These are my veiws, tear them apart all you want, heck ill debate!

I beleive that all this talk about Iraq coming from Bush is only a thinly veiled way to continue a war. Bush sees that his war on terror(which brought him so much fame, and won the mid term) is starting to slow down in public loving. SO what do you do when you have one good game plan, you repeat it. He has slowly changed his focus from the war on terror to Iraq, he has done it in a way that the public really hasnt noticed. He has based his Administration on war and he is intent to have it.

Sadaam has shown that he is unpredictable. Today he agrees to the UN resolution, no one thought in a million years this would happen. I beleive that sendign troops into Iraq wont be saving llives at all, but adding to the carnage. Saddaam will use his weapon on our soldiers and his civilians in the end, like a cat using claws when stuck in a corner.

The Bush ppl say that they have the blessing of the people. That is now true. I have seen rallies agaisnt war, and have seen ones across the country. If this war turns out to be bad you will see the public react. Once again you will see mass protests disrupting our lives, like those of the Vietnam Era. We dont need that right now, not at all.

Both sides of this conflict will hurt, the Middle Eastern and The American side. Another war in this area will only bring more and more turmoil to the region, splitting the Arab factors against themselves and them against us. I beleive that the solution to the Middle East is to go there with plans of reconciliation and re-building, re-structuring. We should go in as the kind older teacher, not the harsh principal. Plus if bads things happen in this war America will be the ones to blame, not our Allies(which there arnt many) but us. Because we have the hard line position and brought this idea forward, we will be responsible.

This is my position on Iraq. I stand behind my position and bleive that ir represents the real problems our great nation is facing, i hope you have enjoyed.

Originally posted by Proletarian
Sadaam has shown that he is unpredictable. Today he agrees to the UN resolution, no one thought in a million years this would happen.

If he didn't accept the UN resolution it would have meant about a 3 day bombing campaign and he would have been removed. I think it was more likely he would accept it to play the game longer.

I beleive that sendign troops into Iraq wont be saving llives at all, but adding to the carnage. Saddaam will use his weapon on our soldiers and his civilians in the end, like a cat using claws when stuck in a corner.

This would be a very easy bombing campaign. The only issues are outside interference and Israel's reaction in case something is tossed their way.

Once again you will see mass protests disrupting our lives, like those of the Vietnam Era. We dont need that right now, not at all.

This is very unlikely. The bombing of military targets is very precise. There is no draft.

Both sides of this conflict will hurt, the Middle Eastern and The American side. Another war in this area will only bring more and more turmoil to the region, splitting the Arab factors against themselves and them against us.

They certainly have problems. If anything, this may help.

I beleive that the solution to the Middle East is to go there with plans of reconciliation and re-building, re-structuring. We should go in as the kind older teacher, not the harsh principal.

That is fantasy. People are brainwashed to certain degrees everywhere. In the middle east it is real bad.

This is my position on Iraq. I stand behind my position and bleive that ir represents the real problems our great nation is facing, i hope you have enjoyed.

I enjoyed the feelings you expressed, though I do not think they are the most rational. Good post though.

I think we have another visitor from Fantasy Island amongst us.

Saddam violated the first U.N. resolution within 90 days. While the U.S. was under Clinton, Saddam played the biggest game of cat and mouse ever witnessed, he gassed the Kurds, murdered all who spoke out agaisnt him, murdered those who did not vote for him in Iraq's 'free' election, and took the medical supplies Iraq received from it's limited sales of oil, sold them and continued to build his military back to where it is today. Who would want to be the one to go to Iraq and try to reason with him?

Now, add that to the reports (confirmed and unconfirmed) that he assisted bin Laden and the 'confirmed' reports (can we really beleive defectors who wish to see him overthrown in the first place?) that he is within a year of adding nukes to his arsenal to go with his bilogical stockpile.

I think it highly unlikely war can be avoided. Saddam has yearned for WMD since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (he has said in the past that if the Arab's had possesion of nukes, that war would not have been lost). Now that he is this close to acheiving this goal, he will not likely give them up.

Today he agrees to the UN resolution, no one thought in a million years this would happen.

I would have gladly bet money on this and am not surprised. It's all part of Arabspeak 101.:o

Originally posted by Brian
I think we have another visitor from Fantasy Island amongst us.

