Whoa, whoa, when did this turn into something about race?X() Ryan didn't make one racial comment in his entire post! Israel gets money and support because if they didn't their entire population would be anahillated, its not even the same thing! <p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> The US was built on black people and you still spit on us years later and even today <hr></blockquote>
Who do you mean by "you"? white people? Thats not cool to make a generalization like that. Not all white people are racisists who want to keep blacks down, and I'm insulted that you would lump me and Ryan for that matter, assuming he is white, into a category based on racial stereotypes. I have absolutely nothing in common with anyone who is racist except for maybe my skin color and I refuse to even talk with anyone who has a racist point of view. My great great great grandfather fought with the Union army in the civil war, he was shot off of his horse in Georgia and was nursed back to health by ex-slaves, you think he is racist for trying to free blacks from slavery?<p>I have no idea what it is like to be black, but I do have an idea of what it is like to be discrimiated against and legally too. I have missed out on coutless scholarships and job opportunities simply because I am a dime a dozen white boy. My best friend in high school was black and had the same GPA, same ACT scores and he was accepted to tons of great colleges and did not have had to pay a thing, it was only a matter of choosing between Harvard and Stanford. I on the other hand got a few small scholarships and got accepted to a few decent schools. I didn't begrudge him his good fortune, he worked hard and deserved everything he got but I did feel like I wasn't worth as much as a person simply because of my race. Did this make me bitter against all blacks? No it just made me realize that the only way to make everyone equal is to treat everyone equal and punish only the INDIVIDUALS who are racist and bigoted.
War talk
Re: War talk
'94 Blaze Red RS<P>I may not have a lot of horsepower but I know how to use it!
Re: War talk
I can't believe you played the race card here. I am, and never have been a racist. Yes I am white, but that does NOT make me a biggot. If you wanna talk about racism then let's talk about it. If you think that white people are racist you are VERY VERY VERY ignorant. Black people are 100 times more racist. If you don't believe me, turn on your TV. Look at ER, look at Scrubs, look at The Simpsons. (all on FOX sorry 
) Look at any "white" show. Do you see african american's on there? YES!. Now, look at Jaime Fox Show and other "black" comedies. Do you see white people on there? NO! The only time you DO see a white person on a black comedy is if he's either gettin his *** kicked, or acting like a "geek". African Americans, Mexican Americans, and even Asian Americans get everything because we're so afraid that if we give it to a white person we'll get called to court over some ****ed up discrimination suit that we shouldn't be involved in. It's a fact! Now you make a general comment saying that all white people are racist. That is a personal attack on me, and that pisses me off more than most things. I have lost almost all respect for you because of that comment. Just because two white CANADIAN police decided to harrass you, doesn't mean that I am a racist. You know absolutly NOTHING about me and my feelings about racial issues. Are you sure that your white friends were American and not French? Or do you think that if our skin is pale that we hate dark skinned people? What do you think would happen if two black cops pulled me over and harrassed me? Would I come home and say "Damn black bastards, harrassin me cuz I'm white!" or do you think I would say "Damn police, harrassin me cuz I did **** wrong!"? Just because a white guy says a black guy did something wrong don't make him racist. Get a ****ing clue before you start spewin **** you know nothing about. "we feel owned" Bullsh!t. You feel owned because you get the job over a more qualified white person? You feel owned because we white people walk on egg shells because we're terrified that you're gunna pull the race card? Damn, you got a lot to learn fool. The US was NOT built on black people. If you look back in history it was the WEALTHY that had slaves. The wealthy didn't gain wealth by owning slaves, they gained slaves by being wealthy. Also if you look back in history, the wealthy also had WHITE slaves also. The poor were also sold and owned as slaves. I used to hate history class because I hated learning about slavery, but how ungreatful can you be? I mean it's not the best way to get here, but you're here. America is a GREAT place to live, and if the black slaves were not brought here from africa so many years ago, the black people that DO live here and LOVE it here wouldn't be here. Do you think MY ancestors were real happy to be here? Thay came here because they were sick of the situation they were in. But I love it here, and I respect what my fore fathers had to go thru to make it a possibility to live in such a great country. You my friend are the ignorant one about this.<p>This thread was started to debate the current situation with what's going on in Iraq. Let's try to keep it on topic and stop trying to make everyone think we're victimized.<p>[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: VizualXTC ]</p>
) Look at any "white" show. Do you see african american's on there? YES!. Now, look at Jaime Fox Show and other "black" comedies. Do you see white people on there? NO! The only time you DO see a white person on a black comedy is if he's either gettin his *** kicked, or acting like a "geek". African Americans, Mexican Americans, and even Asian Americans get everything because we're so afraid that if we give it to a white person we'll get called to court over some ****ed up discrimination suit that we shouldn't be involved in. It's a fact! Now you make a general comment saying that all white people are racist. That is a personal attack on me, and that pisses me off more than most things. I have lost almost all respect for you because of that comment. Just because two white CANADIAN police decided to harrass you, doesn't mean that I am a racist. You know absolutly NOTHING about me and my feelings about racial issues. Are you sure that your white friends were American and not French? Or do you think that if our skin is pale that we hate dark skinned people? What do you think would happen if two black cops pulled me over and harrassed me? Would I come home and say "Damn black bastards, harrassin me cuz I'm white!" or do you think I would say "Damn police, harrassin me cuz I did **** wrong!"? Just because a white guy says a black guy did something wrong don't make him racist. Get a ****ing clue before you start spewin **** you know nothing about. "we feel owned" Bullsh!t. You feel owned because you get the job over a more qualified white person? You feel owned because we white people walk on egg shells because we're terrified that you're gunna pull the race card? Damn, you got a lot to learn fool. The US was NOT built on black people. If you look back in history it was the WEALTHY that had slaves. The wealthy didn't gain wealth by owning slaves, they gained slaves by being wealthy. Also if you look back in history, the wealthy also had WHITE slaves also. The poor were also sold and owned as slaves. I used to hate history class because I hated learning about slavery, but how ungreatful can you be? I mean it's not the best way to get here, but you're here. America is a GREAT place to live, and if the black slaves were not brought here from africa so many years ago, the black people that DO live here and LOVE it here wouldn't be here. Do you think MY ancestors were real happy to be here? Thay came here because they were sick of the situation they were in. But I love it here, and I respect what my fore fathers had to go thru to make it a possibility to live in such a great country. You my friend are the ignorant one about this.<p>This thread was started to debate the current situation with what's going on in Iraq. Let's try to keep it on topic and stop trying to make everyone think we're victimized.<p>[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: VizualXTC ]</p>~Ryan~
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
-
johnnyb
- Supporting Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: January 26th, 2003, 2:01 am
- Location: Brampton, On, Canada
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by VizualXTC:
<p>If we sit here and keep telling Saddam to disarm, he's eventually going to finish the bombs he's making and he's going to nuke the US.<hr></blockquote><p>
Yet again I'm forced to ask the question, why are you going to attack someone who only has short range missles. N. Korea is developing nuclear weapons at this moment and do you see the american govt. threatening them? No. Are they more of a threat? Yes.<p>My personal belief is that due to the fact that Bush Sr. went to war with them that Jr. automatically thinks they're evil. Clinton didn't attack, and why? He didn't see Iraq as a threat, which to what it looks like is true. What makes me laugh is the only proof that the US and UK can come up with was from some essay written by a student years ago. So that totally discredits their whole argument.
