Well, looks like we know who's side cj is on!

:heil:

CJ that is wrong.

You are falling under the falicy that if we retreat from the world, that the terrorist will leave us alone. That is NOT the case. The terrorist will attack the west no matter what. The ONLY way to stop a terrorist is to KILL the terrorist. It also helps to destroy/remove regimes that actively support terrorists with funds, training, weapons, and hiding locations.

You cannot defeat terrorist and dictators by appeasement. This is a FACT of history, one that many of you wish we would continue to repeat.

for the record, I am FOR going to war. so thanks MikeW for throwing me into a stereotype because I don't agree with MikeAI's meathead american footballer attitude.

really?!?!?!?!?!? says who?!?!? you?!?!?
oh fuck, i must be wrong if you say so.

:headwall:

getting rid of bin laden would have been going after terrorism. bush has convinced you nicely that saddam is the cause and your blindly believing that this is for the good of the world.

while your chanting your 'lets get em' line, the rest of our military (minus the 2000 who are on the frontlines), are busy securing our major ports, churches, political locations and military headquarters from the billions of muslim enemies we now have a few hundred miles north, and living in our own country. between usa, uk and oz, we have just created about 100 times more terrorist organisations who believe WE are evil and must be destroyed. thank you america for protecting us from suddam, its really fucking helpful.

You're welcome! Glad I could help out! ;-))))))

:blink:

I do not think there is a huge connection between al quada and Iraq. I do beleive though Saddam would have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who would use it against us. I also beleive that a strong, somewhat democratic Iraq could help stabilize the region.

If we can expand democracy, free market economics to the middle east- it will improve the lives of the people in the region, who could then focus on the quality of their lives rather then turning their anger on us.

Right now, unless you are born to a royal family, life in the middle east is pretty terrible. Why is this? Because the United States and the West opresses them? NO. It because THEIR gov'ts opress them. There are no freedoms for anyone, women are treated like cattle ( worse many times), their lives amount to nothing. So there is a huge under current of discontent - so the gov'ts that rules these people lives, throw out a RED HERRING - they blame the US and the WEST for all the problems in their miserable lives. They do this so the people will not rise up and overthrow the dictators who run every country in the middle east ( but for Israel).



CJ please answer these questions for me: why do you support the war? Do you think the way women are treated in the middle east is good? Do you think people have liberty as we know and understand it in the middle east? Do you think the US and the west are a direct cause for these peoples msiery and lives?

To sum it up. We take Iraq, stabilzie region, bring in democracy/liberty/free market economics to the region, this will impove peoples lives - THIS WILL HELP END TERRORISM!!!!

When people have a decent standard of living - have libery, are free to pursue their dreams - THIS is what makes humans happy and will cut out terrorism!

I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there. I haven't seen any other cost analyses -- so links would be MUCH appreciated!

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me?[/b][/quote]
$300/day per person in the US would equal $8.4 billion a day. I think someone needs to take some more math classes.

>>CJ please answer these questions for me: why do you support the war?

I support the war because your president has put our countries in the position where we have no other choice. I believe that an issue has been invented (nuclear weapons) by george bush so he can convince his people that he is justified in blowing up a country that nobody can prove has anything to do with Bin Laden and the WTC/Pentagon attacks. If Bush backs down now, Suddam WILL use whatever weapons he has and we'll all be fucked. I trust that the leader of my country has made the right choice in supporting america in this game, just look at how you've treated france who didn't support your bullying.

>>Do you think the way women are treated in the middle east is good?

of course not, but I also think its disgusting that female circumcision is still very common in africa. should we blow them up to? what are you and your president doing about that? stop pretending that you care about middle eastern women ... you and your president do not give a shit about that - but you use it often to try to make the rest of us feel guilty for wanting peace.

