Forums | MacLife

VegasACF · 2003-03-06 12:00 pm

When in doubt, please go peace.

Ahh, the Neville Chamberlain way of doing things. He wasn't sure the kind of guy Adolf Hitler was, and even if he was a monster, hey, he was better than the commies, so why don't we just appease him? Chances are everything will be fine.

Forty million deaths later WWII ended and we found out exactly what kind of guy Hitler was.

When in doubt, the world went peace.

VegasACF · 2003-03-06 12:08 pm

. . . and the idea that this is all costing a ton of money. . . which could be used to fix problems here at home. . .

You do realize that we pay for feeding, housing, arming the military whether or not we're at war, right? This is a specious argument. And it is the price of protecting our freedom. Well worth every cent, I say.

If you're so concerned with using money to fix problems here at home why don't you get outraged about the $1.8 billion dollars (out of a budget of $6.8 billion) for the school lunch program which was spent fraudulently? Why don't you rise up in anger about the fraud and waste in the Medicare program?

oolatec · 2003-03-06 1:33 pm

You know, we either take care of him now, while he is less of a threat, or keep waiting like it seems the rest of the world wants us to. If we keep waiting, months/years from now this guy could (and will) have nukes... then what do we do?

Many people are going on the assumption/belief that these inspections are fool-proof and that the results are golden... it's just not true.

If we don't go to war, then leaders like Saddam are going to realize they can manipulate the UN to their liking. I really wished we didnt have to, but we do. Saddam only understands force.

jda6w · 2003-03-06 1:35 pm

OK. Here's my 2 cents. This eventual war is about oil - pure and simple. Bush Sr. didn't get it done and now because W. didn't get enough love as a child, he feels the need to please his Daddy and go and get Saddam. Look at what has happened in the last week. We said: "Saddam, we know you have missiles, they must be destroyed." Saddam says: "Well, I don't think they defy the range set forth in the UN Resolution, but if that's what you want, OK." ---Missiles Destroyed--- Bush says: "Sorry, Saddam, too late." No matter what they do, Iraq CANNOT change the course Bush has predetermined for this country. Who are we to go and tell Iraq they need a new leader? Sure, Saddam is a very bad man, but we are not the world police.

Azizza · 2003-03-06 1:41 pm

OK. Here's my 2 cents. This eventual war is about oil - pure and simple. Bush Sr. didn't get it done and now because W. didn't get enough love as a child, he feels the need to please his Daddy and go and get Saddam. Look at what has happened in the last week. We said: "Saddam, we know you have missiles, they must be destroyed." Saddam says: "Well, I don't think they defy the range set forth in the UN Resolution, but if that's what you want, OK." ---Missiles Destroyed--- Bush says: "Sorry, Saddam, too late." No matter what they do, Iraq CANNOT change the course Bush has predetermined for this country. Who are we to go and tell Iraq they need a new leader? Sure, Saddam is a very bad man, but we are not the world police.

Your .02 was badly spent..
The war isn't about oil becuase Iraq doesn't have enough Oil to matter. They are the lowest producer in that area.
He has destroyed a few of the missles he had. Not all. Only a half dozen or so out of at least 100.
Bush did not finish the war becuase the UN threw a hissy fit when he wanted to go forward and kick Saddams ass then. So yeah it falls to his son to finish it.
Anyway every other country seems to use us as police. The only difference here is that we finally said that we will make our own choices and they can either work withus or get the hell out of the way.

jda6w · 2003-03-06 1:51 pm

Why don't you do your research before you make your comments.

"With proven reserves of 112-bil bbl and probable reserves of 214-bil bbl, Iraq has the second largest crude reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. The infrastructure of the country's oil industry is however in a lamentable state after suffering badly in the 1991 Gulf War."

From: http://www.platts.com/features/Iraq/index.shtml

Iraq doesn't have enough oil to matter? They have the SECOND LARGEST CRUDE RESERVES IN THE WORLD!!! Secondly, in 1991 Gulf War, Iraq invaded another country and put the WORLD'S oil suppl yin jeopardy. What did they do now? The US has offered NO PROOF Saddam is linked with Al Quada. The US has offered NO PROOF Iraq harbors terrorists. The US has offered NO PROOF that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is why the international community is against this war. If the US had the evidence they say they have, more countries would be supporting us.

