Actual chemical weapons found in Iraq!!!

[GhostValkyrie]

you'll never have the chance to shoot civies even if you were ordered too, your in the navy.

If things got bad enough, I might would be ordered to. Say a large amount of the country attempted a violent ousting of it's leader, and the National Guard wasn't enough. Of course this is a bit out there, but hey, anything is possible.
As far as shooting things period, I'll be doing plenty of that.
I'm up for the SEAL program.

 

[clarky003]

yup, 'strong' in the alcohol blood levels. a real macho man,

besides you will truely find this is all circumstantial, people who are pro bush are usually suited and happy in their current state of living, (the corruptness of it all doesnt make them flinch an eyelid) , people who genuinely seem to want more for our world in the broadest improvement possibilities, seem to be anti bush, and thats alot of people. more than I expected

 

[el Chi]

hows GWB a dictator? he doesnt kill 99% of his compition. mainly because he has none (LAUGHS MY *&^#ING ASS OFF AT DEAN) and his people have free choice. let me tell you, we would all be killed or atleast you because your anti bush if he were a dictator. secondly, how is he a war monger. plz dont blantantly say shit and run and hide, back your crap up.

A dictator is a ruler of a nation state who was not democratically elected through the will of the people. The election was fixed and manipulated, Dubya is not the legitimate leader of your country. He does not represent the will of the voter. Yes, you are supposed to have free choice, but things sadly do not work that way when people have the old lust for power.
I'm British - even if he were the old-skool, blatant dictator type then he couldn't kill me. Although I would like to point out that dictators often detain people for dodgy reasons on dodgy grounds in terrible conditions. Awful that is. ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? Camp X-Ray?
He is a war-mongerer because he has started on two high-profile military engagements since his relatively limited time in office. He has raised the military budget (at least once) to suit this course of action. Not only this, but he has designs for military actions in a number of other countries. It is his own personal Vietnam except he's taking it on a world tour. How lovely. The man is a shining example of a war-mongerer.
There, I reckon I'm backing up my argument. You weren't as far as I could see. I mean that as courteously as I can, so please don't take offense - retort in a sensible way and try and win me over.

 

[waedoe]

yup, 'strong' in the alcohol blood levels. a real macho man,

besides you will truely find this is all circumstantial, people who are pro bush are usually suited and happy in their current state of living, (the corruptness of it all doesnt make them flinch an eyelid) , people who genuinely seem to want more for our world in the broadest improvement possibilities, seem to be anti bush, and thats alot of people. more than I expected

My family is poor middle class, i worked my ass of to buy my comp, and my family has barely any surplus money. The facts are that people are less responsible now adays, and they need some one to blame, thats the president. the majority of publicity are indeferent to bush and SPEW anti bush garbage. the people follow cnn, bbc, and newyork times. thinking hey if they *SAY* its that way bush must be bad. when ever news is reported, the report everything bad that happens in iraq, but thiers alot of good that happens too. the only new out port that i have seen that does this is Fox, and they remotly report it.

 

[Letters]

George Bush was elected fairly through our system... he didn't take the 'power'...

The election fixed and maniupulated, though? I'd save that for the tabloids.

Also, Bush by no means just went out and started planning wars and attacking people... what a ' war mongerer' would do... he reacted to the events that put our country in danger, and has been supported by the majority (if only slight at certain times) of the country throughout his term.

 

[LoneDeranger]

yup, 'strong' in the alcohol blood levels. a real macho man,

besides you will truely find this is all circumstantial, people who are pro bush are usually suited and happy in their current state of living, (the corruptness of it all doesnt make them flinch an eyelid) , people who genuinely seem to want more for our world in the broadest improvement possibilities, seem to be anti bush, and thats alot of people. more than I expected

A lot yes, but nowhere nearly enough to vote Bush out of office. Really I do hope Bush winds by only a small margin because then people are gona cry "dictator" for sure.

 

[Korgoth]

well whats the difference between following what cnn, nbc, abc etc. say and following what bush says? Funny thing is cnn and crew have a better reputation in my opinion. You'll hear pro and anti statements from news, but you won't hear any anti statements from bush rumsfeld cheny, and if thats where your getting all your info from then no wonder you feel the way you do about this situation.

 

[clarky003]

besides you will truely find this is all circumstantial, people who are pro bush are >'USUALLY'< suited and happy

Usually :upstare:

Loneranger, intresting, yet inherently evil comment

 

[GhostValkyrie]

What's wrong with raising the military budget? Our country deserves as much protection as it can get. I feel sorry for all of the Soldiers that suffered from Clinton cutting back on the military. That's some 1.5 million soldiers who at that point no longer had a job. I'm sure some were living for the military, making it a career...I'm pretty sure quite a few killed themselves when they found themselves without the thing they enjoyed the most. Yet, no one feels sorry for them. No one wants to ever feel sorry for the soldier, or the victim...instead they'd rather feel sorry for the scumbags at Camp X-Ray. That's right, f*cking scumbag terrorists. Really, all you sound like is a criminal sympathizer, el Chi. You don't sound at all like you care about freedom or life itself. - More or less what you want, which sounds like chaos, and anarchy. You feel for the evildoers, but not for the victims. A lot like how people in liberal states flock to a pedophile's defense, and pick on the child's integrity, re-opening the slowly healing wounds. This discussion is getting really sick.

