*moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?

[KorpDeath]

But in this day and age, E5C4P3, that's not enough. You want to know what this all comes down to? It all comes down to the control of information. Information warfare.

During the Gulf Conflict (I won't call it a war cause it was anything but that) both sides let the other know what was going on throught the media. i.e. The U.S. had correspondents from the media show amphibious assaults taking place in south Iraq, so Saddam sent troops to try to squash the newly developed front. Were there any U.S. troops there, no. It was developed to fool him, and it did. Saddam on the other hand controlled what came from Iraq...Not only when correspondents delivered their news but also what the news was about and of course that only meant reporting how the U.S bombed schoools and churches, hospitals, etc. etc. Right now Saddam is telling his people that the U.S. president won't debate with him on International T.V. because he is afraid and totally unreasonable. He's telling his people this evil white imperialist is going to invade them no matter what. So the whole world is up in arms about this "war"... This is no war. The media makes it out to be one because they have possible financial gain.

The entire world's emotions is controlled by what it reads or sees or hears in the media.

Not just CNN and Fox my, oh so, enlightened neg antipoint givers, but every media from the Washington Post to Al Jahzeera, from Time magazine to the most unpronounceable Russian news program, every one without exception. All of them are in control not you, you puny lil' person. They control the vertical, the horizontal, and all of you bow to them as often as you can, knowing that YOU are the only ones with the REAL information, the only HONEST information.

12 years have gone by since the world passed judgement on this man, and now that the time has come, you all want to turn your back on your responsiblility and your only argument is "no war for oil". Pathetic

P.S. War does suck. But the U.S. isn't the one that brought this on. So blame the U.S. for everything you want, but always know that we will prevail and if any of your nations get into trouble, we will be the first to bail our asses out.

peace

[moby_duck]

i know i'm going to get negged for this commentary since there's so many sophomoric contributors to this thread. i think it's high time we skip past all the rhetorical melodrama and focus on the real heart of the matter. what is the heart of the matter, you ask? iraq is only a pawn in the whole game here. the game is the West's war against fanatical islam.

now before you decide i'm wrong and reply with the inevitable "but hussein is a secular dictator, not a religious one" argument i invite you to look at a map:

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

now if you were the strongest nation on the face of the earth and you had just been attacked by fanatical muslims, which nation on that map holds the key to controlling the heart of fanatical islam militarily? iraq borders iran, syria and saudi arabia. whoever controls iraq has a key position in militarily occupying the entire middle east. i think it's high time we decided to invade iraq. you say UBL hasn't been found yet? maybe he's in iraq. hell, once we take over iraq, maybe he'll be in syria. then it'll be high time to invade syria. not in syria anymore? i guess he must have slipped back to saudi arabia, his homeland and not coincidentally where most of the hijackers were from. but now you're asking yourself, "how is this different from imperialism?" good question -- now here's the answer.

back in the day when imperialism was a pretty swell idea, developed nations would go around the globe looking for colonies to exploit for resources. imperialism was responsible for the development of the infrastructure of most of these countries. if you listen to the "no blood for oil" hippies who are currently forming a human shield around baghdad, then you might argue that we're just doing the same thing. contrary to the belief of San Francisco granola-eaters and 17-year-olds who think they know history because they read it off the side of a crackerjack box, the United States does not seek to colonize iraq. oil is obviously a strategic resource, but as Korp Death noted, if all we were seeking to do was exploit iraqi oil, we would have done it back when we whipped them the last time. no, oil is not the ultimate goal--destruction of the infrastructure of militant islam is.