<p>If we sit here and keep telling Saddam to disarm, he's eventually going to finish the bombs he's making and he's going to nuke the US.<hr></blockquote><p>
Yet again I'm forced to ask the question, why are you going to attack someone who only has short range missles. N. Korea is developing nuclear weapons at this moment and do you see the american govt. threatening them? No. Are they more of a threat? Yes.<p>My personal belief is that due to the fact that Bush Sr. went to war with them that Jr. automatically thinks they're evil. Clinton didn't attack, and why? He didn't see Iraq as a threat, which to what it looks like is true. What makes me laugh is the only proof that the US and UK can come up with was from some essay written by a student years ago. So that totally discredits their whole argument.
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by johnnyb:
<p>
Yet again I'm forced to ask the question, why are you going to attack someone who only has short range missles. N. Korea is developing nuclear weapons at this moment and do you see the american govt. threatening them? No. Are they more of a threat? Yes.<p>My personal belief is that due to the fact that Bush Sr. went to war with them that Jr. automatically thinks they're evil. Clinton didn't attack, and why? He didn't see Iraq as a threat, which to what it looks like is true. What makes me laugh is the only proof that the US and UK can come up with was from some essay written by a student years ago. So that totally discredits their whole argument.<hr></blockquote><p>The US has satelite photgraphs of their nuclear weapons labs. We had them before the UN went in there looking for them. The UN keeps saying that Saddam is NOT giving full cooperation to the search party. Why would he resist if he had nothing to hide? Also, Saddam DOES have nuclear and biological weapons. You may not see them, but he has them. Prove that you have a kidney. Can you physically see it? No. Do you think it's there? Yes. But where is the proof? When either the UN or the US finds these biochemical labs and finds the nuclear bombs what are you going to say then? "Well, the US must have planted them there." C'Mon, why are you so hard headed to see the truth? Why are you protecting Saddam? I promise you, the White House and the US government know a HELL of a lot more than you do about this. They also know a hell of a lot more about N Korea than you do. You guys are going to be tasting foot when this is over with. <p>BTW you still fail to answer my question. Where will you stand when Canada decides to back the US?
<p>
Yet again I'm forced to ask the question, why are you going to attack someone who only has short range missles. N. Korea is developing nuclear weapons at this moment and do you see the american govt. threatening them? No. Are they more of a threat? Yes.<p>My personal belief is that due to the fact that Bush Sr. went to war with them that Jr. automatically thinks they're evil. Clinton didn't attack, and why? He didn't see Iraq as a threat, which to what it looks like is true. What makes me laugh is the only proof that the US and UK can come up with was from some essay written by a student years ago. So that totally discredits their whole argument.<hr></blockquote><p>The US has satelite photgraphs of their nuclear weapons labs. We had them before the UN went in there looking for them. The UN keeps saying that Saddam is NOT giving full cooperation to the search party. Why would he resist if he had nothing to hide? Also, Saddam DOES have nuclear and biological weapons. You may not see them, but he has them. Prove that you have a kidney. Can you physically see it? No. Do you think it's there? Yes. But where is the proof? When either the UN or the US finds these biochemical labs and finds the nuclear bombs what are you going to say then? "Well, the US must have planted them there." C'Mon, why are you so hard headed to see the truth? Why are you protecting Saddam? I promise you, the White House and the US government know a HELL of a lot more than you do about this. They also know a hell of a lot more about N Korea than you do. You guys are going to be tasting foot when this is over with. <p>BTW you still fail to answer my question. Where will you stand when Canada decides to back the US?
~Ryan~
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
Re: War talk
No reason for me to say anything. I'm done. I left the conversation last time due to the same garbage that comes out of Ryan's mouth. If you can't see the correlation then that's your close mindedness.<p>one 
-
curtklze
- Regular Member
- Posts: 1749
- Joined: April 17th, 2002, 2:01 am
- Location: Okotoks, Alberta Canada
- Contact:
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by VizualXTC:
Where will you stand when Canada decides to back the US?<hr></blockquote><p>I will stand at my job, like I do everyday, cause Im not in the military. I dont care who the government backs. If the government sends people to fight, Ill still say its a stupid thing to do.<p>
here is another consperisy theory.<p>1)hitler invades europe, kills millions.
