[vault86]

Give me your reasons. And, please, if u r going to bash bush, be original.

[rjenkinson]

vault86,
this is not your best work. i know you are capable of much more than this! please see me after class so we can talk about your threads.

-r.

[Plaides]

We need a little anarchy (A); a little bit goes a long way...

[fat mac moron]

Because we work less hours per week and make more money than anyone else?

[Plaides]

Originally posted by fat mac moron:
Because we work less hours per week and make more money than anyone else?

How does the hurt the government? Just because you work less and make more isn't bad; efficency...

[DigitalEl]

Why does government suck? Hmmmmm. Ask anyone stuck in rush hour traffic in Phoenix this morning. GW's motorcade shut down one major state route (SR-51) and one major interstate (I-10) for more than a half-hour, right around 7 a.m. Some of the delay was because his motorcade was late, so even if you are someone who pays attention to such things and makes alternate plans, you were screwed.

I wonder how many people were late to work, missed a flight, a doctor's appointment or a job interview? Oh. Wait a minute. There are no job interviews, because for the low-wage, service industry opportunities out there, they generally don't even bother with an interview. They just hand you an apron! My bad.

Just to be an equal opportunity offender, didn't Clinton hold up traffic while he got a haircut awhile back?

Career politicians... So out of touch with the rest of us. They all suck!

[chris v]

"Pre-emptive self-defense" makes us one of the outlaw "rogue nations" that we supposedly abhore. There is no precedent in international law. The concept, if fact, seems to be counter to the tenets of the UN, an international body that, if memory serves me, was OUR idea, back in the forties.

Remember when GWB promised to be "humble" during his campaign? Hah!

CV

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by DigitalEl:
Ask anyone stuck in traffic in Phoenix this morning. GW's motorcade shut down one major state route and one major interstate for a half-hour or so. The last 15 minutes of which was because his motorcade was late.

I wonder how many people were late to work or (worse yet) a job interview, missed a flight or a doctor's appointment?

Just to be an equal opportunity offender, didn't Clinton hold up traffic while he got a haircut awhile back?

Career politicians... So out of touch with the rest of us. They all suck!

Wasn't Clinton's delay due to a haircut on the tarmac of an airport, holding up flights for 30-45 minutes? I fon't remember all the details.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
"Pre-emptive self-defense" makes us one of the outlaw "rogue nations" that we supposedly abhore. There is no precedent in international law. The concept, if fact, seems to be counter to the tenets of the UN, an international body that, if memory serves me, was OUR idea, back in the forties.

Remember when GWB promised to be "humble" during his campaign? Hah!

Hey jerkoff, remember when our nation was attacked in 2001? Turns out that there are all these Muslim extremists who want to kill American civilians because they don't like our way of life. They will not be satisfied until all of us "infidels" are dead and gone.

These gangs spend every waking moment plotting our deaths, and they receive large amounts of funding and resources from those who support the cause. Additionally, certain nations are proudly providing food, water, shelter, weapons, intelligence, and training to these thugs.

BOTTOM LINE: Things have changed since the 2000 campaign.

On IRAQ: First of all, open weapons inpections were mandated by Iraq's Gulf War surrender. Back then, this is what we chose to do instead of ousting Saddam. Iraq has been in clear violation of these terms for many years.

The evidence of Iraqi terror collaboration and sponsorship will be made available when the time comes, and it will be pretty significant. Why don't you wait to see what develops before you make any more ignorant posts on the subject.

What the hell do you expect us to do? Nothing? Just wait for more American deaths?

Perhaps you should study some history, and learn of how much our nation has sacrificed so that you and most of Europe can live in a free society. It's amazing how much you take your freedom of expression for granted.

[scaught]

ok. so why have half a million iraqi children had to die because of sanctions imposed on their country? because their corrupt government wont allow weapons inspections, the children have to die?

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Hey jerkoff, remember when our nation was attacked in 2001? Turns out that there are all these Muslim extremists who want to kill American civilians because they don't like our way of life. They will not be satisfied until all of us "infidels" are dead and gone.

These gangs spend every waking moment plotting our deaths, and they receive large amounts of funding and resources from those who support the cause. Additionally, certain nations are proudly providing food, water, shelter, weapons, intelligence, and training to these thugs.

BOTTOM LINE: Things have changed since the 2000 campaign.