Saddam violated the first U.N. resolution within 90 days. While the U.S. was under Clinton, Saddam played the biggest game of cat and mouse ever witnessed, he gassed the Kurds, murdered all who spoke out agaisnt him, murdered those who did not vote for him in Iraq's 'free' election, and took the medical supplies Iraq received from it's limited sales of oil, sold them and continued to build his military back to where it is today. Who would want to be the one to go to Iraq and try to reason with him?

Now, add that to the reports (confirmed and unconfirmed) that he assisted bin Laden and the 'confirmed' reports (can we really beleive defectors who wish to see him overthrown in the first place?) that he is within a year of adding nukes to his arsenal to go with his bilogical stockpile.

I think it highly unlikely war can be avoided. Saddam has yearned for WMD since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (he has said in the past that if the Arab's had possesion of nukes, that war would not have been lost). Now that he is this close to acheiving this goal, he will not likely give them up.



You just started out another post with an insult...

And you just regurgitated more government propaganda.

You probably don't even know that it was the US who supplied him with those chemical weapons..

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger

You probably don't even know that it was the US who supplied him with those chemical weapons.. WRONG! Medical supplies were sold to them, along with bio-tech equipment. They were for developing MEDICINE. Not biochemical weapons.

GEEZ!

Why is it, that certain people ALWAYS place the blame for ACTIONS, on the heads of people who DIDN"T COMMIT them? Is it now fashionable to have guilt by proxy? Are you claiming depraved indifference? If so, prove it. I'm part of a jury of your peers. prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. sold him READY TO FIRE CHEMICAL WEAPONS. That all he had to do was detonate them. THEN, I'll buy into the guilt by proxy thing... ok?

Why is it, that certain people ALWAYS place the blame for ACTIONS, on the heads of people who DIDN"T COMMIT them? Is it now fashionable to have guilt by proxy?

Just to nag - this also applies to the thousands of Iraqi soldiers and hundreds of innocent civilians that will die if the US goes to war to oust Saddam.

On the chemicals issue - it's a little naive to sell him chemicals and expect him just to make medicines off thenm. If you wanted to be sure, you should have sold him the medicine, not the chemicals.

Originally posted by Proletarian
These are my veiws, tear them apart all you want, heck ill debate!

I beleive that all this talk about Iraq coming from Bush is only a thinly veiled way to continue a war. Bush sees that his war on terror(which brought him so much fame, and won the mid term) is starting to slow down in public loving. SO what do you do when you have one good game plan, you repeat it. He has slowly changed his focus from the war on terror to Iraq, he has done it in a way that the public really hasnt noticed. He has based his Administration on war and he is intent to have it.

Sadaam has shown that he is unpredictable. Today he agrees to the UN resolution, no one thought in a million years this would happen. I beleive that sendign troops into Iraq wont be saving llives at all, but adding to the carnage. Saddaam will use his weapon on our soldiers and his civilians in the end, like a cat using claws when stuck in a corner.

The Bush ppl say that they have the blessing of the people. That is now true. I have seen rallies agaisnt war, and have seen ones across the country. If this war turns out to be bad you will see the public react. Once again you will see mass protests disrupting our lives, like those of the Vietnam Era. We dont need that right now, not at all.

Both sides of this conflict will hurt, the Middle Eastern and The American side. Another war in this area will only bring more and more turmoil to the region, splitting the Arab factors against themselves and them against us. I beleive that the solution to the Middle East is to go there with plans of reconciliation and re-building, re-structuring. We should go in as the kind older teacher, not the harsh principal. Plus if bads things happen in this war America will be the ones to blame, not our Allies(which there arnt many) but us. Because we have the hard line position and brought this idea forward, we will be responsible.

This is my position on Iraq. I stand behind my position and bleive that ir represents the real problems our great nation is facing, i hope you have enjoyed.
Agree 100%

George W Hitler right now is getting the biggest hard on ever cuz he knows he is going down in history. This is a guy who doesnt give a fling fukk about human life. All he cares about is himself.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger

You just started out another post with an insult...

And you just regurgitated more government propaganda.

You probably don't even know that it was the US who supplied him with those chemical weapons..


I figure if a disusion leader can get away with it, why shouldn't I. And you just regurgitated more :bs: propaganda.

And Qtr is correcct and your are wrong. As usual.

Here are some responces the the thread.

1. Even if we did attack he wouldnt care he is a lunatic, and like i said would hurt us w, whatever he has got to hurl at us.

