ok so terrorist groups have announced that if the us goes to war wiht iraq, that they will commit terroist attacks in the us and england, and around the world... correct?
soo... in otherwords... these terrorist groups must be in with iraq... (who would waste resources on a non-ali?)
sooo... by you supporting an anti war effort... would you be supporting terrorism...
by saying... iraq has no problems... we should not go to war with them... u are letting them thrive and creat WMD... well... apparently since it is obvious (as ive explained above) that Iraq is in Kahoots with terror organisations in the Middle east... well... dont you think that Iraq would share thier weapons with the terrorists (Al Quaeda, etc) to destroy the common enemy? (US)
people... put 2 and 2 together... if u cant figure out the answere, ur def dumb and stupid. SO Iraq has a relationship with terrorist organisations... Once the towers fell, you people should have dropped you hippy bullshit act, and backed up your country.
Look at it this way... If we let iraq go, and we didnt go to war wiht them... the Terrorists would win, and be supplied with as many weapons as thier hearts desire... this could lead to further attacks on our home soil... try and protest somehting when its too late... when you are going to work one morning and shit happens... you will say... "derr im a fucking idiot... i should have realised before"... dont be ignorant. back the country that protects you. There is no other solution...
for any of you who DIDNT see the college students questioning colon powel... well there were a few iraqi defects there who became US students who SUPPORT the war against iraq. THis is because they know what kind of a leader Sadam is... you dont support war because its violent... well shit... if we dont start a war, take sadam out of power, and finish it... there will be 10x more violence comming form iraq and its supporters... then one short war with a main objective.
seriously... u people make me sick... i HATE violence... this is WHY i support this war. It makes perfect sence if u open ur fucking eyes, and see the truth.
lock16
03-12-2003, 07:18 PM
Chris, you actually sounded somewhat intelligent there....
03-12-2003, 07:25 PM
Terrorists are going to attack any which fucking way. Thats what they do, hence the name terrorists. They dont sit around on a messgage board and plan out trips to the WMC. They fucking kill people regardless of war or not. They need to be caught and terminated. End of fucking story.
OuTRiGHT
03-12-2003, 08:01 PM
Amen. Great post.
Penelicious
03-12-2003, 08:04 PM
I take back my derogatory comment in your other thread about the WMC....you are 100% right...I do not agree with war, but sometimes, things need to be nipped right in the bud.
this is all so confusing...I have so many mixed emotions!!! :(
mazznyc
03-12-2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by lock16
Chris, you actually sounded somewhat intelligent there....
LMAO.
it is a valid point though IMO.
MsRay
03-13-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by TheGift
Ms. Ray....that made me wanna cry....:(
this is all so confusing...I have so many mixed emotions!!! :( I agree and I feel the same way. My purpose for posting that was as a balance to the postings that have been prevalent on this board in the past month or so.
Discussions over this issue almost seem moot since it seems everyone is set in their opinion and the futility is quite evident when you see "discussions" consisting of mainly insults to countries, peoples, and values (American one's too).
Whether for or against war, one should be informed and realize that these events that are occurring right now will have consequences beyond our immediate future. We hope them to be mostly good, but one cannot honestly believe that it is assured we will avoid all of the bad.
Russ Reign
03-13-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by PhuckU
Terrorists are going to attack any which fucking way. Thats what they do, hence the name terrorists. They dont sit around on a messgage board and plan out trips to the WMC. They fucking kill people regardless of war or not. They need to be caught and terminated. End of fucking story.
Exactly...
Look, I'm for war in this situation - not EXACTLY sure if we should go YET, but I think the options are narrowing quickly. There's a big difference between being PRO WAR and reluctantly feeling that it's the only way to resolve this situation. NO ONE is PRO WAR - that's like calling pro choicers PRO ABORTION. I understand that it's everone's personal right to disagree w/ the President's policy - that's what makes America great. But, when that disagreement is taken to the extent that it endangers our troops or puts law enforcement at risk, people should think twice...
MsRay
03-13-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Russ Reign
There's a big difference between being PRO WAR and reluctantly feeling that it's the only way to resolve this situation. NO ONE is PRO WAR - that's like calling pro choicers PRO ABORTION. I understand that it's everone's personal right to disagree w/ the President's policy - that's what makes America great. But, when that disagreement is taken to the extent that it endangers our troops or puts law enforcement at risk, people should think twice... I wholeheartedly agree and wholeheartedly disagree. There is a difference between "pro-war" and reluctant acceptance of the situation the President has put us in, but I don't believe for a second that no one is "pro-war" in your definition. Because if that were the case, I would expect different behavior from many of those gunning to fight.
As for disagreement ... only recently has there been any vocal disagreement. The American way of debate and deliberation was thrown out the door when all this began (not 9/11, but the war fever for Iraq). I also wonder how is disagreement endangering our troops and our law enforcement personnel?
Russ Reign
03-13-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by MsRay
I wholeheartedly agree and wholeheartedly disagree. There is a difference between "pro-war" and reluctant acceptance of the situation the President has put us in, but I don't believe for a second that no one is "pro-war" in your definition. Because if that were the case, I would expect different behavior from many of those gunning to fight.
