| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tim111262 |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 2:48:58 PM
just curious as to whos for bush or against him in his decision for war. |
| 100 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/17/2003 : 9:06:56 PM
That must be why her call sign is "KC" for Killer Chick! |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/17/2003 : 8:58:09 PM
A-10's are wicked awesome. A huge flying gun, pilot sits in a titanium bathtub. Wicked. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/17/2003 : 8:37:05 PM
There was a cool news story on Channel 4 in San Jose about a female A-10 pilot who took ground fire over Baghdad and still managed to land her plane.
Here's a link to the streaming video if you're interested:
http://video.kron4.com/?clip=1181529 |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 2:35:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
I'M SO HAPPY THEY FOUND THE 7 POWs!!!
I also am very excited. I just got back from florida, and i read that in the paper that they were found. Very good news indeed! |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 2:34:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
I'M SO HAPPY THEY FOUND THE 7 POWs!!!
I also am very excited. I just got back from florida, and i read that in the paper that they were found. Very good news indeed! |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 03:37:19 AM
We must be a couple of pessimists. I'm glad we were wrong too! |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 10:51:40 PM
Me too, one was from just across the river in NJ, he was one of the ones whose picture was up on the bigscreen at the First Union Center Friday night.
Honestly I thought they were all dead! So glad that wasn't the case! There really are miracles! |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 10:17:15 PM
I'M SO HAPPY THEY FOUND THE 7 POWs!!! |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 9:18:49 PM
Thanks Teri! I couldn't have done it without your help! It wasn't as hard as I thought! Once I found out how to do it!hehe |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 8:19:56 PM
Let's see... the image is at http://www.pacificcoast.com/graphics/fluffyforlife.jpg
You'll want to put
]img[http://www.pacificcoast.com/graphics/fluffyforlife.jpg]/img[
(onlyput the brackets the other way around) and that should work... |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 09:07:10 AM
Ah Teri great idea! Thanks! I am going to try that, hope it works!
Help Teri! It isn't working for me! I can get the words but not the image! Ahhhhh! I feel so computer challenged someTIMes! |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 05:59:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
AHHHH Fluffy where are you? I am not used to starting a second page, I always think of you doing that!
You could always copy the "Fluffy For Life" image location from one of Fluffy's other post and then edit it into your post. You could put "in honor of Fluffy" or something  |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 05:56:13 AM
In bittersweet news, I saw on CNN today that the Arizona governor has suggested re-naming a local mountain known as Squaw Peak with the name of Lori Piestewa (pronounced py-ESS-tuh-wah), the KIA Hopi solider. I think that is way cool.
Apparently there has been much fighting for years over what to call the mountain (and the nearby highway which uses the same name) since so many Indians are offended by the name. This solves the problem and honors an American soldier/mom at the same time.
It's also alliterative, which I like: Piestewa Peak
Here's a link to the
Yahoo!News story |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/12/2003 : 5:19:31 PM
I can imagine that would be especially meaningful to you Teri. Jeez I just feel so bad for the POW's and their families. One of the soldiers on the screen last night is a POW. I honestly can't imagine what that would be like. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/12/2003 : 3:40:19 PM
Pretty cool! We did a retreat ceremony here at my base yesterday afternoon, and we found ourselves pretty somber as well. Watching the Stars and Stripes PLUS the POW/MIA flag being lowered and folded was almost like a new experience. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/12/2003 : 12:34:24 PM
I was at the Philadelphia Flyers game last night (awesome game-GO FLYERS!!!) and at one point they put the pictures and names of local servicemen and women who are serving in Iraq on the big screen and paid tribute to them. Some gave their lives in this fight we only debated here on the board.
It was truely a moving moment. A group from the US Army was there at the game and everyone gave them a standing ovation as well. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/10/2003 : 09:37:37 AM
I'll take my chances against someone with a gun over someone with nerve gas. I'm not saying I lack sympathy for the poor, and yes...I do think it's a big problem. I'm just saying that right now, I think we have bigger problems. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 11:17:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CPPJames
I'd personally rather be poor and not worrying that I might be the target of a terrorist attack than to be well off and have an element of fear in my day to day life.
If you actually were poor, and living in an urban area, you would have both of these things.
I agree VWF, weed shouldn't be a target of the war on drugs. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 9:08:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CPPJames
I enjoy debates, even though they rarely change minds on issues like these.
Exactly!