2. Easy bombing campaign? With what is coming out of the Bush House it sounds more like a war( over 250,000 troops to be led to iraq)

3. The draft wont have anything to do with these protests, different kind of war, different kind of ppl, and different times. Plus what if this does become a bigger thing, draft time.

4. War may help? give me one time where it did a clean, succesful, fast job to peace.

5. NO reconciliation? pessimist!

6. He has problems with his country, assasin would be could to fix that.

7. Show me the evidence of Iraq giving help to bin Ladin

8. and i agree with others who support my ideas. THANK YOU

And Thank you to the rest of you for your ideas!

Originally posted by Proletarian
1. Even if we did attack he wouldnt care he is a lunatic, and like i said would hurt us w, whatever he has got to hurl at us. Not if told that the first WMD would be retaliated against with a nuclear attack. Believe me, even though Saddam WANTS a nuke, I don't think delivered by aerial bombardment is the way he wants to receive it.

2. Easy bombing campaign? With what is coming out of the Bush House it sounds more like a war( over 250,000 troops to be led to iraq) In 1989-90, we sent almost 3/4 of a million troops, and support to play in the sandbox. We OVERestimated his war capability then, I think 250,000 is a more proportional response this time.

3. The draft wont have anything to do with these protests, different kind of war, different kind of ppl, and different times. Plus what if this does become a bigger thing, draft time. Maybe so, maybe no... some people will protest free money.

4. War may help? give me one time where it did a clean, succesful, fast job to peace. 1990. 100 hours from first shot to last.

5. NO reconciliation? pessimist! Realist.

6. He has problems with his country, assasin would be could to fix that. Bush? or Saddam?

7. Show me the evidence of Iraq giving help to bin Ladin Show me evidence of Iraq's innocence.

8. and i agree with others who support my ideas. THANK YOU

And Thank you to the rest of you for your ideas! Fair enough. You're welcome.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


Just to nag - this also applies to the thousands of Iraqi soldiers and hundreds of innocent civilians that will die if the US goes to war to oust Saddam.

On the chemicals issue - it's a little naive to sell him chemicals and expect him just to make medicines off thenm. If you wanted to be sure, you should have sold him the medicine, not the chemicals.

There is no way in hell that you can predict that thousands of civilians will die. However, you can be 100% certain that the Pentagon will use all means necessary to limit civilian casualties. Why? Because this war will be won or lost on television. Why? Because most of us, especially soldiers, do not enjoy seeing innocent people murdered unecessarily.

For those among us still blame the U.S. for Iraqi chemical programs, maybe you should step back about 88 years and blame France using the same flawed logic. After all, they were the ones that came up with the idea and used it without mercy. We just learned from them and passed it on. :rolleyes:

Why? Because this war will be won or lost on television.

I seriously doubt that. I remember back in the days of desert storm heard a general say that the press would not be allowed to just plainly tell the truth like in Vietnam (almost literally how he said it). They will do the same this time, only material the army wants us to see will be allowed to get out of the area. When bad guys do that it's called propaganda and censorship.

We just learned from them and passed it on.

The message is clear. Whatever you do, don't blame the US for anything.

Show me evidence of Iraq's innocence.

Bin Laden hates Saddam. He allowed christianity in Iraq.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
The message is clear. Whatever you do, don't blame the US for anything.
No the message was received from you guys. Don't blame the people committing the acts, Blame the U.S. for everything. Well, it's a two way street. If you can transfer guilt to us, why can't we transfer it to someone else?

I'll bet you're one of those people who would use the twinkie defense.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


I seriously doubt that. I remember back in the days of desert storm heard a general say that the press would not be allowed to just plainly tell the truth like in Vietnam (almost literally how he said it).

Proof? Links?



Bin Laden hates Saddam. He allowed christianity in Iraq.

Which explains why he threatened us if we do attack Iraq? Strange way to demonstrate ones hatred....don't you think?

Don't blame the people committing the acts, Blame the U.S. for everything.

That's nonsense. What happens is that whenever I post the slightest bit of criticism on the US I get jumped on about it. The discussion always moves towards whether or not the US is okay. I guess some people don't care what I think of Saddam, as long as I don't criticise the US.

I'll bet you're one of those people who would use the twinkie defense.

I have no idea what that is.

Proof? Links?

I saw it on television some 12 years ago, I'm sorry, I didn't videotape it. I don't even remember his name.

