from reading thread one can see that your comments are on the same level as his, the difference he was banned while you keep posting stuff like syria is next,etc.now who is 13 years old?
ban people for their anti-war opinion is

 

He was pretending to be pro war and posting mistakes made by the military in an attempt to make it seem that those who supported the US's actions in Iraq also supported the killing of innocent Iraqi's. Aside from that he was putting after these posts as if this websight supported those actions too, that should get you banned!

You can present your argument in a constructive way, but pretending to be somthing your not to demonize the beliefs of others, and especially affiliating this websight with your intent is wrong.

 

if military can make mistakes and get away, why ban a person who didnt harm or kill anyone?
lets ban smiles
i have seen your comments on this thread pretty appalling.

 

And so have yours.

 

Presenting those mistakes in an attempt to say that those you argue against support them is not debating it is demonizing

No, lets keep personal beliefs to yourself and not try to convey that this websight supports them


What has been appalling? My posts have mostly been about what are other alternatives to deal with Iraq, and catching everyone up on what inspectors are, or how we know Iraq has weapons, so what is appauling, maybe you would like to answer one of those posts; If you want to debate I freely accept

 

rgould and Arlan are the same guy, by the way.

 

Oh, they(him) have a good life. , wait, didn't they argue against themselves before?

 

so you are Dionne Warwick,
i bet you can tell me what car i drive

anyways, i noticed that pro-war people cant stop posting and gloryfying war, unlike anti-war who write 1 or 2 posts and leave this thread, i guess blame it on evolution of mankind. since i am anti-war, i will post no more like my anti-war people and unlike this guy who promised not to post anymore but keeps coming back.you know who you are

 

Other's might be annoyed by you but I can care less about what you may post. If, by chance, you post something that seems interesting and entices me to do some reasearch, then great... it's always good to know both sides and why one works better than the other.

I personally was anti-Bush and anti-war.. i'm still a bit anti-Bush but that's more of me just not liking him like people in the past didn't like Clinton too much... Conservatives glorify Bush, liberals claim him to be an idiot... Liberals glorified Clinton, conservatives claimed him to be a disgrace.

Regardless, it all comes down to how educated you can become about this situation.. I believe it was Street Reeper that brought up the Congressional proceedings, when i researched that it was like OMFG how could i have been so ignorant??? (many thanks for posting enlightening material Street Reeper). I'll say that I am still anti-war, but only in the sense that this kind of conflict could've have held off a bit longer and have been more steadily planned as far as training of our troops (action would still be inevitable). Also, there are many factors that I have brought up in the past, specifically the future of the European Union and how this was an ideal opportunity to have the UK as the symbolic "head" of the EU instead of the supposed leadership status of France (get it? why France, eh?). If every protestor only knew about how even if we owned Iraq, OPEC would still top dawg... but that kind of literature is too extensive to put on a banner and parade around with it.

Like I said in the past, this was about killing as many birds with one stone as possible. For some reason our current administration saw it fit to act now... true that one can say "what were we gonna do? just wait around???" but for the sake of our troops whose lives were taken because of human error, couldn't there have been better training/planning/communication?

[Rant Mode]

I will also say this.. i am definately anti-"anti-war protestors" who are the reason I am f**king late to work no matter how much earlier i leave my house each time. That means I get paid less.. that means I have less buying power... that means someone has a few less sales.. that means someone loses their f**king job because their company has to cut-back and lay-off people in incredibly large amounts (my mom is on the verge of being in that group of hard-working law-abiding citizens of this great and powerful nation). Guys, please help my mom keep her job.. travel to L.A. as much as you can and rent your cars from Hertz Rent-A-Car... our economy and the welfare of many working-class American families NEEDS YOU!