I totally agree on the war on crime. I'm not exactly with you on the war on drugs, war on the hard drugs yes, but war on marijuana i think is just silly. Marijuana should be regulated(IMO), not completely illegalized. My 2 cents that has nothing to do with iraq. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 8:10:57 PM
Sorry for the after reply edit  . I enjoy debates, even though they rarely change minds on issues like these. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 8:07:38 PM
No, I'm not that naive. That was not what I was saying. I was using your comment as an example of the ridiculous reasoning that has been used to justify this conflict, and I'm not saying all the reasoning has been ridiculous. I'm not going to restate my comments on my feelings on Iraq as a threat. It doesn't matter anymore anyway. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 8:03:33 PM
No, I don't think we're all going to die. Do I take the idealistic approach that Iraq could never possibly harm the US because we're high and mighty? Nope. With the vast expanse of unguarded borders, it would incredibly simple to bring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the US, undetected. Do I think everyone's going to die? Obviously not. Do I think a very large number of Americans could die? Yup. Granted, the administration may be using it as propoganda to sway a few opinions...but don't tell me that you're naive enough to believe that the oceans still protect us.
I'd personally rather be poor and not worrying that I might be the target of a terrorist attack than to be well off and have an element of fear in my day to day life. No, I don't necessarily worry everytime I drive over a bridge or entered a crowded arena that I'm going to be attacked. Yes, the thought does cross my mind and it does leave me ill at ease.
Cliché as it is, 9-11 proved that this country is incredibly vulnerable and way too naive. I don't have a lick of faith in "Homeland Security". If we wanted to keep all of our borders completely secure, half our population would work for customs. The only way to solve this problem, in my opinion, is to be pro-active about it. I refuse to sweep it all under the rug and think "Well, that was a one time thing. We're even now, they won't attack again". Some of those bastards truly hate us and will go to any length to see us die. I, for one, want to kill them first. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 7:05:25 PM
We're all not going to die. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. People use this logic to inject fear into people's hearts. It is basic authoritaian idealogical psuedo-logic:
Attack Iraq: You live vs. Don't Attack: EVERYBODY DIES!!!!
It's just like the stupidity of an "Axis of Evil." The world is not as black and white as some people percieve it to be.
I agree w/ PJK, the war on poverty and crime, improving education, and strengthening culteral diversity should be top priority. Instead, we're measuring national penis sizes. Weeeeeeeee! |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 6:59:04 PM
True which is why I believe in the saying "Make Love Not War" cause when you die, you at least die with a smile on your face,hehehe.
AHHHH Fluffy where are you? I am not used to starting a second page, I always think of you doing that!
Fluffy this is a bit messed up I know, you have no Idea what I went through to get this on here so I am sorry it isn't as perfect as I had wanted but the thought is there!
Fluffy, THIS ONE'S FOR YOU!!!! |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 6:40:08 PM
Who cares about crime and poverty if we're all dead? |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 6:17:09 PM
Sorry Xar, but honestly no! Todays friend is tomorrows enemy. If they are still all waving American Flags in 20 years then I might feel differently but I doubt that very much! The only wars I wanted to see were the ones on poverty and crime in the United States! |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 5:59:21 PM
I give up guys, that's it! You have your opinions, and i have mine, and no matter what no one is gonna change the other person's mind short of miracle.
My new stance is, let's just get along in the short time we have. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 4:43:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
To me that still was not worth the loss of American Servicemen.
I think it's worth it when I realize that millions of people might now have the opportunity to have even a taste of the freedom we enjoy over here.
And please don't forget the servicewomen. When one of our female POWs was rescued, the remains of 9 other soliders were unearthed and identified. One of those soliders was Lori Piestewa, a 23-year old mother of two. Still in custody is Shoshana Johnson. If the Red Cross could ever get access, we might be able to find out if any of the POWs we saw on TV is still alive.
For more info on POWs and MIAs you can visit http://www.nationalalliance.org/gulf2/index.htm |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 4:32:38 PM
ok then |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 4:22:17 PM
ahh yes |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 4:12:00 PM
Pretty sick stuff!(Teri' post) To me that still was not worth the loss of American Serviceman. My newspaper listed every soldier who died, their rank age and hometown and the same for every prisoner of war and I still feel the same way I did before it started, totally against the war!
There have been many good points both pro and con on this thread and I am interested in what everyone thinks but my mind still can't find the justification for this war.
|
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 4:04:03 PM
Ok, I'm waving the surrender flag on this one...
