PDA

View Full Version : war


Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:39 PM
:(

Ihach
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:41 PM
its your damn countries fault, your not sensible like us canadians :)

CaptainBubba
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:46 PM
:(

Professor Cool
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:47 PM
well you guys do know how to mind your own business.

but like doopa :(

Ihach
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:47 PM
yes, its a :( situation

on a side note, i like professor cool alot more now that he doesnt have a huge sig :)

Professor Cool
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:51 PM
Yeha i settled for a Beakman's World Avatar, he sorta looks like a professor

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:56 PM
Bush is gunna speak in about 10 min to tell us what the hell they just did - or something

Ihach
Mar 19th, 2003, 09:58 PM
they started already?

Vibecrewangel
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:00 PM
We hit a leadership"target of opportunity"

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:02 PM
yes it started

Professor Cool
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:13 PM
you've got war :(

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:14 PM
cnn is saying they bombed a place sadam was....


if they killed him CAN WE STOP THIS STUPID FUCKIN WAR?

no... we can't wait to see if the bomb worked.

!@$#$@%$!4

Ihach
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:19 PM
you dont kill a man like saddam that easy, unfortunately, plenty are going to die before this war ends :(

Professor Cool
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:19 PM
Even if sadam is killed, another sadam will take his place, he's got like clones

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:23 PM
this is just another war, just like every other war we have ever been in.

KevinTheOmnivore
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:28 PM
Which means....?

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:31 PM
uh no.


And what a big fucking threat Iraq is.. we can drop a few bombs to try and kill saddam and then just wait around... nooooooooo problem!
And basically everyone saying the war will be essentially no contest!


Of course controlling Iraq will stop terrorism against America because OBVIOUSLY Iraq is the country that has the MOST ties to say... sept 11 and terrorism... not any other nation (or several other nations)... of course not.

I TOTALLY get it!

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:47 PM
it means, kevin, that i dont understand why so many people are either terrified about this conflict or rail against it so vehemently.

doopa, its not so simple as that, but what is the point of trying to argue it?

KevinTheOmnivore
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:51 PM
it means, kevin, that i dont understand why so many people are either terrified about this conflict or rail against it so vehemently.

This war is the same as WW II? What about WW I? How about the War of 1812? Are they all the same because people die? You're right, nobody should be terrified, or even (how dare they!), be opposed to such a thing.....

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:58 PM
how dare they? hey, youre the one that implied it.

you pretty much nailed what i meant there kevin. i dont understand why there is so much international outrage about this particular war. why? whats so special about this war? is it just anti-americanism? hatred of the bush administration? what?

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 10:58 PM
doopa, its not so simple as that, but what is the point of trying to argue it?


It is! But you are right, obviously arguing or debate will not stop all the deaths about to occur

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:02 PM
not at this point, no.

the whole diplomatic process was skewed. the US screwed up, the EU screwed up, and a lot of civilians did too. i think this war was pre-determined 12 years ago.

Protoclown
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:07 PM
BOMBING FOREIGN BROWN PEOPLE IS WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR

KevinTheOmnivore
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:10 PM
you pretty much nailed what i meant there kevin. i dont understand why there is so much international outrage about this particular war. why? whats so special about this war? is it just anti-americanism? hatred of the bush administration? what?

Because people believe the war is wrong, for several reasons. People are angry that diplomacy has been abandoned (it was never really invested in to begin with), and that once again, the most powerful and advanced nation in the world is handling things the "ol' fashion way."

This war is not WW II. This war is not the American Revolution. To many, this war is simply wrong, and THAT is where the outrage comes from (and the French hate America).

Protoclown
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:12 PM
I went to dinner at my parents' house tonight, and of course the inevitable political discussion came up, and I got into a big debate with my parents and my sister over this whole war thing. The three of them support it, and they think I am insane, ignorant, and ill-informed not to.

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:14 PM
no you are right, this isnt ww2 or the revolution, but this war is still a necessity.

diplomacy failed, but it was never necessary. we have had the legal right to invade the entire time.

The resolution from the gulf war -- which has never been terminated -- said 45 days to disarm or the ceasefire was null. That 45 days has been extended to 12 years. Disarmament was terms of the ceasefire.