[/Rant Mode]

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by max002
[B]
"....educated you can become about this situation.. I believe it was Street Reeper that brought up the Congressional proceedings, when i researched that..."

i agree with street reeper and max002 for his understanding. i am also sick of the righteous "anit-war" protestors who attempt to rekindle long out-of-context vietnam-like "peace" movements. they only reveal in their behavior and cynicism, even if it is peaceful, that they lack the awareness of what is actually happening. street reeper has put highly salient points in his posts, very informed and clear. remaining ignorant of what is happening is the only way possible for the anti-war camp to exist, as they ignore blaring facts, as if their idealism makes it okay to remain in a cave.

one can be anti-killing. i don't like the idea of killing. but WTF are we supposed to do, then? as a nation? THEY WANTED YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND ME ABSOLUTELY DEAD ON 9/11, prior to it, and thereafter. and OPEC does hold the cards -- another thing the anti-war camp conveniently overlooks to fulfill it's agenda. iraq is a gateway, and a perfect excuse after 9/11, to shift the power structure of the middle east for centuries to come. iraq is not the last of it. only the beginning.

the united states, as it has grown to prominence, cannot remain isolationist, passive, even "nice guy." it is the leader. period. and leaders must make hard choices because they live on the edge. and everyone wants the champion to fall. especially wealthy and powerful ones -- we must sh*t or get off the pot: so what, then? let little assh*le dictators take their sweet *ss time to "comply" with international laws that they have no plan to ever heed or give a sh*t about? >>> "no. don't oust saddam. he still has more time granted by the egalitarian UN peace process of diplomacy to fully disarm and become peaceful. we can only assume, in all fairness, that he is not hiding anything, and, if he is, because he can turn the other cheek, will not ever plan to kill anyone. besides, he's in 12-step hug-and-smile therapy. his tortue chambers and whimsical executions are just nonesense."

and now france and germany have conveniently changed their tune! FU*K THEM. they continue to exist because the united states lets them.

 

Jeeezz, some of you guys know less than jack **** about the geopolitical climate/situation that exists today. Germany and France exist b/c we allow them too...that might very well be one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen posted.

 

"Germany and France exist b/c we allow them too...that might very well be one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen posted." [/B][/QUOTE]

think about it. after WWII, germany was completely ruined. it was rebuilt by the allies. but, instead of 'taking it over" as hitler would have done to the world, we helped germany regain itself. as for france, hitler walked into paris and just didn't even bomb anything. it was under his control easily. the allies got him out of there, too. and today, the sovereingnty of nations is slowly eroding as the united states controls outer space, the proliferation of technology and commerce. whether it is good or not is not the point. it just is the way it is. the proliferartion of technology and wealth has put the united states, for now, at the forefront. now iraq will endure as "iraq" because the united states wants it that way, as it is the better way, actually. keeping them as who they are, governed by themselves, mostly, will better serve the united states in every way. and that is the whole endgame >>> what best serves the united states? yet, as in the case of japan just after their surrender, america will make sure that iraq meets the future as the USA wants it to. japan was allowed to go on as "japan." but it had to sign treaties and agree to virtually eliminate most of it's military force. for now and into the immediate future, iraq will be scrutinized and "guided" by the united states, even if every government official, policeman/woman, sanitation worker, is iraqi. they will exist because the united states wants them to.

and now. syria is being quietly threatened by the united states to "do the right thing." but this is clearly a threat. of course, the united states will not go into france or germany and say "you are here because we allow you to be here, so now we are taking you over as new states." that is ludicrous. and burdensome. and tacky and anything else. but they are rather impotent nations with little global leverage. they balked at the united states because they had economic interests in iraq concerning long-standing oil contracts. and their fear of U.S. imperialism drew them against the military action. but they figured into zero meaning insofar as their influence in the choice to go into iraq. as did the United Nations - another symbolic yet nearly impotent entity.

 

think about it. after WWII, germany was completely ruined. it was rebuilt by the allies. but, instead of 'taking it over" as hitler would have done to the world, we helped germany regain itself. as for france, hitler walked into paris and just didn't even bomb anything. it was under his control easily. the allies got him out of there, too. and today, the sovereingnty of nations is slowly eroding as the united states controls outer space, the proliferation of technology and commerce. whether it is good or not is not the point. it just is the way it is. the proliferartion of technology and wealth has put the united states, for now, at the forefront. now iraq will endure as "iraq" because the united states wants it that way, as it is the better way, actually. keeping them as who they are, governed by themselves, mostly, will better serve the united states in every way. and that is the whole endgame >>> what best serves the united states? yet, as in the case of japan just after their surrender, america will make sure that iraq meets the future as the USA wants it to. japan was allowed to go on as "japan." but it had to sign treaties and agree to virtually eliminate most of it's military force. for now and into the immediate future, iraq will be scrutinized and "guided" by the united states, even if every government official, policeman/woman, sanitation worker, is iraqi. they will exist because the united states wants them to.