Xar, you're 100% correct that at least I have the luxury of being able to vote, write a lettter to the editor, etc.
However, I am still very steadfast in my belief that people cannot merely accept the fact that they may live in the best country in the world without realizing that it also has some serious flaws. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 11:01:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Xar666
I have Iraqi and Iranian friends and they fucking hate the regimes of both their countries. Their families live there and they hate them too, they just can't speak out, because the government will put their mothers in rape rooms and their children in plastic shredders.
Here's something I found on the UPI website:
"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."
http://upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 10:18:44 PM
Things have always sucked. They probably will suck for a long time. In my eyes, the only good thing that has happened recently is democracy, and it is spreading, so that is good. I don't feel, however, that capitalism is what will win out if we ever reach any kind of "utopian" society. It might be the way for a country like the US to get big enough to enact some type of socialist state, but it won't be the US any time soon because everybody is way to greedy. Democratic socialism. That's my campaign speach, now watch my opponents call me a communist!!! Wow I'm tired.
Wait, this is off topic. Ignore my ramblings. As you were. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 10:05:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Xar666
quote:
Originally posted by victorwootenfan
What's funny is that's the most sense that guy's ever made.
Thanks for the insult. I choose to speak when I feel I truly have something to contribute to a post, instead senselessly postwhoring.
quote:
Originally posted by victorwootenfan
You make good points Xar, but i just don't think in "realist" mode.
You label my assessment “realist mode”. Instead of placing your fate in Faith’s hands, perhaps you could use your brain to form an opinion. Religion has created the greatest amount of bloodshed in this world.
First off i'd like to apologize if you took what i said as an insult. Most times i've been around you've just said random stuff about corpses, and (to me at least) this was the first time i've read something serious by you.
I always place fate in faith's hands(how you put it so well). I go with what the world gives me(for the most part), and just live by the day's fate. I consider myself a religious person(not fanactical by any means), and i know about the bloodshed religion has caused, i've read up on it through several books. I'm suggesting a postive outlook on life, but too many things are focused on the negative as of now(war on the news 24/7). It's just something needs to fuckin' change, and no i don't have any answers to it, but i have faith that something will come along. And when that does, i will then support it, but not bush's regime of attack first ask questions later. |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 4:35:28 PM
totally |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 4:32:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Silky The Pimp
Not to change the subject, but what do you all think about the first gulf war? Do you think that Bush Sr. should have taken out Sadaam's regime when he had the chance?
Bush Sr's objective in Desert Storm was to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Rather than take out Saddam's regime, Bush Sr. gave the UN time to deal with Saddam Hussein using peaceful means. The United Nations passed many resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq would not pose a threat to international peace and security. As you may know, the current Bush administration has cited Saddam Hussein's defiance of those resolutions as a major reason for the the war we are now in.
Specifically, the following resolutions were passed by the UN and defied by Saddam Hussein:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Last November 8, the UN passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.
Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. According to Colin Powell, no council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
|
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 4:23:18 PM
I am trying to change policy with my measly vote. Of course if I had a couple billion dollars to throw around and a PR firm I could just run for president myself... |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 4:09:36 PM
moist |
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 4:05:09 PM
No shit I'd get flogged in some third world country for saying this stuff, but that's no way to rationalize or make excuses for a power structure that is infinitley flawed and morally corrupt. Furthermore, the whole notion of "having the freedom to do (fill in the blank)" is no conciliation prize. Who cares if I can read a porno mag, create a website about my fascination with rotting human corpses, or sit here and have a debate on a messsage board when the bottom line is that free speech is only tolerable to the extent that it doesn't threaten the powers-that-be or portray them as being anything less than benevolent and well-intenioned leaders. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 2:40:43 PM
The threat of Iraq is something I disagree with as well. To me, the case was not made by the administration, but that does not neccessarily mean there is no case. I think in the haste of preparing for the conflict, they put the case for war on the backburner.
I do think that Bush Sr. should have taken the shot when he had the chance. That is something that kind of bothers me about the administration's "bleeding heart" case for the conflict, because they knew he was horrible then, and the characters haven't really changed. |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 1:15:09 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head... I think we just differ in the fact that it doesn't bother me that they went into "diplomacy" with a loaded gun, mostly because I don't think it would have made a difference had they not. That's certainly just speculation, but then again, what isn't?
