some mob-style things.