The War In Iraq - OPINIONS ONLY [Archive]

SleepyHead

Mar 19, 2003, 02:24 PM

I agree, Rocky Rabbit.

I HATE war. It is an effort in futility - but in my opinion, Bush's administration, and those in the intervening years have bent over backwards to use the diplomatic approach.

It hasn't worked. For a country that was supposed to have disarmed 12 years ago, Iraq (still under the same leadership as it was 12 years ago) poses a threat not only by it's continued possession of weapons of war, but by it's adding to those possessions, and by it's demonstrated alliances with those who (like them) are anti-American and anti-democracy.

Hussein got a slap on the wrist by a modern day disciplinist 12 years ago - he was told to clean his room, and when he didn't instead of getting his butt royally spanked, he got "timed out". He threw out the inspectors, and the UN hasn't done one damned thing to insist it's directives be followed.

When Bush calls 'em on the carpet for their weak-handed lack of control, he's lashed by others who also insist that ultimatums should be averted because "they're trying to disarm".

When I see Hussein buckling in for the long haul, I no longer need photos of his weapons' stash - anyone foolish enough to refuse to back down in front of ever-growing US weaponry and soldiers in his own front yard definitely feels he has the firepower to hold his own.

These are not the actions of a man or a country who is or who has "tried to disarm".

When you stick that brat in a corner, take away his cable, his telephone, his desert and even send him to bed without dinner, and he still insists on performing in the same manner that earned him discipline in the first place, it's time to bust that kid's rear-end. It's time to get rid of Hussein once and for all.

Tim

Mar 19, 2003, 04:34 PM

I feel the war is wrong, and as an American, I have to say my country is wron for fighting it.

The facts do not support war--it's gone from Saddam has nukes, to Saddam is devolping them,to Saddam wants them,to Saddam is throwing acid on babies.

I truly beleive Bush is bent on Armageddon, that he is crazy enough to believe that God has assigned him a mission to reshape the world in the image of the U.S.A. and that a huge number of innocent people will die.

I also do not beleive Bush gave diplomacy a chance, since 9-11 they have been trying to pin 9-11 on Saddam and turn a blind eye to the truth of the Saudi funding it.

Sgt.McCartney

Mar 19, 2003, 04:49 PM

I know I don't participate much in political issues around here, but I do have an opinion.

Now, I ain't too informed much on these type of things so bear with me. I do not think we should be going into war. Spending all this money and what not is bad for the economy. It's bad as it is. That means prices will sky-rocket(like they already aren't) and for hard-working American families as mine and everyone eles's will just have to pay more just to get by. Plus, war is such a bad thing.

leonardobeat

Mar 19, 2003, 07:27 PM

I already said all I had to say about the war, my opinions and my feelings about this.

It's understandanle the fact of you're scared about that coward named Hussein or any other guy who could attack your country. In the same way that I think in te people of Afghanistan and I wish they could live in peace, I hope you ccan do it too. The big most of american people is very very nice, I have lots of friends from there, people who I met in Internet or people who I met here in my country, you deserve more than fights all the time, you deserve more than a person as Bush in the governement.

He lies but your need of security blocks your eyes, he's not making anything for you. He's selling your lifes. He's just getting all the world being against him and being against your country, believe me, you could see the first force on the world but nobody believes in America these days, and it's sad because the people of your country is not doing anything bad, Bush does, he's ruining the life of half world spoiling the economy, making wars in everywhere, millions of people has lost their jobs, their lifes, their safety, their homes, their minds.

A person as him, who plays with your feelings, with your fears and who is washing your heads is more dangerous than a coward guy with moustache.

Let's open our eyes, killing people is never a solution, the violence is not the only way to take Hussein out of Iraq. Let's use our brains and not our guns.

For yourself, for your family, for all the world.

MissusLennon

Mar 19, 2003, 07:31 PM

Let's open our eyes, killing people is never a solution, the violence is not the only way to take Hussein out of Iraq. Let's use our brains and not our guns. Well said!

Jerry

Mar 20, 2003, 12:22 AM

Well, it pretty much looks like war is around the corner. So I'm opening up this topic for you guys to discuss your OPINIONS about the war.

I'm not talking about real news or specific events, like the start of the war or Iraq surrendering. Although we don't want 1,000 topics throughout the forum about the war, I'm sure major things will happen that you'll want to discuss.

But the minute ANY of those discussions turn into the usual nasty political arguments, I'm going to close them. Obviously, there are a few members out there who feel very strongly about certain political things, and I'd like to keep those opinions in here, and IN HERE ONLY.

So....uh....have at it...

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 20, 2003, 12:45 AM

Well I guess I'll throw my opinion in.
Without trying to offend anyone I'm glad that we are going to take out Saddam Hussein.
NO - I'm not glad to be at war!
NO - I'm not glad people will die!
NO - I don't neccesary believe that we have a legal right to do this!

But Saddam needs taken out and I have never hated anyone but I really hope he is killed.That may sound evil to some people but thats exactly what Saddam is and I honestly believe he DESERVES to die.
This is only MY opinion and I hope people understand that and don't attack me for wishing a fellow human dead.

Finally I just want to say I fully support all the allied forces about to go into action - my thoughts are with you all!

Harbidge

Mar 20, 2003, 01:56 AM

I suppose many opinions that are anti-war are based on a personal fear. Fear of what would happen if unthinkable things happen. Fear of if you are called upon to defend your country, fear of armageddon.

I should know, I was one of them. My main reason for being anti-war was because of fear. I was afraid that civilians would start to be called up to help fight the war and I would be carted off to the middle East.

And that's selfish of me.

But it doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't go. He's played along for too long and he must be (Dr. Evil voice here folks) "Eliminated".

However, the reasonings given by George and Tony have been very shaky, and I believe that it is this that has made so many people anti-war. They don't know the full story, and so have been allowed to created rumours about oil and greed. If George and Tony had been straight to their public at the beginning then people would understand why war was necessary.

For example, somebody said that George was quoted as saying that Saddam will be easy to topple since he has a depleated weaponary, yet the whole reason for war is because Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction - something that is clearly a contradiction.

The other thing that upsets people is that the war is not 'justified' - i.e. the UN could not settle on a definitive outlook on the scenario. Some could argue (including myself) that if the evidence to go to war was that strong, how come the UN didn't fully go ahead? Surely some doubt must be there otherwise the 2nd resolution would have gone through.

But then again, there's Jac Shirrac (I don't know if I've spelt that right, so forgive me if I haven't) who was going to defy the UN whatever happened, regardless of the evidence and there's Poutin in Russia that held the same stance. Only two countries didn't think we should go to war, and one of them wasn't going to vote for it in any instance.

It's all shaky at the moment. Let's hope the gamble pays off.

SleepyHead

Mar 20, 2003, 03:07 AM

Well, lessee... according to Iraq's own weapons report, submitted to the UN on 8 December 2002, these are the statistics:

IRAQ DECLARATION

Documentation includes:

11,807 pages of information

1,334 on biological weaponry

1,823 on chemical weaponry

6,887 on missiles

Plus 12 CD-ROMs containing 529 megabytes of information

This is what the UN inspectors were supposed to rely upon to "prove" that Iraq had disarmed itself. It is insufficient, to say the least.

Blix said in his report to the Security Council last month (February 14, 2003) that Iraq's inability to prove it destroyed its stock of chemical and biological weapons is "perhaps the most important problem we are facing."

Proof that Iraq destroyed its VX and anthrax stocks is included in the six benchmarks proposed by Britain as a way to measure Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions. It is also one of five conditions presented in a compromise proposed by Chile.

Iraqi compliance has divided the Security Council since shortly after it sent weapons inspectors back into the country to look for signs of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program, which Iraq was ordered to dismantle in the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq said it has destroyed the weapons but has not been able to prove it in the case of the VX and anthrax.

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons (8,500 liters) of anthrax.

VX, a colorless liquid that turns into gas, prevents the transmission of nerve signals, causing loss of muscle control, respiratory paralysis and death. Anthrax is an acute infectious disease caused by the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis. The spore produces a toxin that can be fatal.

Now, let's consider the first part of UN Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002:
Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq
Friday, November 8, 2002 Posted: 2:17 PM EST (1917 GMT)

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...Iraq has utterly failed to comply with all of the above resolutions - and as God as my witness, the war which has begun in Iraq will bear out the continuance of Iraq to hold weapons of mass of destruction. In the face of such vacillations on the part of the UN, Bush had no choice but to withdraw the proposed resolution for war, which would in effect restrict us to acting upon that resolution alone. We have 17 prior resolutions, considered by the UN as continuing to be valid, which give us the absolute authority necessary as an authorized Member State to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement (the UN's) resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)"

All posturing aside, this resolution required Iraq to comply immediately with each and every one of the previously ordered resolutions, and to do so within 30 days.

How many days has it been since November 8, 2002?

Russia won't attack a country that owes it $6 billion dollars in war debts, and France has over $60 billion worth of oil contracts with Iraq - their positions were foreseen as untractable, but Bush went forward with the attempt to make the UN get up off it's collective butt and carry out it's own resolutions to appease the other Member States.

It didn't matter, though, did it - the rejection of the proposal by France even before the Iraqis did was enough to start that backhall whispering of others afraid to interfere in other nation's politics.

Except this isn't strictly politics - the Iraqi nation has been operating illegally under UN imposed sanctions for over 12 years while the UN twiddled it's collective thumbs and said, "Short of war, how do we make them comply?"

Short of war, we didn't.

Now, it's war.

SleepyHead

Mar 20, 2003, 03:33 AM

In a 1997 report based on UN weapons inspectors findings in Iraq...

Monday, November 10, 1997 Published at 17:38 GMT

Special Report

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

What does Iraq have?
Nuclear weapons

Iraq is believed to have come close to developing a workable nuclear device shortly before the Gulf War, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.

