American warmongers - Page 2

twinturbo.net

My favorite 300zx forum

They actually said that?


bah!

Yep, looks like they took it down already (it was in the general forum), prolly when they changed servers. I made some posts on there, but they all got deleted

That "support our troops" stuff was really monotonous. It's like we're suddenly back in the 1950's. God, motherhood, and the flag is back in style. That's okay but dissenting views should not be banned. During the war I posted some messages on Yahoo. I remember saying that spring is a beautiful time of year. Surely we can find better things to do than kill people. Some of the messages I saw were pretty disturbing.

Okay, One thing I've noticed alot is the word "Freedom" being thrown around. First off We don't know what Freedom is, Because we have had it for so long yet we still complain about wanting more. And people Do read Decius posts all the time He is a very logical levelheaded thinking Guy. don't forget smart... Lol yeah later

hey i have changed alot sence i was last here, ok. well i dont really like government anymore, but i still think that this country is the most free, or free'est or whatever. anyway i dont think we should have gone to war in the first place we should have just left it alone. maybe try to kill him but not a war, you know to many people have died. anyway thats what i think i dont have all the answers but i do know that bush is not good for us. he uses the wrong words and i cant wait till i get to vote for the first time this year. oo ya things will change when im around , speek easy, later guys.

The guy had men on the government payroll who's job it was to rape women in front of there husbands and fathers to punish the men. Don't the mass graves bother anyone? I for one don't care if the only weapon Saddam had was a rusty Derringer. He had to get smashed. Somebody that Saddistic (intentionally mispelled) on such a massive scale has gotta go. I deplore violence but I am not a passivist in the sense of a Ghandi. If I'm walking down the street and see a guy beating the crap out of his wife or child or something I feel honor bound to step in. And I see the same principle with the war against Saddam. And I think it was pretty clear that our problem was with Saddam and his buddies, not Iraq. True, innocents died but if you wanna make an omelet... Innocents died before the war, during the war, and after the war. They always have and always will. Tyrants must be crushed. I know these are not the reasons the administrations gave for the war, but regardless it is the reasons by which I justify and all in all aren't you really the only one you owe justification to? And I would back such an action against all tyrants on Saddam's level who could not otherwise be dealt with. WW III; maybe? I'll die to stop someone like Saddam commiting so many atrocities. I couldn't live with myself if I could've done something to stop it but didn't. Just my thoughts though, no more valid or invalid than anyone elses. Idealistically war is wrong, but for lack of a better solution... If we wanna stop war we gotta come up with a better way of handling such situations as what we had with Saddam. Nobody wants to have their leg amputated but for lack of a better solution.

BTW Metaphors RULE! don't they

P.S Fish gotta' swim, Birds gotta' fly, and politician gotta' lie,
I think the easiest way to get a clear picture is to take
everything the politicians say out of the equation

I'm a cowboy. Ilike it! I like the President! Don't get on the wrong side of a cruise missile GIRLIE BOY Frenchie! Your prime minister sucks the big one!
Eldred

Now that the war is over (for a while, hey I didn't really find the thread till now.) it is easier to decide on whether the war was worth it or not. I would be 100% for the war. No because I enjoy seeing people sacrafice their lives for the country. I honor those types of people dearly. Yet, Saddam had to be stopped. Ok so maybe their were weapons, maybe their weren't, maybe some stories were right, some could of been wrong, I am not going to say that my countries gov. didn't lie. I am glad they did, and if I were them I would of done the same thing just as any of you would or should. People in the states and all over the world don't understand that you can't just leave a country alone and think it will work out.