>>Do you think people have liberty as we know and understand it in the middle east?

no, but what does that have to do with you? or me? what makes you think you can fix it by taking out 1 leader? again, another excuse. suddam will be replaced by someone the people want ... have you asked the iraqui people? you know, the ones you are speaking on behalf of? You are so convinced that you know what's best for them that they are justified in hating you. Have you considered that many of these people would prefer to continue living as they are rather than being killed, losing their homes or becoming permanent refugee's who will die in the desert because america has done what they came for and left?

>>Do you think the US and the west are a direct cause for these peoples msiery and lives?

not a direct cause, but a factor, yes. the assumption that everyone who is not living in usa style democracy is unhappy, doesn't hold with me. the key to accepting each other as different but equal is "They aren't wrong, they are different". USA has been trying to control the region for a long time, their people are pissed off and I believe they have a right to be pissed off. I'm not talking about the stupid jerks who believe that terrorism is justified because america is a bully ... i'm talking about the regular people, who dislike america's principals without ever wishing any harm come to america's people. surprise surprise, they do exist as a majority, terrorists as a minority.

your entire argument is based on the fact that bush is good because he's helping people to become more like america ... NEWSFLASH we don't all want to be like america.

$300/day per person in the US would equal $8.4 billion a day. I think someone needs to take some more math classes.[/b][/quote]
>>>I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there.


so ulfie, you are saying there are about 30 million usa soldiers in the middle east?!??!

Rox,
"Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me? "

Say what? Please document that statement about the Constitution or retract it. I know that you and your people believe that 'if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will begin to believe it'; but that is a statement that is not only patently ridiculous, it verges on being criminal and Anti-American. Do you really believe that your cohorts would let something that pass; or are you just plain ignorant of the Constitution; or is it a deliberate lie?

CJ I suggest you travel to the Middle East where they will respect your opinion.

Freedom, Liberty, Open Markets, are NOT American monopolies- they should and hopefully will be applied to all parts of the world.

Oh and I am not saying the US is going to war in Iraq to make their lives better - really I do not care. However, unlike the people in Africa who are abusing girls, the scumbags in the middle east have brought their contempt for human life, and their aggression to OUR shores.

If they were just blowing each other up, we would have a press release.... but since they came to our shores and attacked us, and will cotninue to do so until we stop them - we had to act.

Beleive me, I do not think we are doing this because we want to help the woorld out - we are doing it to help US out - primarily. Getting rid of a dictator, and possibly creatinga democratic regime, helping the Iraquis out is a bonus. Of course creating a liberated middle east, who becomes part of the global economy it can only help the US. We need more people to buy the crap we make. We need more consumers.... if Iraqies are surfing for porn in a free world, pulling out their bank of bagdad VISA card to join one of my sites, maybe they will not waste their time building weapons of mass destruction to hand out to all the other bad guys in their neighborhood.

When people have a higher quality life, freedom, property rights, can aspire to do whatever they want with their lives- they will eventually get a better apprecaite for the value of human life and will not become or support terrorist. That is how you solve terrorism.... not by hiding, kissing their asses, giving mroe aid to the dictators who run their country, or anything else.

People are responsible for the gov'ts in which they live under.


Bottom line in is democracies, with free market economies do not attack other democracies.

Michael, you are kidding yourself and denying historical facts here. Time and time again, these countries that the west -- and not just the US -- have aided in tossing off the yoke of their oppressive governments and bringing in a new, oh so democratic government, have been dismal failures in nearly every case.

As a matter of fact, WE -- yes the US -- screwed the Kurdish population in Iraq multiple times... meaning more than once.

Shall we start taking Central and South American countries, Asian or African nations where the west has meddled in things on a case by case basis and see what happened?

I find it amusing as well that you claim I've got a new job but you did not bother to refute a single of the points I made with the exception of the goodwill one -- which is not correct if you look at recent history -- you simply tossed me into your 'must hate America since you don't like Bush' group.

You've known I didn't like Bush for years. Yes, I voted for him, but I won't make that mistake again.

Pardon me?