Waedoe: I aslo come from the same type of up bringing, and payed for much of my stuff throughout highschool. Unlike what many of you would say, the rich are not the only ones who support Bush. In fact, there are many rich who oppose. Such as a lot of Anchor people, Actors and Actresses, Politicians, Businessmen and women, etc. Ones income doesn't determine their political stance.

 

[Korgoth]

George Bush was elected fairly through our system... he didn't take the 'power'...

The election fixed and maniupulated, though? I'd save that for the tabloids.

Also, Bush by no means just went out and started planning wars and attacking people... what a ' war mongerer' would do... he reacted to the events that put our country in danger, and has been supported by the majority (if only slight at certain times) of the country throughout his term.

He didn't? Read this then...


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st.../145686421.htm&sc=1152&photoid=20040109PMM101

 

[Direwolf]

Bush does in fact represent over half the populace, but it is also traditionally the less vocal half. Regardless of what the actual vote-count was (a fact which may never be known), it was so close that there was no clear winner, not in a country of hundreds of millions of people.
We were oppposed to Saddams rule from the moment he began attempting genocide, regardless of our relationship with his government prior to that.
Edit: As I mentioned before Inner, what you see in that article is what you want to see. Many see it as proof that he was out on a moronic mission of revenge or greed. Personally, I see it as acknowledging a threat in advance, and being prepared. While there are many other dictatorships just as deserving of action, Iraq is one of the few for which enough political support could ever be mustered.

 

[Letters]

He didn't? Read this then...


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st.../145686421.htm&sc=1152&photoid=20040109PMM101

Like that even says, we'd been keeping an eye on Iraq and thinking of ousting him even during the Clinton administration. Oh yeah, and that sort of thing has a REASON. Perhaps I should have added that, but I assumed it was to be implied.

 

[clarky003]

so have you people been round taking the votes early? :dozey: , or are you just being optimistic

 

[el Chi]

What's wrong with raising the military budget? Our country deserves as much protection as it can get.

I can sympathise with that, really I can. But you'll pardon me if I sympathise more with the children in run-down schools with out-dated text books with bad equipment. The military budget is an amount that actually disgusts me, especially when compared to money given to schooling etc. I can't begin to comprehend that.

 

[clarky003]

'claps' well said El CHi

army's used to be defenders of piece, nowdays there bringers of democracey (or enforcers)

 

[LoneDeranger]

One thing people around the world don't realize is that we Americans (for the most part) take our presidents seriously. So there isn't going to be much voting for "the other guy"

The only votes "the other guy" will get are from people voting along party lines.

 

[el Chi]

Cheers clarky

 

[waedoe]

well whats the difference between following what cnn, nbc, abc etc. say and following what bush says? Funny thing is cnn and crew have a better reputation in my opinion. You'll hear pro and anti statements from news, but you won't hear any anti statements from bush rumsfeld cheny, and if thats where your getting all your info from then no wonder you feel the way you do about this situation.

jeez my argument was that they are BIAS towards bush, soley because thier irresponsible, and need some one to blame for thier failures (left party). any how, its seems that our country was better off under christian rule than this athiest death rule. you do the figure. by far teh 50 were better than what we have now.

 

[Direwolf]

Thats also been true for God knows how long.
Personally, I don't think its the military's problem. Often it is instead the House and the Senate at fault, overinflating costs or issuing pork barrel projects.
Theres plenty of money for schools out there, it just needs to be found and put in the right hands.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

The Electoral College still voted for him, and that's what made the difference. The Electoral College dices the President.
And for those of you who would whine, the Elctoral College is what got Clinton in office. In case you weren't paying attention; Dole had the popular vote, like Gore, but the Electoral College voted Clinton at the time.

But, I guess that's okay when it's you're candidate, right? That's the way it's looked for a while. You bitch and whine when things don't work for you, but when they do "It's legitimate."

Reminds me of this one woman talking about the flag. She was saying that burning the flag was a political freedom(as much as I don't like it, it is), but she was saying wearing the flag is wrong, offensive, and provoking to others...

 

[clarky003]

Also, Bush by no means just went out and started planning wars and attacking people... what a ' war mongerer' would do... he reacted to the events that put our country in danger, and has been supported by the majority (if only slight at certain times) of the country throughout his term.

hmm, not what the article said, especially at the end. :

 

[Gorgon]

Clark I have read it somewhere the followings@:

Sudi Arabia 50 years
Iran 100 years
Iraq 250 years including undiscovered fields
Kathatikstan (spellling) 37 years
Kuwait 23 years

 

[Korgoth]

Well isn't sitting around a table coming up with ideas for pre emptive war war mongering? I think so, how many others are on that list? Would the american people allowed a pre emptive war pre 9/11? I seriously doubt it, especially when they learned of the cost, human, and financially. So either way he disgusts me, he used a tragedy to push forward his agenda.