Ballistic missiles

Between 1975 and 1990, Iraq imported over 800 Scud B missiles and 11 mobile launchers from the Soviet Union. Iraq has admitted to having produced 8 mobile launchers and 28 fixed launch pads itself, and an additional 28 fixed launch pads under construction were discovered by UNSCOM. It has evidence to suggest that since the Gulf War, Iraq had continued to develop its ballistic missile capacity. A shipment of advanced missile gyroscopes was intercepted in 1995 in neighbouring Jordan. It is thought that Iraq could still be hiding between 6 and 16 proscribed missiles. SCUD missiles were among those weapons Iraq was ordered to dismantle. I said that this war would bear out the fact that Iraq continues to harbor it's weaponry, but I wasn't envisioning being proven of it this early...

U.S. military: Patriot missile intercepts Scud
Thursday, March 20, 2003 Posted: 6:09 AM EST (1109 GMT)

KUWAIT CITY (CNN) -- A U.S. Patriot missile knocked an Iraqi Scud out of the sky Thursday afternoon about two hours after two other Scuds landed without injury near the U.S. forces' main logistics center in the Kuwaiti desert, the military said.

The first incident happened at about 10:30 a.m., local time, when a "missile-like" object hurtled past Camp Iwo Jima about 300 feet away. The Marines who got the best look at the object said it was self-propelled and green with yellow stripes, said CNN's Sanjay Gupta, who is with the Iwo Jima Marines.

Gupta said the camp was quickly ordered into bunkers and told to put on gas masks, followed by the announcement "missiles inbound."

From the bunker, people could not see where the object landed, but they heard a loud boom to the south, between the camp and Kuwait City.

Gupta said they also heard several "thuds" from the north, and a Marine came by and said that "hits have been confirmed."

A Marine spokesman later told Gupta there were no casualties and confirmed that more than one Iraqi missile flew over their position, landing at 10:28 a.m. south of the camp near Camp Commando.

The missiles did not contain chemical or biological agents, the spokesman said.

About two hours after the Scud attack, air raid sirens sounded in Kuwait City and the Marines were again sent to their bunkers.

Gupta had just finished a live report on CNN when the Iwo Jima's PA announcer ordered everyone into bunkers for the second time. The camp got an "all clear" after a few minutes, but were quickly ordered back in for the third time. He was preparing for a live report when the third order came, followed shortly afterward by the "all clear."

CNN's Bill Hemmer said Kuwait City got an "all clear" after about 30 minutes.

CNN's Ryan Chilcote, embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division, said two military sources confirmed that a Patriot missile had been fired at an incoming missile to the north.

Walter Rodgers, CNN correspondent embedded with the Army's 7th Cavalry near the Iraqi border, said commanders there feared an artillery barrage and ordered everyone into full chemical suits and gas masks.

Gupta also reported seeing a Marine medivac helicopter take off from about Camp Iwo Jima.

The helicopter flew to the northwest, Gupta said, in the direction of the Iraq-Kuwait border and has not returned.

-- CNN Radio Correspondent John Bisney contributed to this report If he's still got SCUDs, wonder what else he's got planned for us Zionist criminals?

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 20, 2003, 03:34 AM

"Iraq has utterly failed to comply with all of the above resolutions - and as God as my witness, the war which has begun in Iraq will bear out the continuance of Iraq to hold weapons of mass of destruction. In the face of such vacillations on the part of the UN, Bush had no choice but to withdraw the proposed resolution for war, which would in effect restrict us to acting upon that resolution alone. We have 17 prior resolutions, considered by the UN as continuing to be valid, which give us the absolute authority necessary as an authorized Member State to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement (the UN's) resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)"

Exactly Sleepyhead,I totally agree with you on the above.Only this morning they are firing scud missiles at Kuwait which some Iraqis have claimed they never had.Maybe this will provide a wake up call to some members of this forum and the world!

Clark Kent

Mar 20, 2003, 03:40 AM

I support this war and the leadership that Tony Blair has shown. I'm not much of a Bush fan. You can only send in weapons inspectors for so long. Saddam is a master of dragging things out. It is time that he was toppled and I hope the allied forces do it.

smilie

Mar 20, 2003, 05:23 AM

This war is wrong. Simple, isn´t it?

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 20, 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted By smilie:
This war is wrong. Simple, isn´t it?The war is a lot of things but simple it is not.
People need to realise that this war will do a lot of good long term for the ordinary people of Iraq and surely that alone is a good thing,is'nt it?.

Tim

Mar 20, 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By smilie:
This war is wrong. Simple, isn´t it?The war is a lot of things but simple it is not.
People need to realise that this war will do a lot of good long term for the ordinary people of Iraq and surely that alone is a good thing,is'nt it?.<hr /></blockquote>It'll either be a new dictator or 3 to 4 Islamic republics....the main reasoon I fear what happen when Ba'ath is gone is like Tito in Yugioslavia, they are holding the country together...I was saddeneded by the fallout of post-Communist Yugoslavia and am fearful this will happen..we'll get rid of a stable government for a group of tribal,unstable states and cause a bloody civil war.

[ Mar 20, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message Edited By: Tim ]

Flying

Mar 20, 2003, 08:24 AM

You don't get peace through war, Mr. Bush! Terrorism is the war of the poor ones and what you're doing is nothing else than terrorism of the rich people: war.

I'm not for Hussein!!!!! Not at all! But I'm for the people. I agree, the people of the Iraq should get another goverment. But does Bush really think that these people wanna lose friends, family and house to get that? Does he really think that they accept that their city and country is going to be destroyed? How can he claim that the civilian population won't be involved and hurt? This is just ridiculous!
I'm shocked and angry that it is possible for a country starting a war with most of the other countries against it. Weren't/aren't the US the ones who supporte/d democracy? This is an egotistical game the americans are playing.

War is not the answer!

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 20, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By smilie:
This war is wrong. Simple, isn´t it?The war is a lot of things but simple it is not.
People need to realise that this war will do a lot of good long term for the ordinary people of Iraq and surely that alone is a good thing,is'nt it?.<hr /></blockquote>It'll either be a new dictator or 3 to 4 Islamic republics....the main reasoon I fear what happen when Ba'ath is gone is like Tito in Yugioslavia, they are holding the country together...I was saddeneded by the fallout of post-Communist Yugoslavia and am fearful this will happen..we'll get rid of a stable government for a group of tribal,unstable states and cause a bloody civil war.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe I misunderstand but are you calling the government of Iraq stable!!!!
A stable government does not take rights away from its people!
It does not kill people for talking out of line!
I must say Tim I find some of your opinions very disturbing.

Rellevart

Mar 20, 2003, 09:07 AM

To be completely honest with you, I'm not informed enough on the current political situation to have an opinion on whether or not the war is appropriate or not. I haven't had time to do the necessary reading and research and I don't form opinions on the bits of hearsay that I catch on the fly.

That said, it kind of bugs me when people walk around saying "War is not the answer" and "Give Peace A Chance" and other slogans like that. Slogans are all nice and fine, but it's just not that simple. Just people saying "Give Peace a Chance" isn't going to CHANGE anything and if someone says war is not the answer, then I'd like to know what that person thinks IS the answer.

Ok, back to those with more informed opinions now.... images/icons/smile.gif

leonardobeat

Mar 20, 2003, 10:08 AM

http://www.suu.edu/pub/journal/images/10_31/war-on-Iraq3-_cmyk_AB.jpg

It's good being patriotic......

http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/sepages/war-on-iraq/war-on-iraq-image002.jpg

But it's better to help people to survive and no to die. I think they need food and not guns. Don't you think so? graemlins/thinker.gif

[ Mar 20, 2003, 10:09 AM: Message Edited By: leonardobeat ]

Flying

Mar 20, 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:

But it's better to help people to survive and no to die. I think they need food and not guns. Don't you think so? graemlins/thinker.gif Yes, i do.

angelgodiva

Mar 20, 2003, 10:39 AM

To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". I agree with this sentiment completely and have been traveling around with a group of other Old Hippies to sing "Eve of Destruction" and "Give Peace A Chance" in the surrounding towns. We were arrested one night for civil disorder (sitting on the ground singing, no more).
Of course, we will be doing it again tonight.
Killing people is wrong no matter what rationale you use to try to justify it. We have to protest this, and we will continue to do so, just as we did back in the late 60s and early 70s as well as in 1991.

[ Mar 20, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message Edited By: angelgodiva ]

MonaMe577

Mar 20, 2003, 11:52 AM

Okay, my two cents:

I am saddened that we as a nation, and indeed as a planet, have come to this situation. I side with the European Union, and say it's too bad that a peaceful solution could not be reached. I believe this can be pinned on both Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein.

BUT ...

Now that this has started, I back the troops 100% and pray they complete their mission as swiftly, cleanly, and effectively as possible. Saddam is a man who cannot be, nor do I believe SHOULD be, negotiated with (honestly, what would you give Saddam in exchange for disarmament? I can think of something, but not something I can say in public! graemlins/images/icons/mad.gif )

I'm sorry the situation has gotten this far, but now that it has, let's hope it ends with the fall of Saddam and his regime. Sometimes, a little war is necessary for a lot of peace.

[ Mar 20, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message Edited By: MonaMe577 ]

SleepyHead

Mar 20, 2003, 01:54 PM

In this case the answer would have been to let the inspectors search for more weapons.
They haven´t finished their work yet.I don't think this would have accomplished anything, other than give Hussein time to import/build new weaponry out of the inspectors' sight, and reinforce in his mind and those of the Iraqis that the UN would do all in it's power - even up to issuing yet another resolution!!! - to make him comply with UN sanctions they've failed to enforce for these past 12 years.

Indeed, Hussein has "cooperated" - he had literally thousands of pages sent to the UN Security Council, detailing their voluntary destruction of all kinds of weaponry.

Except the VX. Except the anthrax. Except the missiles they're launching now.

However, this man and his regime, who've lied and kept turmoil and human atrocities both very, very active in the Middle East despite multiple UN sanctions for at least the last decade, did detail specific ground tests to the UN inspectors that would tell them that these biological/chemical weapons had been destroyed.

