Mike,


Yes I agree to not being objective on this subject. I just am a very peaceful man who is horrified at what's gonna happen. I understand that you feel differently. You think those questions are irrelevant, but that's because your mind is made up as well. Being able to exchange point of views is what it's all about, without having some fascist come in and attack you because of your views or the country you're from. If you truly can live with the thought of condoning the death of innocent women and children, all the best for you. I know what is right from what is wrong, the big Man above will probably know it too...

And I think you should re-read questions number 12, 19 and 23 because they are VERY relevant.

As other people have said, everything has a consequence. I love the USA, been there and been welcomed with open arms, I just feel terrible to see them go into a conflict which will eventually yield more violence towards the US than before... again, innocent people are gonna die because of some Buffoon, and that is just regrettable...That's all I'm saying really. You want war, I want peace... There is no but or if to add to that. I just believe that there's a price for everything and the US will have to pay that price someday. I have absolutely no fear of a terrorist attack in my country, or Europe for that matter (except for Spain and the UK...)

Oh, no...don't even start with "the US is to blame...they brought it on themselves" That is absolute BS.

SADDAM is the buffoon here, no one else. HE can prevent ALL of this, yet he chooses to continue his lies and deceptions.

I DO NOT condone the death of innocents. THAT is a huge part of the reason Saddam must go! Are you unaware of the way Saddam has been treating his own people for decades? Forget about US or any other interests for a moment...Humanitarian reasons ALONE are enough justification for removing him. He has imprisoned, tortured, and slaughtered more of his own than will ever be counted! We are not going there to attack innocent Iraqis! We are going there to LIBERATE them from HIM! This diplomatic dance that we're enduring for the benefit of the UN is pointless. No intelligent person can possibly think it is still going to work after all these years! We are beating a dead, rotting skeleton of a horse with this "diplomacy". Saddam has no intention of relenting--ever. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it.

If all the anti-war protesters were TRULY anti-war, and TRULY cared about the plight of the innocent Iraqi people, they would be protesting against SADDAM at LEAST as much as they protest against the US! You hear NOTHING of any protesters finding fault in ANYTHING Saddam has done. It's as if WE are the bad guy, and HE has done nothing wrong! It is possibly the most backwards, uninformed, misled situation I have witnessed in my lifetime. HE started this mess more than 12 years ago...We should have finished him them, we MUST finish him now.

Mike

A fascinating glimpse into the mindset during the Cuban Crisis:

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403r.htm



The money quote:

"My main reason for opposing war was that I believed that Saddam was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction as both the United States and Soviets were deterred during the Cold War. However, in reviewing the 1962 Cuba crisis, I found that when the United States was putting pressure on the Soviets to remove their missiles from Cuba in 1962, Castro was screaming at Moscow to launch a nuclear attack on the United States from Cuba -- even though Castro knew that Cuba would have faced destruction from the U.S. response. This unnerved Khrushchev because he knew the conflict would then probably escalate to full-scale nuclear war. Khrushchev was perfectly willing to threaten to use nuclear weapons but was constrained from using them; Castro, however, would not have been so constrained had he had them. "

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manu
how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers?

I am just your typical conservative knucklehead, far from articulate, but even I can easily refute all these arguments.

But why should I? As if you would change your mind? When I find the time, I'll take on the most egregious arguments.

Don't try and hide behind the "I'm for peace" banner, you are pure and simply anti-American and anti-Bush.

"If all the anti-war protesters were TRULY anti-war, and TRULY cared about the plight of the innocent Iraqi people, they would be protesting against SADDAM at LEAST as much as they protest against the US! You hear NOTHING of any protesters finding fault in ANYTHING Saddam has done. It's as if WE are the bad guy, and HE has done nothing wrong! It is possibly the most backwards, uninformed, misled situation I have witnessed in my lifetime. HE started this mess more than 12 years ago...We should have finished him them, we MUST finish him now.W

Where do you see me condone the actions of Saddam? I am definitely in favor of his elimination. I just happen to believe that this can be done without prejudice to his people. Don't tell me that the US can't just send some Super-Hardcore Gi-Joe commando squad and eliminate him without fuss...And I'm sorry to say but the people you are going to "save" don't seem as enthusiastic as you make it sound. Maybe they know better. What happened to the 300'000 Irakis who helped the allies during the first war but were cowardly abandoned by those same allies and massacred? Where's your guarantee that this won't happen again?