Strange way to demonstrate ones hatred....don't you think?
Not at all. First, he hates you guys even more, and second, Iraq and Saddam are not the same thing (even though he seems to think so). There are plenty of muslims living there, and those he supports.

I remember back in the days of desert storm heard a general say that the press would not be allowed to just plainly tell the truth like in Vietnam (almost literally how he said it).

I remember that statement too, but a bit differently. What was being referred to was the media's past tactic of using the bodies of dead soldiers and civilians to infleunce (and fix) the publics opinion of the war OUTSIDE the reasons for the war. In Vietnam it was used to portray the futility of war (which should be obvious)
and even the American victories on the battlefield were reduced to nothing but numbers and body bags of casualties. This was taken great advantage of by those filled with nothing but hate for Americans anyway.

I believe it was the information officer at the Pentagon that made the statement.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
On the chemicals issue - it's a little naive to sell him chemicals and expect him just to make medicines off thenm. If you wanted to be sure, you should have sold him the medicine, not the chemicals. Did you not say this? WHY, should a normal, rational person, fear to sell MEDICAL compunds and chemicals to ANYONE? Is there some ulterior motive? Wouldn't that then become the fault of the RECEIVER of the supplies? Did WE mix them up for them? No. So, yet again I ask, how is it MY responsibility, if I sell you a car, then use it as a getaway car for a robbery? How is that MY fault? I had no idea you were planning a robbery. I had no idea you were going to break the law. So, how is it MY fault? It's maybe not the best analogy, but I think it serves the purpose.

True true that a car salesman shouldnt be held responsible for selling a car that would son be used as a getaway car. I bet though that the car salesman didnt know the history of the buyer, and would have never even suspected that the buyer was a criminal. IM sorry but your comparison can be used to say justify us giving chemicals to Canada, and than they build WMD, who would have thought. We have known though that Sadaam would have probably do this.
Thank You

The only reason we need to take him out is because of the stupid policy we started by getting involved there the first time.
Now we are in a get him before he gets us situation.

Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2002 12:02 a.m. EST

Clinton Adviser: CIA Covering Up Saddam's Role in 9/11

The Central Intelligence Agency has suppressed evidence that Saddam Hussein had a hand in
training Osama bin Laden's kamikaze hijackers for the 9/11 attacks, as well as previous al-Qaeda
attacks on U.S. interests around the world, an Iraq expert who advised ex-President Clinton said
Tuesday.

"We have a situation which the bureaucracies that dealt with terrorism in the Clinton years,
including the CIA, accommodated Clinton's desire not to hear that Iraq was involved in any of
these attacks," Clinton 1992 campaign adviser Laurie Mylroie told Fox News Channel's "On the
Record."

"They continue in that position and it will cost American lives," added the Gulf War expert,
whose book "The War Against America" details Saddam Hussein's role in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing.

Mylroie, who has taught at the Naval War College as well as Harvard, said "indications" that
Saddam was involved in 9/11 include "Iraq's training of non-Iraqi militants to take over
airplanes using weapons like box cutters," a reference to Salman Pak, Saddam's notorious
airliner-hijacking school located 45 miles south of Baghdad.

"Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence work together," she contended. "Iraqi intelligence
provides the direction, training and expertise for these major attacks. And al-Qaeda provides the
cover, the ideology and the foot soldiers."

Mylroie isn't the only Clinton adviser who believes that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Former Clinton
CIA Director James Woolsey has publicly endorsed accounts from Iraqi defectors who describe a
seven-year-old hijack training program at Salman Pak.

Last November he told the Fox News Channel:

"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three
Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial
photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including
non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

guys,the us {and under Reagon** did help saddam build up his chemical and bio war indusrty.That is a fact.Also,the germans and several others aidded as well.

Once again,geting involved and listening to our "friends" in the region got us screwed.
Should have just stayed out of it.

WHY, should a normal, rational person, fear to sell MEDICAL compunds and chemicals to ANYONE?

I don't know when those supplies were sold, but if you know someone is a mad dictator you take care not to sell him stuff that he could use to suppress his people or wage war.

Should have just stayed out of it.

Heh - That's what us lefties are saying all the time!

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
WRONG! Medical supplies were sold to them, along with bio-tech equipment. They were for developing MEDICINE. Not biochemical weapons.


Ah, another history revisionist??