2)the US govt wants to go and fight, the US people say no, not our problem.
3)japan sends aircraft carriers to pearl harbour.
4)befor they get there, they are spoted, a notice is sent to the govt warning of the fleet of ships,but it got MISSPLACED? HRRMM
5)ships get there blow the place to hell.
6)Now the people say kill them all. so the govt says, "well if thats what you want, sure."
Hrrmm.
Where will you stand when Canada decides to back the US?<hr></blockquote><p>I will stand at my job, like I do everyday, cause Im not in the military. I dont care who the government backs. If the government sends people to fight, Ill still say its a stupid thing to do.<p>
here is another consperisy theory.<p>1)hitler invades europe, kills millions.2)the US govt wants to go and fight, the US people say no, not our problem.
3)japan sends aircraft carriers to pearl harbour.
4)befor they get there, they are spoted, a notice is sent to the govt warning of the fleet of ships,but it got MISSPLACED? HRRMM
5)ships get there blow the place to hell.
6)Now the people say kill them all. so the govt says, "well if thats what you want, sure."
Hrrmm.
DONT SHIP WITH UPS!!! DIE UPS DIE!!!!!
Yes, I AM a bastard
Here is my web site, I made this last year but didnt feel like shareing it untill now.
http://members.rogers.com/curts-klze/
How does this guy know so much?
He's a licenced BMW technician.
Yes, I AM a bastard
Here is my web site, I made this last year but didnt feel like shareing it untill now.
http://members.rogers.com/curts-klze/
How does this guy know so much?
He's a licenced BMW technician.
-
johnnyb
- Supporting Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: January 26th, 2003, 2:01 am
- Location: Brampton, On, Canada
Re: War talk
I will still be against it.<p>In my eyes the US has failed to prove anything to anyone.<p>Those "pictures" they have, were given to them by the British govt. who got them from some kids essay. Because of the sensitive issues in the mid east I strongly disagree going to war. And the UN has said that Iraq has begun to cooperate and have been destroying missles. Since I suspect you have been given your information by your news stations, I should expect that you would give such a fight as they are only giving you ONE, count it, ONE side of the story. I can understand that you would support your leader in such times, but if you were only getting the information the rest of the world was getting then you would see where everyone else is coming from. I get CNN and MSNBC and I have been watching them closely to see what they have been saying. All I see is how Saddam is Evil and he should be destroyed (not litteraly).<p>Think of it this way.... Say Russia was to attack the US and remove the government and place their own because they believe that the US government is a threat to world security, but the natives want to run it, then the British come back and say we found it, we want it, then the french and then the spanish. And say they were willing to go to war to get what they want. Are you saying that Russia would be right? Are you saying that its better to contribute to a bigger problem because they believe that theres a problem even though the US hasn't shown any signs of aggression? I think not.As I said before if you were to see a different side of the story you would agree. There is a bigger problem over there than you are being fed through your news. If Saddam was taken out of power the world would not be a better place because a bigger war would ensue due to greed. The US has yet to show any credible pictures of anything and not some kids essay from years ago to prove to the world that war is justified. In my eyes short range missles aren't a threat to anyone in North America.
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by johnnyb:
Those "pictures" they have, were given to them by the British govt. who got them from some kids essay. <hr></blockquote>
Let's have some proof of this allegation. It was the US governments using the US satelites that took the pictures. Not from some "kid's essay." Also, what do you say about Saddam's step son defecting from Iraq and disclosing TONS of information previously unknown by outside countries?
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>And the UN has said that Iraq has begun to cooperate and have been destroying missles.<hr></blockquote>
My point exactly. They have BEGUN to cooperate. Why were they so secretive, and defiant if they had nothing to hide
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> Since I suspect you have been given your information by your news stations<hr></blockquote>
Well this was kinda funny because I wanna know where you get your information. Are you over in Iraq searching for weapons? Are you the head of your country and have access to classified information? I spend a lot of time on the internet searching and reading information about the current situation. Where do you get your sources?
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Think of it this way.... Say Russia was to attack the US and remove the government and place their own because they believe that the US government is a threat to world security, but the natives want to run it, then the British come back and say we found it, we want it, then the french and then the spanish. And say they were willing to go to war to get what they want. Are you saying that Russia would be right? Are you saying that its better to contribute to a bigger problem because they believe that theres a problem even though the US hasn't shown any signs of aggression? I think not.As I said before if you were to see a different side of the story you would agree. There is a bigger problem over there than you are being fed through your news. If Saddam was taken out of power the world would not be a better place because a bigger war would ensue due to greed. The US has yet to show any credible pictures of anything and not some kids essay from years ago to prove to the world that war is justified. In my eyes short range missles aren't a threat to anyone in North America.<hr></blockquote>
When has the US said we are going to put America in charge? We plan on letting Iraq elect a leader from their population. Also, we have evidence they have more than just short range missiles. The UN said the only ones they can keep are missiles that travel up to 90 miles. If they only have short range missiles, what are they destroying? Makes no sense for them to destroy what they have been told was alright. You contradict. Clear it up, and provide proof to your allegations.<p>EBucks. What the hell. I think that is so funny that you will leave a conversation because you're not making everyone see your side. Face it bro, the war is happening, you can piss and moan as much as you want. Just wait until the war is over and you will see how "closeminded" you truly are.
Those "pictures" they have, were given to them by the British govt. who got them from some kids essay. <hr></blockquote>
Let's have some proof of this allegation. It was the US governments using the US satelites that took the pictures. Not from some "kid's essay." Also, what do you say about Saddam's step son defecting from Iraq and disclosing TONS of information previously unknown by outside countries?