On IRAQ: First of all, open weapons inpections were mandated by Iraq's Gulf War surrender. Back then, this is what we chose to do instead of ousting Saddam. Iraq has been in clear violation of these terms for many years.

The evidence of Iraqi terror collaboration and sponsorship will be made available when the time comes, and it will be pretty significant. Why don't you wait to see what develops before you make any more ignorant posts on the subject.

What the hell do you expect us to do? Nothing? Just wait for more American deaths?

Perhaps you should study some history, and learn of how much our nation has sacrificed so that you and most of Europe can live in a free society. It's amazing how much you take your freedom of expression for granted.

I don't expect us to do nothing. I do, however, think we can abide by international law, since that's what we want Iraq to do.

I'm quite aware of the sacrifices made during WWII, but that has nothing to do with "pre-emptive self-defense." We were attacked by Japan, who was allied with Germany. That was goood old� self defense. (FWIW, I support the efforts of America to bring some kind of peace to Afghanistan.)

Let's see an equal amount of sabre rattling over North Korea... oh, wait. They don't have any oil.

Or how about Khazakstan? Oops, they're letting us use their bases

What about Saudi Arabia, which is where most of Al queda's money seems to come from? They've got a real freedom loving democracy over there, huh?

The problem here is we've all been successfully distracted from the mid-term elections. Iraq will slowly fade from the radar once the Republicans have won back the Senate, which they are almost assuredly going to do.

I don't take my freedom (or yours for that matter) the least bit for granted. I'm more intent than ever on keeping my right to dissent intact. Unfortunately, I must defend your right to call me a jerkoff, however onerous I find that fact.

Cheers,

CV

[Xaositect]

Originally posted by scaught:
ok. so why have half a million iraqi children had to die because of sanctions imposed on their country? because their corrupt government wont allow weapons inspections, the children have to die?

No, the children don't have to die. If what resources the Iraqis had weren't going to the military, the children wouldn't die. But dead soldiers don't play as well to the international press as dead children, so the children get shafted. Sick, isn't it?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The evidence of Iraqi terror collaboration and sponsorship will be made available when the time comes, and it will be pretty significant. Why don't you wait to see what develops before you make any more ignorant posts on the subject.

Oh, I get it. We should just trust the government to always do the right thing and not question it's motivations. Because, as we all know, the government has never done anything that could even remotely be conceived of as betraying the trust of the people. Besides, it's not like one of the main ideas that the U.S. was built around was government accountability to the people or anything...

[scaught]

Originally posted by Xaositect:


No, the children don't have to die. If what resources the Iraqis had weren't going to the military, the children wouldn't die. But dead soldiers don't play as well to the international press as dead children, so the children get shafted. Sick, isn't it?

well. i dont think the iraqi dictatorship that just voted itself into office again gives a flying **** about its people.

and of course, those sanctions arent helping them.

[wdlove]

The Democrat Party "Demogogs" & the hollywood elite are running the greated country on Earth! We need to follow the Constitution, not rule by the Judiciary!

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by scaught:
ok. so why have half a million iraqi children had to die because of sanctions imposed on their country? because their corrupt government wont allow weapons inspections, the children have to die?

"What about the children? Won't somebody please think about the children?"
- In my best Helen Lovejoy voice

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Oh, I get it. We should just trust the government to always do the right thing and not question it's motivations. Because, as we all know, the government has never done anything that could even remotely be conceived of as betraying the trust of the people. Besides, it's not like one of the main ideas that the U.S. was built around was government accountability to the people or anything...

No, you don't get it.
I suggested you wait until the case is made before making an argument. Did you even read the quote to which you replied?

From what I've gathered, you basically stated that even if there is overwhelming evidence, you won't believe it. Pardon my French, but that is crap.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by wdlove:
The Democrat Party "Demogogs" & the hollywood elite are running the greated country on Earth! We need to follow the Constitution, not rule by the Judiciary!

Agreed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
I don't expect us to do nothing. I do, however, think we can abide by international law, since that's what we want Iraq to do.

Let's see an equal amount of sabre rattling over North Korea... oh, wait. They don't have any oil.

What about Saudi Arabia, which is where most of Al queda's money seems to come from? They've got a real freedom loving democracy over there, huh?

The problem here is we've all been successfully distracted from the mid-term elections. Iraq will slowly fade from the radar once the Republicans have won back the Senate, which they are almost assuredly going to do.

International law supports Iraq's honoring of weapons inspections as per Iraq's Gulf War surrender agreement. They're the ones not abiding by international law. Your argument here goes nowhere.