islam is an interesting religion, every bit as historically significant as Christianity and Judaism, but the tenets of islam have been keeping muslims around the world in oppressive societies for centuries. while the rest of the world is in the 21st century, muslim nations are ruled by brutal dictators who exploit their enormous wealth to merely maintain their own rule. while the Iraqi people live in poverty, hussein lives in opulence in his many palaces. all the while he maintains a society that only joseph stalin could adore. the situation is only slightly better in iran, saudi arabia and syria. the dictators of these nations all seem content to live in the 15th century. women have no rights, Jews and Christians are persecuted daily, and a steady flow of money goes to support suicide bombers. whether you want to be at war with expansionist islam or not, make no mistake--expansionist islam is at war with you. 911 was only a small taste of what is in store for the West if we do not stop militant islam in its tracks right now. the course is clear and the motivation is a good one. this war is not about just iraq--it's about containing the spread of militant islam, (even though all the reasons President Bush state for going to war with iraq are justified as well).

now before i am pegged as a muslim hater, let's be clear about things. i'm a grad student studying engineering. if you can relate then you know the ethnic makeup of the majority of grad students today. i have friends named Mannish, Manoj, and Ahkbar. i know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh. clearly i disagree with islam, but i'm also a firm believer in the first ammendment--disagreeing with islam is not the same thing as hating muslims.

so as for the war, i say hooray for the US troops. kick ass and take names--even if you can't pronounce them. don't stop until you get to baghdad, and don't waste money on a trial for hussein. a bullet is far cheaper. after we've gotten hussein out of the way, i think it'll be high time to discuss why syria is occupying Lebanon. iran will be next on the list of usual suspects. a little war every now and then is a good thing. so all you ladies who are quaking in your booties can rest assured now--the war is in the hands of men who can land jets on aircraft carriers at night.

stalin had a term for war protestors -- "useful idiots." all you people out there protesting the war had better get your story straight. where were the war protestors when hillary clinton voted in favor of war? where were they when slick willy attack iraq without approval of the UN or congress (on the eve of his impeachment trial)? here's a pop quiz for you. who do you think said this:

This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq.

--Tom Daschle on Clinton's unilateral action.

it is increasingly clear to me that anti-war protestors in the US are not anti-war, they are anti-US and anti-Bush. just look at who organizes the rallies--such fine communist organizations as the workers world party. what really galls me is that they're so hypocritical. where were the protesters when clinton was sending troops to meddle around in Yugoslavia? where were they when he was bombing Tylenol factories in the Sudan to take attention away from his sexual promiscuity? people have a right to their opinions, but those dolts who are going over to iraq to form a human shield deserve whatever they get--if that doesn't fit the textbook definition of treason, nothing does.

sorry if i skipped between topics. and for all the future people who will neg me for my own opinions, you're nothing but cowards.

[smirc]

it is increasingly clear to me that anti-war protestors in the US are not anti-war, they are anti-US and anti-Bush.

Maybe some people just don't want war because when America goes to war, it usually involves killing lots of innocent people. Maybe it's because in war, there are no winners, only losers. Maybe it's because this matter can be resolved without more killing. Maybe it's cause these people don't want another 9/11.

just look at who organizes the rallies--such fine communist organizations as the workers world party.

I cannot honestly believe you just pulled the communist card. Careful now.

what really galls me is that they're so hypocritical. where were the protesters when clinton was sending troops to meddle around in Yugoslavia? where were they when he was bombing Tylenol factories in the Sudan to take attention away from his sexual promiscuity?

I rather hear about Clint getting *******s any day if it means that I don't have to read about people getting killed.

people have a right to their opinions,

You're right (about one thing finally). Everyone has the right to an opinion and everyone can also expect those opinions to be challenged, especially when they are as mindless as this.

but those dolts who are going over to iraq to form a human shield deserve whatever they get--if that doesn't fit the textbook definition of treason, nothing does.

Depends what textbook you're reading. Go back to school...please.

