Print

[Ronnie]

QUOTE (isoMonger @ Mar 10 2003, 12:45 AM)

QUOTE (Skunky @ Mar 6 2003, 10:40 PM) totally agree....  Bush has a wild hair up his ass for sadam..  since his father couldn't get the job done in the first place....  Look what these republican presidents do when in office. start wars even without the UN permission...kill the economy...etc...  can't wait tell 2006 to get a new prez... NO WHERE in the constitution does it say the U.S. needs permission from the UN to star a war with another country,  I wish i would've gotten in this arguement earlier.  I'm registered for the draft, not fearing it, but i don't think i'm prime draft material seeings how i'm only 18.  I don't hate our government, kinda at an understanding with it, that we definately don't like each other, i hate taxes, damn. err .....anyways,  i think even though we pay for rebiulding these countries after we rip them apart, i think the citizens of those countries are the real losers in it all.  I don't really know what its like having trouble finding a meal.  I also think if we don't go to war and take care of some problems over there, things aren't gonna get any better.  We shouldn't ignore them, but we shouldn't also keep providing aid (like food and shit) for indefinite.  South Korea torques me though, i mean i kinda understand there motive of hating us for even thinkin about taken care of n korea because we are a bigger country just tryin to push them around etc etc, but i wish i knew it was a bigger motive than that

What draft?
There is no draft...

[xboxmodder4life]

when ur 18 ur supposed to register for the draft. Theres no actaul draft but incase there ever is. Your legally obligated if your a citizen of the united states at the age of 18 to sign up for a potential draft

[Al_Ghazi]

Ho

I turned 18 the year that 'ol Ray-Gun brought that draft registration thing into effect.  I filled my card out in pink crayon and put a note at the bottom "Please forgive the crayon, but they won't let me have sharp instruments".

i got a stinkin letter from the DoD containing a blank registration card and telling me that I was going to do it right this time or I was going to jail.  I whimped out and did it right.  I am after all an armchair liberal.

Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at.  

Republicans... Bah!

Gaz.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 04:22 PM)

Yawn...   Gosh...  What have I missed? Lizard King still pontificating and not realising that he is becoming more and more of a lone voice as the entire planet sides up against the United States? I liked this one Lizzy: QUOTE How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law? Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around? I don't think so. Sounds good to me - lets enforce the outstanding security council resolution on that rouge state Israel then?  Yes?  Israel has a secret nuclear arms project, a secret chemical weapons project, is in violation of several Security Council resolutions and is in violation of everything and anything that even resembles western morality.

Just trying to point out how absurd it is to use a wholly situational nonstandard like this "international law" everyone speaks of...You of all people should know that the UN is no instrument of legitimacy in my view.  

QUOTE

What is more Israel is at present asking for $40 Billion in additional aid this year from the US...  I think George Bush should give up the prayer meetings and don a yamaka and just ask Israel to fuck each and every American up the ass. Just a thought .

Well, we'll have all that money left over from Turkey, so it should be no problem at all.  If you want to start questioning US aid decisions, the list begins with near hostile countries such as Egypt.  Israel is plainly our ally, and a strong Israel is greatly beneficial in keeping its rowdy neighbours, Iraq aside, a little quieter than usual.  And it's 'yarmelke', fool.

QUOTE

(1) Isn't it possible that invading Iraq will cause more terrorism than it prevents?

Of course, it's possible but it's highly unlikely.  Arab terrorism will continue to strike against America and its allies until the destruction of either side.  All an attack on Iraq might do is accelerate Al Qaeda's timetable; Iraq is not a causal factor in their calculations but a scheduling one.

The Arab "street", the Arab leaders, and all their lackeys could not be more anti-American without doing so openly and being annihilated like Afghanistan.  Removing Hussein and establishing a less oppressive regime cannot help but destabilize it's neighbours; there is nowhere for them to be de-stabilized but upwards.  

General Clark is a staff officer, not a battle officer, or even a politics-minded one.  He thinks in terms of immediate cost-benefit analyses, and is always attempting to accumulate resources and shift pressure as was NATO's style when they dealt with the Soviets.  That does not work in an asymmetrical conflict like this one.  