Firstly, go fuck yourself ...
if you can't respect my opinion and actually address the comments i have made with valid ones of your own then you can quite simply, go fuck yourself.

are you really this blind?!?!?!?

do you think i'm on my own here in the way I feel about this?!!?!?
do you seriously think that only me and the middle east think you are wrong?!
yoo hoo mcfly!! *knock knock*

>>Freedom, Liberty, Open Markets, are NOT American monopolies- they should and hopefully will be applied to all parts of the world.

why? because YOU say so? who are you? you are only 1 person with a misguided idea of what's best for the world.

>>If they were just blowing each other up, we would have a press release.... but since they came to our shores and attacked us, and will cotninue to do so until we stop them - we had to act.

suddam didn't attack you. but if you truly believe this piece of bush propaganda, why do you keep using 'human rights' as an excuse? i'm not the one who raised the treatment of women in the middle east ... do you think that because i'm passionate about womens rights that this one would conform me to your side on the overall benefit of war? your using a defense which you blew apart only a few posts later

you stated earlier "If we can expand democracy, free market economics to the middle east- it will improve the lives of the people in the region, who could then focus on the quality of their lives rather then turning their anger on us."

what kind of a fairy tale world are you living in?!?!?
do you think that iraq is going to celebrate after you blow up half of their country?!? puhlease. in looking after your own interests, you are fucking up many other countries interests - even those who support you. if you think that will make the world love you, I hope you never have to experience the wrath of reality.

I would love to believe your fairy tale, but unfortunately we live in different worlds ... I'm in this place called 'earth' and you seem to be living in the land of Mike, where reality is hidden by the dillusion of grandeur.

they should have used this one
sets a tone...

First off, who exactly are are you referring to as my "people" or "cohorts?"

Unlike most Americans, I make it a point to listen to ALL sides of an issue and make my own decisions. Then again, I actually make it a point to work at educating myself instead of forming opinions with nothing more to go on than what's on television or Clear Channel syndicated radio talk shows.

My statement is a lie? I fail to see how anyone can look at the USA PATRIOT Act and not see the blatant disregard for our constitutional rights, for starters. John Ashcroft covered up the bare breast of a statue, for fuck's sake -- all of a sudden Lady Justice is obscene? And our "fearless leader" stood by and let this happen. How can an intelligent American NOT feel like they're watching the country go directly to shit?

As for the rest of the politicians allowing such bullshit to pass, why wouldn't they? They're all more concerned with their own careers... God (big G, of course) forbid they stand up for what's RIGHT and take the risk of being called unpatriotic or anti-American, especially when the public is falling all over themselves, waving their flags and rushing to give up their civil liberties as long as the government can "make them safe."

Most people are lazy and stupid, and politicians like them that way, so they encourage them to remain so. I'm not playing that game.

So no, I don't retract it. It's not seditious, it's not treasonous and it's not a lie. It's the opinion I've formed by looking at the facts and making my own judgments. As an American, I'm still allowed to say I think the president and his administration are a bunch of arrogant, elitist pricks who think that their idea of what's good for America and the rest of the world is more important than respecting the opinions of, and truly representing, ALL Americans.



Last edited by Rox at Mar 20 2003, 06:03 PM

Okay...my first response to a thread about politics. I don't keep up with them, don't vote because I believe all politicians are crooks and controlled by others in higher power then them, including the forces behind the New World Order, the World bank and the super rich that control the world banking system where we borrow trillions of dollars, as well as other contries to fund their wars.

Interesting book by Larry Abrahams written in the 1980 and updated 10 years later about the "real" powers that be, and why and how every war was started and how they were funded.

New World Order...an elite group of old money folks that let in a select few that control the populace...amazing that 90% of the US presidents are in that elite membership.

Read the book...very documented information about the real power folks that run the banking systems, governments and war.

http://www.wordboost.com/a/None_Dare_Call_...0899666612.html

Bush made a strategic decision that many leaders of other nations would have made if in the same position. There are also many leaders that would have chose the opposite. Not surprisingly, many of these same "leaders" will take whatever side is in their best interest even if it means talking out of both sides of their mouths. History decides who made the right move.