If it were up to the UN, I think we'd end up in the exact same situation 2 years from now when we'd have a "smoking gun." Only difference would be that we'd have that many more dead friends and everyone around the world would say "go for it" in the same way they did with Afghanistan. I happen to think it would be foolish to wait until the violence comes home again so that what we do in Iraq could be considered vindication rather than agression. It's syntax to me at that point, and I think other countries are just playing on that small difference now so as to try and remain as far down on the Arab shit-list as possible.
Not to change the subject, but what do you all think about the first gulf war? Do you think that Bush Sr. should have taken out Sadaam's regime when he had the chance? |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 11:44:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Silky The Pimp
quote:
But what I, and I think many people, have issue with is the way in which the administration is handling the situation.
I can respect that you have an issue with that... but I'm just curious what else you think would work? In the same paragraph you said that Sadaam should be out of power, but then you come to say that you don't think force was the right answer. We've now seen that Sadaam would rather die than give up his crown, so without sounding obnoxious... what makes you think that he would have been more willing to exile through diplomacy? If Sadaam were interested in cooperating, he would have done so before getting forced out and/or killed.
Let me just say that I am not against war. I'm not neccesarily a pacifist, I think it is still neccesary in certain situations considering current global conditions. My main problem with how the administration has handled this is that they came into it with their finger on the trigger and the hammer cocked. I don't think they fooled anyone into thinking they weren't going to start this war. I think the "diplomacy" used by this country in trying to gain support was "You are going to join us or you will be rendered irrelevant." This policy is bullshit, it's rude, abnoxious, and does nothing to help our status in the eyes of the world. Bush came into office with an isolationist policy and when he needed support from the global community for something he got little.
9 members of Bush's staff including Rummy have been advocates of going into Iraq again to finish the job. This attack had little to do with 9/11. It was premeditated from the moment Bush won the election, probably well before. 9/11 was a good opportunity. I question the motives and the intentions for this conflict. I, along with many people I know or know of, do not trust our government. There is something wrong with this. Canada and Mexico dont' even support or endorse our actions. There is something wrong with this. Russia doesn't support us! Russia is going to have to depend on us for their own economic stability and they are not with us. Too many things are not adding up. There are always voices of dissent during war, but not to this extreme.
As I said before though, I am not against all military action and I do think Saddam is a "bad" person. I think we should have shown more patience with Iraq. Not waiting for Saddam to leave, but for us to gain more support. In the eyes of the arab world, a UN attack would have been a little less threatening than a US & friends attack. We are already in low standing with them, and it's not because they are all crazy towel headed fundamentalists, it's because of our own zionist/christian foreign policy.
I digress though since the gears of the war machine have been set in motion. Right now I'm hoping for the safety of everyone in the region, and that the conflict is quickly resolved. I'm also hoping the US will handle post-Saddam Iraq well and not screw it up.
edit: I'd also like to state that I am not basing my view on anything religious. I'm an atheist. |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 09:26:01 AM
oh really |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 09:14:29 AM
heya |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 06:57:39 AM
No TIMe now to argue all your points, great points albeit, but I differ on my opinion of most of them.
As for rape of our women by the military, no not in the streets. Our military (no offense to you Teri or the decent soldiers out there) rape the women right on our military bases and schools! Just check out the Air Force Academy in Colorado, hummmm. I guess they just felt the women cadets there were fair game. not uncommon either.
I think getting Saddam was a top priority for Bush when he came into power and 9-11 just provided him with an excuse to do it. I still see no correlation between the two events. |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 03:20:03 AM
quote:
if more people actually visualized peaceful efforts instead of miltary efforts that we might actually live in a more peaceful place.
I agree 100%. But I can't say that I disagree with THIS war based upon a theoretical epistemological thought of an ideal world. While I think it's a wonderful sentiment, it's just too pie-in-the-sky. It's an inch away from being, "If we all agree to stop doing bad things, there won't be any more war," and that just isn't applicable to real world politics.
quote:
if these atrocities are as bad now as they were ten years ago why the fuck didn't Bush Sr. just off Saddam the first time around?
He wasn't willing to put his balls on the chopping block, plain and simple. Clinton wasn't willing to do it, and if Gore had been elected, I'd put money on it that he wouldn't either. Bush Jr. is doing his job as a leader, not a politician.
quote:
This is just more knee-jerk post-9/11 reaction of wiping out everybody we didn't like and making people think we're doing something constructive to stop terrorism...and we all know how much Arabs love US intervention...