I see that you've tried to divert attention from the issue at hand. I'll address these, however.

OIL: We have plenty of untapped oil reserves here. If oil is to blame, then our environmental extremists are the cause, raising a big fuss over any inclination to tap our reserves and be more self-sufficient. Bush tried early in his term, but sure enough, the liberal wing derailed these efforts.

ELECTIONS: I have not been distracted, so please don't use the word "all". If your attention has been diverted, that's your own problem. Iraq will fade from the radar once inspectors are allowed back. The Bush administration is committed to disarming Iraq and/or a regime change.

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

International law supports Iraq's honoring of weapons inspections as per Iraq's Gulf War surrender agreement. They're the ones not abiding by international law. Your argument here goes nowhere.

I see that you've tried to divert attention from the issue at hand. I'll address these, however.

OIL: We have plenty of untapped oil reserves here. If oil is to blame, then our environmental extremists are the cause, raising a big fuss over any inclination to tap our reserves and be more self-sufficient. Bush tried early in his term, but sure enough, the liberal wing derailed these efforts.

ELECTIONS: I have not been distracted, so please don't use the word "all". If your attention has been diverted, that's your own problem. Iraq will fade from the radar once inspectors are allowed back. The Bush administration is committed to disarming Iraq and/or a regime change.

Gosh you're right about everything! I'm going to stop thinking critically and vote Republican from now on! From today forward, I'll place my blind faith and trust in the chairmen of Halliburton and Enron, while branding all those who don't as un-american.

All in the name of Fatherland-- um-- Homeland security.

Out.

CV

[Buck_Naked]

My number one reason the Government has started sucking.......
Our Government no longer represents us, the person, the family or the individual.

They only represent Industry, special interest and corporations with money.
We now live in the Corporate $tates of America.

We have become second class citizens in a first world country.

[Sven G]

The government "sucks" also because people "suck": every country has, in the end, the political class that its people "deserve" - in the meaning that, if people are unable to (desire to) organize themselves, they are even more prone to being "organized" (sic!) by a bunch of more or less authoritarian and power-addicted nuts.

[driven]

Originally posted by chris v:
"Pre-emptive self-defense" makes us one of the outlaw "rogue nations" that we supposedly abhore. There is no precedent in international law. The concept, if fact, seems to be counter to the tenets of the UN, an international body that, if memory serves me, was OUR idea, back in the forties.

Remember when GWB promised to be "humble" during his campaign? Hah!

CV

The Cuban missle crisis was pre-emptive self-defense. So was our involvement in Korea and Vietnam (at least according to the domino theory.) It's been happening for a LONG time.

[driven]

Originally posted by scaught:
ok. so why have half a million iraqi children had to die because of sanctions imposed on their country? because their corrupt government wont allow weapons inspections, the children have to die?

Ask Saddam.
We allow Iraq to sell oil to raise money for food and medicine.

Do they spend that money on the food and medicine?
(I'll give you a hint: Those anti-aircraft missles that they shoot at American and British warplanes on a weekly basis cost money to replenish.)

Blame Saddam for starving children ... no one else.

[driven]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Agreed.

Both sides use the court system. The democrats seem to run to the courts everytime someone is offended crying "civil rights". (It's been done so often that most folks don't even know a genuine civil rights case or an authentic "protected group" anymore.)

[driven]

Originally posted by chris v:


Gosh you're right about everything! I'm going to stop thinking critically and vote Republican from now on! From today forward, I'll place my blind faith and trust in the chairmen of Halliburton and Enron, while branding all those who don't as un-american.

All in the name of Fatherland-- um-- Homeland security.

Out.

CV

It wouldn't be much different than your blind faith in Terry McAuliffe's agenda.

[chris v]

Originally posted by driven:


It wouldn't be much different than your blind faith in Terry McAuliffe's agenda.

Who the hell is Terry McCauliffe? I have no blind faith in anything, other than that the Earth might continue to orbit a steadily glowing Sun. Without that, we have nothing. Everything else is subject to doubt.

I agree something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein. I just don't think we need to mislead the public/world and break international law in order to do it. I'm all for the pressure Bush is putting on the U.N.-- I'm dead set against us going it alone. (although it's a direct possibillity that all his bluster is just a poker-style bluff, in order to get some action out of the U.N., in which case, he's smarter than I thought) The drawbacks are too great. Have we learned NOTHING from Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Vietnam, Greece, El Salvador, etc. where our hard-line right-wing policies FAILED?