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>And the UN has said that Iraq has begun to cooperate and have been destroying missles.<hr></blockquote>
My point exactly. They have BEGUN to cooperate. Why were they so secretive, and defiant if they had nothing to hide
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> Since I suspect you have been given your information by your news stations<hr></blockquote>
Well this was kinda funny because I wanna know where you get your information. Are you over in Iraq searching for weapons? Are you the head of your country and have access to classified information? I spend a lot of time on the internet searching and reading information about the current situation. Where do you get your sources?
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Think of it this way.... Say Russia was to attack the US and remove the government and place their own because they believe that the US government is a threat to world security, but the natives want to run it, then the British come back and say we found it, we want it, then the french and then the spanish. And say they were willing to go to war to get what they want. Are you saying that Russia would be right? Are you saying that its better to contribute to a bigger problem because they believe that theres a problem even though the US hasn't shown any signs of aggression? I think not.As I said before if you were to see a different side of the story you would agree. There is a bigger problem over there than you are being fed through your news. If Saddam was taken out of power the world would not be a better place because a bigger war would ensue due to greed. The US has yet to show any credible pictures of anything and not some kids essay from years ago to prove to the world that war is justified. In my eyes short range missles aren't a threat to anyone in North America.<hr></blockquote>
When has the US said we are going to put America in charge? We plan on letting Iraq elect a leader from their population. Also, we have evidence they have more than just short range missiles. The UN said the only ones they can keep are missiles that travel up to 90 miles. If they only have short range missiles, what are they destroying? Makes no sense for them to destroy what they have been told was alright. You contradict. Clear it up, and provide proof to your allegations.<p>EBucks. What the hell. I think that is so funny that you will leave a conversation because you're not making everyone see your side. Face it bro, the war is happening, you can piss and moan as much as you want. Just wait until the war is over and you will see how "closeminded" you truly are.
~Ryan~
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
-
Sean Mandell
- Regular Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: February 8th, 2002, 2:01 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by curtklze:
<p>before Isriale, the areas claimed by palistine were all different parts of other countries, and as far as I know they werent trying to get freedom from those other countries untill after Isriale was crated.<p>
I say go to war, let them burn the oil fields.
I need to recover some of my money after that NORTEL belly flop. <p>[ March 14, 2003: Message edited by: curtklze ]<hr></blockquote> <p>1. Isriale as you call it is really Israel.
2. Stick to mechanics
3. Since I work on Bay st. I did quite good with Nortel as I sold at $118 and picked up 50,000 shares at .78 cents. 
<p>Guess who is grabbing the 2006 Rx-7. :p
<p>before Isriale, the areas claimed by palistine were all different parts of other countries, and as far as I know they werent trying to get freedom from those other countries untill after Isriale was crated.<p>
I say go to war, let them burn the oil fields.
I need to recover some of my money after that NORTEL belly flop.
<p>[ March 14, 2003: Message edited by: curtklze ]<hr></blockquote> <p>1. Isriale as you call it is really Israel.2. Stick to mechanics
3. Since I work on Bay st. I did quite good with Nortel as I sold at $118 and picked up 50,000 shares at .78 cents.
<p>Guess who is grabbing the 2006 Rx-7. :p"A hero and a coward both feel fear but it is the hero who reacts first while the coward hides behind the hero"
-
Sean Mandell
- Regular Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: February 8th, 2002, 2:01 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by curtklze:
<p>I will stand at my job, like I do everyday, cause Im not in the military. I dont care who the government backs. If the government sends people to fight, Ill still say its a stupid thing to do.<p>
here is another consperisy theory.<p>1)hitler invades europe, kills millions.
2)the US govt wants to go and fight, the US people say no, not our problem.
3)japan sends aircraft carriers to pearl harbour.
4)befor they get there, they are spoted, a notice is sent to the govt warning of the fleet of ships,but it got MISSPLACED? HRRMM
5)ships get there blow the place to hell.
6)Now the people say kill them all. so the govt says, "well if thats what you want, sure."
Hrrmm. <hr></blockquote><p>1) maybe you don't know this theory but in WWII the U.S.A. kept the war going on for 2 more years by purchasing large amount of gold from Hitler. Hitler was running out of cash and the deuchmark was worthless so he started selling the stolen gold from millions killed for U.S. funds. <p>2)War is Bu$ine$$ and although war might be inhumane, it will kickstart the U.S. economy after it is over. <p>3)The U.S. is going to war whether the U.N. likes it or not. <p>4)The United States is the Roman Empire of the 21st century.<p>5)Proud to be Canadian!
<p>I will stand at my job, like I do everyday, cause Im not in the military. I dont care who the government backs. If the government sends people to fight, Ill still say its a stupid thing to do.<p>
here is another consperisy theory.<p>1)hitler invades europe, kills millions.2)the US govt wants to go and fight, the US people say no, not our problem.
3)japan sends aircraft carriers to pearl harbour.
4)befor they get there, they are spoted, a notice is sent to the govt warning of the fleet of ships,but it got MISSPLACED? HRRMM
5)ships get there blow the place to hell.
6)Now the people say kill them all. so the govt says, "well if thats what you want, sure."
Hrrmm.
<hr></blockquote><p>1) maybe you don't know this theory but in WWII the U.S.A. kept the war going on for 2 more years by purchasing large amount of gold from Hitler. Hitler was running out of cash and the deuchmark was worthless so he started selling the stolen gold from millions killed for U.S. funds. <p>2)War is Bu$ine$$ and although war might be inhumane, it will kickstart the U.S. economy after it is over. <p>3)The U.S. is going to war whether the U.N. likes it or not. <p>4)The United States is the Roman Empire of the 21st century.<p>5)Proud to be Canadian!"A hero and a coward both feel fear but it is the hero who reacts first while the coward hides behind the hero"
-
johnnyb
- Supporting Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: January 26th, 2003, 2:01 am
- Location: Brampton, On, Canada
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by VizualXTC:
The UN said the only ones they can keep are missiles that travel up to 90 miles. If they only have short range missiles, what are they destroying? Makes no sense for them to destroy what they have been told was alright.<hr></blockquote><p>
Obviously you're not doing your research correctly. Those missles they are destroying only have a range of 150 km or 93.21 miles. If you had done proper research you would know this. 3 miles is nothing.<p>I am now taking myself out of this conversation as I have had enough of the bickering that has begun.