Except there's no way to test out his detailed instructions, is there, but by performing the same type of destruction on one's own VX or anthrax supply, burying it in the ground, and waiting for just the right amount of time to elapse. Did I say "test out"?? Yes, I did - his methods of destroying these toxins are unknown to the general public, although presumably detailed in the report of 8 December 2003 to the UN.

And in the intervening years since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, countries around the world have worried about how to safely destroy their own stockpiles of VX, with the result that there is not one method deemed totally fool-proof, nor is there one deemed perfectly safe. And the reason they have so deemed this is that the technology to determine the presence of either agent is available.

Technology the UN inspectors certainly have access to - so why is it necessary for Hussein to have instructions on how to detect this crap? And who says that the inspectors would be lead to the exact places where this supposed destruction took place?

There are none. If we were dealing with an honourable man, leading a stable government in the full confidence of its country's people, perhaps we could "take his word for it". But we are not. We are dealing with a man who is so untrustworthy that he has repeatedly defied UN sanctions. Not only did he not use his time over the past 12 years to dispose of the weaponry in his arsenal that was present and accounted for at that time, but he has further expanded this stockpile to the point where absolutely no one can say definitively how much of what is where in Iraq.

As a matter of fact, the UN has repeatedly called upon its Member States to take whatsoever action was deemed necessary by them to return the area to peace, to protect the borders of the other states against specifically Iraq, and to enforce the current sanction and previous sanctions. Yes, the resolutions specifically call upon the Member States to do all in their power to uphold and implement those sanctions, to ensure the return to international peace and international security.

A known collector/builder of weapons of mass destruction continues to do the very things that brought that regime under sanctions to begin with, with no serious reprisals by the UN other than the issuance of yet another resolution, and another, and another...

Bull mularkey. It is my belief that the UN has never seriously considered using force of any kind towards Iraq, and specifically Hussein, and that he knows it.

And after the debacle of the past several months of concomitant posturing on both sides regarding this very real threat to the entire world, I don't think I'm the only person who has lost all trust in the UN to follow through on any of it's duties.

jtal909

Mar 20, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By Flying:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". images/icons/grin.gif *This is so true!<hr /></blockquote>That is one of the most ridiculous things that has been attached to this conflict.
I'm embarrassed that a musical genius like John has said something as absurd as that.

[ Mar 20, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message Edited By: jtal909 ]

Tim

Mar 20, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:
Maybe I misunderstand but are you calling the government of Iraq stable!!!!
A stable government does not take rights away from its people!
It does not kill people for talking out of line!
I must say Tim I find some of your opinions very disturbing.With the USA Patriotic Act and the Department of Homeland Security we have WILLINGLY surrendered a lot of Freedom and privacy to the Government.
They now:
* Have the right to read EVERY E-mail you send or receive;
* Stores are required report credit card transactions on any item that seems to the store or DHS odd or subversive (e.g. if I buy a book on Middle East History with a credit ard,the clerk is required to inform DHS)
* Libraries are required to report when people of Asain descent uses their computers and what sites they looked at,a s well as all views of pages concerning topics such as the Middle East, Islam,etc.
* Schools are required to report to DHS what they consider 'suspicious' abscences
* Utility Meter Readers are now deputized by Homeland Security

and yet all of this restriction is to 'protect my freedom'....Orwellian, I must forfeit freedom to have freedom.

MonaMe577

Mar 20, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Flying:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". images/icons/grin.gif *This is so true!<hr /></blockquote>That is one of the most rediculous things that has been attached to this conflict.
I'm embarrassed that a musical genius like John has said something as absurd as that.<hr /></blockquote>I must admit, this statement is a little ridiculous. There is a difference between the two. Once you f$#%, you can never be a virgin again. Is John trying to tell us that once you fight, you can never be peaceful again? Sorry, this just doesn't fly with me.

Darkaardvark

Mar 20, 2003, 04:23 PM

Okay, I'm not meaning to throw names around or anything, and being an uniformed 12 year old what could I know anyways? But here's what I have to say:
(Nothing against anyone here at all!) Harbridge stated that U.N. support was not important as Jacque Chirac and Putin would veto anything that came their way, regardless of evidence.

A refreshing new take:
Bush would (and has) ignored the U.N. with everything that has came his way, regardless of evidence. He was planning on going to war no matter what, just as they were planning on vetoing no matter what. Just a thought.

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!

shyGirl

Mar 20, 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
[QUOTE]I must admit, this statement is a little ridiculous. There is a difference between the two. Once you f$#%, you can never be a virgin again. Is John trying to tell us that once you fight, you can never be peaceful again? Sorry, this just doesn't fly with me.I think what he meant was that once you use war as a means for peace, you can never go back to using a peaceful way of solving a conflict because you'll think that war would be the only way to solve it.

graemlins/images/icons/confused.gif

Drumhead15

Mar 20, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". I agree with this sentiment completely and have been traveling around with a group of other Old Hippies to sing "Eve of Destruction" and "Give Peace A Chance" in the surrounding towns. We were arrested one night for civil disorder (sitting on the ground singing, no more).
Of course, we will be doing it again tonight.
Killing people is wrong no matter what rationale you use to try to justify it. We have to protest this, and we will continue to do so, just as we did back in the late 60s and early 70s as well as in 1991.Go Angel! graemlins/flower2.gif We had some protesters by the library today in little ol' Mt. Pleasant(which is like nonexistant-ville). I was surprised to see about 30-40 people out with signs etc. I would have loved to have been there blasting out Eve of Destruction on a boombox or something. Dang school, lol.

As for my opinion, I do not think bush is a bad pres. or anything, and I understand that this matter needs to be dealt with, but I don't agree with this war.

MissusLennon

Mar 20, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By Rellevart:
[QB]it kind of bugs me when people walk around saying "War is not the answer" and "Give Peace A Chance" and other slogans like that. Slogans are all nice and fine, but it's just not that simple. Just people saying "Give Peace a Chance" isn't going to CHANGE anything and if someone says war is not the answer, then I'd like to know what that person thinks IS the answer.QB]Love is the answer, peace is the answer, diplomacy is the answer, etc.

Slogans work for advertisers, and so why is it that they can't work for us?
If there was something more that I could do, I would, but I can't, and it's better than sitting around on my arse criticising the people who ARE trying to help.

Angel, I LOVE that quote! I hadn't heard it before, it's so true.

PEACE AND LOVE,
~Angela~

FPSHOT

Mar 20, 2003, 10:04 PM

It seems very quiet from Iraq's side sofar, which I find is a lot of food for thought.

MonaMe577

Mar 20, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted By shyGirl:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
[QUOTE]I must admit, this statement is a little ridiculous. There is a difference between the two. Once you f$#%, you can never be a virgin again. Is John trying to tell us that once you fight, you can never be peaceful again? Sorry, this just doesn't fly with me.I think what he meant was that once you use war as a means for peace, you can never go back to using a peaceful way of solving a conflict because you'll think that war would be the only way to solve it.

graemlins/images/icons/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>Okay, this makes a little more sense. But I still don't agree with it. There are situations to be dealt with through war, and those to be dealt with through peace. Hopefully, the peaceful situations are more numerous, and hopefully, we as a society are smart enough to tell the difference.

Flying

Mar 21, 2003, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
Sometimes, a little war is necessary for a lot of peace.A little war?!?! Killing people just "a little"!?!?! How does "a little war" work?!?

Flying

Mar 21, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". images/icons/grin.gif *This is so true!

smilie

Mar 21, 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By Rellevart:

That said, it kind of bugs me when people walk around saying "War is not the answer" and "Give Peace A Chance" and other slogans like that. Slogans are all nice and fine, but it's just not that simple. Just people saying "Give Peace a Chance" isn't going to CHANGE anything and if someone says war is not the answer, then I'd like to know what that person thinks IS the answer.
In this case the answer would have been to let the inspectors search for more weapons.
They haven´t finished their work yet.

ImaginePeace78

Mar 21, 2003, 12:12 AM

I'm not 100% to the right or 100% to the left either. I wish it didn't have to come to a war, but if everything else has been tried (peacefully) then I guess it has to be this way. I just hope it can be over fast and not large losses of life or any (if that's possible). All this is very scary. My one teacher in college told me once that "all wars end in funerals." I don't like this at all, but I hope things can be resolved soon before it gets worse.
-Kristi

beatlewho01-02

Mar 21, 2003, 12:55 AM

No one wanted this war but Saddam doesn't want to play by the rules so we have no choice but to use force. War sucks but sometimes it is necessary.

Flying

Mar 21, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Flying:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". images/icons/grin.gif *This is so true!<hr /></blockquote>That is one of the most ridiculous things that has been attached to this conflict.
I'm embarrassed that a musical genius like John has said something as absurd as that.<hr /></blockquote>This isn't that absurd. To fight for peace is absoulutely contradictory. War for peace?!?! It's the same as you f*** for virginity. It doesn't lead to the aim. That will get us nowhere. If you want peace, so don't fight at all! If you want you want virginity, so don't f***! . I don't think it is that ridicelous.

This is how I see John statement.

Rellevart

Mar 21, 2003, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
That is one of the most ridiculous things that has been attached to this conflict.
I'm embarrassed that a musical genius like John has said something as absurd as that.You know, jt, when I first read it, I thought the same thing; I thought of "fighting for peace" in the sense of "working towards peace", and then it seemed TOTALLY ridiculous. Then I thought about it again and figured "fighting for peace" may have been intended to mean "going to war for peace", which makes a LITTLE more sense.

Rellevart

Mar 21, 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted By MissusLennon:
Love is the answer, peace is the answer, diplomacy is the answer, etc.

I'm with you on the diplomacy, MissusL, but love and peace aren't the answer. They're the desired outcome, sure, but they're not the answer. You can walk around saying "love each other" and flashing peace signs all you want, but, unfortunately, that's probably not going to change anybody's mind or convert anybody to your way of thinking. But if it makes you feel better and makes you feel like you're doing something or showing support for your cause, then more power to you!