Personally, I think taking the offensive is the strategic choice. It may not prove to be the correct choice, it is a risky proposition, it is ambitious to say the least, but it is the strategic move. I am glad that I do not have to make this decision, but I do not object to it.

Success means a win for the war on terror. Iraq is certainly hiding weapons and there are probably plenty other "side deals" that are going to be uncovered. It's the chance to prove that they are right and they probably will do so (start conspiracy theory here). If they can provide hard facts and make a case, they might have the "I told ya so..." and a political winner.

Success also means US has another finger in every hole. Oil is certainly a KEY part of this and to deny it is naive IMO. Stabilizing Iraq in this region is the ticket. If successful, it means long term gains that dwarf the cost of the war. It's economics and they did the math and have justified the risk.

Of course the French are pissed. They are on the opposite end of this economic gold mine. Same with Russia and China and Germany. But, they will fall back when they realize that the battle is lost and it is now in their best interest to change their tune or otherwise position themselves "strategically".

In business, if one company can out maneuver their competition, if they can out bid them, bring more volume, produce a better product, etc. then they will be on top. It is natural to do what it takes to maintain it. I believe it is the only realistic option. America is a capitalist society (despite the growing internal movement against this). If other countries are not, I don't think they should be pissed because we are -- even if this means that we can better do what is natural.

Anyone who has ever been number 1 at anything knows that it is much easier to be # 2, 3, 4. Everyone is always gunning for number 1. It is a position that everybody (except #1) wants to see devoured. This is also natural. The US has too much economic and military power and uses it just like any other country would.

The US has not always been in the #1 position and one day will relinquish this position. We will probably be addressing China then like we do the US now. :unsure:

Wig, you are correct in many ways. Iraq almost certainly has some side deals that great affect the region and the world. They have the right attitude and approach to be in with some very unsavory types.

"junior" has taken a very tough decision, that honestly he backed himself into having to make. Attempting to force the issue with the UN, putting the troops into the field, and such basically left him with no choices that would look good. The war is the best card to play out of a very low hand. I personally support the war, I am still wondering about the "why now, why not next week"? Nobody has answered the question of timing... the deadlines all seemed a little forced with little or no explaination.

Now I am listening to the announcements of the first troops dying in the field, after a helicopter crashed. The pain has started on all sides, hoping that all of this will be over soon.

Alex

Not so sure I agree wig. Success in this case means that Americans die to prove a point. Terrorists are not going to go away because we whip Saddams ass, provided we do and in some reasonable amount of time. If the Iraqi's do not use some form of chemical or biological weapons in this war then world opinion will swing even further against the US. And unfortunately in this day of global economics the last thing we as a country need is to be hindered in our ability to do business and to drag a large portion of the world economy down that is still pinned to ours.

You are dealing with a mindset, in these Muslim fundamentalists, that is more related to the Saracen wars or the Crusades, than you are dealing with a people that recognizes and realizes that this is the 21st century.

Given that their deaths elevate their status in life, why on earth would they care how many of their brethren we kill? That only makes them hungry and jealous for what their fallen kin have supposedly gone on to...

And after all that said, I'm off to watch the Duke game :)

Alex, I knew we would eventually agree on something. :D

I understand that Americans may die and that others may die, but I do not see what that has to do with the big picture. If we are honest, we acknowledge that part of the price is sometimes death. That does not make it right, but it is certainly reality.

Yes it is possible that Iraq will not use WMD. It is also possible that we won't find any (although doubtful). It also may mean that all the terrorists will attack at once.


By this statement alone one may also consclude that what we do (or not do) may have no affect on the terrorists. They are of a mindset that is not going to change whether we kill them all or send them a fruit basket.

I don't subscribe to the passivist role as a solution. They may be just as pissed at us either way.