Do you think that if we left a mentally insane person with goals of genocide and threats against certain people in his country some his own nationallity alone that he would just calm down? Do you think that this insane man with dangerous ideas and building dangerous weapons that could match some of ours should of been left alone? Do you think maybe even appeasment would solve this problem?
If you answered yes to anyone of these questions then you have done the stupidest thing that any man of America, India, China, Britian, ANY SINGLE COUNTRY OUT THERE should ever do. You go into your class and you notice your grade sucks, you are getting a D and you think the class is stupid, so you say to the teacher, "Why do I have to take history? When will I ever use it?" and your teacher says, "Well, because history repeats itself."
1930's and 1940's there was a man named Adolf Hitler that was in the same situation. He was insane, (well not that insane, he had his ups and downs.) and he also seemed to commit genocide. Now, how come everyone thinks we should kick Hitlers ass because of just that reason, YET Saddam does the same thing and we don't wanna touch him. If anyone remembers from history the League of Nations they should know exactly where I will go with this. If you don't know what the League of Nations is, it was similar to the U.N. after WW1 a group of nations(Including Britian and France) decided to ban together and creat an organization that would ensure peace in the Europe. When Hitler rose to power they thought just like the U.N. "Oh, don't worry, he only wants a little bit, sure he is building an army, but we are in no shape to fight, so lets just let him have what he wants and see if that settles him." So they gave him Czech. and Austria, you know that is all he said he wanted, so why not. Then he decides to start breaking some ruler, move troops around that first off, he isn't allowed to have. (which can't happen to Saddam because hey, we let him do what he wants) Italy takes Ethiopia, League of Nations doesn't act. Germany moves his troops to his borders, nope, no reaction yet. Oh, but then they attack Poland and now we start to think about fighting.

Now is this what we want to happen in Iraq? Do you want to sit around and let this guy do what he wants? Ok, so people will die, do you know that we went to Iraq, to Afgahn., and back to Iraq, and probably still lost fewer men then we lost at Pearl Harbor all together. People die in wars. I don't like how they have to die either, I'd rather let people live, yes. But most casualties were because of friendly fire or because someone lost control of the helicopter. You can't say that you want to let a mad man loose just to save some men from death when this guy will just continue killing more people.

I don't know why our gov. can't finish off a war. Maybe because they just want to hurry everything up. We already set up a gov. in Afgahnistan so we are rebuilding and maybe we will make a change to the world. Yet, we are rebuilding, the main reason we went there so we are doing good.

You say why can't Iraq have nukes if we are allowed to have them. Ok, I can see that, but you have to remember that we didn't go into the country just because we thought they had nukes. The whole nuke idea was for 2 reasons.
1. We wanted to disarm them before they got nukes so that when we did attack they wouldn't attack us with them.
2. We needed a reason. Before in the Dark ages and such you didn't argue a war. You were proud to go to war. You fought right by your king. You did what he said. Now a days everyone argues doing anything because it is unethical. Nothing is unethical. If the US government wants to go to war it is for a pretty damn good reason, either that or it is just Bush trying to hide from the economy. I think we should make modern war like the time of kings and knights. If Bush wants to go to war, fine go ahead. But if I don't see your butt up on the front lines with Chuck from Kansas I am not going to honor you like I honor Chuck. (Ok, so my fav. President didn't fight in his war. BUT HE HAD POLIO! COMON!) Of course the Vice-President doesn't have to fight, we need someone to hold the fort. Also I don't think Cheney will make it.

OK Decius, you want someone to notice you. I will. Imperialism, gee last time I heard that, I had a map quiz on who owned what in Africa. I would think that our war wasn't for defensive purpose. Ok so maybe we need more facts to fight the war. Maybe we should of had our tank commanders stop and find directions to the nearest Saddam look alike.(We never ask) WW3 is just insane. I doubt we want to own the whole world. Plus we couldn't we would need British help, only because we don't want France. Sorry, but I'm American and the freedom fries jokes were just too old. If we wanted to conquer the world, we could have. Ok so maybe we might not be completly successful, but we would get further then anyone else. Remember, we are not out to dominate the world. We had Cuba, we gave it away, we had the Philipinese,(sorry spelling sucks) we gave that away. We are always willing to give everyone their rights. That is why we fight, we fight for others rights. Now sleepy asked why we don't save the people in Libiya. There is only probably one reason we don't. BECAUSE IS WE DIDN'T YOU'D ALL YELL AT US LIKE YOU DID WITH IRAQ! We want to do this but we can't do anything without someone yelling at us for it. If people would see the fact that we are doing good and would stop saying oh we are just warmongers we would be more willing to go into other countries and fight for people.