And there are other things you can do. Write letters, vote for people whose opinions agree with yours, become better informed (which I know I should do too!), volunteer, etc.

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 21, 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
[/qb]It'll either be a new dictator or 3 to 4 Islamic republics....the main reasoon I fear what happen when Ba'ath is gone is like Tito in Yugioslavia, they are holding the country together...I was saddeneded by the fallout of post-Communist Yugoslavia and am fearful this will happen..we'll get rid of a stable government for a group of tribal,unstable states and cause a bloody civil war.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Tim,can I ask the question again as you did'nt answer it in your post.Are you calling the Iraqi government stable?!.

Tim

Mar 21, 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:

Tim,can I ask the question again as you did'nt answer it in your post.Are you calling the Iraqi government stable?!.Yes, compared to what is coming afterwards.
Politically stable, I should say...as to whether ANY of the leadership of most states is emotionally stable,no.
By stable, I mean that there is very little to no constant flux and need of coalitions to govern (such as in Italy or Isreal on a consistent basis).
Plus, this may cause states such as Jordan, Syria,wetc. to topple...you could have huge mess out of this.

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 21, 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
Yes, compared to what is coming afterwards.
Politically stable, I should say...as to whether ANY of the leadership of most states is emotionally stable,no.
By stable, I mean that there is very little to no constant flux and need of coalitions to govern (such as in Italy or Isreal on a consistent basis).
Plus, this may cause states such as Jordan, Syria,wetc. to topple...you could have huge mess out of this.[/QB]Tim,I'm sorry if I come across stupid but you think that Iraq should keep its government and Hussien because its stable?!!!!!
Fair enough it does'nt have changes like Israel and Italy (Democratic Free Countries!)but its got a bloody phycopath as leader who rapes and murders his people.I'm sorry but I would have my government change every day before I would allow my friends and family disappear and never seen again.I don't know if your saying these things for shock value or not but in my opinion you are not thinking your points through!

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 21, 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
Yes, compared to what is coming afterwards.
Politically stable, I should say...as to whether ANY of the leadership of most states is emotionally stable,no.
By stable, I mean that there is very little to no constant flux and need of coalitions to govern (such as in Italy or Isreal on a consistent basis).
Plus, this may cause states such as Jordan, Syria,wetc. to topple...you could have huge mess out of this.[/QB]Tim,I'm sorry if I come across stupid but you think that Iraq should keep its government and Hussien because its stable?!!!!!
Fair enough it does'nt have changes like Israel and Italy (Democratic Free Countries!)but its got a bloody phycopath as leader who rapes and murders his people.I'm sorry but I would have my government change every day before I would allow my friends and family disappear and never seen again.I don't know if your saying these things for shock value or not but in my opinion you are not thinking your points through!( and thats me putting it politely because I've never been more bemused at comments on this forum than I have been at yours!).

Tim

Mar 21, 2003, 08:54 AM

I'm taking a look a very big picture.
I'm not saying Saddam is an angel--he may not be in league with Mugabe or Kim Il-Jong as to oppression.
But, also he is not a fundamentalist, and I don't see a large group of fundamentalist states as being better for the people in general.
After all,women do get education,etc. in Iraq--on of the few Islamic countires this is so (the other is turkey).
I am seeing this whole region, Isreal included, getting so destabilized that you will be stuck with an ever greater war to fight...I do NOT see this stopping terrorism...the only way for that is either ypou give the terrorists what they want or genocide.
The second thing I have a problem is to "free and protect" the Iraqi people...wait until Ba'ath is gone and all these small Islamic Republics (Sunni,Shi'a,Kurds,etc) decide to settle real or imagined old scores--then you'll see slaughters worse than anything Saddam has done. The only way to stop that is to have our troops there forever to force a ton of DMZ's to keep them from killing each other, besides NONE of these groups wants the US Military as Government--reminds them too much of the good old colonialism (i.e. white European power must control nation of people of color tom make them psudo-whatever,in the name of "giving the savages civilization").
So I do not see Saddam gone and a bunch of small ethnic enclaves trying to exterminate each other as good for most Iraqis.

Tim

Mar 21, 2003, 08:57 AM

Last night I heard Rumsfeld say that if any oil wells are destroyed by Saddam or any other group against US invovemnet they will be brought up for War Crimes. Nice,considering we oppose the ICC.
Also proves to me,it is about the oil.

smilie

Mar 21, 2003, 11:07 AM

The only problem whith the Iraq is Hussein, who is a cruel man. But I think there can be other ways to take him away.

leonardobeat

Mar 21, 2003, 11:26 AM

I'm watching news right, now. Do you guys call it FREEDOM??? graemlins/barf4.gif

Rocky Rabbit

Mar 21, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
Last night I heard Rumsfeld say that if any oil wells are destroyed by Saddam or any other group against US invovemnet they will be brought up for War Crimes. Nice,considering we oppose the ICC.
Also proves to me,it is about the oil.I don't believe it does prove that its about oil - it means that the money the oil brings in will help Iraq prosper after the war.

Tim

Mar 21, 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:
I don't believe it does prove that its about oil - it means that the money the oil brings in will help Iraq prosper after the war.The claims I've read are: the USA sells the oil to pay for the war and "reconstruction".

jtal909

Mar 21, 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted By Flying:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By jtal909:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Flying:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By angelgodiva:
To quote John, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". images/icons/grin.gif *This is so true!<hr /></blockquote>That is one of the most ridiculous things that has been attached to this conflict.
I'm embarrassed that a musical genius like John has said something as absurd as that.<hr /></blockquote>This isn't that absurd. To fight for peace is absoulutely contradictory. War for peace?!?! It's the same as you f*** for virginity. It doesn't lead to the aim. That will get us nowhere. If you want peace, so don't fight at all! If you want you want virginity, so don't f***! . I don't think it is that ridicelous.

This is how I see John statement.<hr /></blockquote>A bully sometimes has to be fought to keep him from terrorizing others and provide peace.
If you want to remain a virgin then don't do the deed. (I can't believe I actually responded to this).
that statement is a good case for entertainers staying out of politics.

Tim

Mar 21, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
A bully sometimes has to be fought to keep him from terrorizing others and provide peace.
If you want to remain a virgin then don't do the deed. (I can't believe I actually responded to this).
that statement is a good case for entertainers staying out of politics.I disagree. Are you saying you actualy BELEIVE a POLITICIAN or a GENERAL?
I mean, all of the footage we've seen is of course heavily censored,and it won't be until long afterwards we find out how much we've been misinformed by them.
Remember a politician is a professional liar...also as the broadcast media is totally dependant on the government (FCC licenses) to operate,they will toe the line.
You do know the varied Arab "celebrations" of 9/11 had faked audio.
Again,I would trust what an entertainer says over any member of the government or the military.
ALSO,in 1990 the poor girl who said she saw Iraqi soldiers throw babies out of windows? She was never in her life more than 200 miles from Washington, D.C.
What we see from our leaders is as truthful as the old "March Of Time" newsreels (which used New Jersey as a stand in for Nazi Germany).

beatlewho01-02

Mar 21, 2003, 05:22 PM

Today our school had a protest for the whole day. Kids were skipping class all day long. I see a renaissance of the 60s here.

leonardobeat

Mar 21, 2003, 07:41 PM

- Daddy why is that happening?

- Because sometimes the violence is necessary dearie

- So, if my brother doesen't want to give me my toys, can I kill him??

- No honey, this is different, we are saving the world. We are giving Iraq the freedom. God bless our president. Don't forget that, we are the best country of the world.

- I see Dad...Well, why is that boy crying?

- I don't know....

- Look Dad! Someone killed her mom!! I'm glad I'm not him and my mom is here with us. Must be horrible a war.

- Yes....but it's necessary. Their president kills his own people.

- So our president does. Right?

- Yes but our president is a protector, he wants his free.

- Dad, what will happen after the war?

- I don't know. We'll be safe and Iraq will be free.

- And what about if someone comes and kills my mom for revenge? What about if when I'm older and our president lives in other country someone comes and kills my family?

Have you ever think in my future family Daddy?? Did you when you said you support our President?

- Yes honey, but is necessary....

IWantToTellYou

Mar 21, 2003, 09:07 PM

I was watching the "Shock And Awe" today. I put myself in the shoe's of the people in Iraq right now. How scared they are. How many innocent people have to die?

This is sick.

I cannot believe that the US went in without the UN's blessing. This, may give other countries the idea to invade neighboring countries without the UN's consent...And guess who will be the FIRST country to say that they better slow down, and not make any rash moves. The United States. The hypocrites. I am sorry, I do not feel this way about the American people, just about the American President.

I believe it was back in 2000 when Bush was voted in. At that moment we all knew that war was coming...And here we are. I believe in my heart of hearts that the Bush family are war-mongers and nothing more. They don't care about "liberating" Iraq. All they care about is major $$$$$$$$$$, with all the wonderful oil they have there!

Does the name General Augusto Pinochet ring a bell? It should! He was put into power by Americans! Pinochet commited crimes that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. But because the American government put him into power, well then he MUST be a good person! The American government supported a "dictator"...just like Saddam Hussien.

Iraq has the oil...That what this is all about!

Why can't the American government keep to fighting the war on terror? Trying to "collect" and search for terrorists in the US? That should be top priority! Saddam may be a threat down the road, but the terrorists in the US are threats now!

I hope that there will be minimal casualties in this war. War really hurts children the most...I hope everything will work out for the best for the innocent people, that should not get caught in the crossfire...

PaulsPrincess

Mar 22, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
I feel the war is wrong, and as an American, I have to say my country is wron for fighting it.

The facts do not support war--it's gone from Saddam has nukes, to Saddam is devolping them,to Saddam wants them,to Saddam is throwing acid on babies.

I truly beleive Bush is bent on Armageddon, that he is crazy enough to believe that God has assigned him a mission to reshape the world in the image of the U.S.A. and that a huge number of innocent people will die.