QUOTE

(3) You point out that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that "could" be turned over to terrorists. But couldn't the same be said of Pakistan, North Korea, and dozens of other nations? And do you intend to launch pre-emptive strikes against them as well? Bombing Iraq because of what it "might" do would set a frightening precedent. Imagine the global chaos that would result if every nation followed Bush's example, and it's easy to understand how reckless a first-strike policy is.

QUOTE

(5) Why do you maintain that Iraq poses a more immediate threat than North Korea? North Korean leader Kim Jong-il admits that he has nuclear weapons capable of hitting U.S. targets, and brags that he can 'win' a nuclear war with the United States. Please explain why Americans should fear Iraq more than this belligerent, and apparently unstable, communist dictator.

North Korea is different largely because 1. They already have the bomb, and thus military options for dealing with them would have to be extraordinarily radical and costly. and 2.  They have China as a limiting factor and the 3rd strongest military in the world right across the bay (Japan, not China).  The South Koreans are no slouches either.  Likewise, Pakistan has India to worry about.  They check each other's power.

Iraq has no regional rivals worth mentioning other than Turkey, which has always functioned in a very separate sphere from the Middle East anyway.  Israel is not sufficient because it has the whole of the region in opposition to it, and very limited second-strike potential due to its tiny area (ie, Israel would ultimately lose a nuclear engagement no matter what due to its size).  That kind of rogue power next to the world's largest oil reserve is wholly unacceptable.  

In any case, Iraq is as much *because* of what has happened in North Korea as any other reason.  I guarantee you an American client state in Iraq will do much to calm Asian dictators.

Our options for dealing with NK are limited; with Iraq, we have the option of getting rid of it before it becomes such problem.

QUOTE

(4) Won't attacking Iraq make Saddam more likely to launch a biological or chemical attack? During the Gulf War, the Iraqi leader apparently decided that unleashing such devastating weapons was not in his self- interest. But this time Saddam knows he is targeted personally – which means he has nothing to lose. If Bush really wants to avoid such a catastrophe, he can prove it by keeping U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Sure, but the difference is that apart from Israel he will be launching them against military targets.  In case you thought the Geneva convention was what kept the US from prioritizing chem and bio wmd's in its arsenal, the most compelling reason is that they are largely ineffective in a military engagement except for terror purposes against civilian populaces.  The US is well aware of this, and is also fairly certain that Saddam is not building all this as a credible "deterrent", as there is no one in the area to deter. They are designed for a first strike of some sort.  


Hold on a moment; it just struck me how unlikely it is that you came up with these questions, so a quick Google search revealed that they were actually from the Libertarian Party's Geoffrey Neale.  You didn't even bother to change the wording.

They have been dealt with extensively in various places.  If you want to continue to post other people's argument's as your own, I recommend you find someone else to waste their time dealing with them.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 08:30 PM)

Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at.   Republicans... Bah! Gaz.

You can thank Liddy Dole for that.  One of the many Republicans-in-name-only that make the party a lesser of two evils rather than a good choice, she tied federal highway funding to the drinking age as transportation secretary, and fucked everyone.    Even Louisiana had to fold.  There is no justification for overregulation other than credible and temporary states of emergency, no matter which party's members orchestrate it.

[Lizard_King]

And for the amusement of the general public, I toss in this news about a premature surrender attempt by a disheartened group of Iraqi soldiers. Obviously all that French advice has sunk in...

Keep in mind that the headline is blown out of proportion in typical British newspaper style.

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 10 2003, 05:29 PM)

QUOTE (4) Won't attacking Iraq make Saddam more likely to launch a biological or chemical attack? During the Gulf War, the Iraqi leader apparently decided that unleashing such devastating weapons was not in his self- interest. But this time Saddam knows he is targeted personally – which means he has nothing to lose. If Bush really wants to avoid such a catastrophe, he can prove it by keeping U.S. troops out of Iraq. Sure, but the difference is that apart from Israel he will be launching them against military targets.  In case you thought the Geneva convention was what kept the US from prioritizing chem and bio wmd's in its arsenal, the most compelling reason is that they are largely ineffective in a military engagement except for terror purposes against civilian populaces.  The US is well aware of this, and is also fairly certain that Saddam is not building all this as a credible "deterrent", as there is no one in the area to deter. They are designed for a first strike of some sort.   Hold on a moment; it just struck me how unlikely it is that you came up with these questions, so a quick Google search revealed that they were actually from the Libertarian Party's Geoffrey Neale.  You didn't even bother to change the wording. They have been dealt with extensively in various places.  If you want to continue to post other people's argument's as your own, I recommend you find someone else to waste their time dealing with them.