Success also means 20 dollar oil and many other economic opportnities.

As Dennis Miller says, It's only my opinion, but I could be wrong.

That's the point I think SO many people are missing when they argue about how much "better off" Iraq will be because of our intervention. The fundamentalists of Islam call the West the Great Satan because they look at our way of life as immoral and evil, and the reason they hate us so much is because we've tainted their pure societies simply by being there and causing good Muslims to question a few thousand years' worth of doctrine and law.

They don't think like us, they don't believe as we do, and the ideals we hold dear are an affront to their religion and their god. Considering their long and bloody history defending themselves against the infidels, is it any wonder they're more than happy to become martyrs in order to keep us out, even today?

Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

There are many countries that have these and thrive and I don't think any of the individuals in these countries would want to trade places with an Iraqi.

I think there are many Iraqi's you are underestimating.

Wig, your still applying western rules to a culture that is older than the wests rules ...

Rox & KK made the point better than I can ...

you are still seeing the 'injustice' done to iraqui people based on your own interpretation of what is 'unjust'. who are you or I to make that decision for these people?

you can't change a whole nations (religious & other) beliefs by claiming they'll be better off to follow yours.

geeze, MikeAI,
you still don't get it?????

CJ doesn't support the war because....

she is a PUSSY!
;-))))

something even she won't argue with!
;-))))

Rox,
Your people, your cohorts are led by people like WJC and Tom Daschle. You know who they are.

As for the Constitution, I sincerely doubt that you, as a Liberal, ever read it. Liberals only use the Constitution when they can interpret it to achieve their goals.
:moon:

Of course I don't believe that, wig. What I'm saying is that although every Iraqi is no doubt unhappy under Saddam, I think that it's likely there are also a great many that might be NEARLY as unhappy under American occupation and rule.

Speaking as a person born and raised in a country that has codified all of those things, and where religion isn't considered higher than civil law, of course I think they would be happier. Now, if I were a devout Muslim, however, that would be a totally different story. And though extremists like Al Q'aeda are in the minority, there are fundamentalist Muslims who might start sympathizing with them once they're confronted with the "evils" of Western civilization.

Because of their religion, they are very different from us, and I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting that perhaps what WE think is best for them might very well not be what THEY desire, that's all.

I'm also a little concerned about American government's current leanings toward theocracy these days...

Torone, fuck off. I follow NO one man, party or school of thought. I make my own decisions on an issue-by-issue basis.

I'm more Libertarian than Liberal. In fact, if you'd like a glimpse into what my beliefs and/or leanings are, click the link in my sig and read for yourself...

And I've read the Constitution many times, thank you very much. It's much more interesting than any bullshit and lies that come out of the mouths of politicians, and I wish more of them would take seriously their duty to defend it.

>>>I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there.


so ulfie, you are saying there are about 30 million usa soldiers in the middle east?!??![/b][/quote]
$300 per EVERY citizen is what was stated and the bullshit detector went off. I only factored in US citizens btw so my figures are actually low.

watch it old fart, or you might find a can of whoop ass on your doorstep!!! :P

remember the last gift I sent you?!!?! i am secretly a terrorist with LL, and we are conspiring to use those knives on you in your sleep ;-))))
:P

i HAVE a pussy, but I am not one

and seeing you obviously can't read to see my stance on war, let me say it more slowly:

I
believe
we
need
to
go
to
war
with
the
middle
east
NOW

I disagree with the steps taken towards war, with the justifications given by Bush, and with the hopeful outcome. we are damned if we do and damned if we don't and war right now is our best chance of saving our own asses.