Again, while responding to this, please re-read question Number 23 and answer it please. Why Iraq and not Pakistan, for example.???..And what about Staline? He murdered millions of people yet he is still loved and missed and honored back in Russia. Look at Pinochet, look at Castro, being a dictator doesn't mean that all or the majority of the inhabitants of the country are against it...

And why do you feel that the US is qualified to decide who is best to lead another country's government? I think this is typically something which should be left to the UN. Or do you just think that the US is better than the entire rest of the world, and the only organisation which allows the opinion of every country in the world to be heard? Basically this allows to push for democracy, while condoning unilateralism, or the law of the bully...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by glenmore

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers? I am just your typical conservative knucklehead, far from articulate, but even I can easily refute all these arguments. But why should I? As if you would change your mind? When I find the time, I'll take on the most egregious arguments. Don't try and hide behind the "I'm for peace" banner, you are pure and simply anti-American and anti-Bush.

Oh yeah? Well then answer them one by one, if you're that good and it's that easy. Just in the interest of the debate, of course. Come on, one after the other, using the little numbers.

Thanks for proving my point about not being able to answer a single one of those questions but trying to discredit the people who disagree with you, in that case by calling me anti-american.
Great application of democracy. Like it or not, I don't try to put down people I disagree with, can you claim the same? I am so much more in touch with democracy and freedom of speech than you'll ever be. Hey I got an idea, why don't you and LGB and all the other people who think like you just put all those who disagree into little working camps? That would be a great way to silence all those ungrateful tree-huggers, right? You could even exterminate them. You'd love that wouldn't you? How do you say it again? First Iraq, then France right?

As LGB said "When this happens in your homes, you'll have the right to speak blah blah" Well I would like to read your thoughts about the resolution signed by the City of New York yesterday who officially opposes a war which is not accepted by the UN.
Figures show that 75% of New Yorkers are against an unilateral action in Iraq. Where does that put people like you and LGB? You like to speak on other people behalf don't you. Cause none of you two come from NY...

As far as being anti-bush, yes I am, I believe that this man has erased decades of effort relating to nuclear disarmement, pollution, and in general understanding between the people of the world. He is a coward, deserting little twat, he was probably sipping coke somewhere in the US while the boys, (read, the poor boys) were swamping along in Vietnam...He's just the puppet of that frustrated ugly brat Condolezza Rice, which is the true actual US president...

Hey Einstein,

One last thing though: How many anti-americans do you see rolling around in 63 Impala's? Point made, you are just a pure and simple imbecile. Probably a coward too, cause you're at home typing this while the boys are out in the desert...thus proving the exact relevance of question number 28...;)

Links :

http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=50256&group=webcast

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/ny-nywar133170836mar13,0,5837419.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-manhattan

;)

Hmmm....does it have to be in that order?

Thank you so much for proving my point. You're a nazi, or at least have the same pattern of thought. http://www.snowtroopers.ca/forumicon...use_smiley.gif


NEXT!

And you, my friend, are a self-righteous pontificating jackass who can't tell a tongue-in-cheek response from a serious one ("just a peaceful man" - yeah, right). I worked for Paribas for several years (prior to the BNP merger) and spent a fair bit of time in Paris. I have a number of French friends from those days, all of whom are intelligent, sensible people. I don't know their views on the impending war, but I know they aren't sucked in by Chirac's self-serving power play.

Like many of your apparent political persuasion you demonize anyone who disagrees with your views - by definition, they're either fools or knaves. Let me save you some time composing your posts - refer to mid-60's Vietnamese/Korean press releases for your text. I haven't been called an imperialist running dog in way too long. BTW, it's no longer fashionable in leftist circles to label people as Nazis - much too specific. "Fascist" is the generic epithet of choice.:rolleyes:

"

OK. We'll start with this easy one.

"28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?"

So non-veteran citizens have no right to decide whether their country goes to war? You think the military should have exclusive determination on whether a country should go to war?

Do you know how silly you sound?

Now, I was a little confused also when it came to light that when Bush and Rummy went to the military to wage war, the generals were not enthusiatic. Why? Isn't the military just like we saw in Dr. Strangelove? Not after Clinton got thru with the military. That is one of Clinton's legacies.

OK. Let's put the Iraqi sitiuation to a vote! Only military personnel and veterans are allowed to vote. Gee, I wonder what the vote would be?

Heated debate is fine, name callign is not. Any further name calling will result in this entire thread being deleted instead of closed.

You can discuss the issue, but don't call people names for having their own opinion that they are entitled to.

Plain and simple.

Alon