and now. syria is being quietly threatened by the united states to "do the right thing." but this is clearly a threat. of course, the united states will not go into france or germany and say "you are here because we allow you to be here, so now we are taking you over as new states." that is ludicrous. and burdensome. and tacky and anything else. but they are rather impotent nations with little global leverage. they balked at the united states because they had economic interests in iraq concerning long-standing oil contracts. and their fear of U.S. imperialism drew them against the military action. but they figured into zero meaning insofar as their influence in the choice to go into iraq. as did the United Nations - another symbolic yet nearly impotent entity. [/B][/QUOTE]

I see what you're saying and I can agree with most of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love this country for the badazz of a nation that it is, but allow me to be devil's advocate... If all the other nations or entities under us are impotent or nearly impotent, and their opinions mean little (as Bush said that we as a Nation shouldn't rely on the opinions of others to do what is "right"), then isn't the US's attitude towards the rest of the world nowhere near democratic in nature? Correct me if that is wrong, but keep in mind that's me being devil's advocate. Thinking critically about this situation can get us farther in undersatnding it.

In retrospect to what you say about other nations.. what happens in warfare is rarely against the people but FOR the people. Wars are against governments nearly all the time. You might say that other countries exist because we allowed them to... just like England allowed us to exist by colonizing, and just like France allowed us to exist by with their actions in the Revolutionary War. Oh, and they happened to do the same again in 1812 when Britain came back and torched D.C. and yet again allowed us to exist. But that's all history. As of right now, it's just a big game of king of the hill. As much as I would want the world to be fair all throughout.. it ain't happening, so for now I enjoy being at #1 along with the rest of you fine maxima-lovin folk

 

"I see what you're saying and I can agree with most of it.
If all the other nations or entities under us are impotent or nearly impotent, and their opinions mean little (as Bush said that we as a Nation shouldn't rely on the opinions of others to do what is "right"), then isn't the US's attitude towards the rest of the world nowhere near democratic in nature?"

>>> yes. real, true-to-life democracy, even in the usa is not a reality. i will say again, the "new world order" is not good or bad. it just IS. regardless of party affiliation.

In retrospect to what you say about other nations.. what happens in warfare is rarely against the people but FOR the people. Wars are against governments nearly all the time.

>>> yes.

"You might say that other countries exist because we allowed them to... just like England allowed us to exist by colonizing,..."

>>> at the outset, yes. when the usa rebelled, no. it took profound force to "disuade" england. and they were so put-off by it that they came back for more in 1812.

and just like France allowed us to exist by with their actions in the Revolutionary War. Oh, and they happened to do the same again in 1812 when Britain came back and torched D.C. and yet again allowed us to exist.

>>> in a way, yes. they did offer help.

"But that's all history."

>>> yes. it is all history. and it does not invalidate what the world is like today, right now.

"As of right now, it's just a big game of king of the hill."

>>> yes. and it will be just that as long as nation-states exist, as long as humans exist in the stage of development that they inhabit today. it is the "human condition." and the usa is currently, overwhelmingly, setting the pace for the centuries to come.

"As much as I would want the world to be fair all throughout.. it ain't happening..."

>>> yes. correct. life is not fair and never was intended to be. it is about dominance. and as much as even i would like to see less emphasis on competition with one another, gratuitous capitalism, etc, that is the way of the current world-model. and it is only going to continue in this way farther than it is now. so it is best to get with the program. it called "new world order." not "new world chaos." out of this current chaos, a new order will be established in the interests of the united states.

in your own microcosm, try going against the IRS too much, as they know thousands cheat and they figure that in, and see suddenly how they will not let you exist.

 

This is what the President said and I agree

"Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America.

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people."

I think it is relevant that our interests are at stake and that some other countries that are weak, cowardly, and generally have no concept of how to handle dictators (pardon my French) may not want to get involved because they are pacifists and do not share the threat on their country.

The US will not allow other countries to decide how it protects itself when we are the ones under the direct threat.