[moby_duck]

Maybe some people just don't want war because when America goes to war, it usually involves killing lots of innocent people. Maybe it's because in war, there are no winners, only losers. Maybe it's because this matter can be resolved without more killing. Maybe it's cause these people don't want another 9/11.

by what standard do you claim that it usually involves killing lots of innocent people? you see, here's where the anti-war protestors always go wrong. they say that US sanctions are killing millions of innocent babies in iraq in hopes to flame the emotions of people against the US. but the truth of the matter is that iraq is killing them every day by not following the stipulations of the treaty she signed after the overwhelming defeat at the hands of an international coalition led by the US. if hussein would just be a reasonable person and not a brutal dictator intent on using WMD against the US and Israel, no iraqi civilians would ever die. this is black and white, people. hussein is killing the civilians, not us.

I cannot honestly believe you just pulled the communist card. Careful now.

but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out http://www.workers.org if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

I rather hear about Clint getting *******s any day if it means that I don't have to read about people getting killed.

so how does that address the issue of him using war as a red herring to detract attention away from getting BJs in the oval office, lying about it under oath and then being legally impeached? maybe you prefer tabloid journalism to real news--you're from the UK and it's understandable, but those of us who really care about world issues don't like our world leaders dropping bombs for no good reason. Bush has plenty of good reasons, and the American public (outside of sympathizers of the WWP) is largely behind him.

You're right (about one thing finally). Everyone has the right to an opinion and everyone can also expect those opinions to be challenged, especially when they are as mindless as this.

you were doing so well, and then you went and blew it with this statement. i'll avoid cleverly retorting with an insult. your ideas are largely cliched rehashings of what you have probably heard from others ("in war there are no winners" blah blah blah). please. spare me all the "war is like an earthquake" garbage and try to debate the issues. i'm happy to debate with you, but so far your argument has been thin.

Depends what textbook you're reading. Go back to school...please.

from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm:

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

so how is going to iraq and impeding the actions of the US military not aiding the enemy? surely you must agree that at the very least forming a human shield is giving the enemy aid and comfort. you're from Britain, so your Constitution will be subtley different, but i'll bet it says nearly the same thing. my "textbook" is the Constitution of the US.

i'm a little confused by your go back to school comment. i admitted in my post that i'm in school. and i'm proud of the fact that i'm a student who doesn't blindly follow the masses of student protestors who actually believe hussein was democratically elected and Bush was not. please tell me you can debate better than this.

[SodaMoca5]

I would have to say that I find Moby Duck's arguments to be very clear, well thought out, and while some minor statements may be taken as inflammatory they are probably correct. I would be happier if Bush would just come out and say it.

Saddam is a brutal dictator, no one seems to argue this point.

Iraq is in a key location to controlling and influencing the majority of the Arab world.

Iraqi oil, contrary to popular belief, is not that important to American strategic interests since we import most of our oil from Canada, Central and South America. It is far more important to a few of our "allies" (like Germany and France but no one questions their motivations in opposing the war)

Someone (in another rant thread) mentioned the US specifically warning Iraq not to burn their oil fields like they did in Kuwait. However the damage in Kuwait was considered a ecological disaster not an economical one. Seems like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and <insert favorite environmental group here>, should have praised that warning.

I find it particularly interesting that while the people who are going over to Iraq as "human Shields" are legally traitors no one in the judiciary or the government has even hinted they should be prosecuted or even persecuted for their treason. I am certain that an Iraqi defector perceived as lending aid to America would not find this attitude reciprocated.

I also must admit that it upsets me when people throw the number of Iraqi's who have died because of the embargoes. First there are no reputable statistics. Second medical and food were never embargoed. American aid to Iraq from private citizens is equivalent or higher than the other Islamic nations surrounding it (and this aid is both considerable and mostly generated from middle class families). These statistics are well documented through numerous reputable sources. The United Nations has tried to send health workers but have been refused due to their unacceptable requirements that the workers be used where ever the need was (like with the Kurds) and not just where ever Saddam wanted them. I believe that Moby was right on target when he put the blame where it really lies (not a popular thing to do these days where everyone but the criminal is to blame) with Saddam who has constantly proven willing to sacrifice the lives of his people for political gain (or just to test weapons and lethality of chemical and biological agents).