I also do not beleive Bush gave diplomacy a chance, since 9-11 they have been trying to pin 9-11 on Saddam and turn a blind eye to the truth of the Saudi funding it.Well said Tim

leonardobeat

Mar 22, 2003, 02:27 AM

Three Iraqui people were arrested tonight in Mexico. They wanted to cross the border without legal documents.

I hope it doesen't get bigger. I wouldn't like Mexico to be who pays what Bush does in other place.

This is starting yet.....

(if you understand spanish go to http://www.reforma.com/nacional/articulo/279842/ and look by your self)

SleepyHead

Mar 22, 2003, 03:54 AM

Still think "anti-war"="pro-Iraqi-people"? Read on...

Happiness and Dread as Troops Enter Iraqi Town
By DEXTER FILKINS

AFWAN, Iraq, March 21 — Happiness and dread rose together today from this desolate border village, where some of the first Iraqis liberated by American and British troops found the joy of their deliverance muted by the fear that it was too good to last.

As hundreds of coalition troops swept in here just after dawn, the heartache of a town that has felt the hardest edges of Saddam Hussein's rule seemed to burst forth, with villagers running into the streets to celebrate in a kind of grim ecstasy, laughing and weeping in long guttural cries.

"Oooooo peace be upon you peace be upon you peace you oooooo" cried Zahra Khafi, a 68-year-old mother of five, to a group of American and British visitors who came to the town shortly after Mr. Hussein's army had appeared to melt away. "I'm not afraid of Saddam anymore."

Two years ago, Ms. Khafi said, her 39-year son, Masood, was murdered by Mr. Hussein's henchmen, for a crime no greater than devotion to a brand of Islam out of official favor. As Ms. Khafi told her story, her joy gave way to gloom, and she began to weep, and then to moan, and finally she pleaded with her visitors to stay and protect her.

"Should I be afraid?" Ms. Khafi said, mumbling and wiping her eyes. "Is Saddam coming back?"

All through the day here, as American and British tanks and troop carriers rumbled through the town on their drive on the nearby city of Basra, the town of Safwan seemed to celebrate the collapse of Mr. Hussein's local rule with a glance over its shoulder.

Only hours before, they said, the Mukhabarat, Mr. Hussein's security force, had held Safwan in a state of near permanent terror. Even now, the villagers said, Mr. Hussein's agents were still among them, waiting, as they did twelve years ago, for their moment to return.

"There, there are Saddam's men, and if you leave me they will kill me right now," said a trembling Najah Neema, an Iraqi soldier, who said he had torn off his uniform and thrown down his gun and ran away as the American army approached at dawn.

Like many townspeople here, Mr. Neema feared that the Americans would lose their will, as they had in 1991, when an American-encouraged uprising across southern Iraq fell before a withering assault by Mr. Hussein's regime that drew no American riposte.

One of those people who Mr. Neema pointed to with such fear was Tawfik Mohammed, a well dressed man who stood a few yards away. Mr. Mohammed laughed at the suggestion that he had ever worked for Mr. Hussein's regime. He was headmaster of the local school, he said, and a respectable man.

"God willing, the Mukabarhat will return," Mr. Mohammed said with a wave, and he walked away. A crowd that had gathered round him gave a nervous laugh.

With such trepidation among the Iraqis, much of the celebrating today was performed for them by American Marines, who tore down every larger-than-life image of Mr. Hussein that decorated the town. They pried loose one by tying it to the bumper of a troop carrier, and another by cutting it up with a dagger.

"Feels good," said Oscar Guerrero, a Marine from San Antonio, Texas, as he ran his blade through the canvas likeness of the Iraqi leader. "I wish he were here in person."

Some of the Iraqis looked on as if in a daze. Others seemed to be resisting the temptation to cheer. A few, perhaps recalling Mr. Hussein's many comebacks, worked themselves up in an angry lather.

"How would you like it I were to cut up a poster of President Bush?" demanded one of Safwan villagers, but his remarks were quickly drowned out by catcalls from the crowd around him.

All across Safwan and the vast desert that surrounds it, one startling image after another tumbled forth from the chaos of battle. Just up the road towards Basra, the objective of the coalition's advance, a group of Iraqi soldiers stood before a group of Western reporters, waving white flags in surrender. A little further up the road stood an Iraqi tank, not surrendering, with its barrel pointed in a menacing way.

Down the road towards Safwan, an Iraqi man, claiming to be from Basra, haggled with a young Marine about letting him pass. The man drove a beat-up white Toyota truck, and in the back stood a cow, and underneath it a calf, nursing.

"Tell him to come back in a half an hour," the Marine said through a translator.

As the afternoon ebbed away, and the Marines secured their hold on Safwan, an Iraqi man drove up to the same checkpoint in another white pick up. This one contained two Iraqi villagers, both severely wounded in the bombardment overnight. One of the men, Mishtaq Thuwaini, had suffered horrific burns across most his body. The outer layers had been burned away, and they had peeled away from his body like paper wrapping.

Mr. Thuwaini lay motionless in the truck, moaning occasionally, as a group of Marines did their best with the inadequate instruments at hand. The Marines had outrun their medical care, and help was not expected soon.

"There is not much we can do for him up here," one of the Marines said.

And so, after a time, the crazed Iraqi man pulled the truck under a bridge and prepared to spend the evening. The two men lay in the bed in back.

SleepyHead

Mar 22, 2003, 03:58 AM

Iraqis Cheer U.S. Troops

Friday, March 21, 2003

Even as San Francisco leftists throw temper tantrums, vicious Germans desecrate U.S. flags and fussbudget Frenchmen fret, citizens in southern Iraq are thrilled today to be liberated by U.S. Marines.

As American forces took the border town of Safwan, residents waved. "A woman threw herself at the Marines' feet until a man hurriedly came and led her away," Fox News reported today.

"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."

Another resident told reporters why he welcomed the arrival of U.S. troops. "We're very happy. Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."

Some townspeople chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"

"Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food," the Associated Press reported.

Frenchie Admits, 'We Look Really Stupid'

Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party: "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans." Well said.

Perhaps if the blame-America-first extremists, foreign and domestic, got to experience life under a genocidal dictator for a few years they would finally stop hating the U.S.

SleepyHead

Mar 22, 2003, 04:35 AM

The following is excerpted from an article entitled "Lucky Break for Jordan", posted from Amman, Jordan, by Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI Editor at Large, 3/21/2003 2:46 PM

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

jtal909

Mar 22, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted By Tim:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Rocky Rabbit:
I don't believe it does prove that its about oil - it means that the money the oil brings in will help Iraq prosper after the war.The claims I've read are: the USA sells the oil to pay for the war and "reconstruction".<hr /></blockquote>and what's wrong with that? the legitimate sales are billions of dollars in which Hussein has been illegally skimming great proportions while the Iraqis live in poverty.

leonardobeat

Mar 22, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
Still think "anti-war"="pro-Iraqi-people"? Read on...

YES. I'm still anti-war, Sleepy.

Do you know why??
Because these people is being deceived cruelly. They think they will be free because Saddam is being kicked off but they don't know that Bush will put someone of his choice in their governement just like he did in Afghanistan.

Someone who will let him take the oil and handle Iraq in the way he wants to. Of course all of this in disguise of Operation Freedom and all those pretty words.

I'm glad to see all the world being against Bush and his team of rich terrorist. NO ONE believe him out of his country, All of us know who really he is and whatwe wants to do.
We know it because the poor countries have suffered for his moronity the last two years. This is a big thing, is more than Bush vs. Saddam.
Is Bush spoiling the whole world.

Don't be selfish and think in the rest of the world for a little war. Please??

I don't expect you change your minds with my words, first because I'm not American, second because you'll probably say: "Isn't your business little boy"

Anyways the time will give us the reason to Anti-wars.

Ask anyone in Afghanistan if they are happy. Ask them if they feel safe. Ask them if they thank Bush for his "Freedom"

jtal909

Mar 22, 2003, 02:17 PM

You know, so far many Iraqis have thanked the soldiers who provide for their liberation. And many others are still very nervous because they are so afraid that Saddam will not be removed and he and his "police" will continue to terrorize them.
But Saddam will be removed, thanks to The United States Of America and allies, and the Iraqis will live without the fear of their sons being taken away never to be seen again, and America and the rest of the world will be that much closer toward peace and that much further along with the war against terrorism as there will be one less country to harbor, train, and arm terrorists.

Tim

Mar 22, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
You know, so far many Iraqis have thanked the soldiers who provide for their liberation. And many others are still very nervous because they are so afraid that Saddam will not be removed and he and his "police" will continue to terrorize them.
But Saddam will be removed, thanks to The United States Of America and allies, and the Iraqis will live without the fear of their sons being taken away never to be seen again, and America and the rest of the world will be that much closer toward peace and that much further along with the war against terrorism as there will be one less country to harbor, train, and arm terrorists.And what happens when Iraq breaks up and you have 3-4 hard-line Islamic Republics? Which is what is likely.
I think this is going to vreate MORE not less terrorism....besides,you are naive if you beleive Iraq is anywhere near as invovled as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
They choose to be close to us in a Corleone way:"Keep ypour friends close to you and your enemies closer".

leonardobeat

Mar 22, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted By jtal909:
But Saddam will be removed, thanks to The United States Of America and allies, and the Iraqis will live without the fear of their sons being taken away never to be seen again.- Thanks to the United States of America the poor countries are now more poor.

- Thanks to the United States of America the big industries are now smaller (except yours of course)

- Thanks to the United States of America millions of people haven't job and home.

- Thanks to the United States of America the idea of democracy is " I do what I want to do because I'm the biggest economy of the world"

- Thanks to the United States of America some dudes make a war just for make it.

And principally...thanks to the United States of America the ppl likes to play being God. Some people likes to say what is good or what is wrong.

Thanks to the United States of America the anarchy is now named Freedom.

Thank you so much!! How could I pay all what you do for us....

MonaMe577

Mar 22, 2003, 03:33 PM

I heard on the news today that that 101st Airborne Division was attacked , surprised by terrorists with grenades. Apparently, 10 people were wounded, 6 very seriously.