This is truly a fearful time that we live in and no one really knows the danger. Russia has tons of weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands sitting in sheds (from the cold war) because they are too poor to destroy them, and they aren’t quite sure how without possibly killing thousands of their people in the process. These sheds are pad locked and have wholes in the ceilings of them, the security is nil. But these chemical and even nuclear weapons are not what really scare me, they pale in comparison to what destruction other weapons could cause (like the missing small pox virus's from Russia), mainly the end of days.

Biological weapons are the most dangerous; we have reached an age in technology when what has helped advance medicine can also cause catastrophic harm. Biological weapons can now be made so that modern ways of detecting viruses are useless; DNA splicing is possible so that the strengths of one virus can be transferred to another making them immune to modern medicine. Many other hideous ways of weaponizing biological agents exist these are but a few and are easy to do with the proliferation of knowledge that has come out of the medical community.

This was all shown in a comprehensive study on OETA and this truly could be the end of days if militant fundamentalist get their hands on things like this, regimes that would harbor such men and provide haven must be stopped. These men do not care about themselves (they wouldn't fly themselves into buildings if they did) they just want to kill Americans and could kill mankind, as we know it in the process.

My intention is not to scare anyone but to tell you what is happening around you right now, we live in a new age of technology and that technology can be used to cure or to kill, it is time that those who would use it to kill are stopped.

But to end on a good note I am glad that I live in an economically wealthy and free country where I can enjoy driving the best V6 in the world, god bless America and the Maxima of course

 

street reeper has nailed it. he has a more specific elaboration on what my posts say. the point is that whether we like it or not, a leader must lead. and a king, despite his own agenda, if he is a king at all to be respected, must also be paternal in nature and protect. i parallel the usa, as a nation, as the king. and choices are hard hard hard and often unpopular in the time they are made in.

despite the individualistic agendas of bush and all of his administration, there are other issues far more important working simultaneously in this complex time. and even he knows this. the world has evolved in such a way, and so rapidly technologically speaking, that those nations, cultures, who are left out of it have little place in it. especially ones who blatantly support mass-murder as a cultural identity. this polarization through globalization will only continue in the coming decades. literally, this is the end of the beginning. much more is to come. the plates of the world have shifted.

 

 

Kinda old news but yesterday the military found 320 million dollars of US cash that was hidden away behind a false wall, apparently this was the money that came from the oil for food program (suppose to be used as humanitarian aid for the people of Iraq) and Saddam was squandering it away for his regime.

I'll bet you still can't get a protestor to say that it wasn't American sanctions (which were actually in place to help the suffering Iraqi people) that caused the Iraqi people to starve, but Saddams lack of cooperation.

Let's tally them up for the protestors,

- This war is over oil
- Sanctions have caused the Iraqi people to suffer
- A war in Iraq is going to be another Mogodishu because they don't want us there
- The inspections should have been given more time (wrong they are not detectives)
- Let Diplomacy work (didn't work for twelve years or in the final 6 months President Bush gave Saddam a final chance)
- A war with Iraq will increase terrorism in the US and we will see suicide bombings
- The US plans to level baghdad with a capaign called shock and awe that will kill 500,000 Iraqi civilians

to all you d@mn protestors

All of this yet protestors still have not woken up, they are still listening to Hollywood celebraties who rarely even have a highschool diploma.

There are even acts of violence against soldiers in uniform
http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.c...180&xlc=979366

Sorry but if you start walkin all over my country, what it stands for, and the people in uniform that represent it, that's when the words stop. I am d@mn proud of my country (and our men and women in uniform) and it isn't going to take to long for some dumb @$$ talking out of his rear to hit my last nerve. How do you guy's who live around daily protests show restraint, oh I forgot the police that should be protecting us have to keep the peace instead.

 

Wow it seems watching those senate hearings with Kadir Hamza (former chief nuclear scientist for Saddam) did pay off and were right on target. He said that inspectors would never find Saddams nuclear facilities because they are located under ground, and that after the inspectors left in the 90's Saddam dedicated most of his time to finding ways to hide weapons, documents were just found confirming this.