Is that what you honestly think of the military action that was taken after 9/11? Do you not think that our military was going after a worthy target... that it was just someone that we didn't like?
I think you would have to be spinning your own wheels to say that Sadaam is/was not a threat. I think you would have to be spinning them even further to say that he would have gone out peacefully. Why anyone would be upset with wiping out threats to us is well beyond me.
As for the Arabs... haven't you noticed... THE ARABS HATE US ANYWAY! We are infidels, remember? To say that this is going to cause more terrorism would be somewhat silly. What conflict was 9/11 a direct result of? Or the last time the the WTC was bombed before that in 1993? Do you honestly believe that Sadaam is not a protagonist of terrorism? The man once said that Americans will never be safe with regards to terrorism.
quote:
"well, it's better than anywhere else" is a major league cop-out. Better how? Because our leaders tell better lies?
How many people do you know that were tortured and killed because they said that they disagree with Bush? How many women do you know who were raped by American soldiers patrolling the streets? How many American civilians have you seen killed by American soldiers, on American soil? None? That's how it's better.
quote:
But what I, and I think many people, have issue with is the way in which the administration is handling the situation.
I can respect that you have an issue with that... but I'm just curious what else you think would work? In the same paragraph you said that Sadaam should be out of power, but then you come to say that you don't think force was the right answer. We've now seen that Sadaam would rather die than give up his crown, so without sounding obnoxious... what makes you think that he would have been more willing to exile through diplomacy? If Sadaam were interested in cooperating, he would have done so before getting forced out and/or killed.
quote:
it's like why now do we decide to attack someone we've supported in the past. to set an example, to get oil benefits, to do what...
Again, I just don't think there has been anyone before Bush that was willing to put their balls on the chopping block. Also, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal about "what is this war over?" Here it is... oil, the freedom of the Iraqi people, the elimination of a very substantial threat. That is what it's about... who honestly cares what order it's in as long as each gets done? Even if this were STRICTLY about oil, I would still support it because the Iraqi people get freed and Sadaam is out. I just can't fathom how either of those could even be interpreted as being negative. I think this was inevitable for a loooong time, but it's taking place a few years and terrorist attacks early because Bush is actually doing what he said he would before he was ever elected. |
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 02:14:24 AM
Actually, I've skipped on tax payments for a couple years now and it's nice to know none of my blood, sweat & tear labor goes towards killing anyone other than myself...
The whole "if it weren't for our freedom-fighting troops you wouldn't be able to voice your opinion" argument does not phase me for a second. Why should I support an army that is acting on behalf of an administartion that I neither voted for nor supported once it came to power? For God's sake, half of those 18-year-olds don't even know what the fuck they're doing in a desert anyway (What? Fighting for us to watch more TV, consume more "product", and vote for more rich people that don't give a fuck about you or me??..or is it just to provide for their family or get money for college??).
Honestly, if the Thought Police came into my room while I type this right now I'd tell them to "fuck off"...I don't care who fought for my right to say that, I'm a human being and I can live my life as I see fit as long as I'm not belittling the lives of others, right? Don't tell me I need Joe from Kansas to take a bullet in the ass to make me think different!
|
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 10:40:13 PM
Yeah, but in return for those taxes your kids will get gauranteed health care, even if you're a poor working musician. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 10:01:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
Sorry guys, big-time DISAGREE. I know the world's shitty at times, but that blase attitude of "well, it's better than anywhere else" is a major league cop-out. Better how? Because our leaders tell better lies?
No, better because you can say stuff like that, as loud as you want, wherever you want, without anyone KILLING you. or your family.
Granted, you can do the same in Canada, the UK, etc. but you'll pay a hell of a lot more in taxes. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 9:34:22 PM
i agree with you guys spacemonkey and fleabass, it's like why now do we decide to attack someone we've supported in the past. to set an example, to get oil benefits, to do what...
who knows, i'm curious what fluffy has to say about it all tho. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 9:09:29 PM
There is no question that Saddam is a horrible person and that he should be stopped. There are many tyrants who act in similar manners that we are not removing. Does this make it ok to ignore Saddam? I don't think so. But what I, and I think many people, have issue with is the way in which the administration is handling the situation. The fact is, the "human" and "liberation" part of this war is bullshit. It's just a happy side effect so we can all feel better about ourselves while another puppet government is established and the arab world can have even more reason to hate the western devil. While Americans might have freedoms that Iraqis do not, we also have a big percent of "have-nots" that don't exactly sip nectar from the golden chalice of our profits. Meanwhile, our corporations are whipping the workers of the 3rd world countries that are our bitches. |
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 8:55:49 PM
Alluding to my initial post on this topic...
I agree that we can't take an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude towards human rights atrocities, but that's basically what our governemnt did back in the 1980s when it supported Iraq (along with Europe and most other Arab countries). Saddam's been a thug since the beginning yet he was treated as an ally for some time. Don't tell me now that the US gives a shit about the poor, suffering Iraqi masses...if these atrocities are as bad now as they were ten years ago why the fuck didn't Bush Sr. just off Saddam the first time around? Don't tell me it was because he was afraid of a peasant army.
This is just more knee-jerk post-9/11 reaction of wiping out everybody we didn't like and making people think we're doing something constructive to stop terrorism...and we all know how much Arabs love US intervention...
Sorry guys, big-time DISAGREE. I know the world's shitty at times, but that blase attitude of "well, it's better than anywhere else" is a major league cop-out. Better how? Because our leaders tell better lies? |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 8:53:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
Ah, but this coming from someone who likes to screw corpse, hummmmm?????
What's funny is that's the most sense that guy's ever made. You make good points Xar, but i just don't think in "realist" mode. My ideals go with my religious beliefs, and i just have the opinion that if more people actually visualized peaceful efforts instead of miltary efforts that we might actually live in a more peaceful place. But the news usually equates peace with peace protesters with anti-americanism, etc... |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 8:03:12 PM
My point exactly Tericee...although I think your opinion varies slightly =). The point I was trying to make is that just because we never see the victims of Saddam's regime, and the torture they go through, some people take an out of sight, out of mind approach. That doesn't work for me. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 6:51:59 PM
Ah, but this coming from someone who likes to screw corpse, hummmmm????? |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 5:38:01 PM
lovely |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 5:27:08 PM
Well said, Xar.
quote:
Originally posted by CPPJames
Alright...but where are the pictures of the tortured Iraqis?
How about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2906251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2882239.stm |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 5:23:32 PM
what |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 5:01:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fleabass76
Yes, but Fox News was turning it around in an AD for their network. "Don't watch the communist fascists who hire people like this!" was their basic message. It was like a political ad, kind of sickening. Of course MSNBC did not support his action, that's why they fired him.
Gotcha. I hadn't seen that. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 4:57:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jude
i hear ya, its pretty pathetic the way the media is covering the war non stop. Gotta be the first to get the info, better then everyone else. Even the thing fox news did about the nbc guy being, 'un-american' and there by making fox news the best news channel. sigh, its sad.
An NPR commentary (i.e., less biased news source) agreed that what Peter Arnett did was un-professional.
Yes, but Fox News was turning it around in an AD for their network. "Don't watch the communist fascists who hire people like this!" was their basic message. It was like a political ad, kind of sickening. Of course MSNBC did not support his action, that's why they fired him. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 4:55:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
All I was saying is that sometimes, military solutions do work. The Dutch are still grateful that they were liberated from Nazi occupation. And I imagine a few holocaust survivors are too.
Indeed, but WWI led to WWII and if WWI was at least dealt with correctly, Hitler would probably had never gained the support he needed to organize. |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 4:55:10 PM
quote:
And I imagine a few holocaust survivors are too.
To keep things in perspective... I wouldn't exist if it weren't for that fact. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 4:51:10 PM
All I was saying is that sometimes, military solutions do work. The Dutch are still grateful that they were liberated from Nazi occupation. And I imagine a few holocaust survivors are too. |
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 4:46:31 PM
...and the people in vietnam...and cambodia...and nicaragua...and el salvador...and guatemala...and east timor...and the palestinian states...etc. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:48:54 PM
Tell that to the native americans... |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:47:42 PM
Tell that to the Dutch.
http://home.hetnet.nl/~oostvogels/milit-eng.htm |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:40:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
quote:
Originally posted by victorwootenfan
there's just so much violence going on around the world, and America just seems to go in and stop it when it's to there advantage. like all the crap going down in africa, and going down in south america, but all we focus in on is Iraq.
So you're saying that we should either help nobody or everybody?
In other words, if America goes in and stops violence SOMEWHERE in the world, isn't that better than nowhere at all?