This scares me to death, because this is the division of my little brother's best friend. He's only 18 years old, a kid who lived across the street from us and who my family has known for over 10 years. I pray to God that one of the injured wasn't him ...

[ Mar 22, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message Edited By: MonaMe577 ]

leonardobeat

Mar 22, 2003, 07:21 PM

Yucatán, México.

An American ex-soldier got the suicide for the depression of having a son combatting in Iraq.

He left a letter where he says why decided to finnish his life.

Before to die, Arthur L. Paul junior who was 74, told about the horror of the war with one of his employes.

This is the first indirect victim of the current war.

Link if you know spanish is:

http://eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=129186&tabla=notas

leonardobeat

Mar 22, 2003, 07:29 PM

OK since the link doesen't help too much this is the note translated:

Merida, Yucatán
Sábado 22 de marzo de 2003

An American, veteran of the war of Vietnam, got the suicide because one of their children combat with the army of United States in Iraq.

The former North American combatant resided for 14 years in the country in San Juan Lizárraga in Merida, Yucatan.
In accordance with the reports, the depression burdened him so much that it took it to take off the life.

A report highlights that the body of Arthur L. Paul junior, 74 years old, was opposing hung of a tree in his residence.

Roberto Kills, employee of trust of the dead one, declared that from Thursday the American was depressed because one of her children is combatting in Iraq.

After counting their own experiences of their participation in the war of Vietnam, he said, their boss cried a lot.

*This is my own translation, sorry for the bad spelling

MissusLennon

Mar 22, 2003, 07:36 PM

SleepyHead, have you ever heard of a thing called Propaganda?

SleepyHead

Mar 23, 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
[qb]Still think "anti-war"="pro-Iraqi-people"? Read on...

YES. I'm still anti-war, Sleepy.

Do you know why??
Because these people is being deceived cruelly. They think they will be free because Saddam is being kicked off but they don't know that Bush will put someone of his choice in their governement just like he did in Afghanistan.

Wrong, again. Better read more than just the hype. France and Russia, both permanent Member States of the UN with veto power, have avowed to veto ANY resolution that allows either the US or Britain anything whatsoever to do with heading up the restoration of Iraq.

Someone who will let him take the oil and handle Iraq in the way he wants to. Of course all of this in disguise of Operation Freedom and all those pretty words.

[What oil??? Check the financial records for Iraqi oil in the past 12 years. UN sanctions against the Ba'ath regime ruling Iraq have included such measures that have almost completely crippled the Iraqi economy. The oil wells are in such a state of disrepair (and now at least 9 of them are heavily damaged and continue to rage in the blazes that loyal followers of Saddam have set them to), that it would take a minimum of 10 years to get them back up and running at level odds, forget profit-making - something the OPEC nations would resist most strenuously at any rate.

Besides, as I've already pointed out (and has been broadcast on television for all the world to hear), France and Russia, 2 of the 5 Member States with veto power, won't let him.

I'm glad to see all the world being against Bush and his team of rich terrorist. NO ONE believe him out of his country,Wrong.

We have the full support of over 40 countries, and "anonymous" support of several more.

There have been, at rough estimate, around 2 million protestors who've expressed sometimes violent opposition to the violence of war over the past 4 days. Before March 17, there were significantly fewer numbers who outright protested any war whatsoever - along with a significant percentage supporting only a war backed by the UN.

His level of support from the voting constituency in this country was only about 56% before March 19. As of March 22, that number had increased to 78%.

No-one has expressed disbelief - except the nay-saying UN ambassadors of France, Russia, and China. Even they believe - they just wanted hard proof, such as an actual weapon deposited on the podium in front of them.

Please keep the facts straight - it makes your opinion more credible thataway.

And, just to keep things in perspective here - 2 million people couldn't even vote in the governor of their choice in my state if the entire population were registered voters. As of 1996, the population of the state of Louisiana was just under 4.5 million.

The number of world-wide protestors registers at just under 1 percent of the population of the United States, and an abysmally small proportion of the estimated 6 billion inhabitants of Planet Earth.

ALL of who??

All of us know who really he is and whatwe wants to do.
We know it because the poor countries have suffered for his moronity the last two years. This is a big thing, is more than Bush vs. Saddam.
Is Bush spoiling the whole world.

Don't be selfish and think in the rest of the world for a little war. Please??Selfish??

Excuse me?? My brothers, my sisters, my cousins are over there right now, fighting a war the media insists on promoting as being violently opposed by some 2 million protesters world-wide. The protests weren't new when Bush made this "apparently" unpopular decision - in the view of outspoken anti-war folks, he has committed political suicide. That's selfish??

I sent my family off with smiles, hugs, love and prayers to rescue a bunch of folks I've never even met from a lying, conniving wanna-be ruler who has to coerce his countrymen into doing things his way by threats of immediate death - folks I fully expected to be as ungrateful as the Vietnamese back in the French-instigated Vietnam war. (And by the way, France has never yet properly thanked us for pulling their chestnuts out of the fire over THAT monumental fiasco... They left us to roast alone in a foment of world diatribe.)

I tried to join the services myself - but I'm too short. My daddy was in the Navy, my uncle lost is leg serving in the Army in Vietnam, 5 of my six brothers have been (two still are) in the Armed Forces (Air Force, Navy, and Marines), and my sister proudly associates with her Naval colleagues. My grandfather fought in WWII, and my great-grandfather fought in both the Great Wars.

Selfish?? No - our family has spent literally generations giving of itself and it's loved ones to the service of our country, and in very few of our military combats were we actually the injured party.

Selfish?? After bin Laden's suicidal terrorists tore up our country and pointed out the fragility of life most harshly to us American citizens, we vowed - almost instantaneously, and almost with one voice - to support our Nation's efforts to hunt down and prosecute to the fullest not only the group behind the deaths of thousands of innocents here, but any others like them.

Why? Because for the first time in American history, we truly understood how it felt to actually BE terrorized, and on our own ground.

Most of us still remember 9/11, and the absolute terror we lived in for literally months following the murders committed that day.

We'd almost completely forgotten what being terrified felt like by our constant daily exposure to such atrocities played out on our nightly news, and in prime-time made-for-TV movies.

We thought we knew.

Now we KNOW.

Those few incidents were enough to convice us that NO ONE should have to feel that way - EVER. Our young people enlisted in the armed services in literal droves. Our ex-servicemen fought to get back in. Our retired servicemen also sought to re-enter - in unprecendented numbers.

And while commencing on our continent-to-continent search for bin Laden and his cohorts, we also backed our President in his efforts to convince the UN to stop with the rhetoric, and either present a unifying front to Hussein and force him to release his weapons of war and prove it beyond a doubt, or face the military might of some of the richest countries in the world.

Watching while he and his regime have slowly stripped the Iraqi people of their human rights, the UN stood like a band of protestors, refusing to allow the police of the world in to do precisely what they'd been told to do by the UN to do for thirteen years... "Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990: The Security Council... authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."(29 January 1990)

According to no less august a body than the United Nations, the Iraqi people have NOT been at peace since 1990.

Selfish? To wade in, unwanted and unsupported (at least officially), to a fight that isn't ours except as it may happen to affect us in the future, to save a people that we've never met from a regime that the Member States of the UN unilaterally condemned not once, but 17 times in 13 years ... Selfish??

We're drawing the negative attention of violent-minded people who have so little respect for the laws of their own countries that they storm embassies the world over to protest violence - and this was before Bush threw in the towel at the UN.

Stupid. Suicidal. Definitely NOT in our best interests at ALL - yet onward we forge, our men facing death minute by minute, while we at home listen anxiously to the violent protesters outside our homes as they draw millions of police from their duties of protecting the people while they keep buildings safe from anti-violence peace-lovers.

Selfish?? NOT!

I don't expect you change your minds with my words, first because I'm not American, second because you'll probably say: "Isn't your business little boy"World terrorism IS your business. I pray you never find yourself in a situation where you deem it necessary to actually have to fight to preserve what you view belongs to you as a God-given blessing.

Anyways the time will give us the reason to Anti-wars.

Ask anyone in Afghanistan if they are happy. Ask them if they feel safe. Ask them if they thank Bush for his "Freedom"Honey, we aren't happy. We don't feel safe. And the Afghanistans are at least appreciative enough to support us as we battle Saddam and his deadly regime, whether they're happy or not.

We just do our best to make sure others have, and keep, the right to disagree with us without having a gun put to their heads.

SleepyHead

Mar 23, 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
I heard on the news today that that 101st Airborne Division was attacked , surprised by terrorists with grenades. Apparently, 10 people were wounded, 6 very seriously.

This scares me to death, because this is the division of my little brother's best friend. He's only 18 years old, a kid who lived across the street from us and who my family has known for over 10 years. I pray to God that one of the injured wasn't him ...First off, it was 13 injured, 6 seriously.

One has since died of his injuries.

Secondly, the "terrorist" was a US soldier from another military unit, assigned temporarily to the 101st after having been reprimanded by his chain of command and told he'd be left back while his division advanced to Iraq.

Revenge and retribution weren't in the equation - he wasn't associated with any of the troops in teh 101st, just attached there. There is no evidence of personal revenge. Political or religious statements may be at the core of his actions against the commanding officers from the tactical operations center.

He has admitted his actions, according to anonymous sources. Anti-war sentiments behind the actions were proferred by another.

[ Mar 23, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message Edited By: SleepyHead ]

SleepyHead

Mar 23, 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted By MissusLennon:
SleepyHead, have you ever heard of a thing called Propaganda?Hmm, yes I have rather - read on...
Iraq: U.S. POWs to be shown on TV
Sunday, March 23, 2003 Posted: 6:25 AM EST (1125 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Video of American prisoners of war is to be shown on Iraqi television, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Sunday.

"In a few hours time you will see the American captives on Iraqi television, those who tried to invade Suk al-Shoukh, and you will see the burnt armor and vehicles," said Ramadan, initially rumored to have been killed during Thursday's "decapitation attack" on Baghdad.

U.S. Central Command has not announced any missing or captured U.S. soldiers.

