Sui Generis Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [b]Food For Thought:[/b] There have been two wars where American citizens have given a majority support for.... 1) World War 1 and 2) World War 2 The thing is America calls themselves Democratic, yet really its a mix of Democracy and Legalism. America is a very selfish country, and they don't want to do anything unless it directly affects them. [b]Examples[/b] A) Lucitania B) Pearl Harbor Ironically these two are what got America involved in the World Wars. Other wise I doubt that they would've had so much support! Everyone seems to think Bush has something to gain from this. What if he doesn't? What if he truly is trying to help someone? Is that a bad thing? Is that an un-believable concept. Its not for oil. Don't you think if it was for Oil it would've happened along time ago. Possibly [b]before[/b] the terriost attacks? I think Bush is truly trying to help. I'm not saying if I think what he is doing is right/wrong. His heart is in the right place. That is my belief. I'm sick of people suspecting everything Bush does. He's the presdient. He's trying as hard as he can! Trust him for once! [b]Legalism:[/b] Started in early China it was a fairly popular way of life for a bit. It stated that people should act out of self-interest. People shouldn't re-act unless there was a reward/punishment. It also stated that the best governemtn was the one with the fewest rules. (does not imply to America) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [size=1]If the sinking of the Lusitania what got the US involved in WWI, why didn't we enter the war till 1917?[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I honestly don't see how all this could be some ploy to get Iraq's oil. I think that's honestly just someone's excuse to protest because they can't find a real reason, beyond the fact that they just disagree. Anyway, the war has begun. I hope it's over swiftly. Though, I think Bush is a little idealistic if he think the Iraqi people will settle into a democratic government. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sui Generis Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara [/i] [B][size=1]If the sinking of the Lusitania what got the US involved in WWI, why didn't we enter the war till 1917?[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] I guess I should've worded my post differently. I'm sorry. It wasn't what caused us to go, but it was a huge spur in the direction. It was one of the reasons they started talking about going to war. I apologize for worded my post in correctly.... Thats true Justin. Although the government has come out and said that its not gonna be as quick as the expected, so who knows whats going on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B] [b]Examples[/b] A) Lucitania B) Pearl Harbor Ironically these two are what got America involved in the World Wars. Other wise I doubt that they would've had so much support! [/B][/QUOTE] I don't mean to jump off topic here, but thats not intirely true. The Pearl Harbour one is obviously, for it's been stated by FDR himself. But the Lucitania, contrary to belief, was not the reason we got into WWI. That would be credit to Unrestricted Submarine Warfare by the Germans. Thats what sank the Lucitania, and tons of other ships delivering supplies to Britian and France. It wasn't the Lucitania itself, it was the act of continual Unrestricted Submarine Warfare after the Germans had stated they would stop. Ironically, it happened right after Wilson was reelected (on the platform of keeping us out of the war none-the-less) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sui Generis Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I don't mean to jump off topic here, but thats not intirely true. The Pearl Harbour one is obviously, for it's been stated by FDR himself. But the Lucitania, contrary to belief, was not the reason we got into WWI. That would be credit to Unrestricted Submarine Warfare by the Germans. Thats what sank the Lucitania, and tons of other ships delivering supplies to Britian and France. It wasn't the Lucitania itself, it was the act of continual Unrestricted Submarine Warfare after the Germans had stated they would stop. Ironically, it happened right after Wilson was reelected (on the platform of keeping us out of the war none-the-less) [/B][/QUOTE] Honestly I thought that was implyed in the Lucitania part of it.... Again I'm sorry.... Next time I'll make sure to cover every aspect of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Well actually duomax and trans, I am being resonable about my generalizations of anti-war protestors. If there is a silent majority of protestors who support the troops, they need to speak up. The only time I dont see hate from the protestors towards those who are going to war and those who support it are when the are confronted my an independant party with the very same points I made. Unfortunatly, the majority of actions I have seen on the news and other forms of media has been hostile and inflamitory towards the soldiers themselves If you guys are speaking the truth, and the majority of protestors do support the troops, you need to start a big hoo-ra with cnn and other news channels that go out of their way to show the more disrespectful protestors than people like you two who whole heartedly believe the soldiers are good people. I dont know if you guys have noticed this either, but alot of the orginizers of these anti-war protest are often the very same people who were doing it in vietnam. (that 60's mentality you say is gone.) The fact is, you can not discount my observations of these people simply because you have a different view. I am not insulting anyone with this, I am merely pointing out what many others have seen, and what I am tired of seeing. "Anyone who is a soldier is immoral." I have heard statments like that enough and those statments are not made by one or two people... they are made by many. Just because you two and the anti-war crowd you may hang around doesnt put out insulting statments, doesnt mean it doesnt happen... it does happen. Thats all there is to it. I do appreciate the fact that you two are very pro-soldier and anti-war though. If your gonna be anti-war, that is the way to do it. So I say thankyou to you two alone on behalf of all the soldiers who I know must appreciate your support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShinje Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [size=1] [color=darkblue] Phew, there are some pretty heavy opinions here, Mine is not exactly light either... Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man, we've already found that out. Done nothing wrong? How about invading Iran in the 1980's (which ironically had support from the White House at the time because Iran was seen as a great threat to national security) Or the 1991 invasion of Kuwait, sparking the 1991 Gulf war. And his terror is not limited to overseas, he does this to his own men! Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, the scud missiles, and biological and chemical weapons alike, and he is not afraid to use them. Saddam is at his worst when his back is against the wall, both using chemical weapons in the Iranian war in the 1980's and the tprching of the Kuwaiti oil fields in 1991. I will be interesting to see what Saddams regime will do this time. All that said, this war is not about oil. Iraqi's will be glad to see the end of Saddam's regime, for they are constantly living in terror and fear. Heck, Saddam put to death olympic athletes who misrepresented the country by losing! Amd when he was elected the president of Iraq, he shot to death anyone who opposed him. Seeing that footage sent a shiver up my spine. The guy is completely insane, and something must be done about his weaponry or he [i]will[/i] use it. War has happened, as I type, the first ground troops are being sent in. I will adress the anti war movement now. How can ypu say war is not justified. The [i]very[/i] people you say are victims, will be glad and rejoice when Saddam is gone. They know, at least the vast majority know that war is [i]not[/i] against Iraq and Islam, it is agaisnt Saddam and his opressive regime. In all aspects of the war, none could be more clearer than the true purpose of the war. [b] most Iraqis accept, and know, that war is inevitable[/b] an while they know that some of them will die, they also look forward to a world withou Saddam, a time when they can be free in the world, free from the opressive Saddam regime, and maybe, their country can go back to looking somewhat like Kuwait. George Bush does not want war, he gave Saddam [i]ample[/i] time to leave Iraq, he patiently waited, while the securiuty council of the U.N kept extending it's deadline. their own deadlines had been violated, and yet they say "we will give more time" To me, that is justification to Go it alone" as it is commonly termed. Tony blair does not want to be off sided with the british people. Say an election was held today, he would be out on his ***. Tony Blai ha realised the call to war is necessary, so does John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia. Both men have sacrificed the popularity of the Australian and british people, heck even their own party members, for a war that is far more justified than either you or I, could even possibly imagine. I would ask you to think really carefully about the sacrifice of thousands of British and American and Australian troops in the Gulf right now, fighting an evil fascist dictator. I would hate to think they owuld be treated like trash and covered in pig blood if they returned, though I know todays anti war movement realises it's not the soldires fault. Bear in mind that this war is fully justified if you look hard enough, and examine the Iraqi crisis as it is playing out. Whichever way you go, at leas tknow that it is almost [i]certain[/] that to this end, Saddam has run out of time, and now, it's time for him to give up [/size] [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Quote | Gokents - BIG POINT... With in the last 20 minutes the highly respected Hans Blix has come out with a very specific statement... "Well... if Iraq has fired scuds, then they are defiantly in material breech." Keep those sorts of comments in mind if you think UNMOVIC was getting the job done. Note: Iraq fired scuds last night at Kuwait - [color=teal] Watching American news stream last night I was getting the opinion that they were trying to make this look like a first strike [i]by[/i] Iraq. When in fact it was just an indicator to America that they were "ready to play" as one annalist put it. They had conventional warheads on them. (Two were intercepted by patriot missiles, the others landed away from the cities in the desert.) I'd just like to know if Blix worded that the best he could have. The missiles them selves were legal under 1441 (I believe that's the right one, it could have been 13...?) and the warheads where legal, the only thing breaking it was them firing them at someone. Also I get the feeling that America firing 70 missiles at Iraq is breaking something in the UN, personally I think it was a fare move by Iraq. They are under attack so they lash out. There in war and America has [i]by-passed[/i] the UN so it doesn't apply. One other thing, Bush is now fare game. The America strike on Saddam was justified by ?He is their commander and chief so he is fare game.? Doesn?t this also say that Bush