The UN said the only ones they can keep are missiles that travel up to 90 miles. If they only have short range missiles, what are they destroying? Makes no sense for them to destroy what they have been told was alright.<hr></blockquote><p>
Obviously you're not doing your research correctly. Those missles they are destroying only have a range of 150 km or 93.21 miles. If you had done proper research you would know this. 3 miles is nothing.<p>I am now taking myself out of this conversation as I have had enough of the bickering that has begun.
Re: War talk
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by johnnyb:
<p>
Obviously you're not doing your research correctly. Those missles they are destroying only have a range of 150 km or 93.21 miles. If you had done proper research you would know this. 3 miles is nothing.<p>I am now taking myself out of this conversation as I have had enough of the bickering that has begun.<hr></blockquote><p>Good hell, The UN allows Saddam to keep any missile that will travel under 150Km. 90 miles was rounding off. I'm sorry I didn't include the 3.21 extra miles. Now you're just getting into a pissing contest. <p>It's funny that you are all taking yourselves out o f teh conversation before you give viable proof of your allegations. It's because it's all propaganda that you have been fed my your media, and you HAVE no proof.
<p>
Obviously you're not doing your research correctly. Those missles they are destroying only have a range of 150 km or 93.21 miles. If you had done proper research you would know this. 3 miles is nothing.<p>I am now taking myself out of this conversation as I have had enough of the bickering that has begun.<hr></blockquote><p>Good hell, The UN allows Saddam to keep any missile that will travel under 150Km. 90 miles was rounding off. I'm sorry I didn't include the 3.21 extra miles. Now you're just getting into a pissing contest. <p>It's funny that you are all taking yourselves out o f teh conversation before you give viable proof of your allegations. It's because it's all propaganda that you have been fed my your media, and you HAVE no proof.
~Ryan~
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
1994 MX-3 GS Teal
Stock V6 with insane potential
1987 Toyota Pickup
SR5 Xtracab Turbo
--The slow wait until the green light, while the FAST already left when the red went out--
--Sex should be like driving a Honda....slow, obscene, and loud enough for the neighbors to hear--
Re: War talk
Hey Ryan,
All I was trying to say is that the US are a completely divided bunch. Once the war starts are you going to cage all middle eastern people? Canada had a civil war at it's confederation. Upper Canada vs. Lower Canada, known today as Quebec and Ontario, respectively. Today, Quebec lisence plates have a sig, if you will, that says je me souvien, which means 'I remember', or better put they still haven't forgotten that war, and they even tried to separate from the rest of Canada 130 years after this war. Case and point with the Japanese, someone said that they have no problem with the US, as their markets flourish at the hands of US businesses going off shore. Come on! You think that they've forgotten? And word on "da street", from talking to my relatives that do live in the US, is that they are "no uncle Tom, going to fight uncle Sam's war".
You can't tell me that people from the middle east that reside in the US today are not upset with the hastiness to which the US is going to war. Also, you can't tell me that hatred by the ignorant, toward muslims is not growing amongst us all. I repeat 'by the ignorant'.
Tell me this, are there any muslims in the US army?
Anyhow, my point is that the US are a very divided group, as they have upset entire nations and now religious groups all over the world. <p>Ryan, it looks like you against everyone here even Battsoi, who I think has a better handle than you on what is going on. Yet you put his situation of living very close to where this war is taking place down and figure that your place of residence albeit near a US army base is more vulnerable. The US is planning to attak his area. Nobody said that they were going to attak your army base. Hence the reason why a lot of us are tired of what you have to say.
You have included Toronto as a main target for Al-Qaida. I never read or heard about this.
Ryan, thank you for wanting to put your life on the line for the likes of me, johnny b, kurtklze, and many others. I think what we're saying is that we feel secure in our own minds and hearts that we haven't pissed anybody off, so we're safe. I may be mistaken, but Canada is known for its peace keeping missions, not aggression.
As I'm a lover, not a fighter and can face death with a healthy conscience (I'm an assistant priest). You ask where I stand when Canada goes to war. I'll stand for peace. We have people to do that for us, and if I'm recruited to go to war, I'm not going. I feel that this is not my war. This is why I say don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. <p>one
All I was trying to say is that the US are a completely divided bunch. Once the war starts are you going to cage all middle eastern people? Canada had a civil war at it's confederation. Upper Canada vs. Lower Canada, known today as Quebec and Ontario, respectively. Today, Quebec lisence plates have a sig, if you will, that says je me souvien, which means 'I remember', or better put they still haven't forgotten that war, and they even tried to separate from the rest of Canada 130 years after this war. Case and point with the Japanese, someone said that they have no problem with the US, as their markets flourish at the hands of US businesses going off shore. Come on! You think that they've forgotten? And word on "da street", from talking to my relatives that do live in the US, is that they are "no uncle Tom, going to fight uncle Sam's war".
You can't tell me that people from the middle east that reside in the US today are not upset with the hastiness to which the US is going to war. Also, you can't tell me that hatred by the ignorant, toward muslims is not growing amongst us all. I repeat 'by the ignorant'.
Tell me this, are there any muslims in the US army?
Anyhow, my point is that the US are a very divided group, as they have upset entire nations and now religious groups all over the world. <p>Ryan, it looks like you against everyone here even Battsoi, who I think has a better handle than you on what is going on. Yet you put his situation of living very close to where this war is taking place down and figure that your place of residence albeit near a US army base is more vulnerable. The US is planning to attak his area. Nobody said that they were going to attak your army base. Hence the reason why a lot of us are tired of what you have to say.