Asked if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been injured in Thursday's attacks, Ramadan replied: "I think for the past four days you have seen the president on television more than once."

Ramadan, the most senior Iraqi official to give a live press conference since Thursday, also lashed out at U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"The secretary-general, and his conduct ... did not reflect the wishes of the majority in the Security Council, but rather behaved as if he was an employee in the U.S. State Department," said Ramadan.

In another news conference Sunday, Iraq's information minister said coalition forces, not Iraqis, were in "shock and awe" and would remain that way "until they are defeated."

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf also said the situation in the Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr -- taken by British troops Saturday but still the site of fighting as U.S. Marines try to flush out resistance -- was very different from its portrayal in the western media.

"Those Iraqi fighters, those heroes at Umm Qasr, are teaching the American and British invaders a lesson," he said. "Those Iraqi fighters are slapping those gangsters on the face and then when they flee they will kick their backsides."

"The resistance is continuing," said al-Sahaf. "They have entered this quagmire and they will not be able to leave it in one piece."

Al-Sahaf said Iraqi forces were defeating American and British troops across the south of Iraq.

"The aggressors have retreated after they were taught a lesson and after they incurred many losses," he said, adding that coalition forces were becoming desperate and targeting civilians.

On Saturday, al-Sahaf said more than 200 civilians had been injured in the U.S.-led bombing of Baghdad -- a campaign termed "shock and awe" by the Pentagon.

Al-Sahaf described coalition leaders as "liars" and "outlaws" and said everything the U.S. military had reported so far was propaganda.

He said the U.S. was so desperate to show progress that it "kidnapped" thousands of Iraqi civilians and forced them to dress up like soldiers, pretending to surrender to coalition forces in the oil-rich Faw peninsula of southern Iraq.At least now we know why CNN was tossed out of Iraq so unceremoniously...

Sexie Sadie

Mar 23, 2003, 10:00 AM

does anyone really want war? look saddam is a crazy power hungry dictator; he kills his own people, he decives the UN, he is sick and evil...for the sake of the world, we need to get rid of him...i mean look what happened in WWII, people allowed hitler to become as powerful as he was, did u know france could have stopped him? but they didnt and look what happened...and now the only reason russia and france wont support us is because they have lots of money invested with Iraq, my god we are facing a real danger...once again i am against war, but what other choice do we have? you cant make deals with the devil, you wont win...

MonaMe577

Mar 23, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
[qb]Still think "anti-war"="pro-Iraqi-people"? Read on...

YES. I'm still anti-war, Sleepy.

Do you know why??
Because these people is being deceived cruelly. They think they will be free because Saddam is being kicked off but they don't know that Bush will put someone of his choice in their governement just like he did in Afghanistan.

Wrong, again. Better read more than just the hype. France and Russia, both permanent Member States of the UN with veto power, have avowed to veto ANY resolution that allows either the US or Britain anything whatsoever to do with heading up the restoration of Iraq.

Someone who will let him take the oil and handle Iraq in the way he wants to. Of course all of this in disguise of Operation Freedom and all those pretty words.

[What oil??? Check the financial records for Iraqi oil in the past 12 years. UN sanctions against the Ba'ath regime ruling Iraq have included such measures that have almost completely crippled the Iraqi economy. The oil wells are in such a state of disrepair (and now at least 9 of them are heavily damaged and continue to rage in the blazes that loyal followers of Saddam have set them to), that it would take a minimum of 10 years to get them back up and running at level odds, forget profit-making - something the OPEC nations would resist most strenuously at any rate.

Besides, as I've already pointed out (and has been broadcast on television for all the world to hear), France and Russia, 2 of the 5 Member States with veto power, won't let him.

I'm glad to see all the world being against Bush and his team of rich terrorist. NO ONE believe him out of his country,Wrong.

We have the full support of over 40 countries, and "anonymous" support of several more.

There have been, at rough estimate, around 2 million protestors who've expressed sometimes violent opposition to the violence of war over the past 4 days. Before March 17, there were significantly fewer numbers who outright protested any war whatsoever - along with a significant percentage supporting only a war backed by the UN.

His level of support from the voting constituency in this country was only about 56% before March 19. As of March 22, that number had increased to 78%.

No-one has expressed disbelief - except the nay-saying UN ambassadors of France, Russia, and China. Even they believe - they just wanted hard proof, such as an actual weapon deposited on the podium in front of them.

Please keep the facts straight - it makes your opinion more credible thataway.

And, just to keep things in perspective here - 2 million people couldn't even vote in the governor of their choice in my state if the entire population were registered voters. As of 1996, the population of the state of Louisiana was just under 4.5 million.

The number of world-wide protestors registers at just under 1 percent of the population of the United States, and an abysmally small proportion of the estimated 6 billion inhabitants of Planet Earth.

ALL of who??

All of us know who really he is and whatwe wants to do.
We know it because the poor countries have suffered for his moronity the last two years. This is a big thing, is more than Bush vs. Saddam.
Is Bush spoiling the whole world.

Don't be selfish and think in the rest of the world for a little war. Please??Selfish??

Excuse me?? My brothers, my sisters, my cousins are over there right now, fighting a war the media insists on promoting as being violently opposed by some 2 million protesters world-wide. The protests weren't new when Bush made this "apparently" unpopular decision - in the view of outspoken anti-war folks, he has committed political suicide. That's selfish??

I sent my family off with smiles, hugs, love and prayers to rescue a bunch of folks I've never even met from a lying, conniving wanna-be ruler who has to coerce his countrymen into doing things his way by threats of immediate death - folks I fully expected to be as ungrateful as the Vietnamese back in the French-instigated Vietnam war. (And by the way, France has never yet properly thanked us for pulling their chestnuts out of the fire over THAT monumental fiasco... They left us to roast alone in a foment of world diatribe.)

I tried to join the services myself - but I'm too short. My daddy was in the Navy, my uncle lost is leg serving in the Army in Vietnam, 5 of my six brothers have been (two still are) in the Armed Forces (Air Force, Navy, and Marines), and my sister proudly associates with her Naval colleagues. My grandfather fought in WWII, and my great-grandfather fought in both the Great Wars.

Selfish?? No - our family has spent literally generations giving of itself and it's loved ones to the service of our country, and in very few of our military combats were we actually the injured party.

Selfish?? After bin Laden's suicidal terrorists tore up our country and pointed out the fragility of life most harshly to us American citizens, we vowed - almost instantaneously, and almost with one voice - to support our Nation's efforts to hunt down and prosecute to the fullest not only the group behind the deaths of thousands of innocents here, but any others like them.

Why? Because for the first time in American history, we truly understood how it felt to actually BE terrorized, and on our own ground.

Most of us still remember 9/11, and the absolute terror we lived in for literally months following the murders committed that day.

We'd almost completely forgotten what being terrified felt like by our constant daily exposure to such atrocities played out on our nightly news, and in prime-time made-for-TV movies.

We thought we knew.

Now we KNOW.

Those few incidents were enough to convice us that NO ONE should have to feel that way - EVER. Our young people enlisted in the armed services in literal droves. Our ex-servicemen fought to get back in. Our retired servicemen also sought to re-enter - in unprecendented numbers.

And while commencing on our continent-to-continent search for bin Laden and his cohorts, we also backed our President in his efforts to convince the UN to stop with the rhetoric, and either present a unifying front to Hussein and force him to release his weapons of war and prove it beyond a doubt, or face the military might of some of the richest countries in the world.

Watching while he and his regime have slowly stripped the Iraqi people of their human rights, the UN stood like a band of protestors, refusing to allow the police of the world in to do precisely what they'd been told to do by the UN to do for thirteen years... "Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990: The Security Council... authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."(29 January 1990)

According to no less august a body than the United Nations, the Iraqi people have NOT been at peace since 1990.

Selfish? To wade in, unwanted and unsupported (at least officially), to a fight that isn't ours except as it may happen to affect us in the future, to save a people that we've never met from a regime that the Member States of the UN unilaterally condemned not once, but 17 times in 13 years ... Selfish??

We're drawing the negative attention of violent-minded people who have so little respect for the laws of their own countries that they storm embassies the world over to protest violence - and this was before Bush threw in the towel at the UN.

Stupid. Suicidal. Definitely NOT in our best interests at ALL - yet onward we forge, our men facing death minute by minute, while we at home listen anxiously to the violent protesters outside our homes as they draw millions of police from their duties of protecting the people while they keep buildings safe from anti-violence peace-lovers.

Selfish?? NOT!

I don't expect you change your minds with my words, first because I'm not American, second because you'll probably say: "Isn't your business little boy"World terrorism IS your business. I pray you never find yourself in a situation where you deem it necessary to actually have to fight to preserve what you view belongs to you as a God-given blessing.

Anyways the time will give us the reason to Anti-wars.

Ask anyone in Afghanistan if they are happy. Ask them if they feel safe. Ask them if they thank Bush for his "Freedom"Honey, we aren't happy. We don't feel safe. And the Afghanistans are at least appreciative enough to support us as we battle Saddam and his deadly regime, whether they're happy or not.

We just do our best to make sure others have, and keep, the right to disagree with us without having a gun put to their heads.<hr /></blockquote>graemlins/clap3.gif graemlins/clap3.gif graemlins/clap3.gif

That's all I have to say.

MonaMe577

Mar 23, 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
I heard on the news today that that 101st Airborne Division was attacked , surprised by terrorists with grenades. Apparently, 10 people were wounded, 6 very seriously.

This scares me to death, because this is the division of my little brother's best friend. He's only 18 years old, a kid who lived across the street from us and who my family has known for over 10 years. I pray to God that one of the injured wasn't him ...First off, it was 13 injured, 6 seriously.

One has since died of his injuries.

Secondly, the "terrorist" was a US soldier from another military unit, assigned temporarily to the 101st after having been reprimanded by his chain of command and told he'd be left back while his division advanced to Iraq.

Revenge and retribution weren't in the equation - he wasn't associated with any of the troops in teh 101st, just attached there. There is no evidence of personal revenge. Political or religious statements may be at the core of his actions against the commanding officers from the tactical operations center.

He has admitted his actions, according to anonymous sources. Anti-war sentiments behind the actions were proferred by another.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks for clearing this up. I wrote this post right as the story broke and little was known about the attack; it struck me mainly because I recognized the division of a family friend. I didn't mean this as an anti-war statement--I support our troops in their endeavor. This was only meant to be concern for my friend.

leonardobeat

Mar 23, 2003, 11:24 AM

My moronity doesen't let me see that this war is good. Considering all those evidences and good excuses to attack Irak and hurt innocent people (because one dead or 100 are the same, they are dead)I think that hurt childs is necessary, take prissioners (Iraqui, Americans, English, whatever)is necesary, GO TO SOMEWHERE WHERE NOBODY CALLED ME FIRST is necessary, put under risk my own people more than they was already is necessary.

Karma is working and working well. Time to pray all of those who need it.
Don't be surprised when NOBODY support you anymore, when NOBODY want to shake your hands, when your own childs asked you why the heck you supported a war what will take you to the ruin.
When all the countries of the world join together and show you that you are not God, you can't do whatever you want just because you say it's wrong.
Probably it's wrong but so what??? Who are you to decide the future of a foreign country?? Why don't you first go and fix what is wrong in your own country (that is a lot) and that's hidden behing the wall of prosperity and democracy?

There's no corruption in America??? There's no crimes?? There's no mass destruction weapons being used??

DID YOU FORGET HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI??
DID YOU FORGET HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI??
DID YOU FORGET HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI??
DID YOU FORGET HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI??

Sorry for being repetitive but sometimes is necessary, as you said.

MissusLennon

Mar 23, 2003, 11:55 AM

well said leonardo.

I've now heard that a British plane has been shot down by the Americans.

I bet none of you (other than the Canadians) ever heard about the 4 Canadians who were killed by American pilots last year.
Talk about media censorship.

leonardobeat

Mar 23, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By Lucy:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By Sexie Sadie:
i am against war, but what other choice do we have? Well said. I agree.<hr /></blockquote>What can you do?

What about if you go out of Iraq let UN make their job in there?
No one denies the tirany of Hussein so I think all the world would support a disarmer through the UN.

In the other hand, if you still have your War Feelings why don't you go and disarm Korea which is a real menace??

I want see Bush going to make a war in Korea if he really wants the peace of the world, if he really wants to destroy the mass destruction weapons.

He won't do. He's an hypocrit and coward.

SleepyHead

Mar 23, 2003, 07:26 PM

Let me repeat - without the support of Congress, Bush couldn't have declared the war. Period.

Without the support of their constituents, Congress couldn't have supported Bush. Period.

What part of "we are behind Bush" have you failed to grasp?

The vocal minority have never yet, and never will overcome the will of the silent majority.

You can listen to rhetoric all you want to, but the facts are clear - the United States is behind their President.

This isn't about Bush - it's about being American. We fight for what we believe in.

We believe that Democracy is the only way.

Democracy has made us the richest country in the world.

Democracy has made us the strongest country in the world.

These are being thrown in our face constantly, how rich and how strong we are.

We don't have to fight to prove it - we are.

Our very government itself is set up to prevent any other type of government from being able to take it over.

And don't let anyone fool you - like the President, or hate him, each and every citizen of these United States would take up arms to prevent that office from being overrun.

When we REALLY want change, we get it. We send our money, sometimes out of our grocery budget, to those who will see to it.

And when push comes to shove, we shove back.

The regime in Iraq has been pushing effectively for over 12 years now. "Yes, yes, I know we can't buy these arms" they've placated UN members as they quietly buy arms from Russia and France and China.

"Yes, yes, they are trying to disarm" say Russia and France and China as they continue sending shipments of armaments of war to Iraq, and adding to their coffers from Iraqi oil money.

They've pushed, and they've pushed, and they've pushed for the very last time.

For better or for worse, we have gone in, and we will rid Iraq of the Hussein-headed Ba'ath party of people killers, spouters of rhetoric, buyers of arms they've been told they cannot have, users of armaments they've told the world they did not have as late as 21 March 2003, users of arms they were ordered by the UN to destroy in 1990 after they'd used those and similar arms to invade and try to take over Kuwait.

And if the UN survives this absolute debacle they've allowed themselves to author by their very lack of action is a question we cannot answer right now.

Nor does it matter. You see, when it comes down to brass tacks, this world runs on the word of those who sign the treaties. If they're as good as their word, so be it. If they're lying, nothing they've signed is even worth the 3 cents of paper they signed their name to.

Iraq has repeatedly proven that it never tried to honor it's word - nor has it really meant to do so.

The UN has a pretty good rep for honoring it's word, for the most part.

Until now.

Because 2 of the 5 members with veto power have repeatedly joined with the other nations in condemning Iraq while continuing to do active business in armed weaponry with them.

And to get really nasty, anyone whatsoever who aids and abets a terrorist is also condemned as a terrorist. Iraq is a world-wide acknowledged harborer and fomenter of terrorists. By selling arms of war to Iraq, France and Russia and China are at the head of the list. They've profited from the food taken from Iraqi children's tables long enough.

Forget this war - which we will win. You'd best start praying that the UN survives, and that it's members start keeping their word and enforcing it, or we truly are facing Armageddon.

SleepyHead

Mar 23, 2003, 07:53 PM

U.S. protests Russian arms sales to Iraq
By Andrea Koppel
CNN State Department Correspondent
Sunday, March 23, 2003 Posted: 7:16 PM EST (0016 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States said Sunday it had protested to Moscow about reports that Russian firms have sold Iraq antitank missiles, night vision goggles and jamming gear.

"Such equipment in the hands of Iraq may pose a direct military threat to U.S. and coalition armed forces," State Department spokeswoman Brenda Greenberg said. "We thus have raised the issue with the Russian government a number of times, including at senior levels, and particularly in the last two weeks."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told Al-Jazeera television the U.N. sanctions clearly prohibited military sales to Iraq for any reason.

"I have to say at this point we don't think we've gotten satisfactory answers, but we will continue to pursue that," Boucher said. "It's a question of having provided material in violation of U.N. sanctions, not a question of some political position."

Another U.S. official with direct knowledge of these discussions said the Bush administration is "infuriated" that Moscow did not stop the sales despite the fact Russian authorities were presented with specific U.S. intelligence which included the names of the companies, addresses, telephone numbers, and other key details.

The last straw came Friday, this official told CNN, when U.S. intelligence discovered that employees of one of the Russian companies in question -- Aviaconversiaya -- were still in Baghdad helping Iraq use what is described as "highly sophisticated" electronic jamming equipment. That can interfere with global positioning equipment used by ground forces and aircraft.

"The lives of pilots are at stake here," the official explained. For this reason, he said, the Bush administration decided this weekend to give the story to the Washington Post.

The United States is "worried this equipment can disorient pilots and cruise missiles," he said.

During the past several weeks Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice got personally involved, to no avail, in seeking to persuade Moscow to crack down on the Russian companies.

The Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushukav, was called to the State Department and given a note that this would be "a last chance" for Moscow to end the sales.

The U.S. intelligence community believes that Russian intelligence may be the ones "screwing up" the situation, rather than the political side of the Russian government.

Officials say it is unclear whether Russian President Vladimir Putin "didn't know" or whether Putin's denials were simply "dishonest."

In telling the story to the news media, the Bush administration is "clearly letting Russia know people are angry about it."

"We hope the responsible Russian agencies will take our concerns seriously," Greenberg said.

jtal909

Mar 23, 2003, 07:57 PM

the UN inspections were being thwarted constantly. An old inspector told that they had to write on a chalkboard because the Iraqi intelligence was so good that they knew every move the inspectors were going to make.

And anyone who really believes that Hussein was disarming is a fool to propaganda, or else is heavily invested in Iraq.
A chemical plant was found today, heavily camouflaged, surrounded by high fences, and supervised by a high ranking Iraqi general who is in custody along with documents that will most likely lead to other such facilities.

Most unfortunately, it has taken a war to disarm Iraq. History will thank the coalition for ridding the world of this evil.

And we are talking about Iraq, not North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia.

MissusLennon

Mar 23, 2003, 09:46 PM

Funny, for being part of the "silent majority", you sure are vocal, SleepyHead!
It's also funny that you believe every piece of propaganda you hear. May I say one last time,
bombing Iraqi children (yes, 40% of Iraqis are children, so there will be children killed, even with "smart" bombs) does nothing to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. He is an evil man, yes, I agree whole-heartedly, but he won't be dealt with this way.

Oh, and if people with weapons of mass destruction are dangerous (which of course they are), why is it that the USA (which has the most of said weapons in the world) does not have to disarm? Is it because only middle-eastern people are terrorists? Because the Godly USA would never do anything wrong with them?

I say THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD DISARM!
No more guns, bombs, missiles, grenades, tanks, fighter planes, etc. for ANYONE in the world!

And nobody's answered about the British and Canadians the USA doesn't mind killing.
Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

PEACE AND LOVE,
~Angela~

[ Mar 23, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message Edited By: MissusLennon ]

Drumhead15

Mar 24, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By MissusLennon:
well said leonardo.

I've now heard that a British plane has been shot down by the Americans.

I bet none of you (other than the Canadians) ever heard about the 4 Canadians who were killed by American pilots last year.
Talk about media censorship.graemlins/clap1.gif graemlins/clap1.gif

Lucy

Mar 24, 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By Sexie Sadie:
i am against war, but what other choice do we have? Well said. I agree.

Tim

Mar 24, 2003, 03:28 AM

graemlins/clap1.gif * graemlins/clap1.gif * graemlins/clap1.gif *
Thank you MissusLennon!
I agree wholeheartedly.

jtal909

Mar 24, 2003, 04:54 PM

Were you just listening to Imagine or something?

graemlins/images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[ Mar 24, 2003, 06:35 PM: Message Edited By: jtal909 ]

mojolaw