By constrast I found most of the counter arguments made my Smirc and others earlier in this thread to be little more than snide name calling or unveiled ridicule with little or no content to back it up. It is as if saying "you're stupid" is an argument or "go back to school" shows your superiority and therefore allieviates you from the need to give a coherent response.

There was one thing that Moby Duck was totally wrong about. I hesitate to mention it because it will give those of you who love knee jerk responses an excuse to ignore all of his comments since he was proven wrong on one. However, and I have proof to back this up, he said Smirc was from the UK but the flag is Australian. I am certain no one has ever made so egregious a mistake before when typing into a chat room, e-mail, or message board like this. I no I nvr mak mstakes miself.

[moby_duck]

There was one thing that Moby Duck was totally wrong about. I hesitate to mention it because it will give those of you who love knee jerk responses an excuse to ignore all of his comments since he was proven wrong on one. However, and I have proof to back this up, he said Smirc was from the UK but the flag is Australian. I am certain no one has ever made so egregious a mistake before when typing into a chat room, e-mail, or message board like this. I no I nvr mak mstakes miself.

you're right. i was wrong, the flag is Australian. i will not edit it like it never happened. all i saw was Union Jack, and i made a mistake. thanks for the correction.

[smirc]

by what standard do you claim that it usually involves killing lots of innocent people?

By what standard? What is this a RFC protocol or something? Killing civilians is pretty black and white. It is a fact that the US killed civilians in the Gulf war as well as the recent bombings related to 9/11.

you see, here's where the anti-war protestors always go wrong. they say that US sanctions are killing millions of innocent babies in iraq in hopes to flame the emotions of people against the US. but the truth of the matter is that iraq is killing them every day by not following the stipulations of the treaty she signed after the overwhelming defeat at the hands of an international coalition led by the US. if hussein would just be a reasonable person and not a brutal dictator intent on using WMD against the US and Israel, no iraqi civilians would ever die. this is black and white, people. hussein is killing the civilians, not us.

No I don't see. You think that because Sadam is killing people anyway that whatever the US does is OK...they were gonna die anway right. Morbid point of view you got there. But when I said killing innocent people, I was more referring to dropping bombs on them (by accident, on purpose, whatever, it still happened).

but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out http://www.workers.org if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

You imply that because they're communists they must be crazy. Maybe they just want peace. And even if they do have more "sinister" motives for wanting peace. Isn't that a good thing? I rather them protesting for peace instead of inciting war.

so how does that address the issue of him using war as a red herring to detract attention away from getting BJs in the oval office, lying about it under oath and then being legally impeached?

You make it sound like Clinton started a war to draw attention away from his sexual antics. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that this was already a part of America's military strategy at the time and Clinton's people just tried to work it in his favour. Keep in mind that Clinton had a more peaceful two terms than Bush has had two months.

maybe you prefer tabloid journalism to real news--you're from the UK and it's understandable, but those of us who really care about world issues don't like our world leaders dropping bombs for no good reason. Bush has plenty of good reasons, and the American public (outside of sympathizers of the WWP) is largely behind him.

1. I'm from Australia

2. Australian's, like most people, do care about world issues (cheap shot *******)

3. Bush has more reasons not to go to war than to go to war. The main one being that there are other ways of getting Iraq to disarm without going to war.

you were doing so well, and then you went and blew it with this statement. i'll avoid cleverly retorting with an insult. your ideas are largely cliched rehashings of what you have probably heard from others ("in war there are no winners" blah blah blah). please. spare me all the "war is like an earthquake" garbage and try to debate the issues. i'm happy to debate with you, but so far your argument has been thin.

Maybe the reason "make peace not war" sounds cliche is because it's a good idea not because everyone who says it is crazy?

so how is going to iraq and impeding the actions of the US military not aiding the enemy? surely you must agree that at the very least forming a human shield is giving the enemy aid and comfort. you're from Britain, so your Constitution will be subtley different, but i'll bet it says nearly the same thing. my "textbook" is the Constitution of the US.