You have included Toronto as a main target for Al-Qaida. I never read or heard about this.
Ryan, thank you for wanting to put your life on the line for the likes of me, johnny b, kurtklze, and many others. I think what we're saying is that we feel secure in our own minds and hearts that we haven't pissed anybody off, so we're safe. I may be mistaken, but Canada is known for its peace keeping missions, not aggression.
As I'm a lover, not a fighter and can face death with a healthy conscience (I'm an assistant priest). You ask where I stand when Canada goes to war. I'll stand for peace. We have people to do that for us, and if I'm recruited to go to war, I'm not going. I feel that this is not my war. This is why I say don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. <p>one
-
mazda20
- Regular Member
- Posts: 550
- Joined: November 4th, 2001, 2:01 am
- Location: San Antonio, Tx
- Contact:
Re: War talk
This came from a buddy of mine it helps to put things in perspective,<p>I've been deployed to Turkey for about 3 months now and am told I will be here "indefinitely." We aren't flying much and there isn't a whole lot else to do right now, so I get to keep up with the news pretty well on satellite TV. This weekend, I was shocked, and frankly pretty annoyed, to see millions of people around the world protesting potential war in Iraq. Don't get me wrong; I don't disagree with anyone's right to do that. In fact, I encourage it if that is what they truly believe. It is just clear to me based on the ridiculous comments they made to reporters and the carnival atmosphere of the marches that these people have no idea what the actual facts of the matter are. If they knew the facts, I believe many would feel differently. Since there are probably some of "those people" among you and you apparently weren't swayed in the face of Colin Powell's evidence, let me present my perspective to you. <p>Many people out there think that we should just give the inspectors more time, that war should be the last resort. I agree with you--war should be the last resort. Trust me, it's my pink body on the line, not yours. The problem with the "more time" argument is that people are only taking into account the last three months of inspections. Do you realize that there have been UN inspections for a total of 9 out of the last 12 years? That's right, there have NOT been three months of inspections. There have been NINE YEARS of inspections. Do you really think they are working? They haven't turned anything up, but do you really, honestly believe that the Iraqis are not hiding anything? Do you really, honestly believe that inspections will find what they are hiding? How many YEARS of inspections would it take to satisfy you? I think nine is more than enough. <p>Based on Powell's speech alone, even an skeptic can see that the Iraqis know ahead of time where the inspectors are going and clean those sites out before the inspectors get there. We know for sure, FOR SURE, that the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons. No question. The Iraqis continue to claim they don't have them. The inspections have not found them. "Then how could we know that and why won't the government 'prove' it to me," you ask. Intelligence is the answer. The reason you can't know HOW we know is that the way we know that would then be given up. We need the WAY we know that to be secret because we need those sources to continue to provide information so we can DESTROY the chem/bio weapons. In a purely theoretical example, if we bugged a conference room where the Iraqi generals discussed where they were moving their weapons and we told the world of the conversations we overheard there, the Iraqis are not stupid enough to keep talking in that conference room! We no longer have that information coming in. We may not be able to use that info to go destroy the chem/bio weapons. Since that is the REAL GOAL, it is far more important to accomplish that than to convince you. Intelligence is a simple thing to counter if the bad guys know how you are getting your information. The trick is keeping them from knowing your sources and methods. Therefore, the "good stuff" can't exactly be broadcast on the evening news just to satisfy you. <p>Many out there believe that the Iraqis MAY have chem/bio weapons, but don't really care because "they are only for self-defense. They wouldn't actually use them." Let me tell you about the Iraqis and chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. In 1980, Iraq invaded its eastern neighbor, Iran. The resulting Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years. Iraq started it. They invaded Iran and then used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranian troops. They used chemical weapons against Iranian villages and civilians. Oh yeah, the soldiers he captured in that war became medical guinea pigs for chem/bio experiments. They all died as well. (Let's see, who else in history has used humans as guinea pigs for chemical weapons experiments? You can figure that one out, I digress.) "Well, that was war" you say. In 1988, Iraq ordered chemical weapons used against a Kurdish village (all civilians) in northern Iraq. FIVE THOUSAND people died, SEVEN THOUSAND were wounded. For reference, note that 3500 were killed in the WTC attacks. In 1991, after the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi troops to use chemical weapons against another Kurdish village in northern Iraq. He killed everyone in that village--3000 people. The Kurds were all civilians. They were all IRAQI CITIZENS. Saddam killed them because of ETHNIC HATRED. Think of the Kurds kind of like the Gypsies in Italy. The Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians all hate the Kurds. But let me say that again, he KILLED them because of ETHNIC HATRED. Women, children, old people. (once again, sound familiar in history?) He doesn't care.<p>"Well," you say, "Iraq has been oppressed by sanctions since the Gulf War. Its people are starving. It's only natural for them to try to break free from these oppressive resolutions." (Once again, sound familiar in history?) Let me tell you about that. The UN authorized the Oil for Food Program after the Gulf War that would allow Iraq to sell oil to get money for food and medicine for its people while economic embargos remained in place to force Iraq to disarm. International aid organizations have been sending food and medicine for years. Much of it is taken and immediately sold on the black market for cash. That cash is used to buy items (mostly weapons) prohibited in the Gulf War cease fire agreement. Most of the rest sits in warehouses in Baghdad, undistributed to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi government refuses to hand it out because they want to be able to blame the plight of their people on the US. If the people see that the US is sending them food and medicine, that ruins the argument. Much of the money Iraq was