I still have more ideas on the whole issue so if anyone wants to continue with the great debate just argue to me. I will be more then happy to give my side to it. I tried to get everyones questions.

P.S. I didn't vote for Bush.

I don't remember agreeing with the governments reasons for going to war. I said I agreed with going to war. Just because my government wants oil doesn't mean I wanted war to get oil too. I agree because it took Saddam out of power. Now are you going to tell me that Saddam isn't crazy. When I say crazy I don't mean insane, white jacket, what I mean is that he has radical ideas that threaten the lives of innocent people. And yes, though maybe my government has lied to me, I am not going to say all of it was a lie. I do believe people, innocent people were being killed. They had footage of it, so I believe that. THAT is why I wanted the war. I do want to stop the 40 other evil dictators. My government doesn't want to. I do. But if my government attacked Iraq, I am glad. Though I do disagree with the whole oil idea.

"Do you think USA got into WW2 to free the jews?"
Please tell me you know the difference between the league of nations and USA. I said the League of Nations right?

Here is a situation. You and me live on the same block. I live about 5 houses down from you. Now you can kinda see my front yard from your house. Now somedays, like once, twice a week you look outside and you see me killing any animal you can find. Some days I kill it by lighting it on fire and such, too see what happens. Now are you saying that you'd would be willing to give me a gun? You don't know what I will do with it, but in past experience I have used other methods to harm stuff. That is like Iraq. If Iraq was filled with people that thougth logically and weren't killing everyone then hey, they can have anything they want. But if their government is going to be filled with those types of people, then I support going in there and wipping them out.

Also, I am not saying that our government should not tell us what is going on. It is that when our government does tell us what is going on, everyone freaks out. People don't understand how the world works as well as other people do. People don't think with logic. We have people in our government that can figure out already which countries are threats and which aren't based on their development. Yet, people don't understand that so we need solid arguements to go to war.

So what if we put Saddam in power, if this is true. Germans put Lennin in power, look where that got them. It doesn't matter who did what. So we screwed up, we are willing to take back the mistake. Ok so maybe we do it for the wrong reasons. Look at who our President is. Nothing against Bush, but he probably is using the war as a scape goat for the fact that he screwed up the economy. Trust me, when elections come around and if the people find another Clinton, this whole situation will be solved and nothing left to worry about.

Now do you people want us to go and invade the 40 other countries? seriously answer the question?

1. But I disagree with what the LON did. They sat back and watched Germany basically do what they want. (ok so maybe they did that because they had no military at the time, but there was like over 10 nations in it, I think 10 nations against Germany has a chance of winning.)

2. What I mean is that I don't want to go to war for oil. I want to go to war for the right to free the people. I don't agree for the reason we went to war, but it helps my side of going to war. It is kinda an agreement. You get what you want, I get what I want.(Well so far I haven't, but if I don't I will throw a tempertantrum.)

3. Are you saying that we should send a letter to the U.N. telling them of the situation and right at the end we right at the end we write,"P.S. Opps, we screwed up, our bad."?

4. No, they should tell the truth, but exaggeration helps to please the people. People like you and I will know that it is exaggeration, but we will know it was for the better.

5. YES THEY DID! The Germans sent Lenin on a train to Russia and put him in power. Lenin might not of been the enemy, but Lenin brought Stalin.

6. If the U.S. said that France was the enemy(or any country, but is fun to put the French into an arguement) I wouldn't think they were the enemy. I know what is too much. If they start picking names out of a hat, then I will start to change my mind.

7. I ADMIT IT! MY(and whoever elses) GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT THROUGHT CORPORATIONS! I knew that, you don't have to tell me. But only a few of us seeing that can't really help stop them. When all of America finds that out then maybe it will change, but until then, lets just hope for the best. (oh, and even though I am not able to vote, even before this whole thing, I didn't want either side into office really, though I would kinda like Gore to be in office only seeing as how he was part of the Clinton Admin. and he knows how to keep this country stable. It just so happens that we now have Bush.