As for disagreement ... only recently has there been any vocal disagreement. The American way of debate and deliberation was thrown out the door when all this began (not 9/11, but the war fever for Iraq). I also wonder how is disagreement endangering our troops and our law enforcement personnel?
Disagreement in itself, or even most forms of protest are definitely not hurting anyone... Being a human shield is, possibly protecting and making it harder for our forces to take out a target that might ensure their safety... refusing to take a certain route on a protest march and trying to get the govt to move the route closer to the UN where there is a greater chance of terrorism that would have an immediate international spotlight might endanger police officers...
Just my perogative...
03-13-2003, 10:14 PM
I agree, no one wants to go to War but these things do happen. Its unfortunate but its reality. In the event of another 9/11, all these ainti-war fucks will be the first to expose to the media "that the government" could have prevented it and look for someone to blame. I dont see these protesters holding anit-terrorist rallies. I see why GWB wants to kill Sadaam and personally I wouldn't exactly be pen-pals with him if he wanted to assanate my father too. I just think its in the best interest that Sadaam gets removed. Hopefully, peacefully, but that is not going to happen.
03-13-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by MsRay
Sleepwalking toward Baghdad (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/10/hourglass/index.html)
I disagree with the first line of this writing. The 1st resolution had been made and Iraq failed to comply. This resolution was passed because a MAJORITY of the Un thinks that Iraq is a threat.
These rules were writtin in STONE and the CONSEQUENCES of Iraqs desicions were also nothing less than clear. Now all these countries want to back down from what they originally signed. Ask yourself why? If they thought Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all these countries pass this resolution and are now backing down from it. Besides the fact that Iraq decieved the world when they, Ill say forgot, to account for 100 's of thousands of weapons they supposedly "didnt" have. They are pushing any and everything to the limit and they deserve anything that comes to them. Never the less, the country deserves to be free. This is why we had the Revolutionary War. To live fee and be under no ones power. They don't need a leader who slaughters his own people because they disagree with him.
Russ Reign
03-13-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
I dont see these protesters holding anit-terrorist rallies.
Exactly...
MsRay
03-14-2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Russ Reign
Disagreement in itself, or even most forms of protest are definitely not hurting anyone... Being a human shield is, possibly protecting and making it harder for our forces to take out a target that might ensure their safety... refusing to take a certain route on a protest march and trying to get the govt to move the route closer to the UN where there is a greater chance of terrorism that would have an immediate international spotlight might endanger police officersOK, here I would agree.
As an aside, I read somewhere that human shields are quickly deserting their "posts," though I haven't come across anything to sufficiently support the claim.
Russ Reign
03-14-2003, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by MsRay
OK, here I would agree.
As an aside, I read somewhere that human shields are quickly deserting their "posts," though I haven't come across anything to sufficiently support the claim.
Some of them wanted to defend targets that would be vital to Iraqi civilians (like food processing plants and hospitals - which I doubt we'd purposely attack anyway) but the Iraqi govt. wanted to move them to military targets which they wanted no part of. Saddam was just gonna use them as pawns... Hopefully the bastard just leaves the country and saves the innocent blood - too bad that's doubtful :(
Tep
03-14-2003, 08:55 AM
| America is about to launch the first unprovoked war in its history...WHAT???? Taking down our towers and the lives of thousands of innocent people was UNCALLED for...WE HAVE been PROVOKED and its time to kick ass!!! (sorry it sounds gung-ho but seriously we have to take a stand somewhere right?)
JaY BiRd
MsRay
03-14-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Tep
| America is about to launch the first unprovoked war in its history...WHAT???? Taking down our towers and the lives of thousands of innocent people was UNCALLED for...WE HAVE been PROVOKED and its time to kick ass!!! (sorry it sounds gung-ho but seriously we have to take a stand somewhere right?)Iraq was not involved.
Tep
03-14-2003, 11:28 AM
Iraq harbors the terrorists we are looking for right?
JaY BiRd
MsRay
03-14-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Tep
Iraq harbors the terrorists we are looking for right?It does? Last time I checked Osama despised Saddam.
Tep
03-14-2003, 12:25 PM
really? I never knew that about OSAMA? I thought they were in Kahoots with each other? Do you have any article stating that information? Thanks you have been real informative! :)
JaY BiRd
MsRay
03-14-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Tep
really? I never knew that about OSAMA? I thought they were in Kahoots with each other? Do you have any article stating that information? Thanks you have been real informative! :)In fact, some people wrongly believe Osama and Saddam are the same person.
Here is a link link (http://tinyurl.com/7h1s) to Google News to some articles talking about the tape Osama released urging the Iraqi people to resist the American invasion while also calling Saddam and his regime "one of the infidels." Osama's interest in Iraq and the coming war is opportunistic.
This article (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woqaid113168192mar11,0,6828465.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) talks about al-Qaida's plans for future terrorist attacks to take place shortly after war's beginning.
03-14-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by MsRay
It does? Last time I checked Osama despised Saddam.