>>$300 per EVERY citizen is what was stated and the bullshit detector went off. I only factored in US citizens btw so my figures are actually low.

ulfie, no one said $300 per citizen per day ... 1 said 300 per citizen (not per citizen per day) the other said per soldier per day. the 2 posts got kinda mixed in ;-)

Ulfie, the figure of $300/day per soldier came from a program I was listening to yesterday morning [edit: it was Monday morning the 17th]. It's here:

http://kpcc.org/programming/airtalk/

I don't recall who gave the figure, but it was someone on this guest list:

Joining host Larry Mantle is Hal Kempfer, a military analyst for ABC 7 News and a Reserve Marine Lt. Colonel, Ben Works, Executive Director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute, an independent think tank in Washington, D. C., and the principal radio analyst for ABC Radio, and "GI" Wilson, a retired Infantry Colonel in the USMC.



Last edited by Rox at Mar 20 2003, 09:09 PM

I like the Charles Barkley quote better.....
" I may be wrong, but I DOUBT it! " :yowsa:

$300/day per "soldier" I can buy. $300/day per "citizen" in your original quote I can't. Big difference between the two. Personally, I think the investment is worth it but I'm a right wing kook so what do I know? We crush a nut named Hussein in Iraq, we have a fair amount of control in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabi are our allies (sort of) as well as Israel, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, etc. Do I have a point here? Yes, I do. Iran is now completely surronded with our allies. Does that have any value? Maybe GW isn't as dumb as everyone thought he was.

$300/day per "soldier" I can buy. $300/day per "citizen" in your original quote I can't. Big difference between the two. Personally, I think the investment is worth it but I'm a right wing kook so what do I know? We crush a nut named Hussein in Iraq, we have a fair amount of control in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabi are our allies (sort of) as well as Israel, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, etc. Do I have a point here? Yes, I do. Iran is now completely surronded with our allies. Does that have any value? Maybe GW isn't as dumb as everyone thought he was.[/b][/quote]
Mike was the one who said $300 per citizen -- I think he meant in total, as well. I think it'll end up costing more than that when all's said & done. But I'm not an economist. :awinky:

I know this is semantics but $8.4 billion which equals $300/citizen again I can believe. You originally said $300 per citizen per day which when I ran the numbers didn't make any sense. I'm glad we've cleared all that up now. :)

Ulfie will you be my accountant, you have a good head for numbers.

Wig, your still applying western rules to a culture that is older than the wests rules ...

Rox & KK made the point better than I can ...

you are still seeing the 'injustice' done to iraqui people based on your own interpretation of what is 'unjust'. who are you or I to make that decision for these people?

you can't change a whole nations (religious & other) beliefs by claiming they'll be better off to follow yours.[/b][/quote]
CJ, you miss my perspective. I am not applying western rules nor am i interpreting what is or not is unjust. I am not trying to change anyone religion either.

I am merely stating "why" I believe the choice to go into Iraq was made and that I can appreciate the choice -- right, wrong or indifferent.

My perspective is not to provide facts that support why it is right or why it will work, just why it was the strategic move.

I could never equal your current accontant. :)

Of course I don't believe that, wig. What I'm saying is that although every Iraqi is no doubt unhappy under Saddam, I think that it's likely there are also a great many that might be NEARLY as unhappy under American occupation and rule.

Speaking as a person born and raised in a country that has codified all of those things, and where religion isn't considered higher than civil law, of course I think they would be happier. Now, if I were a devout Muslim, however, that would be a totally different story. And though extremists like Al Q'aeda are in the minority, there are fundamentalist Muslims who might start sympathizing with them once they're confronted with the "evils" of Western civilization.

Because of their religion, they are very different from us, and I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting that perhaps what WE think is best for them might very well not be what THEY desire, that's all.

I'm also a little concerned about American government's current leanings toward theocracy these days...[/b][/quote]
Rox,

I certainly can appreciate that perspective. I am not saying you are wrong. I don't know whether the move into Iraq will be right or wrong, but I know that ONLY history will be the judge.

I certainly believe that Saddam is not good for the Iraqi ppl and believe that he is better off gone. Seems that going in and making this happen is the only way.

Right or wrong, the overall strategy was not chosen because GW is a madman. Saddam is a madman.

That Vulcan mind at work! :P

Wassup, Ulfie??