WE, the UNITED STATES sold him his chemical weapons in the 1980's. We sold him Anthrax, botulism, Mustard gas, and many other nasty things. I can't believe you've never heard of this..

GEEZ!

Why is it, that certain people ALWAYS place the blame for ACTIONS, on the heads of people who DIDN"T COMMIT them? Is it now fashionable to have guilt by proxy? Are you claiming depraved indifference? If so, prove it. I'm part of a jury of your peers. prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. sold him READY TO FIRE CHEMICAL WEAPONS. That all he had to do was detonate them. THEN, I'll buy into the guilt by proxy thing... ok?



It is a widely known fact that we sold him his chemical weapons, whether they were in a bucket or a missile doesn't make any difference at all. The USA is the largest arms dealer on the planet, and we deal with some of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on the planet. Why don't people like you want the US to take responsibility for it's actions? Why do conservatives claim to be for personal responsibilty yet they always blame others for their actions? Why?

>> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/021001152305.8oa5qvyd.html

Originally posted by Brian



I figure if a disusion leader can get away with it, why shouldn't I. And you just regurgitated more :bs: propaganda.

And Qtr is correcct and your are wrong. As usual.


I haven't insulted anybody, you obviously have some kind of persecution complex.

And actually, Qtr and you are both wrong, you are as usial in complete denial of documented facts. Like most of the right..

Originally posted by 86Dude


There is no way in hell that you can predict that thousands of civilians will die. However, you can be 100% certain that the Pentagon will use all means necessary to limit civilian casualties. Why? Because this war will be won or lost on television. Why? Because most of us, especially soldiers, do not enjoy seeing innocent people murdered unecessarily.

For those among us still blame the U.S. for Iraqi chemical programs, maybe you should step back about 88 years and blame France using the same flawed logic. After all, they were the ones that came up with the idea and used it without mercy. We just learned from them and passed it on. :rolleyes:


Oh you mean on television like the war in Afghanistan which is the most heavily censored ever? Tell that to the families of the over 3000 dead civilians in Afghanistan..

And WE sold them to him, who do you want to blame? Take some responsibility for your governments actions, that's all people want...

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



I haven't insulted anybody, you obviously have some kind of persecution complex.

And actually, Qtr and you are both wrong, you are as usial in complete denial of documented facts. Like most of the right..

No, you've never insulted Cosmo, Bill, me or any other conservative or any other person on this board who disagrees with you.. :bs:

You are the textbook example of todays liberal. If someone does not agree with you, you take a "scorched Earth" policy in talking to them. If you want people to take you seriously, stop insulting those who disagree with you, and discuss your differences logically. It really is that simple...

I agreee tottaly with Coporate Avenger, if our war on Iraq turns out to be anything like Afghanastan we wont hear about the casualties. The media is controlled be politicians, the politicians dont wanna seem non-patriotic, thus they wont advertise the downside to the war. The freedom of knowledge and our right to know wat the heck is going on, does not exist anymore.

Your right to know does in NO WAY supercede the right of other to exist. The others I am refering to would be the soldiers of our and coallition countries. The press need not broadcast troop positions, activities, upcoming missions and so forth. That has happened in the past with quite tragic results.

:rolleyes: Everything's a conspiracy. Got it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Brian
Your right to know does in NO WAY supercede the right of other to exist. The others I am refering to would be the soldiers of our and coallition countries. The press need not broadcast troop positions, activities, upcoming missions and so forth. That has happened in the past with quite tragic results. Don't you know, Brian? It's ok with ALL PC liberals to have our entire population and culture destroyed... who cares if Americans are killed, as long as it's on TV.




I'll cite an example: When MY unit hit the beach in (undisclosed location) there was a TV camera in my face, in the dark, with a great big light. I put the cameraman on the ground in an attempt to protect him from enemy fire, and gosh darn it, the camera (and bulb) got smashed. It probably saved his life (as well as the lives of my unit), yet some leftie was pissed that I was attempting to cover some atrocity up. I wasn't. I was trying to come home to my wife and children. THAT is what was important to me.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Don't you know, Brian? It's ok with ALL PC liberals to have our entire population and culture destroyed... who cares if Americans are killed, as long as it's on TV.




I'll cite an example: When MY unit hit the beach in (undisclosed location) there was a TV camera in my face, in the dark, with a great big light. I put the cameraman on the ground in an attempt to protect him from enemy fire, and gosh darn it, the camera (and bulb) got smashed. It probably saved his life (as well as the lives of my unit), yet some leftie was pissed that I was attempting to cover some atrocity up. I wasn't. I was trying to come home to my wife and children. THAT is what was important to me.