It has been provin already through the FBI and CIA's efforts to track the transferring of money that Sadamm has supported Al Queida so therefore Iraq does have something to do with 9/11
03-14-2003, 01:08 PM
As far as 9/11,
It was provoked. Osama Bin Laden, A Saudi Arabian has hate towards America because GWB Sr. If you recall, GWB convinced the Saudis to rebel against Sadaam Hussein and promised we would support them. Then Mr. Bush decides he doesnt want to fight anymore and all the Saudis get horriffically slaughtered.
MsRay
03-14-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
It has been provin already through the FBI and CIA's efforts to track the transferring of money that Sadamm has supported Al Queida so therefore Iraq does have something to do with 9/11 Please substantiate the claim.
MsRay
03-14-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
As far as 9/11,
It was provoked. Osama Bin Laden, A Saudi Arabian has hate towards America because GWB Sr. If you recall, GWB convinced the Saudis to rebel against Sadaam Hussein and promised we would support them. Then Mr. Bush decides he doesnt want to fight anymore and all the Saudis get horriffically slaughtered. So Saddam is involved because George Sr. stopped supporting the Saudis in their rebellion against him? Reason for Osama, yes. Reason for Saddam, no.
03-14-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by MsRay
So Saddam is involved because George Sr. stopped supporting the Saudis in their rebellion against him? Reason for Osama, yes. Reason for Saddam, no.
They are now 2 different reasons. Osama I need not clarify. But Sadaam I will again.
Regardless of what happened in Desert Storm that should have been finished, we are at this situation now. The world CLEARLY sees that Sadaam is a threat to the worlds wel being. That is why the resolution got passed by a MAJORITY to begin with. So isnt that enough reason?
MsRay
03-14-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
They are now 2 different reasons. Osama I need not clarify. But Sadaam I will again.
Regardless of what happened in Desert Storm that should have been finished, we are at this situation now. The world CLEARLY sees that Sadaam is a threat to the worlds wel being. That is why the resolution got passed by a MAJORITY to begin with. So isnt that enough reason? Which resolution?
03-14-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
I disagree with the first line of this writing. The 1st resolution had been made and Iraq failed to comply. This resolution was passed because a MAJORITY of the Un thinks that Iraq is a threat.
These rules were writtin in STONE and the CONSEQUENCES of Iraqs desicions were also nothing less than clear. Now all these countries want to back down from what they originally signed. Ask yourself why? If they thought Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all these countries pass this resolution and are now backing down from it. Besides the fact that Iraq decieved the world when they, Ill say forgot, to account for 100 's of thousands of weapons they supposedly "didnt" have. They are pushing any and everything to the limit and they deserve anything that comes to them. Never the less, the country deserves to be free. This is why we had the Revolutionary War. To live fee and be under no ones power. They don't need a leader who slaughters his own people because they disagree with him.
This resolution. The first one. I feel theres no need for anymore. I feel this is enough reason to disarm him physically because that was the consequence that was stated along with the majority who passed this that are now backing away from it. You don't deserve 2nd chances when you posess things that can be very harmful to the world. Especially, when you have a track record of decieving the world.
MsRay
03-14-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
This resolution. The first one. I feel theres no need for anymore. I feel this is enough reason to disarm him physically because that was the consequence that was stated along with the majority who passed this that are now backing away from it. You don't deserve 2nd chances when you posess things that can be very harmful to the world. Especially, when you have a track record of decieving the world. Why now?
twilightbee
03-14-2003, 01:51 PM
Yet another fine post in the WRONG FORUM!
03-14-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by MsRay
Why now?
This should have been taken care of in 92 but Ill give you my "opinion" why now. Weapons of Mass destruction, hence the name, are something that nobody should posess. But when you have posession of these things, get caught and then lie about it, obviously your up to no good. Because which Im looking for right now, that Sadaam has funded terrorists before, can get really ugly not for only us but for the rest of the world if the wrong people get their hands on these. Look at what they did with 2 planes!!!! Planes!!! Can you just imagine the disaster what will come if these people somehow get into manhattem with a nuclear bomb? This is what we have to worry about. Why even take that chance when the world was supposed to be backing us up on this resolution? This guy just pulls one lie after another and you can honestly sit here and tell me you believe that he will disarm himself after he already had the chance to again?
MsRay
03-14-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by PhuckU
This should have been taken care of in 92 but Ill give you my "opinion" why now. Weapons of Mass destruction, hence the name, are something that nobody should posess. But when you have posession of these things, get caught and then lie about it, obviously your up to no good. Because which Im looking for right now, that Sadaam has funded terrorists before, can get really ugly not for only us but for the rest of the world if the wrong people get their hands on these. Look at what they did with 2 planes!!!! Planes!!! Can you just imagine the disaster what will come if these people somehow get into manhattem with a nuclear bomb? This is what we have to worry about. Why even take that chance when the world was supposed to be backing us up on this resolution? This guy just pulls one lie after another and you can honestly sit here and tell me you believe that he will disarm himself after he already had the chance to again? Once again, please substantiate your claims.
And speaking of worrying about wmds and bio/chem weapons getting into the wrong hands. What would do about North Korea? Pakistan?
And no, I don't believe he will disarm himself which is why the inspection system was setup.