The US has some distance to go before it can truly be practicing what it preaches. I just don't see what's the matter with that idea. If we're so law-abiding then hey, lets abide.

Besides, the topic was "Why govt. Sucks," not "why Govt. is always right."

Just trying to stay on topic.

CV

[chris v]

Originally posted by driven:


The Cuban missle crisis was pre-emptive self-defense. So was our involvement in Korea and Vietnam (at least according to the domino theory.) It's been happening for a LONG time.

Wrong on Korea. That was also Good Old� self-defense. North Korea invaded South Korea, and had control over some 90% of the penninsula when we got involved. We were aiding an ally. Much more similar to the Kuwait situation, if you want to draw an analogy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by driven:


Ask Saddam.
We allow Iraq to sell oil to raise money for food and medicine.

Do they spend that money on the food and medicine?
(I'll give you a hint: Those anti-aircraft missles that they shoot at American and British warplanes on a weekly basis cost money to replenish.)

Blame Saddam for starving children ... no one else.

And how about the American businesses that KNEW that Sadaam was spending the oil-for-food money on weapons that caused mass starvation but they didn't care because they were making money? Or the German businesses?

Secondly, If we knew sanctions weren't working to prevent WMD, then why did we continue to enforce them at untold human costs?

The same people do all the dying while the same people make all the money. War is business. That's why it's waged by governments and not by citizens.

[driven]

Originally posted by chris v:

Have we learned NOTHING from Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Vietnam, Greece, El Salvador, etc. where our hard-line right-wing policies FAILED?

Regarding Vietnam:

How can we call something that Kennedy & Johnson got us into to be a hard-line right-wing policy? (Especially when it took two Republicans to pull us out of Vietnam. ... yes, Nixon took his time in doing so, but he did eventually start the withdrawl.)

It was many things ... but that wasn't it.

Now: (And I hate to defend a democrat's policy here) but one of the predictions of Kennedy/Johnson going into Vietnam was that if we didn't stop the spread of Communism that it would eventually hurt Cambodia, Laos, Burma & Thailand (for starters).

They were partially right: Laos is communist to this day. Burma (Myanmar) is a shell of it's former self living under a military Junta, Cambodia is still recovering from Pol Pot. Thailand managed to hold their own in spite of many coups over the past few decades. (The exception that proves the rule.)

[driven]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


And how about the American businesses that KNEW that Sadaam was spending the oil-for-food money on weapons that caused mass starvation but they didn't care because they were making money? Or the German businesses?

Secondly, If we knew sanctions weren't working to prevent WMD, then why did we continue to enforce them at untold human costs?

The same people do all the dying while the same people make all the money. War is business. That's why it's waged by governments and not by citizens.

You should pose these same questions to the UN. It is their policies.

Insofar as suspending the food for oil program you present a situation where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The UN was under-fire for the sanctions that were starving children. So ... they authorize oil sales to provide a method of feeding and medicating the people. The Iraqi government spends the money on weapons. What is the UN supposed to do? Authorize an invasion to fix things? That is one of the decisions they now face and they are getting damned on that also. The UN (and by extension, the US) is in a no-win situation.

At some point the blame has to be shouldered on Saddam himself. *HE* is the one who started this tragic line of events with his actions. It is his actions that prevent these events from concluding.

(But then again some folks like to blame the west for everything.)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by driven:


You should pose these same questions to the UN. It is their policies.

Insofar as suspending the food for oil program you present a situation where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The UN was under-fire for the sanctions that were starving children. So ... they authorize oil sales to provide a method of feeding and medicating the people. The Iraqi government spends the money on weapons. What is the UN supposed to do? Authorize an invasion to fix things? That is one of the decisions they now face and they are getting damned on that also. The UN (and by extension, the US) is in a no-win situation.

At some point the blame has to be shouldered on Saddam himself. *HE* is the one who started this tragic line of events with his actions. It is his actions that prevent these events from concluding.

(But then again some folks like to blame the west for everything.)

I'm agreed with you that Saddam has to answer for the starvation of his own people. He is guilty of this atrocity.

But i'm attempting to expand the circle of culpability because I believe it's justified. It's not the SAME level of culpability by any means, but this needs to be addressed because it is entirely appropriate to the continuing problem of East-West animosity.