America doesn't have a problem dropping bombs on civilians so I doubt some protesters are going to get in the way of a good military campaign. It is these people's democratic right to peacefully protest the actions of the government. This is called passive resistance, not treason.

i'm a little confused by your go back to school comment. i admitted in my post that i'm in school. and i'm proud of the fact that i'm a student who doesn't blindly follow the masses of student protestors who actually believe hussein was democratically elected and Bush was not. please tell me you can debate better than this.

The point these people are making is that, whatever happened before aside, they don't want a war. Just think about that one single point. The majority of people protesting for peace just don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. Sure, there are other parties protesting motivated by other reasons but on the whole, it's just ordinary people who don't like to see innocent people getting killed.

[moby_duck]

By what standard? What is this a RFC protocol or something? Killing civilians is pretty black and white. It is a fact that the US killed civilians in the Gulf war as well as the recent bombings related to 9/11.

but you're making my case for me. saddam is killing his own civilians. he has murdered thousands of Kurds directly, and thousands of his own civilians both directly and indirectly. most people don't characterize him this way, but he is actually the biggest killer of Muslims in the world. if you accumulate the deaths of his own civilians with the mass slaughter of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq conflict, it adds up to millions of Muslims. his goal is to kill more civilians. yes, civilians die in war and the knee-jerk reaction is always to assign blame to the US for civilian casualties. but who started the Gulf War? saddam started it by invading Kuwait. so if you assign blame where blame lies, saddam hussein is directly responsible for all civilian and military casualties. this isn't moral equivalency--he invaded an ally of the United States and we responded by liberating Kuwait. he's at fault.

as for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, i don't know the exact statistics, and any unnecessary death is unfortunate. but who started the war against the West? it was UBL, al-qaeda and his sympathizers, funders and motivators around the world (including the taliban). if the taliban would have cooperated and handed over UBL, the bombing campaign would likely have been unnecessary. look at the results--we liberated that country from a brutal, oppressive regime in a matter of weeks. it was one of the most efficient military operations in history. also consider that sources estimate anywhere from 100 to 4,000 civilian casualties because some people include militant taliban as civilians (Human Rights Watch estimated 1000). the taliban exacerbated the situation by stockpiling weapons and quartering troops in hospitals, mosques and schools.

No I don't see. You think that because Sadam is killing people anyway that whatever the US does is OK...they were gonna die anway right. Morbid point of view you got there. But when I said killing innocent people, I was more referring to dropping bombs on them (by accident, on purpose, whatever, it still happened).

try to think logically for a second. you make no distinction between dropping bombs on people on purpose or by accident. that is really the moral argument at the very heart of the matter. hussein kills on purpose--he murders his own civilians and used chemical weapons against allied forces in the Gulf War (see Gulf War Syndrome causes). civilian deaths caused by the allied forces were by accident. there's a huge moral difference. tens of thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered and they were given food and water. prisoners taken captive by Iraq were tortured and displayed on tv as propaganda. so who are the good guys? you seem to think the allies (which Australia was a part of) are just as evil as hussein for liberating Kuwait. that's utter nonsense.

You imply that because they're communists they must be crazy. Maybe they just want peace. And even if they do have more "sinister" motives for wanting peace. Isn't that a good thing? I rather them protesting for peace instead of inciting war.

well i'm glad you admitted they're communists. i think people protesting for peace is a great thing. in iraq, if people protested saddam, they would be murdered. i think the peace protesters are just largely misguided. they want peace, but they don't understand the concept that peace can only be achieved through war sometimes. and yes, given the evidence of the effects of communism around the world (USSR, N Korea, Maoist China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc) i do think communists are crazy.