 

[clarky003]

soley because thier irresponsible

lol, good enough reason if you ask me.

there is a difference between irresponsible children and bush's regime,, right?

edit: well said Innervision :cheers:

 

[LoneDeranger]

Well isn't sitting around a table coming up with ideas for pre emptive war war mongering? I think so, how many others are on that list? Would the american people allowed a pre emptive war pre 9/11? I seriously doubt it, especially when they learned of the cost, human, and financially. So either way he disgusts me, he used a tragedy to push forward his agenda.

But surely the American people would have allowed a pre-emptive war if they knew it would prevent Sept. 11.

 

[Letters]

hmm, not what the article said, especially at the end. :

I suggest you read it again, then.

 

[Direwolf]

To my knowledge: no one knows when the oil supply will give out. I've heard estimates ranging from the ludicrous (never) to the miniscule (2 years). The question is: how do you know when and where we are going to find new fields, or how much is truly contained within our current fields? How can you anticipate our growing efficiency in burning fossil fuels?
I think the best guess is that we have enough for now, but we should most definitly look towards the future.

 

[clarky003]

are you calling Americans warmongorers?

 

[Dedalus]

i dunno whether any of you mentioned this and it's kind of on a tangent to what's been discussed in the past, ohhhh 500 pages...but most chemical agents (and especially those sold to Iraq by the US) have a shelf life of roughly 2-5 years. so if it's 12 years old then hey, it may as well be pepsi in a can for all the harm it could do.

carry on...

 

[Direwolf]

It may have simply been a case of good planning, or it may have been a target thats been on the chopping block for a while now.
I would definitly make a distinction between making plans and attempting to carry them out without the support of the people.

 

[Javert]

Reply to #1

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

 

[clarky003]

fields are getting scarce to come by, our energy demands growing, its a working theory drawn out by proffessors in the subject that its likely (most) that they will not beable to sustain the world populace in and around 2030. with current oil refinery techniques.

 

[Korgoth]

But surely the American people would have allowed a pre-emptive war if they knew it would prevent Sept. 11.

Maybe but saddam hussein and iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 see they blurred the line so people would except their war, if people confuse osama and saddam then they will want blood from both. But there is no connection, no matter how foggy they try to make it

 

[Letters]

are you calling Americans warmongorers?

No, I was saying the opposite.

 

[clarky003]

oh sorry, didnt detect the sarcasm ,

 

[Korgoth]

i'll make a few concessions here, bush may have had some good motives for going into iraq, but i believe he also did it for the wrong reasons to. The thing that gets me is, no pro bushie would say he did anything ANYTHING wrong, or at least i've yet to see it. Why be so defensive?

 

[LoneDeranger]

Maybe but saddam hussein and iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 see they blurred the line so people would except their war, if people confuse osama and saddam then they will want blood from both. But there is no connection, no matter how foggy they try to make it

That's the catch I guess. Maybe the war in Iraq prevented another Sept. 11 a few years from now. But of course we'll never know.

Heck if you told me 4 years ago that 19 terrorists armed with plastic knifes are going to blow up the WTC I would have never believed you.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

To my knowledge: no one knows when the oil supply will give out. I've heard estimates ranging from the ludicrous (never) to the miniscule (2 years). The question is: how do you know when and where we are going to find new fields, or how much is truly contained within our current fields? How can you anticipate our growing efficiency in burning fossil fuels?
I think the best guess is that we have enough for now, but we should most definitly look towards the future.

My father used to work for Halliburton. There are vast fields of capped oil wells here(Texas). They were capped off during the 80's because they weren't churnning out 500 barrels a day, per well. Think 500X90,000. We have plenty of oil to last for another decade or two...And, that is this one state alone. Anyway, once the Middle East is out of oil, we'll be okay. As I was telling people in the other political thread. I think one thing on the agenda is keeping our resources, while buying resources from other countries. Once they've ran out, we'll not only be safe, but even be damn near controlling the oil market.

Innervision, you're wrong. I'm quite sure there were hidden motives in Bush's reasons for the war. As to whether or not they were the only ones is another thing.
I think oil did play a role, but not the only one. Don't try and catagorize us as mindless animals. Please?

 

[Direwolf]

I do believe that the line between 9/11 and Iraq is sketchy at best. That incident was used to gather public support to strike against Iraq in a way that would have been difficult to support otherwise.
The question we have to ask now is if we think it was justified, not whether there really was a strong connection. Was this in the interest of security? Was it misguided? Was it greed? Was it compassion? Was it Domo-Kun?

 

[Korgoth]

Well to be honest i welcome the oil dry up, do you realise how much closer to world peace we will be then?