Know what ya mean, dude. I didn't see any action, but, quite a few people I know did. I don't appreciate this 'right to know' :bs: at all.

Besides, since history has ALWAYS been written by the victor, it'll all be published after it happens.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Don't you know, Brian? It's ok with ALL PC liberals to have our entire population and culture destroyed... who cares if Americans are killed, as long as it's on TV.




What the hell are you talking about??

Are you accusing me or anybody else of not caring if people get killed? Well excuse me but it's the pc conservative crowd who are all gung ho about the upcoming BS war for oil where an untold amount of innocent people will be killed. And due to that we will create even more hatred for the USA insuring future acts of terrorism on our soil resulting in the deaths of more innocent Americans..

So if you want to lay blame on any group that will cause death to our people, start with the neo-cons who support this BS war against Iraq.

NOBODY wants to know troop locations or exact locations of anyone. What we want to know is what the hell is going on overseas and what our government is doing. Maybe if the people had known exactly what our government was up to more in the past alot less soldiers would have come home in body bags. Instead of blaming the people you should blame the filthy politicians who use the military for political or economic gains. Read what Smedley Butler said again..

Originally posted by Brian


No, you've never insulted Cosmo, Bill, me or any other conservative or any other person on this board who disagrees with you.. :bs:


Obviously you look at it from a biased perspective, I've been the reciever of far more insults those two and others. Some that went on in every post towards me for weeks on end until they were made to stop. Whereas I got warned for making a joke towards Powerboss the same comment from all the conservatives never resulted in anything being done to them so they carried on and on with it.

And I've mostly only retaliated after being insulted by people like you mentioned..

It usually went something like this>>>


Corporate Avenger posts article about something..

Cosmo and Powerboss respond by calling me a Communist, diseased Liberal, anti-American, tin hat boy, etc..

But I guess that doesn't matter to you..



You are the textbook example of todays liberal


Just remember, YOUR opinion is just that...




If someone does not agree with you, you take a "scorched Earth" policy in talking to them.


:bs: Oh you mean like people who call others "commie anti-American PC leftist whackjobs" everytime someone disagrees with them???


If you want people to take you seriously, stop insulting those who disagree with you, and discuss your differences logically. It really is that simple...


I could care less if people like Powerboss or Cosmo take me seriously. They have zero respect for others opinions, PERIOD.
Respect is a two way street, you disrespect me you will recieve none in turn. Respect me and you wil recieve the same respect back. It's real simple..

Logical debate isn't what many people want to partake in here, If it's not some some pro Bush, pro American, pro US stance you get insulted pretty well. Just look at the reactionary response Criminal got in his Socialism thread. Yea, that's great friendly logical debate goin on there. And the way Cosmo has insulted Igofasts sister and his family repeatedly in the thread in the big debates. I don't see you in there on his case. What's the agenda here?

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Obviously you look at it from a biased perspective, I've been the reciever of far more insults those two and others. Some that went on in every post towards me for weeks on end until they were made to stop. Whereas I got warned for making a joke towards Powerboss the same comment from all the conservatives never resulted in anything being done to them so they carried on and on with it.

And I've mostly only retaliated after being insulted by people like you mentioned..

It usually went something like this>>>


Corporate Avenger posts article about something..

Cosmo and Powerboss respond by calling me a Communist, diseased Liberal, anti-American, tin hat boy, etc..

But I guess that doesn't matter to you..






Just remember, YOUR opinion is just that...







:bs: Oh you mean like people who call others "commie anti-American PC leftist whackjobs" everytime someone disagrees with them???





I could care less if people like Powerboss or Cosmo take me seriously. They have zero respect for others opinions, PERIOD.
Respect is a two way street, you disrespect me you will recieve none in turn. Respect me and you wil recieve the same respect back. It's real simple..

Logical debate isn't what many people want to partake in here, If it's not some some pro Bush, pro American, pro US stance you get insulted pretty well. Just look at the reactionary response Criminal got in his Socialism thread. Yea, that's great friendly logical debate goin on there. And the way Cosmo has insulted Igofasts sister and his family repeatedly in the thread in the big debates. I don't see you in there on his case. What's the agenda here?