A ceasefire is not the end of a war; a cease fire is a temporary treaty that says "I'll do this, you do that, and then we'll finish up the diplomatics and let you be." Iraq has never done so. And the burden of proof is on them, that is the terms of every resolution from the first one to 1441.

theapportioner
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:21 PM
Since when did you get your law degree?????

ItalianStereotype, Doctor of Jurisprudence

Protoclown
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:23 PM
diplomacy failed, but it was never necessary. we have had the legal right to invade the entire time.

Why do I get the image of you grinding steak knives together and licking your lips hungrily while I read this?

Just because have the "legal right" doesn't MAKE it right. Blood is being spilled, and you're telling us that trying to handle this diplomatically isn't NECESSARY??

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:24 PM
Its the truth though, no matter how much credibility, or lack thereof, I have.

KevinTheOmnivore
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:26 PM
The resolution from the gulf war -- which has never been terminated -- said 45 days to disarm or the ceasefire was null. That 45 days has been extended to 12 years. Disarmament was terms of the ceasefire.

Missiles that exceed his limits, yet still can't even hit Israel, are your entire justification. Where are the nukes? Where are the bio-weapons and the gases?

A ceasefire is not the end of a war; a cease fire is a temporary treaty that says "I'll do this, you do that, and then we'll finish up the diplomatics and let you be." Iraq has never done so. And the burden of proof is on them, that is the terms of every resolution from the first one to 1441.

The U.S. government gave up on inspections in 1998. Now they're a convenient way to justify war.

Anonymous
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:26 PM
The three of them support it, and they think I am insane, ignorant, and ill-informed not to.


You crazy insane peace-monger you!

theapportioner
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:28 PM
Shut up Kevin! Listen to our resident legal expert, ItalianStereotype. He knows best.

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:33 PM
Kevin- you need an example? How about the 10,000 liters of anthrax that remain unaccounted for? How about the nerve gases that he has threatened to coat roads and bridges with?

Also, Bill Clinton was not exactly a shining beacon of foreign policy. He sure as hell didn't stick to his guns in Somalia.

Proto-you are correct, but then again, standing by while civilians are tortured and murdered isn't right either.

apportioner-aren't you CLA? This is partially the reason that people like Ronnie are so demonized, you won't accept that I have a point.

theapportioner
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:40 PM
I am CLAspinster. It's just play man; Ronnie deliberately polarizes the debate, we do too.

Captain Robo
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:41 PM
:(

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:44 PM
No, I think Ronnie really is as nutty as he seems.

KevinTheOmnivore
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:47 PM
Kevin- you need an example? How about the 10,000 liters of anthrax that remain unaccounted for?

You mean the anthrax reported in 96, 97??? Even if they REALLY had this anthrax in 1997 (which has been debated), Anthrax has roughly a shelf life of THREE years, under IDEAL storage conditions. If Iraq had anywhere NEAR the kind of infrastructure that could maintain said anthrax, the inspection teams WOULD'VE found it....

How about the nerve gases that he has threatened to coat roads and bridges with?

Where have you seen this? This has only been reported, to my understanding, by Fox News. Sorry if I remain cynical....

Also, Bill Clinton was not exactly a shining beacon of foreign policy. He sure as hell didn't stick to his guns in Somalia.

Scott Ritter went before a REPUBLICAN House and pleaded for the continuation of inspections. It wasn't just Clinton who stopped caring, it was the entire government, for the most part.

Look, we've all been back and forth over this on the politics board. We all know where each other stand on it. That's not the issue. What I can't understand is how you can simplify the war. All war is terrible, whether you feel it's necessary or not. People die every day. But that doesn't mean it isn't terrible when they die.

ItalianStereotype
Mar 19th, 2003, 11:54 PM
true, we have all fought in the politics forum for as long as this has been going on and are still in the same places as when we started. we will probably always argue about topics like this, but we ALL agree that war is bad. there is no disagreement there.

I don't have Fox News out here, I heard it on both CNN and MSNBC. Its that and the story about the Republican Guard has been equipped with artillery shells containing chemical agents.

Anonymous
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:14 AM
So now, as well as being dead, soldiers will get really sick too if shot. :(

ItalianStereotype
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:20 AM
well, anybody getting hit by an artillery shell probably wont live long enough to recognize the chemicals burning away at their dying/already dead flesh.