These hearings were even before inspectors were dispatched to Baghdad this last time, it seems that inspections didn't work, and anyone who watched the senate hearings would have been clued in, I'm talking to you war protestors.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_128200.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

 

Where are the "WMD"? If the U.S. troops find the "WMD" I will support this war, otherwise I will not. Pres. Bush used the "WMD" as a pretense to attack another country and if the "WMD" are not found, Bush will face a backlash from the American people at the polls.

If you say that Bush attacked Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator or to rescue the Iraqi people, I can buy that but now he must do that for all the suppressed people on this Earth, places such as Libya, Algeria, North Korea, China(Tibet), Syria, Iran, half of Africa, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries.

 

Either way - it's over - we won.

I don't think if they don't find WMD it will hurt the polls for the president much....some - but not alot.

What will hurt him is not getting this economy rolling....which I'm hoping he will....guess we'll jsut have to see.

 

"If you say that Bush attacked Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator or to rescue the Iraqi people, I can buy that but now he must do that for all the suppressed people on this Earth, places such as Libya, Algeria, North Korea, China(Tibet), Syria, Iran, half of Africa, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries." [/B][/QUOTE]

>>>no.he does not have to do any of that. rather, the united states does not have to do that. the goals for the iraq war are many: one of them is to rid iraq of a terrorist government, namely saddam himself; a "regime." another was to secure a part of the world that holds valuable natural resources that the global economy needs. of course, it is all done with the interests of the united states first. the usa does not want it's safety, way of life, spending power, comfort, etc, threatened. if tibet holds no interest economically, and if it is not a prudent time in history to "liberate" it, then there is no reason to go in there. tibet is of little possible threat to the united states, at least for now. iraq, however, is well-connected to the arab world, despite how it is actually despised by it's neighbors. remember, too, that 9/11 gave the united states "carte blanche" to do whatever the fu*k it wants to, even if there is no direct connection to anything. the attack on iraq was also as symbolic as the falling of the twin towers: the arab world IN GENERAL is humiliated. that statement is for the entire world to see - for china, for libya, for all of those nations. and iraq "went down" for it. specific WMD in iraq is not that important, per se. to the united states, and supposedly to the american people, there is an overwhelming agreement on this. if direct evidence of anything is really found in iraq, then it is just a bonus. but not a requirement. do you see how quickly syria "cooperated" with colin powell? that country apparently does not even need to be bombed into compliance. one look at baghdad and the syrian government has suddenly become more "agreeable." that is the real point. the united states will show no mercy for terrorists, nor nations that help them. besides, the iraqi shakedown displayed fully how much of a butcher saddam is. the war is like "come look, you're next." it is a threatening display of power. that is the point. the fact that the sheite muslim majority, those now "free," hate the united states, too, is not the point. that whole f*cking region hates the jews and the "zionist" nations that support them >>> the united states >>> new york >>> WTC >>> jewish wealth.

for example, do you want some fanatical muslim group, from anywhere, supported by, say, syria, to kill your mom on a flight to visit you from out of town? in the name of islam? do you drive a car? if you do, then you are a zionist and you should die according to them. the pilots who rammed new york and D.C. were, i believe, saudis. did we bomb saudi arabia? no. but did saudi arabia, king fahd, meet with **** cheney about possible military action in iraq? yes. did the military action happen, despite how the "world" did not want it? yes. why? to send them a message. the WMD that you are looking for have already been used >>> they are airplanes. so what is next? suitcase nukes? airborne viruses? besides, they DO have WMD, at least old ones - the united states gave them to iraq to kill iranians!

whether you like it or not, or are "anti-war," this stuff is happening and will only continue to happen. it is a reality. it is not only about oil. but it is about that, very much. it is about shifting tides of world dominance.

sorry, charlie.

 

>>>no.he does not have to do any of that. rather, the united states does not have to do that. the goals for the iraq war are many: one of them is to rid iraq of a terrorist government, namely saddam himself; a "regime." another was to secure a part of the world that holds valuable natural resources that the global economy needs. of course, it is all done with the interests of the united states first. the usa does not want it's safety, way of life, spending power, comfort, etc, threatened. if tibet holds no interest economically, and if it is not a prudent time in history to "liberate" it, then there is no reason to go in there. tibet is of little possible threat to the united states, at least for now. iraq, however, is well-connected to the arab world, despite how it is actually despised by it's neighbors. remember, too, that 9/11 gave the united states "carte blanche" to do whatever the fu*k it wants to, even if there is no direct connection to anything. the attack on iraq was also as symbolic as the falling of the twin towers: the arab world IN GENERAL is humiliated. that statement is for the entire world to see - for china, for libya, for all of those nations. and iraq "went down" for it. specific WMD in iraq is not that important, per se. to the united states, and supposedly to the american people, there is an overwhelming agreement on this. if direct evidence of anything is really found in iraq, then it is just a bonus. but not a requirement. do you see how quickly syria "cooperated" with colin powell? that country apparently does not even need to be bombed into compliance. one look at baghdad and the syrian government has suddenly become more "agreeable." that is the real point. the united states will show no mercy for terrorists, nor nations that help them. besides, the iraqi shakedown displayed fully how much of a butcher saddam is. the war is like "come look, you're next." it is a threatening display of power. that is the point. the fact that the sheite muslim majority, those now "free," hate the united states, too, is not the point. that whole f*cking region hates the jews and the "zionist" nations that support them >>> the united states >>> new york >>> WTC >>> jewish wealth.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I can agree with some of what you say, but the politicans should have said this also, Bush, Rumsfeld, & Company kept on saying we have to go to war to find WMD and they never said anything about scaring Arabs/Muslims. If they had said that, I would have supported them for sure. Now that we are not finding any WMD, there is going to be egg on all their faces. BTW, I hope we do find the WMD, for the integrity of the U.S.

 

I think once they get a lot more of the scientists on the "Deck of Cards" they'll probably not likely find WMD, but realize the huge potential and planning that there was and probably still is with remnants of the regime that are psycho enough to blow the world to bits. I think Saddam and the gang were conscious enough about the focus on finding WMD to the point that they were either very well hidden or perhaps disassembled and so you might not have the weapons, but you'd have the resources/knowledge or procedures to be able to assemble such weapons so that they be used early on in large-scale military campaigns.

Lots of speculation going around about the Information Minister's statements that Iraq didn't plan on using weapons of mass destruction against the "infidels" and i believe that he said that because they had no such weapons able to inflict heavy damage... at least not yet in production at that time.

It'll just take time and uncovered documents to tell that there was a great threat that just couldn't be made obvious to the world unless someone went in there and aired the dirty laundry... something not worth allowing to just "blow over"

Cases like these, it really is "shoot first, ask questions later." Sad to say it, but survival isn't pretty.

 

"It'll just take time and uncovered documents to tell that there was a great threat that just couldn't be made obvious to the world unless someone went in there and aired the dirty laundry... something not worth allowing to just "blow over"

Cases like these, it really is "shoot first, ask questions later." Sad to say it, but survival isn't pretty." [/B][/QUOTE]

yes. that is basically the deal. "WMD" either planned or already existing is the justification, as it is un-"P.C." to just wield "imperialism," eventhough that is what is really happening. if the weapons exist or not is not important, really. WMD is the excuse to go into iraq, as the UN, at it's snail's pace and level of influence, would have never found anything. and the rhetoric about "iraqi freedom" is just that >>> rhetoric. it is actually unimportant, too, to the united states. the suppression of instability is what the united states is really concerened with, as it should be as a world-dominating power. the real agenda is to NEUTER iraq and other middle eatern/eastern potential "threats" just as japan was neutered. just as germany was neutered. that is the real deal between the half-truths and campaigning rhetoric that bush is spewing out at his press conferences and speeches presently. he's campainging. simply put. remember, this is all about political end-games moreso than these idealistic, elusive, half-baked ideas about freedom and democracy. the propaganda machine is alive and well in america and is on fire right now. on both sides.

as i have said in prior posts, the new government in iraq will be designed and created for what is best suited for the united states. the japanese rule themselves, the germans rule themselves, the french rule themselves, the iraqis will rule themselves. but all of those nations either are or are fast becoming militarily irrelevant. neutered. plus iraq has lots of oil. so it is more interesting. france only has cheese and wine. japan has the Skyline GT-R.

 

I like the way you think

What's everyone's take on this "punishment" of France thing going on?

 

Haven't heard anything about it. Anyone know any details.