If the UN knew the sanctions were killing innocents but not preventing WMD, why was nothing done? What should be done now to rectify it?

If Western businesses knew that Saddam was abusing the oil-for-food program, why did they continue to do business with him? What should be done now to rectify it?

So many people want to paint this conflict on strictly moral grounds when it's obvious to most people with any perspective that there is no clear moral authority here. It's a quagmire of horrendous mistakes on almost all sides of the situation and yet The West continues to ignore it's own involvement in the creation of the crisis and hold onto policies that only make the problem worse.

[t6hawk]

Little quote from American History:

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:

�Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.�

� George Kennan
Director of Policy Planning
U.S. State Department
1948

and another tidbit about the Iraq "war" as its called.

Estimated total civilian deaths: at least 200,000 people directly from the 1991 terror campaign;
1,000,000 � 2,000,000 people since then from the combined effects of depleted uranium poisoning, polluted water and sanctions.

[wdlove]

The problem is depending on government. The only thing they can really do is protect us, Constttution. Everything done in the US that is important has been done by individuals. Trust in the individual not governemt! Republican vs Democrat!

[driven]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


I'm agreed with you that Saddam has to answer for the starvation of his own people. He is guilty of this atrocity.

But i'm attempting to expand the circle of culpability because I believe it's justified. It's not the SAME level of culpability by any means, but this needs to be addressed because it is entirely appropriate to the continuing problem of East-West animosity.

If the UN knew the sanctions were killing innocents but not preventing WMD, why was nothing done? What should be done now to rectify it?

If Western businesses knew that Saddam was abusing the oil-for-food program, why did they continue to do business with him? What should be done now to rectify it?

So many people want to paint this conflict on strictly moral grounds when it's obvious to most people with any perspective that there is no clear moral authority here. It's a quagmire of horrendous mistakes on almost all sides of the situation and yet The West continues to ignore it's own involvement in the creation of the crisis and hold onto policies that only make the problem worse.

I question whether western businesses actually knew that the oil for food program was being abused. (They may have, I do not know ...) but it was not something that was in the news daily. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Businesses generally don't check how their suppliers "behave" so to speak before making a purchase from them. If I acted that way I'd never buy anything from Adobe or Microsoft. Also: businesses have to answer to shareholders in the form of a maximum profit. There is very little profit in trying to save the world ... that's what governments, philanthropies and NGOs are for.

I'm not sure what could have been done once it was discovered that it was being abused. The two obvious alternatives is to 1) discontinue the sanctions, which basically rewards Saddam for ignoring the UN and creates a VERY VERY dangerous precedent. The other option 2) is to invade and see that the government does in fact feed it's people. (We tried that in Somalia ...)

[driven]

Originally posted by wdlove:
The problem is depending on government. The only thing they can really do is protect us, Constttution. Everything done in the US that is important has been done by individuals. Trust in the individual not governemt! Republican vs Democrat!

Some of the great things about this country: Innovation and individual determinism .. People make their own destiny ... often that involves helping others or leaving the world better than it was found.

One of my favorite American quotes:
If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead, either write things worth reading or do things worth writing." (Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by driven:


I question whether western businesses actually knew that the oil for food program was being abused. (They may have, I do not know ...) but it was not something that was in the news daily. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Businesses generally don't check how their suppliers "behave" so to speak before making a purchase from them. If I acted that way I'd never buy anything from Adobe or Microsoft. Also: businesses have to answer to shareholders in the form of a maximum profit. There is very little profit in trying to save the world ... that's what governments, philanthropies and NGOs are for.

I'm not sure what could have been done once it was discovered that it was being abused. The two obvious alternatives is to 1) discontinue the sanctions, which basically rewards Saddam for ignoring the UN and creates a VERY VERY dangerous precedent. The other option 2) is to invade and see that the government does in fact feed it's people. (We tried that in Somalia ...)

That's part of the irony of situation. The story now is that Saddam always violated the agreements and kept right on with his WMD program despite everything. If that's true NOW, that means Haliburton and others we're knowingly helping Iraq's WMD program bying continuing to do business with him. If, in fact, they DIDN'T know this about Saddam, then the argument today about his WMD program isn't very accurate. Can't have it both ways.