Steyr AUG · 2003-03-06 3:52 pm

OK. Here's my 2 cents. This eventual war is about oil - pure and simple. Bush Sr. didn't get it done and now because W. didn't get enough love as a child, he feels the need to please his Daddy and go and get Saddam. Look at what has happened in the last week. We said: "Saddam, we know you have missiles, they must be destroyed." Saddam says: "Well, I don't think they defy the range set forth in the UN Resolution, but if that's what you want, OK." ---Missiles Destroyed--- Bush says: "Sorry, Saddam, too late." No matter what they do, Iraq CANNOT change the course Bush has predetermined for this country. Who are we to go and tell Iraq they need a new leader? Sure, Saddam is a very bad man, but we are not the world police.

If its about oil then why didnt we just take it when were there in the the first place?

jda6w · 2003-03-06 4:01 pm

Because Bush Sr. didn't finish the job. Look, we went there in 1991 to "liberate Kuwait." Bush Sr. had the plan to take out Saddam but he lost UN backing and pulled out. We can't just go in and "take it." There has to be a regime change in which the US would put someone approved BY US, not elected by the Iraq people. Have you forgotten that this administration is in and always has been in the pocket of corporate oil companies?

Steyr AUG · 2003-03-06 4:05 pm

Because Bush Sr. didn't finish the job. Look, we went there in 1991 to "liberate Kuwait." Bush Sr. had the plan to take out Saddam but he lost UN backing and pulled out. We can't just go in and "take it." There has to be a regime change in which the US would put someone approved BY US, not elected by the Iraq people. Have you forgotten that this administration is in and always has been in the pocket of corporate oil companies?

Nice revisionist history ya got there

jda6w · 2003-03-06 4:34 pm

Good argument. roll I, for one, am not a person to believe the propoganda that the US Government puts out. I guess that makes me a skeptic when it comes to this inevitable war. I say inevitable because there is nothing Saddam can do that is going to appease Bush. Bush WANTS to go to war. Now, unlike a lot of people here, I have to ask myself WHY. You can argue that it is because Saddam poses a threat to us. Where's the evidence of that. Despite all the inspections, there were NEVER any weapons of mass destruction found. Despite all the claims of this administration, there has been no evidence presented that Saddam is in bed with Al Quada. So, ask yourself this: Why is Bush intent on going to war with Iraq despite the OVERWHELMING international opposition? We are threatening to go to war with a sovereign nation. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many experts, this would violoate international law.

Even Bush Sr. knew the danger of attacking Iraq. See here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00029.htm

Another interesting article stating how our threat of war does NOTHING to help the disarmament process: http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

AutoJC · 2003-03-06 5:35 pm

I say the US comes out with a hard timeline. Iraq must answer every single outstanding question and 100% satisfy the inspectors in, let's say, 4 days.

The anti-war crowd gets their deadline, Iraq gets their 75900567th chance.

I agree with that.

However, when it comes to ultimata, Bush is a real he-man, MOTU. twisted

chrissy1970 · 2003-03-10 11:17 am

Yes, I too, am fed up with all of this war B.S. I think killing thousands of people because of one man is ridiculous, and does not make us any better than them.

MrJ in OZ · 2006-08-08 1:01 am

Wow! too much 20 20 vision to comment on this thread today. Id take us weeks.

bratboy · 2006-08-08 1:54 am

Please don't boost old threads.

KingFred · 2006-08-08 1:30 pm

I'll add that if you want to discuss points in this really old thread, you can just link to it in a fresh new thread.

Forums | MacLife

#51 2003-03-06 12:00 pm

Re: Stupid War

#52 2003-03-06 12:08 pm

Re: Stupid War

#53 2003-03-06 1:33 pm

Re: Stupid War

#54 2003-03-06 1:35 pm

Re: Stupid War

#55 2003-03-06 1:41 pm

Re: Stupid War

#56 2003-03-06 1:51 pm

Re: Stupid War

#57 2003-03-06 3:52 pm

Re: Stupid War

#58 2003-03-06 4:01 pm

Re: Stupid War

#59 2003-03-06 4:05 pm

Re: Stupid War

#60 2003-03-06 4:34 pm

Re: Stupid War

#61 2003-03-06 5:35 pm

Re: Stupid War

#62 2003-03-10 11:17 am

Re: Stupid War

#63 2006-08-08 1:01 am

Re: Stupid War

#64 2006-08-08 1:54 am

Re: Stupid War

#65 2006-08-08 1:30 pm

Re: Stupid War

Board footer