is? Hehehe? :| (Yes I know Iraq has hardly anyway of killing him.) Hmm, anyway, just some thing to think about. [/color] Eps - [i]Watching Golf War 2[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I also thought I would come out and mention that with in the last day the french government has come out and said they have found a very specific poison in a train station in paris... Thats right, the very same poison that was alleged to be the center of training and creation at the poinson training camp in northren Iraq. Ryson. Will my prediction that the french will hope on board just at the last minute be correct? Well I can tell you one thing... no one can resist a good deal on newly democratic state owned oil. And I betting the same for the russians being that the oil fields in the south were where the russians were getting their own development of refinery facilities going... And where are oil fields allegedly being lite up right now... Thats right, the south where all of the ruskies investments lie. We will see what happens. and No, specifically "scud" missiles are illeagal under the terms of the original cease fire. Not just any missiles, but "scuds" specifically as well as others and other weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [size=1]You don't need to apologize, Bryan. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=teal]Gokents I'm not sure but I [i]think[/i] you are wrong. As far as I know any weapons that have less than a 100 mile (160 km) range are legal. (100 miles is to stop them hitting Israel.) The alsamut(sp?) where just under that range (and with a war head well under it.) so I find it hard to see a scud or silk-worm or one of the other classes of missiles to be in breech. I think before you continue arguing could you find the original cease fire and quote where you got that from. Thanks. :) [/color] Eps ? Debating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Honestly I thought that was implyed in the Lucitania part of it.... [/B][/QUOTE] I undertand what you are saying and where I should have been more clear. It was the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare that was continued after the Germans said they'd stop (and they did stop for a few months, just after Wilson was reelected they started again) that got us in the war. The Lucitania was just a casualty of that USW that continued. I should have made it more clear, and you can't help it really because many history books write it in as the reason, esspecially high school ones. Gokents, the majority of people who are anti-war don't go to protests. Many of them are like me, I don't participate in the peace protests or whatever they are called. They call in radio shows or talk to people online about what they believe, not stand outside protesting. I can't speak for those people. If there is hatred for the soldiers, than well I can't help how they feel, or even why the feel that way. Maybe they precieve it as "if you're going to fight, then you are obviously for the war, thus we hate you" or something like that. I'm not. I don't dislike the soldiers at all. I think what they are doing is brave and very strong, something I don't plan on doing anytime. I dislike how the administration is hadling it. And the fact i dislike war in all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Well tn, I really actually wasn't being sarcastic or anything. I appreciate the fact that you aren't anti-soldier, but anti-war... that is an admirable thing. And atleast you are not trying to completly deny my observations of hate amongst the anti-war crowd. Cloricus... I actually don't have any means or desire to qoute the cease fire specifically ruling against scuds for Iraq. I can't say with certainty that its even there with that in mind. However, I know they outlawed far too much of the Iraqi weaponry for Saddam to have scuds in his arsenal. However, you say the range is what MAY keep them considered legal under the concepts of all the different resolutions and declarations. Yet you fail to recognize that "scud" missiles were the exact type of missle used to hit isreal during the first gulf war. So they obviously have a range that exceeds the limit you mention. Furthermore, what led me to make the statments that these "scuds" put Iraq in material breech was an interview with Blix. It wasn't a formal thing... It was a blix being approached by reporters today. (I believe it was today) Blix was confronted with the fact that scud missiles were fired from Iraq into Kuwait and Blix instantly replied, "well that would definatly be considered a material breech." I will take those words from Blix himself as enough to know that scuds are a breech of the terms laid on Iraq. So I guess that should address all of the direct stuff between members... The thing I want to mention now is the ryson that was found. Now the french intelligence agency is coming out saying they have seized all of the ryson that was going to be used in an attack on any american interest, and with that natural charisma of the French nation... "See what we have done for you" Words like these from those people make it seem more like they are trying to force their way into the situation than, trying to actually help anything American. So it does indeed look as if the french will be joining in on the deal of the year... a full half price sale on anything Iraqi. Of course, the joining in part is still just a kent hoggatt political prediction. So like I have said before, We will see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven's Cloud Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] Eps - [i]Watching Golf War 2[/i] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Yes, the fate of Democracy rests on the hands of one man. Can Tiger Woods overcome adversity, protesters, and Scud Missles leading the US to a final victory over Saddam Hussien? We'll find out in "Golf War II"... Sorry, I found it too funny to resist taking a cheap shot. Remeber that if a weapon has the ability to destroy roughly two city blocks it is also classified as a weapon of Mass destruction under the UN treaty with Iraq...