We should just leave everyone else alone(im my opinion). Whether it's a cruel dictator or a helping country, people still get killed in the end that don't have a thing to do about war. I personally jsut am against war, and think that it never solves problems. WW1 didn't stop WW2 from happening. Vietnam didn't stop communism, etc.. Saw this on a bumper sticker "Military solutions are PROBLEMS." That just makes sense to me. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:37:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fleabass76
We're being fed cinematic productions which really do not convey the suffering of war.
Amnesty International reports indicate that the suffering of "peace" isn't much better for Iraqis than the suffering of war. I would prefer not to see images of either one on my TV screen. (You can find some of them on Yahoo! slideshows though, I think.)
"Despite national laws prohibiting it, torture has been used systematically in Iraqi prisons and detention centres for at least the last two decades. Over the years AI has interviewed hundreds of torture victims, or their relatives, many of whom now live with permanent physical or psychological damage. Some of their stories are told in a new report, Iraq: Systematic torture of political prisoners (AI Index: MDE 14/008/2001) published in August. Victims include people detained on suspicion of political activities against the government, such as being accused of having links with the Iraqi opposition outside the country or plotting to overthrow the government. Some died under torture. When their bodies were returned to their families they bore evident signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, marks of severe beatings and electric shocks and finger- and toe-nails being removed.
Women have been the victims of torture such as rape and beatings on the soles of the feet, on suspicion of contacts with opposition groups or in some cases to put pressure on relatives abroad to cease their anti-government activities."
|
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:19:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tim~and~dave
something I have not figured out yet ~
What is the best way to get war coverage? I do not watch the news much and just get mad when I do because ~ well I don't know why.
But anyone have the best source?
How's this punctuation thing working out?
I think NPR has been doing a good job of covering the war. They aren't non-stop either, which is nice. I listened to some very interesting Savvy Traveler pieces yesterday.
BTW, the punctuation is GREAT! |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:16:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jude
i hear ya, its pretty pathetic the way the media is covering the war non stop. Gotta be the first to get the info, better then everyone else. Even the thing fox news did about the nbc guy being, 'un-american' and there by making fox news the best news channel. sigh, its sad.
An NPR commentary (i.e., less biased news source) agreed that what Peter Arnett did was un-professional. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:13:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by victorwootenfan
there's just so much violence going on around the world, and America just seems to go in and stop it when it's to there advantage. like all the crap going down in africa, and going down in south america, but all we focus in on is Iraq.
So you're saying that we should either help nobody or everybody?
In other words, if America goes in and stops violence SOMEWHERE in the world, isn't that better than nowhere at all? |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 3:10:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GuitarGuy305
My biggest problem is that this is being called "War On Iraq". I think it should be called "War On Saddam" or "War That Happens To Take Place IN Iraq". The USA is being accused of trying to exterminte the Iraqi people as a whole, and if the term "War On Iraq" is used, it sure sounds that way. As far as we are told, we have nothing against the Iraqi people as a whole, so why declare war on their entire country?
I haven't really seen that many references to war ON iraq. While watching the news I started looking for that, but I've seen War in Iraq, America at War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom used alot. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 2:11:02 PM
Another question might be, will this war stop the torture of Iraqui's? My guess is no. I still see little good and much harm from war, replacing one regime with another changes little. Perception doesn't equal truth, but all we have to go by is our perception. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 1:48:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CPPJames
Alright...but where are the pictures of the tortured Iraqis?
That wasn't really my point. My point is that the reality and human side of this conflict is not really being shown. We're being fed cinematic productions which really do not convey the suffering of war. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 1:40:56 PM
Alright...but where are the pictures of the tortured Iraqis? |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 12:30:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by victorwootenfan
Do these people have morals, or a consious(sp?) ???
They don't have to, they're patriotic Americans damnit! 
You're right, pictures of the faces of war are things that can really make a conflict like this memorable. Who could forget:
 |
| tim~and~dave |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 12:22:40 PM
conscious and I agree, why the double standard (with them, not you)? |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 12:16:05 PM
what i can't stand about the war coverage is that it's censored. if some of these reporters really wanted to show the face of war, they'd show all of it. People need to see how horrific it really is, and the whole deal. instead they just see bombings on villages in a distance and other pathetic coverage.
on a side note, someone in my local paper wrote a letter to the editor about how we should nuke iraq(serious too). The person said at the end of it something to the effect of "an american life is worth more than any iraqi lives" it was something about how we should kill thousands of iraqis to save one american life... Do these people have morals, or a consious(sp?) ??? |
| tim~and~dave |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 10:58:31 AM
something I have not figured out yet ~
What is the best way to get war coverage? I do not watch the news much and just get mad when I do because ~ well I don't know why.