Hahahaha!!!! That was good. Dude got caught plagerising  

I wonder if that is how he made it through school. I figured he was one of those democrap sheeple.

[dude]

Ok Lizard then are main emphasis should be on biological and chemical WMD by your argument since apparently Saddam does not have as much Nuclear capability as showcased by Powell's presentation to the UN.  If this is true you have failed to make your case regarding Saddam being anymore of a threat than North Korea.  North Korea certainly has these items and is definitely saber-rattling moreso than Saddam:

North Korea has a stockpile of 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons and is believed to be capable of producing 1 ton of biological weapons annually, according to South Korea's Defense Ministry.

The communist state's stockpile of chemical weapons consists of 17 different types that can be used to dispense nerve gases, the ministry said in a report presented to the National Assembly. North Korea can produce about 4,500 tons of chemical weapons every year, it said.  

Pyongyang's army also has biological weapons involving 13 different lethal germs and viruses, the ministry said.


We are only there for the oil and to hide it under the guise of chemical/biological WMD is assinine.  

Please provide a more compelling argument next time before you waste my time.

[gainpresence]

We're taking care of North Korea, AND Iraq, AND Terrorism.

[dude]

QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 10 2003, 10:46 PM)

I wonder if that is how he made it through school. I figured he was one of those democrap sheeple.

Really, is that what you think?  Isn't it funny Repugs resort to ad hominem attacks when they can't think of a compelling argument.

Here's your playbook:

A typical Repug refute


1) First he'll (usually a man, Ann Coulter is a transvestite) patiently try to tell you where you went wrong in your idiotic thinking.

2) If you still don't see it his way, he'll say "well Clinton did" whatever, as if that excuses this admin's failures. Or will state out of the blue that "libs" are still whining about the election when no one said anything about it.

3) When faced with logic, he will start picking apart your sentences, spelling, find some small detail and turn the debate over on that.

4) When shown how stupid his argument is, he will call names.

5) When laughed at for his childish behavior, he will start threatening violence on you and your family.

6) When thoroughly refuted, will sputter and say "Oh yeah? Well Ignore's not just a town in Russia" then slink away, tail between legs.

Try it, they all use the same pattern. It's in the Bush Admin's playbook. (Works well with reporters, too)

[meltdown]

QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 8 2003, 03:30 PM)

QUOTE As for Europe and all of them supposedly having the "right way" to deal with the situation. Let's see here... in WW-II most of Europe pretty much rolled over for the Axis. And I hear France is a great place to pick up old WW-II rifles, never fired and they've only been dropped once. We at least were willing to stand up for basic human rights, something very few others (except the Canadians, Brits, and a VERY few resistance fighters in the occupied countries) were willing to do. We at least were willing to draw a line and say "no further". What were they willing to do? Hrm... let's see either raise their hands in surrender and say "let's be friends", or try to profit off of the misfortune such as the Swedes did in WW-II. We were willing to sacrifice the lives of our own people for their freedom, and they were willing to roll over and say "let some one else do it". If that ISN'T cowardly I don't know what is. Personally I think the US should become insular again like we were just before WW-II. Raise tarrifs on imported goods so companies will go back to using American workers and products made in America, start pumping oil from our own lands again and tell the UM bugger off we're out of the whole world picture. Then we'll just wait and let Saddam and Korea nuke a couple of other countries before we think about stepping in and THEN we'll ONLY step in when we are asked to. Simple solution to the whole deal just start ignoring everything else outside ourselves. That will make for a better world.    Another person educated by American TV. Excuse me when did WWII start,  1939 and when did the United States join the war, In 1944. As your Amercian president put it back then Hitler was Europes problem not the United States. So as my family was getting slaughtered in Poland and countless others Americas interest for 4 years prior was selling equipment and supplies to the Allies to fight the germans Prophiting from there deaths because there deaths were not the US problem. Then only when it was going to be benificial for your country they joined and fought a army that had been fighting for 4 years prior and tell there people they won the war. You ignorent Americans make me sick you go off on how great your Country is when you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV. Every war the US has taken by itself it has had its Asses handed to them ie. Vietnam. Hell the french had to bail you out fighting against yourselves.  America will only embark on a war when it benifits them not for the liberty of people as they say, or Humanity but to gain something from it for themselves ie the Oil. They dont give a shit about anyone or any other country but themselves( where the fuck was the US 5 years ago in Afganistan when the same things were going on to there people, how bout Sarajevo or any fucking war that doesnt have any insentives for America) Stop this garbage that America fights for freedom and oh so beautiful Liberty to give gods gift, because thats the biggest bullshit lie in the world and ever other country in this world knows that, thats why no one respects you or gives a rats ass about the States. And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened.