supposed to use to buy food was diverted directly to Saddam Hussein himself. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has built himself forty palaces. That's right, FORTY PALACES! These are not just big houses. The total landmass of Saddam's new palaces totals about NINE SQUARE MILES! The palaces are filled with marble and gold and plenty of portraits of Saddam. Meanwhile, his people starve and he doesn't care.<p>"We should be focusing on Al Qaeda,” you say. "They are the real threat to us." Well Al Qaeda has strong ties with the Iraqi government (you're going to have to trust me on that) and Iraq is a haven for Al Qaeda leaders. Al Qaeda SEEKS chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraq HAS chemical, biological, and IS DEVELOPING nuclear weapons. They are now friends. It doesn't take an Einstein to do the math here. Everyone wants to see a smoking gun. You idiots! If there is a smoking gun, it is too late. The gun has gone off. The smoke will be dead bodies. What do you want, pictures of Saddam playing golf with Osama? After Sept 11th, everyone asked why we couldn't piece it all together beforehand. Why couldn't the government see it coming? What do you think the "smoking gun" would have been back then? Some guys took flying lessons? Some guys got on airplanes with box cutters? Before the actual hijacking, there was not "proof" of anything! Would anyone have supported invading Afghanistan and rooting out Al Qaeda based on that? NO WAY. The smoking gun, well, you know that by now. <p>"Exhaust diplomacy,” you say. First of all, there has been TWELVE YEARS of diplomacy to try to make Iraq disarm. Did you know that Iraq has not fully complied with a single UN resolution in the last twelve years? That's right, not just this stuff about the inspectors. ALL SEVENTEEN resolutions have been ignored. Do you honestly believe that anything we do diplomatically will convince Saddam to disarm? DO YOU? He is only interested in staying in power and is playing the game well to keep himself there. We have tried talking to the him. We have tried economic and trade sanctions. We have tried military action. We have tried no fly zones. We have tried inspections. What else do you suggest? Maybe if we just say "pretty please" he'll comply. We've tried everything else. <p>"Don't act unilaterally,” you say. Last time I checked that word means "by yourself." In case anyone hasn't noticed, France and Germany are the only allies NOT on board. The rest of NATO IS on board. The rest of Europe IS on board. Australia IS on board. Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Netherlands are ALL on board. Over FORTY COUNTRIES have offered military assistance of some sort. Even Jordan, an ally of Iraq, has offered assistance. I'm not quite sure how that translates into unilateralism. Several countries have already deployed forces to take part in any potential military action. This is not the first time the French have balked at striking out at terrorism. In 1986 there were several terrorist attacks across the globe including the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Several of the attacks had been in France, including a nightclub bombing that killed many American servicemen. US intelligence pinpointed the source of the terrorist attacks as Libya. In response, President Reagan ordered military air strikes on terrorist camps inside Libya. Some of the fighters were to launch out of bases in England. Reagan called then French President Francois Mitterand just to ask permission for our fighters to overfly France on the way to Libya. To go around France meant a 16-hour round trip flight for the pilots. Mitterand refused, despite several of the terrorist attacks having happened INSIDE FRANCE. He then had the gall to tell Reagan: "Don't let it be just a pinprick (the air strikes). Really let them have it." The French of all people should know the consequences of inaction. Wishful thinking has cost them their country twice in the last eighty years.<p>The problem with the anti-war activists is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. They don't know any of the FACTS about Iraq and what has happened there. They have paid no attention to the last twelve years and cannot tell you the contents of a single UN resolution. They cannot tell you the names of the military operations that support those resolutions. They would be shocked to know that Americans get shot at virtually EVERY DAY enforcing those resolutions. They have no idea about the sacrifice America has been willing to make for those resolutions to work. They would know it if they ever decided to pay attention. They would know it if they sought out the actual facts. It's in the newspaper every day. It's on the news every night. But they have no idea about the real situation in Iraq. They don't care either. They just want to sit around the coffee house and complain that the government couldn't keep them safe on Sept 11 and then complain when the government now leans forward to keep them safe in a post Sept 11th world. If we don't do something, there WILL be another Sept 11th and it will be ugly. There may be one regardless of what happens in Iraq, but that can't keep us from acting on this. There are people out there that want to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. There is no way to stop every terrorist attack. There just isn't. But we HAVE TO stop the terrorists from getting chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We can't afford to look back one day and realize we could have cut them off at the source. <p>The problem really is wishful thinking. Everyone (including Bush, including me, including anyone else who would bleed in war) wishes there will be no war. We hope there is another way. That is just wishful thinking. Sometimes there is no choice. Sometimes it has to get ugly for the greater good. Look at history for a guide. I've alluded to it several times already. In case you haven't figured out my historical comparison to Hussein, it's Hitler. In the mid-1930s, Hitler began to rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations said "stop." Hitler said "okay" but kept on arming. The League of Nations said "stop" again, but Hitler ignored them. Then Hitler invaded Poland. The world community said "hey, don't do that." Hitler said "if you give me this and this and that, I'll stop. The world said "okay, whatever you want. Anything is better than war. Just stop." It was called “Appeasement." We know what happened next. It was the worst example of diplomacy in history. That mistake cost the world MILLIONS OF LIVES. World War II could have been stopped cold before it started simply by standing up to the bully. Everyone was so afraid of war that they let Hitler get away with whatever he wanted. They gave him an inch and he took a mile. No one stopped him, so he kept on going. Sound familiar? I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein will start invading his neighbors again and take over the Middle East. Note the "again" part--he's already invaded two of his neighbors and set himself up to invade a third before we stopped him in 1990. However, if he gets a nuclear weapon or if he gets long range missiles to deliver chemical weapons, he will be the biggest menace the world has ever known. He will be able to wipe countries off the face of the earth with one button and will blackmail the world to get what he wants. Will everyone be so afraid of war then that they'll give him whatever he wants? If the United Nations does not have the