Anonymous
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:34 AM
Italian gets jokes! :)

ItalianStereotype
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:37 AM
i make 'em too, silly boy.

Skulhedface
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:54 AM
So let's all be careful if we go overseas. Don't let any zombies cough on you :)

Pub Lover
Mar 20th, 2003, 12:59 AM
Saddam was just on TV saying something like 'the enemies of God have made the stupid mistake of aggression'.

I guess he ain't dead. :(

Anonymous
Mar 20th, 2003, 01:38 AM
Either that, or it was taped.

But I doubt he'd be stupid enough to be anywhere obvious after the 48-hour period.

Jixby Phillips
Mar 20th, 2003, 02:55 AM
MY DAD ASKED ME MY OPINION ON THIS WAR AND I SAID "I HAVE NO OPINON WHATSOEVER"

I SHOULD HAVE SAID "I'M NOT ONLY PROTESTING THIS WAR BUT I'M PROTESTING VIETNAM AND WORLD WAR 2 AS WELL >: >: >:

HAHAHA, I SHOULD GO TO A ANTIWAR PROTEST AND HOLD SIGNS THAT SAY "I HAVE NO OPINION" "I DO NOT READ NEWSPAPERS, WHAT IS GOING ON AGAIN?" LOL

*SPOILERS*

TONIGHTS SOUTH PARK IS GREAT :)

Mockery
Mar 20th, 2003, 03:00 AM
Well in regards to protesting, we once went to a Marilyn Manson protest a long time ago (we weren't protesting manson, we were mocking the xtians that were protesting him) and we brought signs that read "Free Car Wash" and "Kentucky" and "Lonely Man Looking For A Date" and things like that. Those xtians sure didn't think it was funny. Good times, good times. :)

As for this war, I still say bush and saddam should have had a duel like somebody once suggested. After all there's a good chance they'd shoot each other...

Jixby Phillips
Mar 20th, 2003, 03:17 AM
MY GOLDFISH SAID IN HEBROW "THE WORLD IS GOING TO DIE" :)

Skulhedface
Mar 20th, 2003, 04:18 AM
As for this war, I still say bush and saddam should have had a duel like somebody once suggested. After all there's a good chance they'd shoot each other...

George Carlin was talking about something like that... hold on a sec. ::looks it up::

"Only the dickheads that start wars should be fighting 'em. They'd end much more quickly, wouldn't they? And there wouldn't be as many, would there?" ~ paraphrased

Pub Lover
Mar 20th, 2003, 05:51 AM
xtians

Shouldn't it be 'Xian', or do you also say 'Xtmas' to be consistant? :)

Helm
Mar 20th, 2003, 08:33 AM
xtians

lol

sadie
Mar 20th, 2003, 09:18 AM
war sucks. :(

mburbank
Mar 20th, 2003, 09:53 AM
To adress the key question here, this war is different, and upsetting, because it is a war of pre-emption. We are the invaders. Where you put the blame doesn't change the fact that with the exception of Bush the Elders Panama excussion, this marks serious departure for and change in nature of the USA.

All wars are awful, all are well worth getting upset about, and many wars are benchmarks in History.

I believe this war represents a MAJOR MAJOR change in the worlds dynamic, a fracturing of old alliances and the begining of a potentially dreadful course that could make the mergence of terrorism on American soil look like a car accident.

I seriously believe that.

THAT'S why I'm bent out of shape.

FS
Mar 20th, 2003, 11:06 AM
I think part of it is also that September 11th has given the western world of today a better idea of what it's like for your own country to be attacked.

Rez
Mar 20th, 2003, 11:15 AM
BOMBING FOREIGN BROWN PEOPLE IS WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR

:lol :lol :lol

Helm
Mar 20th, 2003, 05:53 PM
I think part of it is also that September 11th has given the western world of today a better idea of what it's like for your own country to be attacked.

Replace "western world" with the US of A, and that's a valid statement.

Ninjavenom
Mar 20th, 2003, 09:19 PM
Fuck the politics, i wanna see footage of the combat.

ItalianStereotype
Mar 20th, 2003, 09:30 PM
well, we have just had our first casualties. ANOTHER helicoptor crashed. :/