But anyone have the best source?
How's this punctuation thing working out? |
| Saint Jude |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 10:47:25 AM
i hear ya, its pretty pathetic the way the media is covering the war non stop. Gotta be the first to get the info, better then everyone else. Even the thing fox news did about the nbc guy being, 'un-american' and there by making fox news the best news channel. sigh, its sad. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/07/2003 : 06:31:14 AM
I was at a sports bar at Penn State last night and they have 4 large screens on one wall. Usually they play 4 different sports on each screen. Bad night for sports, screen #1 had European Football #2 had golf #3 Womens basketball and #4 The war in Iraq!!!! Since when is the war a sport?????????? Oh yeah, I forgot, the way the coverage is on TV I guess it is supposed to be entertainment! Damnit, people are dying, I don't want to see that when I am eating dinner out!
Sorry, just had to vent! |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 8:57:10 PM
you nailed my feelings as well Dick! |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 3:32:04 PM
My feelings exactly!!!!! |
| dick mountjoy |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 1:39:59 PM
Anti-War and Anti-Bush for the sole reason that the Governor does not think of the long term repercussions of his decisions. Blowing up Baghdad will lead to peace and security for Americans? Yeah right, all it will lead to is suicide bombings in the US and more Anti-Americanism. And as sad as it is, I don't blame the entire Middle East (minus Israel of course) for hating us. Its not a level playing field, the US can attack Iraq because it's "threatened" (yeah right) but can Iraq develop weapons to attack the US because it feels threatened (which is a much more reasonable assumption)? NO WAY. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/02/2003 : 02:41:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by various people
Pro-troops
Because of heightened security, individuals can no longer send letters and packages to 'Any Service Member.' Operation USO Care Package is approved by the Department of Defense, providing a safe, easy way for individuals and corporations to show their thoughts are with our men and women in uniform.
http://www.usocares.org/home.htm |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 10:59:24 PM
Hehe... I thought I was the only one too until I saw that. There's a lengthier joke that goes along with that. Remind me to tell it to you next time I see you. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 6:25:32 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA funny thing is when I read it I thought what????? but ofcourse didn't respond on the board, hehehe that is too funny! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 6:09:22 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Silky, you know that joke?
Well obviously! Where did you hear it? I discovered it in a movie called "Up the Academy". I always liked that line. HEHE
For everyone else, the way it it usually works is, you say "Tickle your ass with a feather?" and when someone responds with something like "What did you say?" or "Excuse me?" you reply with "I said, it's particularly nice weather!"
Maybe it's only funny to me and Silky, oh well, whatever, nevermind! |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 8:39:44 PM
Agreed. LOL. |
| tericee |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 8:19:14 PM
LOL (was going to put a smiley here, but couldn't find one that seemed like it was laughing out loud ) |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 7:00:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Xar666
Pro-War.
M.O.A.B. now.
Do you already have your plane ticket to go please all the corpses? |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 1:41:41 PM
quote:
Tickle your ass with a feather???????
I said it's particularly nice weather.
quote:
Pro Saddam removal by any reasonable means necessary, including our current path.
Ditto. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 12:37:41 PM
Mother Of All Bombs. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 11:36:21 AM
excuse my ignorance... what's moab? |
| Xar666 |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 11:26:55 AM
flammable |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 03:19:34 AM
Tickle your ass with a feather??????? |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 12:13:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
Fleabass76 Well said, I agree 100%!!!!!
I still think it is funny no one knows how the hell we are going to pay for this war but I have a good idea.....taxpayers!
What's even more interesting to me is that Bush still wants to cut taxes. Luckily congress cut the cut in half, but it's still a cut. All of that money...all of the problems in this country it could fix..Oh well, might as well just watch the news and see ten more $500k missles hit targets... |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 03/30/2003 : 7:31:39 PM
Pro Saddam removal by any reasonable means necessary, including our current path.
Hate war...but I completely, 100% agree with GuitarGuy's quote. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/30/2003 : 5:17:20 PM
Fleabass76 Well said, I agree 100%!!!!!
I still think it is funny no one knows how the hell we are going to pay for this war but I have a good idea.....taxpayers! |