It's amazing how much an entire thread such as this one can change in just 2 months time.

Though Bush has always portrayed himself as an incompetent moron, I must say in defense that he is a man that knows what he wants and will do anything in order to get what he wants. He is also a man who has never broken a promise to the American people, which is saying a lot since a president hasn't done the same since Teddy Roosevelt. That's almost a century there, Ladies and gents.

The initial stated reasons for the war with Iraq were not only illusive, but little-founded in logic, but we can blame that on the fact that the president is not at will to disclose confidential information. Ergo, his hard hits on emotions instead of facts.

I believe the war with Iraq was entirely needed, but Bush should have stated more coherent arguments or at least admitted that there was more to it than what he was saying. It is not anyone's right to decide what is right for another group of people, /but/ Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons.

The situation with France is also sketchy. France has every right to choose not to be in a war they don't believe in, /but/ they should have never agreed to join the war when and if the US found chemical or biological weapons. When we did, their refusal to join fueled public dislike.

Our country should have never tried to bully them into it in the first place, but Bush made some valid points against them after they broke their agreement.

Also, regarding the Iraq oil situation, there is no proof America is taking control of oil reserves. Since France only more than half of Iraq's drilling rights, if the US even tried to start siphoning that oil anywhere else, the French prime minister would be up our noses in a split second.

War does bring up the economy, and every president knows a war that ends in victory always reflects well on him.

As I feel this post is losing its cohesiveness, I will simply state that the entire reason I supported the war with Iraq is because Saddam is/was a lunatic, and as a humanitarian, I'd like to see that people who are starving and cutting off the rights of the people they are ruling, should be removed.

The way Bush went about it was all wrong. Time will only tell if everything was done for money or a good reputation, or simply because he wanted to save some people.

The next question is: What will happen to Syria, who Powell has threatened? Burma? Iran? Afghanistan? What's going to happen with them since we have shoved ourselves into the middle east and don't seem too ready to leave?

And if we're going after them, what could be the predicted future for Castro?

hi i thought i should post considering i started this controversy. I don't mean to change the topic (though it kinda isn't totally) i just wanted to add this link about deepcut barracks . It about the dark side of the army and discrimination etc. deepcut claimed that 4 privates killed themselves. Though it is now generally believed that they were killed by others as a finalisation of bullying. The army tried to cover it up as much as possible. but does someone kill themself by shotting themselves across the torso and in the arm? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4544466,00.html

I agree with JetPlane. In the mid '90s we bombed the HELL out of them Serbian genocide monsters. We could have used the same argument against Sad Ham Insane. We didn't. It points to a glaring problem with our "intelligence" agencies, and US leadership. Go Kerry-Edwards!
Eldred

Though Bush has always portrayed himself as an incompetent moron, I must say in defense that he is a man that knows what he wants and will do anything in order to get what he wants. "He is also a man who has never broken a promise to the American people, which is saying a lot since a president hasn't done the same since Teddy Roosevelt. That's almost a century there, Ladies and gents."
Hmmm.. He's lied plenty, or at the very least bent the truth a LOT. He practically promised Iraq had WMDs.

" When we did, their refusal to join fueled public dislike."
What weapons?

"Our country should have never tried to bully them into it in the first place, but Bush made some valid points against them after they broke their agreement."
What agreement?

"Also, regarding the Iraq oil situation, there is no proof America is taking control of oil reserves. Since France only more than half of Iraq's drilling rights, if the US even tried to start siphoning that oil anywhere else, the French prime minister would be up our noses in a split second."
Um.. Most of the oil fields are going to US companies.

"I'd like to see that people who are starving and cutting off the rights of the people they are ruling, should be removed."
That I agree with!

"The way Bush went about it was all wrong. Time will only tell if everything was done for money or a good reputation, or simply because he wanted to save some people."
I reckon all 3.

The war had faulty motives, but I don't give a hoot because I think the war's consequences would be good.