That aside, however, I find your response to be thoughtful and honest. It demonstrates a healthy perspective on the issues that I find to be lacking in most of the national discourse. Simple acknowledgement of our fallibility and involvement in past horrors will go miles towards healing the East-West divide. Right now, I don't see the administration even PRETENDING to listen to all sides of the issues or offer ANY ATTEMPT at admitting past mistakes. If anything, we're more arrogant, beligerant and selfish than ever.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

No, you don't get it.
I suggested you wait until the case is made before making an argument. Did you even read the quote to which you replied?

From what I've gathered, you basically stated that even if there is overwhelming evidence, you won't believe it. Pardon my French, but that is crap.

What you said was: "The evidence of Iraqi terror collaboration and sponsorship will be made available when the time comes, and it will be pretty significant. Why don't you wait to see what develops before you make any more ignorant posts on the subject." What I'm sayind is that rather tha just assume that they will present good evidence in the future, we should demand that they present good evidence now, when the decision is being made so that we can either support it or not based on the facts. If they fail to present the evidence in a timely manner, which they have already failed to do, then that suggests the government either has no such evidence to present and is just hoping no one notices, or is trying to act without getting the consent of the people. Either of these, in my opinion, is an affront to our freedom and should therefore be a crime.

[vault86]

Originally posted by driven:


Some of the great things about this country: Innovation and individual determinism .. People make their own destiny ... often that involves helping others or leaving the world better than it was found.

problem is, the government is in control of your destiny. if u want to do something, and they say you can't, then, you're pretty much screwed. the government isn't very accomodating to people's aspirations.

[vault86]

btw people, you can talk about more than just iraq, palestine, etc..., cuz they are only a part of the system "screwed-up-ocity???"

[malvolio]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

No, you don't get it.
I suggested you wait until the case is made before making an argument. Did you even read the quote to which you replied?

From what I've gathered, you basically stated that even if there is overwhelming evidence, you won't believe it. Pardon my French, but that is crap.

What case? What evidence?
Moron.

[MrBS]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Hey jerkoff, remember when our nation was attacked in 2001? Turns out that there are all these Muslim extremists who want to kill American civilians because they don't like our way of life. They will not be satisfied until all of us "infidels" are dead and gone.

These gangs spend every waking moment plotting our deaths, and they receive large amounts of funding and resources from those who support the cause. Additionally, certain nations are proudly providing food, water, shelter, weapons, intelligence, and training to these thugs.

BOTTOM LINE: Things have changed since the 2000 campaign.

On IRAQ: First of all, open weapons inpections were mandated by Iraq's Gulf War surrender. Back then, this is what we chose to do instead of ousting Saddam. Iraq has been in clear violation of these terms for many years.

The evidence of Iraqi terror collaboration and sponsorship will be made available when the time comes, and it will be pretty significant. Why don't you wait to see what develops before you make any more ignorant posts on the subject.

What the hell do you expect us to do? Nothing? Just wait for more American deaths?

Perhaps you should study some history, and learn of how much our nation has sacrificed so that you and most of Europe can live in a free society. It's amazing how much you take your freedom of expression for granted.

Yeah! let's bomb anything that's a threat! That's good precident! (so will India or Pakistan be the first to follow us?)
~BS

[vault86]

Originally posted by MrBS:


Yeah! let's bomb anything that's a threat! That's good precident! (so will India or Pakistan be the first to follow us?)
~BS

agreed-we didn't sacrifice. we just traded our people for theirs, then slaughtered anyone who disagreed with our actions.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by vault86:

agreed-we didn't sacrifice. we just traded our people for theirs, then slaughtered anyone who disagreed with our actions.

Brilliant. So every time someone gets killed, his killers will be killed by those who feel insulted by his death. So what happens when that second killing is avenged? Do we avenge the second round of revenge killing with a third and then kill a few more people for good measure? That, of course would need to be avenged with more deaths which would then need to be avenged with more deaths, &c. Sounds like a good, solid plan to me.

I suppouse it would help with overpopulation...

[wdlove]

We must protect Americans 1st. Wetbacks will ruin our country as we know it!

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by wdlove:
We must protect Americans 1st. Wetbacks will ruin our country as we know it!

So whether or not someone deserves to live depends on their location?

[wdlove]

Legal immigration is what makes this country the greatest nation on earth. They come here with the desire to become an American, learn English, & succeed!

[vault86]

Originally posted by wdlove:
Legal immigration is what makes this country the greatest nation on earth. They come here with the desire to become an American, learn English, & succeed!

yeah, but then alot of americans start to abuse them, and become prejudiced all over again.