Dude, I have been on and off here for a while. I have no idea who igfast's sister is, but, if it was unwarranted, I would have pinged Cosmo as well. This is an internet discussion board. In no way shape or form is it a way of life, nor should people take it as such.

As for an agenda, I really have none. While I don't necessarily agree with many of your posts, I usually take the time read them (depending how abridged the book is). And, believe it ir not, some I DO agree with. I am VERY concerned about Bush's Homeland Security issues. I have thus far not commented because I wanted to read up on it first. (Don't like talking about something I know little of nothing about)

As for Criminal's Socialism thread, I just haven't gone in there a whole bunch to see what people are saying.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



What the hell are you talking about??

This is what I'm talking about:

I'll cite an example: When MY unit hit the beach in (undisclosed location) there was a TV camera in my face, in the dark, with a great big light. I put the cameraman on the ground in an attempt to protect him from enemy fire, and gosh darn it, the camera (and bulb) got smashed. It probably saved his life (as well as the lives of my unit), yet some leftie was pissed that I was attempting to cover some atrocity up. I wasn't. I was trying to come home to my wife and children. THAT is what was important to me. The lefties "right to know" being more important than my life. If you want to know what happened, watch the History channel, AFTER the fact. Don't put "newsies" in front of combat operations. I understand you don't like war. 99.9% of soldiers don't either. What I'm pissed about is the unnecessary loss of life that's caused by jackasses like the reporter who published the Marines departure date, destination, arrival date, etc... When they get where they're going, there's MORE risk of death and injury because this jackass just HAD to tell people because HE didn't like it.

That's just one example, and one where I can very well understand you're pissed off about it.

However, there are also other circumstances, and there's the possibility for the army to let independant reporters travel with those units.

In Desert Storm reporters were kept out of it alltogether, and everything we got to see was first audited by the army, and then released days, or sometimes weeks after the events occurred. There's no way we can assume we got the whole picture from that war.

I wouldn't like that from an army that's operating in my name.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
That's just one example, and one where I can very well understand you're pissed off about it.

However, there are also other circumstances, and there's the possibility for the army to let independant reporters travel with those units.

In Desert Storm reporters were kept out of it alltogether, and everything we got to see was first audited by the army, and then released days, or sometimes weeks after the events occurred. There's no way we can assume we got the whole picture from that war.

I wouldn't like that from an army that's operating in my name. There was a special on the Discovery channel tonight. It'll be on again this week. It's called Inside the Killbox: The Gulf War. Watch it. Learn more about war than you ever wanted to. Warning: It's graphic. It IS, and WAS what happened in the Gulf. No secrets, no B.S. It tells the story from BOTH sides, Iraqi and U.S. There were interviews with Iraqi leaders, sodiers, snipers, everyone.

I am in NO WAY talking aobut info that will be hurting our soldiers. But i do beleive that we need the truth about the war. If the statistics on civilian causalties are to kept secret, isee no reason that they should. I just beleive that the public needs to be informed, this of course is given to us in the constitution as a right we have.

If the Government gives out info that will endanger troops i would also give an outcry. That is also not needed. An incient will show all our enemies that a Democracy doesnt work, but rather a dictatorship does.

"With up to 400,000 protesters marching through London, this was much bigger than anything that took place in Britain against the Vietnam war in the 1960s and bigger than the sizeable CND demos of the early 1980s.

Involving tens of thousands of people, especially young people, who had never marched on a demonstration before, it was reminiscent of recent huge protests in other European countries such as Italy and France.

Coming at a time of renewed industrial militancy, with firefighters, tube and rail workers, local authority workers, teachers and lecturers all taking or preparing to take action over pay and a shift to the left at the top of many unions, this marks a new stage of struggle in Britain.

Opinion polls show that Blair's dossier has had little effect in denting opposition to war against Iraq.

According to an ICM/Guardian poll, 44% disapprove of a military attack compared to 33% in favour. A 'hardcore' of around 40% would oppose war even with a UN resolution. This is an unprecedented level of opposition to war, especially before military action has even begun.

There was a pale reflection of this mood even at Blair's sanitised Labour Party conference, where 40% of delegates voted in favour of a resolution opposing war under any circumstances. The NEC, under pressure, withdrew a resolution which would have left open the question of 'go it alone' action without UN authorisation.

If Blair were to back Bush in unilateral action against Iraq it would create turmoil within the party, leading to a haemorrhaging of party members and even open splits.