You make it sound like Clinton started a war to draw attention away from his sexual antics. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that this was already a part of America's military strategy at the time and Clinton's people just tried to work it in his favour. Keep in mind that Clinton had a more peaceful two terms than Bush has had two months.

yes, i do believe that. you need to read the news more often though. clinton engaged US troops in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Nigeria, and some others i can't remember. he did so largely without consulting Congress, which is unconstitutional. so aside from the fact that what you just said isn't true, i do disagree with all of clinton's uses of our military. not because they were sometimes unethical--they were--but because they didn't serve our vital national interests. but you didn't hear the antiwar protestors up in arms over those little quagmires, did you? in fact, judging by your statement you may not have even known about them.

3. Bush has more reasons not to go to war than to go to war. The main one being that there are other ways of getting Iraq to disarm without going to war.

what are those reasons? what are the other ways? the anti-war and anti-Bush factions always have criticisms, but they never have solutions. what are your solutions? do you want more UN resolutions? because we all can see what good those do. do you want to sit down and talk with saddam and hope he'll see the error of his ways? good luck with that one. what exactly do you propose?

America doesn't have a problem dropping bombs on civilians so I doubt some protesters are going to get in the way of a good military campaign. It is these people's democratic right to peacefully protest the actions of the government. This is called passive resistance, not treason.

first of all, the first statement is slander. to suggest that the US government has no problem killing civilians is false and irresponsible. our country specifically develops precision weaponry in the hopes of eliminating civilian casualties. compare that to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. compare that to suicide bombings in Israel. compare that to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. our enemy targets civilians, and you would accuse us of being the same? shame on you.

and i said protesting is ok, just as long as they don't do it in Baghdad. when they protest in Baghdad, aiding and comforting the enemy while impeding the US military, that is treason.

The point these people are making is that, whatever happened before aside, they don't want a war. Just think about that one single point. The majority of people protesting for peace just don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. Sure, there are other parties protesting motivated by other reasons but on the whole, it's just ordinary people who don't like to see innocent people getting killed.

maybe they had better start considering who's getting bombed. you said they don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. well they never protested UBL when the WTC got the **** bombed out of it. investigations laid out by Colon Powell have linked iraqi agents and iraqi money with al-qaeda efforts world-wide and have tied direct links to suicide bombings in Israel. it seems the war protesters don't mind people getting bombed, just so long as its the US and Israel.

on the whole i am glad you decided to debate with me. you are clearly passionate about your views. even though i think you're wrong, you're very persuasive.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted here by moby_duck

on the whole i am glad you decided to debate with me. you are clearly passionate about your views. even though i think you're wrong, you're very persuasive.

LOL....so very humble!

[Negative]

Originally posted by moby_duck
but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out <http://www.workers.org> if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

It says they are socialists. Marx's Communist Manifesto was a blue-print for a "communist" society. Marx was wrong. A communist society is an utopia. Workers.org knows this, and -although they refer to the Manifesto a lot- acts to it. Socialist, not communist.

back in the day when imperialism was a pretty swell idea, developed nations would go around the globe looking for colonies to exploit for resources. imperialism was responsible for the development of the infrastructure of most of these countries. if you listen to the "no blood for oil" hippies who are currently forming a human shield around baghdad, then you might argue that we're just doing the same thing. contrary to the belief of San Francisco granola-eaters and 17-year-olds who think they know history because they read it off the side of a crackerjack box, the United States does not seek to colonize iraq. oil is obviously a strategic resource, but as Korp Death noted, if all we were seeking to do was exploit iraqi oil, we would have done it back when we whipped them the last time. no, oil is not the ultimate goal--destruction of the infrastructure of militant islam is.

The "no blood for oil"-hippies... I'll let that one slip.. Don't want those Vietnam-veterans being part of that hippie-scum group in the news again...
And while oil might not be the main goal, it still is the point of interest. Bush's oil-contacts are indeniable. "As Korp Death noted"... don't know what he was talking about, but maybe we should ask Red Adair... oh look, it's about Kuwait, not Iraq. As far as I know, "you" didn't whip Iraq last time.. you liberated Kuwait.

I'm drunk... excuse me.... Marx for president!