Um ok.. I'm going to bring up some obvious ignorant statements here that show you don't know the facts:

1. The French did no bail out the US in Vietnam, WE WENT into Vietnam to bail the French out.  They were getting slaughtered left and right and asked us to come save them (again).  Read some military history PLEASE.

2. As for profiting in WW-II.  We were to a degree, but we weren't the ones taking money from captured jews, and using the POW camps that Germany was creating and the fortunes displaced by the Jews to make us money like Sweden was.  We also were not the ones living just a few miles down the road from an internment camp saying "We never knew it was there... that stench is burning human flesh? We never knew that either".  I'm not saying the Germans were evil, or bad as a whole, but they were most deffinatly cowardly, oh we know the furor is doing this but we'll still support him.

3. Russia did NOT enter Germany or even get close to Berlin till the Germans had fallen and the US, Canadian, and British forces were already well entrenched.  And if you want to get particular it was Hitler's suicide that ended the war.  The day after, Germany surrendered.  The Russians on the other hand had been driven back all the way to Stalingrad and further before it finally ended.  When the war ended they were for the most part just holding the line and not really making any advancements on the European front.

4. As for stop talking about liberty and freedom... Why?  We had nothing to gain by freeing Afghanistan other than putting Al'Qaeda on the run if not destroying it?  NOTHING when it comes to money.  Zilch...  Do you realise that currently, right now as we speak the majority of our oil is coming from South America and Russia?  NOT the Arab nations as some would have you believe.  Actually only about 23-28% is coming from the middle east.  If we wished we could say "Ok no more oil from the middle east" and start pulling it from Anwar (if the damn tree huggers would leave us alone) or even start the wells back up in Texas and Oklahoma.  So we aren't in it for the money.  Although here is one funny little note you might want to be aware of.  France and Germany currently have development deals in Iraq with Iraq for oil development....  If there is a war and Saddam is out of power they most likely would no longer have those contracts... Hrm.. wonder if that is influencing their vote.  Sounds like they have far more financially to lose than the US does, and most likely the largest reason for them saying "No war".  Sounds like while we may have trained and gotten Saddam into power, the EU nations are far more in bed with him then we ever were.... Awfully hypocritical to lamblast us then now isn't it.

[Wong Hung Lo]

I think Dude should get the copy and paste award.

[Mage]

Dude, what are you talking about?  It's already been shown you plagiarized someone else's work.  Why should anyone take you serious after such an event?

Wong Hung Lo was talking about that...

EDIT: Tag mis-match.

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (dude @ Mar 10 2003, 07:31 PM)

QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 10 2003, 11:22 PM) I think Dude should get the copy and paste award. When faced with logic, he will start picking apart your sentences, spelling, find some small detail and turn the debate over on that. 'Nuff said!

At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree.

Also my hats off to Russia on how they took care of those terrorist in that theatre last year. I really love how they burried them wrapped up in pigskins  

Don't forget that Saddam funds terrorism. Remember how he gives the familes of suicide bombers $50,000.

Here's something you can copy and paste. " Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims".

[Mage]

Who died and made you a moderator? *laugh*