An attack on Iraq could unleash a massive explosion in growth in the anti-war movement, which could potentially coalesce with anger against pay, privatisation and other issues affecting working-class people and could even result ultimately in the end of Blair himself"
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/antiwar.htm

once again we see the trend of people not wanting to be part of our war party!

It's called Inside the Killbox: The Gulf War. Watch it.

I would if Discovery's programming in Holland was the same as in the US.

Apart from that, we're talking about 12 years after the fact. We need to know about it when it's happening, that's when politics is being made, that's when guidelines for the future are being decided on. Hindsight isn't very helpful then.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


I would if Discovery's programming in Holland was the same as in the US.

Apart from that, we're talking about 12 years after the fact. We need to know about it when it's happening, that's when politics is being made, that's when guidelines for the future are being decided on. Hindsight isn't very helpful then. Now why would you, or anyone else, need to know which troops are moving where, and attacking what, at the time it hapened? So that the enemy has a better chance? **** that ****. Let the little dumb**** figure out where we are on his own. This special was first aired three months after the war. I was still IN the Gulf... my wife taped it for me, thinking I might have some morbid curiousity. Trust me, being there was bad enough. Having Morley Safer in front of me would have gotten him two to the head. The things you people keep conveniently forgetting, are:


I wanted to come home alive, in one piece.
I wanted it over as soon as it possibly could, with none of my friends dead or wounded.
I didn't want to be there.
It didn't directly pertain to the defense of our borders.
Your knowing where I was, or what I was doing at the time had absolutely NO importance. NONE. The only thing it would have served to do is get me killed, when Abdullah realized the light from the camera was a convenient target to shoot his RPG at.
We pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We stopped the new Hitler before he got going good. We gave him several ultimatums, and each time, the dumbass ignored them. The Republican Guard KNEW we were gonna kick their ass. THEY didn't even want to fight, The first night of battle, how do you explain that my 14 man A-team captured (were surrendered to) by almost 450 Iraqis? I dunno... 14 vs. 450.... doesn't seem like long odds when you're the 450...eh? All THEY wanted was food, medicine, and to go home. Sounds suspiciously like us, Hmmm... I'll bet THEY didn't want cameras there to record their defeat, either.

The things you people keep conveniently forgetting

You're not doing me justice here. I know what you're saying, and I understand it, but I'm focusing on other matters.

I just fear what possible atrocities might be committed and covered up if there's no coverage at all. We all heard the stories about villages in Vietnam being massacred and the rumours about Iraqi soldiers in trenches being bulldozed under the sand. If those things happen, and the military is put in a position where it can censor those events, what do you know about what's being done in your name?

Yes, I agree. Even though the media is sckrewed at times, it is our only way to form our own opinions aobut many different world events, once you cut thruhg the slant. The media is what inspired the peace protests of the Vietnam War, and hopefuly it wil again, or already has.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Obviously you look at it from a biased perspective, I've been the reciever of far more insults those two and others. Some that went on in every post towards me for weeks on end until they were made to stop. Whereas I got warned for making a joke towards Powerboss the same comment from all the conservatives never resulted in anything being done to them so they carried on and on with it.

And I've mostly only retaliated after being insulted by people like you mentioned..

It usually went something like this>>>


Corporate Avenger posts article about something..

Cosmo and Powerboss respond by calling me a Communist, diseased Liberal, anti-American, tin hat boy, etc..

But I guess that doesn't matter to you..






Just remember, YOUR opinion is just that...







:bs: Oh you mean like people who call others "commie anti-American PC leftist whackjobs" everytime someone disagrees with them???





I could care less if people like Powerboss or Cosmo take me seriously. They have zero respect for others opinions, PERIOD.
Respect is a two way street, you disrespect me you will recieve none in turn. Respect me and you wil recieve the same respect back. It's real simple..

Logical debate isn't what many people want to partake in here, If it's not some some pro Bush, pro American, pro US stance you get insulted pretty well. Just look at the reactionary response Criminal got in his Socialism thread. Yea, that's great friendly logical debate goin on there. And the way Cosmo has insulted Igofasts sister and his family repeatedly in the thread in the big debates. I don't see you in there on his case. What's the agenda here?

CA, I agreed to a cease fire which you asked for, over invcidents you initiated. If you are going to start lying again I will happily don my tin foil hat and respond in kind. Grow up.