[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nichire Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 i hate us leaders... i hate all leaders... cept jean!!! he's fu**in cool! and the only one of em that's makin anysense. Since when did the US get power to control other countrys????? NEVER!!!! THEY NEVER DID!!!!! But us pride has a lot of em thinking that they own the damned world!!!! If they want Iraq to disarm, us sould have to disarm their weapons too!1 all they're using em for is bulling around smaller countries! damn i hate ppl who think this war is the rite thing!!! I hate the us!! stupid stupid ppl!!!!!!! ~nichi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinnyLyn Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I don't like the idea of the US forcibly "taking control" like they are in Iraq. I don't like the idea of people, either civilians OR soldiers from EITHER side, dying. But the many things I've heard about Saddam have scared and chilled me. It's time to put him down, for good. Sad to say, but sometimes war is the only way to resolve things. Yet I am too stupid at the moment to pull examples. They are out there, though. EDIT What's this I'm hearing about surrender talks? And about how the American military is pushing the Iraqi military to turn on Saddam. Hardly the "Bush happily wants to blown up Iraq" sense I've been getting from some of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven's Cloud Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nichire [/i] [B]i hate us leaders... i hate all leaders... cept jean!!! he's fu**in cool! and the only one of em that's makin anysense. Since when did the US get power to control other countrys????? NEVER!!!! THEY NEVER DID!!!!! But us pride has a lot of em thinking that they own the damned world!!!! If they want Iraq to disarm, us sould have to disarm their weapons too!1 all they're using em for is bulling around smaller countries! damn i hate ppl who think this war is the rite thing!!! I hate the us!! stupid stupid ppl!!!!!!! ~nichi [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Well, self loathing is a horrible thing. I have no problem if you are anti-war, but please state your case in a rational manner. Iraq is supposed to have disarmed because early in the nineties they aggresively attacked Kuwait...hence the Gulf War, hence the war we are involved in now. It is wierd that someone who is anti-war hates the people that support this conflict...kinda ironic...[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deedlit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=009966]Stupid government...stupid Iraq... I think that sums it up for now.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrat Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 War...I love it! No Im serious, I mean I am sick of Saddam Hussein. He has been having his way witht he Iraq and its people for to long. I thank god that Bush had enough balls to step up to the plate and push for War. The thing is were not goin after Iraq, or the people, were going after the DICATATOR, Saddam. So all you pansy Anti-War people just shut the hell up, Im sick of seeing you on the corner of streets with your signs, were in WAR. And taking out a evil man, whats better then that! Good vs. Evil, like always... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo]Yes, the fate of Democracy rests on the hands of one man. Can Tiger Woods overcome adversity, protesters, and Scud Missles leading the US to a final victory over Saddam Hussien? We'll find out in "Golf War II"... Sorry, I found it too funny to resist taking a cheap shot. [/B][/QUOTE] Awesome... I guess I couldnt resist either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrat Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Guys, I seriously don't think its time to be Jokeing around about War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celia Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=0099FF] [size=1]Ah, haven't been here in a long time. I know how Juu is crazy about this. She went around the school with her guyfriends and stick pieces of "Anti-War" paper up on the walls. War is not the answer. After all, both of the countries are going to die down because of the war needs. And the speeches Saddam Hussein made(I think after the war?) they weren't him. One with the glass, well, he never hear glasses during ANY of his speeches; and the speed of talking the other faker made, wasn't the speed Saddam talks. War is just an excuse for taking over lands or needs.[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yu Yu Hakusho! Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Man....I'm late. All I can say now is that I hope we better get those civillians outta hell (Iraq), get them to a safe place, get the bad guys, and call it a day. I know it's not THAT easy, but I won't ever feel right again if I hear innocent people being killed because we Americans were too lazy to get them out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Schratn9 [/i] [B]Guys, I seriously don't think its time to be Jokeing around about War... [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, this is the perfect time to joke around about war. In tense and stressful situations, one of the best things to do to relieve stress is to laugh. :laugh: Now, laugh with me! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts