War Protesters...

[TheGame1976]

We do have these weapons but we don't condone terrorism or threaten to blow up Canada or Mexico for no solid reasons.

[gongshow]

Nice pic Klash!!! haha, so true!

[TopCat...]

There are other ways to resolve this conflict without killing innocent people (civilians), and innocent people will DIE!. The U.S. has MANY options available short of WAR. Also we will loose some soldiers also. Ask our dead soldier's family if his/her death was worth it in this situation. BTW: remember we sponsored Iraq's Military against Iran. Sadam was doing the same thing back then, if not more. Remember, there are two sides to every story, and to make informed decisions you must hear both sides with an unbias ear (and I'm not from the Middle East, and I do believe in defending yourself, but what are we defending?).

Peace

Topcat

[PIT]

Originally posted by TheGame1976
We do have these weapons but we don't condone terrorism or threaten to blow up Canada or Mexico for no solid reasons.

Right on.


PIT

[DeezGunz]

Originally posted by goliath.jr
Oh I see - it's all clear now. The US doesn't develop or house these types of weapons? Only the US should have the right to poses such weapons? But I get it now - if we were the only country in the world who had them, it would make global domination much easier to sustain! "There can be only one", right?

We are the peace keepers in this world, if Sadaam is linked to terrorism he should not have access to nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. We have these weapons to keep peace and freedom, and to defend other countries from dictators like North Korea and Iraq. Support our military, god bless America.

[njjuicer]

thses assholes who protest just piss me off

[jjgarcia3]

Originally posted by goliath.jr
Oh I see - it's all clear now. The US doesn't develop or house these types of weapons? Only the US should have the right to poses such weapons? But I get it now - if we were the only country in the world who had them, it would make global domination much easier to sustain! "There can be only one", right?

whats wrong with global domination? every major, influential country since the beginning of time has always had their eyes on other peoples lands, natural resources, ect,ect. the only reason why we're the only real imperialistic power left is because we're the only ones with the resources left and the will and power to do so. its not necessarely right or wrong, its just the way it is. we came out on top after the cold war and we're not about to give up that position. if we want to stay on top we need control of the worlds most valuable natural resource=oil, hence the war in iraq. germany and france dont want to have to deal with us after the war regarding oil. they already have huge amounts invested in iraqi oil fields and dont want to see their stakes gobbled up by us. i can see both sides, it just depends on what side of the atlantic you live on. to all the people whining about no war for oil, how much $$$ are you willing to pay to fill up your gas tank every week? be realistic, dont say any price as long as it saves lives, cuz we all know that aint true.

[jjgarcia3]

Originally posted by TopCat...
There are other ways to resolve this conflict without killing innocent people (civilians), and innocent people will DIE!. The U.S. has MANY options available short of WAR. Also we will loose some soldiers also. Ask our dead soldier's family if his/her death was worth it in this situation. BTW: remember we sponsored Iraq's Military against Iran. Sadam was doing the same thing back then, if not more. Remember, there are two sides to every story, and to make informed decisions you must hear both sides with an unbias ear (and I'm not from the Middle East, and I do believe in defending yourself, but what are we defending?).

Peace

Topcat

any soldiers death is "worth it" as long as he died supporting what he beleives in. a soldiers job is to fight, kill, die for hjis country and considering our armed forces are voluntary, these guys and gals are willing to do so or they wouldnt have signed up to be part of the greatest military machine in history of the earth. will the soldiers death be worth it? what a stupid question. its alot more than just fighting for your country, its fighting for your fellow man beside you in the trenches, the guy that saved your life and the guy whose life youre saving=brotherhood. people need to wake up, the human race is a warring race and short of universal lobotomies we will always be.

[Klash]

Thanks Gongshow

Originally posted by goliath.jr
Oh I see - it's all clear now. The US doesn't develop or house these types of weapons? Only the US should have the right to poses such weapons? But I get it now - if we were the only country in the world who had them, it would make global domination much easier to sustain! "There can be only one", right?

I think I see where your coming from Goliath (assuming your being scarcastic ) But do you really think (in the long run) more lives would be saved if we just let Saddam build up his arsenal of whatever he wanted. Even though it sounds right to let governments do as they please - the world is just to small to let a dictator possess WMD.

Jjgarcia3
if possession of oil in iraq is such a valuable rescource - why didn't we take it in 91'.
A side effect of free speech - a bunch of bs conspiracy theories.

[monstercojones]

listen, it didnt work with ******, its not gonna work with saddam. we let ****** slowly expand his power, knowing full well what was going on. and it got out of hand. this is something we have to stop early, before it can become a global problem. support our govt or leave.

[jjgarcia3]

Originally posted by Klash
Thanks Gongshow



I think I see where your coming from Goliath (assuming your being scarcastic ) But do you really think (in the long run) more lives would be saved if we just let Saddam build up his arsenal of whatever he wanted. Even though it sounds right to let governments do as they please - the world is just to small to let a dictator possess WMD.

Jjgarcia3
if possession of oil in iraq is such a valuable rescource - why didn't we take it in 91'.
A side effect of free speech - a bunch of bs conspiracy theories.

hey bro, before you make a statement like that towards me you should really do your research cuz you really make yourself sound stupid when you spout off like that. the war IS for oil and im all for it. if we can strengthen our economy while at the same time getting rid of saddam and freeing the iraqi people, why the heel not? the reason we didnt grab it in the first war is first, we were not yet in position to totally eradicate saddam's regime. once he totally surrendered we had to give the opportunity to abide by international laws and resolutiona set down by the UN. the fact that a decade later he has continued to thumb his nose at us and the UN it is clear that he will not abide by these regulations. we have given him his chance to stay in power and keep what he has and he blew it so now whats his is ours (OIL DIPSHIT ) secondly, after the extreme measures taken against us on 9/11 the political landscape of the world has dramatically changed, measures and movements on the geo-political landscape once considered extreme are not so extreme anymore. heres where it comes time time to do your homework, when have we ever fought a war that wasnt over the economy (expansionism, trade embargos enforced on other countries who didnt like it, natural resources, ect. ect.). the only reason we got in the first gulf war was because saddam was threatening to invade saudi arabia (where we get a majority of our oil), freeing kuwait was just a bi-product of us looking out for own interests. once again bro, do your homework before spouting off, if not you sound really ignorant. just trying to help you out,

[jjgarcia3]

oh yeah , by the way klash, that pic is great. we need more people like him to stand up to the naive protesters who have thier priorities screwed up. what do you think of the human shields? i think they should all be tried for sedition and thrown in federal prison to rot (assuming they dont have their brains strewn all over the streets of bagdad once we attack) do they actually think that their pathetic stance to show solidarity for saddam will stop us?

[TopCat...]

Originally posted by jjgarcia3
any soldiers death is "worth it" as long as he died supporting what he beleives in. a soldiers job is to fight, kill, die for hjis country and considering our armed forces are voluntary, these guys and gals are willing to do so or they wouldnt have signed up to be part of the greatest military machine in history of the earth. will the soldiers death be worth it? what a stupid question. its alot more than just fighting for your country, its fighting for your fellow man beside you in the trenches, the guy that saved your life and the guy whose life youre saving=brotherhood. people need to wake up, the human race is a warring race and short of universal lobotomies we will always be.

jjgarcia3, Maybe you can explain to me why "will the soldiers death be worth it? " is a stupid question. Additionally, I won't call you stupid, ignorant, uninformed, narrow minded or any of the other 10 or so derogatory comments that a person that uses only 2% of thier brain may say. I just want to know your reason for calling this a stupid question?

TC

[goliath.jr]

Here is some food for thought.

1) There Is No Justification for Going to War.

What was Iraq's act of aggression against us that justifies war? There has been no attack on the US, no Iraqi threat of war, no Iraqi connection to September 11.

War should be a last recourse of self-defense, a step to be taken only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. What the Bush Administration is planning is an act of aggression, not an act of self-defense. The international coalition that fought the first Gulf War was cemented by the principle that one country cannot invade another without provocation. Now the White House is poised to dismiss the coalition to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. This would violate the US's historic policy against using force preemptively. We should not go to war against a distant country that has not attacked us.

2) Iraq Does Not Pose a Clear and Present Danger

The White House says we should invade Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. But during the 1990s United Nations weapons inspectors dismantled all of Iraq's major chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities and destroyed nearly all of Iraq's weapons and long-range missiles. In terms of conventional arms, Iraq's military is now at one-third of its pre-Gulf War strength. According to Ex-Marine and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military threat. And given Hussein's natural desire for self-preservation, it is highly unlikely he would launch any attack that would result in his destruction. Since deterrence is working, why should the US start a bloody war that would undoubtedly lead to massive human suffering?

3) When It Comes to Invading Iraq, the US Has Few Allies

The international community supports sending weapons inspectors to Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, but it does not support the White House's goal of "regime change." Many countries in the Middle East are opposed to a war with Iraq. Our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. Anti-war marches in England and Italy have drawn hundreds of thousands of people. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to US and global security.

4) An Attack on Iraq Would Make Us Less Safe

An isolated US is an unsafe country. Attacking Iraq without provocation will ignite anti-American sentiment around the world, disrupting efforts to weaken terrorist networks. Any attack would also further destabilize a Middle East already inflamed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the benefits of invading Iraq are murky, the costs are all-too-clear.

5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities at Home

This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. And it's a poorly thought out choice, one that will distract from the social problems here at home. It is estimated that any full-scale invasion of Iraq will cost up to $200 billion. During the first Gulf War, allies like Japan covered 80 percent of the cost. This won't happen again, leaving US taxpayers—already facing budget deficits—to pick up the costs. Instead of spending $200 billion on an unnecessary war, we should be investing in our nation's overcrowded schools and failing health care system.

6) Invading Iraq Would Be Extremely Difficult‹and Without a Clear Victory

An invasion of Iraq will not be nearly as easy as kicking the Taliban out of Kabul. Although Hussein's army has been weakened, Iraq's forces remain large enough to put up a formidable defense. And it is likely that Iraqi forces will be far more determined to defend Baghdad than they were to defend Kuwait City, dragging US forces into a bloody fight in heavily populated areas. And even if the US does overthrow Hussein, what next? As the experience in Afghanistan shows, throwing out a government is easier than putting a new one together. An invasion without allies would leave the US to enforce a peace in a chaotic country fractured by ethnic conflicts.

7) A War Would Kill Thousands of People

An assault on Baghdad would result in far more American casualties than the war in Afghanistan. And the toll on Iraqis would be far higher. According to an estimate by Physicians for Social Responsibility, a full scale invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of as many as 80,000 innocent civilians, or approximately 100 times the number of people killed during the US bombing of Afghanistan.

8) We Should Not Wage a War for Oil

The Bush Administration says we must invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein has violated UN Security Council resolutions, is abusing his own people, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US supports the nuclear-armed dictator of Pakistan and provides billions of dollars in aid to the governments of Turkey and nuclear-armed Israel, both of which are in violation of multiple UN resolutions. The blatant double standard makes one wonder: What is this war really about? The short answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of petroleum, and US oil companies, which exercise immense influence over the current administration, are eager to tap into Iraqi oil. This is wrong. We should not attack people in a far-off country to take their resources.

9) Other Options Besides War Are Available

When North Korea announced that it was close to constructing a nuclear weapon, the Bush Administration didn't threaten war—instead, it started cooperating with our allies in Asia to defuse the situation. The North Korean experience shows a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proves that negotiations are preferable to war. If the White House's end goal is to enhance our security, then dialogue is preferable to conflict.

10) Opposition to the War Is Growing

Americans know deep down that this impending war makes no sense. According to recent polls, 40 percent of Americans are against a war with Iraq.

Our task is to turn the public's latent misgivings into blatant opposition. If the citizens say loud and clear that we don't want a war against Iraq, it will be more difficult for the president to go through with his scheme. We have to educate our fellow citizens about why war with Iraq is wrong, and then hold our elected representatives accountable to the will of the people.

[TopCat...]

Well stated, researched and eloquently delivered!

It's refreshing to hear your point-of-view.

TC