October 8th, 2002, 02:07 AM
Bush's speech - 10/7
Now I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I am very anti-war, and feel that conflicts should only be resolved with military action when all other diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, but I'm also not too keen on waking up to a 2 million degree suntan.
Any other fence-sitters out there with opinions on the speech tonite? I'd be especially interested in hearing the views of some of our international members.
/* You are not expected to understand this. */
October 8th, 2002, 02:17 AM
October 8th, 2002, 02:23 AM
Bah, I think he said angfanatan a few times.... The hairless monkey strikes again!
October 8th, 2002, 03:56 AM
Yeah, I heard Afghanistan. I also heard "smoking gun", and that seems considerably lacking here. I understand that Iraq has been developing these weapons of mass destruction, but we've known that for 11 years. I would really love an offer of proof that something considerable has changed recently to warrant this newfound interest in Iraq other than speculation and stipulation.
/* You are not expected to understand this. */
October 8th, 2002, 04:14 AM
The whole situation is a ticking time bomb. Either way, war or no war, innocent people get killed. To me this is a lose lose situation.
I certainly don't want to wake up and find a hole where the US was beside us, but I don't think that Iraq or Afghanistan would actually attempt nuclear weapons. It would be suicide for them without a doubt. Regardless of how long they have been building them. Having mass destruction weapons is like a porcupine having quills, a deterant.
Making a point is one thing, vengance against those who were responsible for terrorist attacks is one thing. War rarely hurts those that are actually responsible, it hurts the innocent and the families of those who go to fight. I don't think the time is right for war.
October 8th, 2002, 04:15 AM
What proof are people looking for exactly?The proof from inspectors that aren't allowed in the country,or when they are,are told where they can and can't go.The proof from the head of their nuclear development program who is working for the US and British governments because he's afraid of what Saddam will do with the huge stockpiles of chemical and biological agents that he has.The proof of nearly half of the agents we took from him last time we were there disappearing before we could get them out of Iraq.The proof that he launches missiles and fires anti-aircraft cannons at US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones on a daily basis.The proof that he kills his own civilians just to make sure his weapons are in working order.The proof that 3/4 of the Iraqi citizens would remove him from office themselves if they had the means to do it.The only other proof I could think of is to let him get his grubby little hands on a nuke and launch it at somebody.Then everyone's going to be saying,there was all the evidence in the world this guy's crazy.Why didn't somebody do something sooner?Now because of the slow reaction time of the US and their allies we're looking at millions of civilian casualties and the guy still has tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons to worry about.
The fact of the matter is,there's going to be civilian casualties either way.So the real question is,do we let the UN dictate the numbers or Saddam(which I feel will be much higher)?After all he's the one setting up military bases in hospitals and schools,so who's really responsible for the civilian casualties that come from a war with Iraq?
[shadow]I don\'t believe in anarchy.If you\'re not smart enough to beat the system it\'s your problem.
October 8th, 2002, 04:41 AM
Whoa, ggh, don't hold back, say whatever you mean! btw, you forgot the anthrax imported, verified, but only half could be located last time, and since then he doesn't have to import it he can grow it from the half that he had left from before. As for 'nukes' or 'biowarfare' deliveries, you don't really think they'll fire off from the sandpile and come sailing thru the atmosphere to be tracked and recieve massive retaliation, do you? They'll be imported piece by piece and detonated with no 'smoking trail' to track... "geewhiz, where'd downtown Detroit go, and ...whodunit?" This is a brave new world, folks, there ain't no 'singing arrow' fired from the ranks of the attackers to announce battle will begin.
October 8th, 2002, 05:11 AM
After all he's the one setting up military bases in hospitals and schools,so who's really responsible for the civilian casualties that come from a war with Iraq?
The people who drop bombs on to these facilities knowing there are civilians and children there. Two wrongs never make a right, and when you know there are civilians and children someplace, it's never going to be right to bomb it and then say "Well, it wasn't our fault."
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
October 8th, 2002, 05:26 AM
My question is with all the money and know how why can't the U.S simply contain Iraq. Worked for Russia. Seems kind of unfair that sadam gets all the attention when other dictators do what ever the hell they want under the radar of cnn. Sadam should be over thrown but Bush simply lies about why there has to be a war right now. I would be less critical if bush would just come out and say that he’s going to finish his daddy's war, kill a bunch of people, send in the oil companies, and take over the Middle East one **** hole country at a time all in the name of his new pax America vision. At lest it beats being BSed by the massive propaganda machine that seems to be set in motion.
Its not software piracy. I’m just making multiple off site backups.
October 8th, 2002, 05:52 AM
all i have to say is nuke u ler.... herm nuke u ler... herm nuke u ler.... i always thought it was nuke lee er..... illiterate scum.