backbone to support it's own resolutions and ensure compliance, then it will go the way of the League of Nations. Why would anyone ever comply with Security Council resolutions if there are no consequences for non-compliance? Do you want to live in that world? <p>"I just don't trust Bush," you say. Why is everyone so willing to trust the Iraqis and so unwilling to trust our own American leaders? The Iraqis say they don't have anything. They say the aluminum tubes are not for nuclear purposes, despite all the evidence. They say they forgot exactly how they destroyed thousands of gallons of Vx nerve gas and anthrax, but "trust us, we destroyed them way back in 1991." And so many people say "didn't you hear that? They said they didn't have any. Everyone pack up and go home now. We're safe. They SAID so." WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why does everyone want so badly to believe a man and a regime that has invaded and gassed it's neighbors, gassed it's own people, has ties to and harbors terrorist groups, defies EVERY SINGLE UN RESOLUTION against it, tortures political foes, let's its own children starve ON PURPOSE, and has a
history of pathological lying on almost every matter? Are you so cynical about the American government that you would trust the Iraqis before you would trust us? You may not like our leaders. Fine, vote them out if you feel that way. But how can you honestly stand there and believe that the IRAQIS are telling the TRUTH and OUR leaders are LYING to you? Many people say this is about oil. Those people embarrass themselves. They have no grasp of the facts. They have nothing to say, so they blame it on oil. This has nothing to do with oil. Our leaders are not evil. This is not a conspiracy to boost their friends' bank accounts. We do not boost our economy by paying for it with American lives. Anyone who thinks that hasn't really thought about this at all.<p>I don't want a war. Trust me I don't. I want Saddam Hussein to go into exile and live out his days in Argentina or Paraguay or wherever evil dictators go to live. I want that more than anything. But when he doesn't leave, I will be on the front edge of the charge across that country. Because I know the facts, I am comfortable with that. I know the risks and I will take them because I know the consequences if I do not. I am glad that Americans don't take war lightly. They shouldn't. But before marching and protesting and singing their songs, why don't they actually look at the facts? Let me tell you, it was a big morale killer this weekend to see all those people running around with poster board signs and singing hippie songs when I knew that not one of them had any idea what they were talking about. I don't want blind patriotism. That doesn't help anyone. What I do expect is that any American who feels strongly enough to try to influence foreign policy, which--let's face it--is the goal of demonstrations, would actually have a clue about the subject they are trying to protest.<p>Right now there are 150,000 of your fellow Americans in the middle east and another 100,000 on the way. If we get the call, we will steamroll across that country like the world has never seen. Civilian casualties will be painstakingly avoided, but there will be no mercy on the Iraqi leaders or its military. It will be an overwhelmingly violent campaign. It has to be for the greater good. The quicker the war, the fewer overall casualties occur. History has taught us that, too. How will you feel when you hear the news that the war has begun? Will you be angry because you feel it is out-of-control American imperialism? Will you feel bad for the Iraqi people (who, by the way, are about to become free for the first time)? Or will you feel a mix of pride and sadness for the Americans--pride that Americans are risking their lives to protect you and sadness because some will not come back? I frankly don't care how you feel. I'll do my job either way. But don't you owe it to yourself to know the truth about the world around you? You don't see American troops deserting and running to Canada do you? There are a lot of your fellow Americans that feel strongly enough about this to risk their lives for this cause. Maybe they are on to something.<p>T-BONE
supposed to use to buy food was diverted directly to Saddam Hussein himself. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has built himself forty palaces. That's right, FORTY PALACES! These are not just big houses. The total landmass of Saddam's new palaces totals about NINE SQUARE MILES! The palaces are filled with marble and gold and plenty of portraits of Saddam. Meanwhile, his people starve and he doesn't care.<p>"We should be focusing on Al Qaeda,” you say. "They are the real threat to us." Well Al Qaeda has strong ties with the Iraqi government (you're going to have to trust me on that) and Iraq is a haven for Al Qaeda leaders. Al Qaeda SEEKS chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraq HAS chemical, biological, and IS DEVELOPING nuclear weapons. They are now friends. It doesn't take an Einstein to do the math here. Everyone wants to see a smoking gun. You idiots! If there is a smoking gun, it is too late. The gun has gone off. The smoke will be dead bodies. What do you want, pictures of Saddam playing golf with Osama? After Sept 11th, everyone asked why we couldn't piece it all together beforehand. Why couldn't the government see it coming? What do you think the "smoking gun" would have been back then? Some guys took flying lessons? Some guys got on airplanes with box cutters? Before the actual hijacking, there was not "proof" of anything! Would anyone have supported invading Afghanistan and rooting out Al Qaeda based on that? NO WAY. The smoking gun, well, you know that by now. <p>"Exhaust diplomacy,” you say. First of all, there has been TWELVE YEARS of diplomacy to try to make Iraq disarm. Did you know that Iraq has not fully complied with a single UN resolution in the last twelve years? That's right, not just this stuff about the inspectors. ALL SEVENTEEN resolutions have been ignored. Do you honestly believe that anything we do diplomatically will convince Saddam to disarm? DO YOU? He is only interested in staying in power and is playing the game well to keep himself there. We have tried talking to the him. We have tried economic and trade sanctions. We have tried military action. We have tried no fly zones. We have tried inspections. What else do you suggest? Maybe if we just say "pretty please" he'll comply. We've tried everything else. <p>"Don't act unilaterally,” you say. Last time I checked that word means "by yourself." In case anyone hasn't noticed, France and Germany are the only allies NOT on board. The rest of NATO IS on board. The rest of Europe IS on board. Australia IS on board. Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Netherlands are ALL on board. Over FORTY COUNTRIES have offered military assistance of some sort. Even Jordan, an ally of Iraq, has offered assistance. I'm not quite sure how that translates into unilateralism. Several countries have already deployed forces to take part in any potential military action. This is not the first time the French have balked at striking out at terrorism. In 1986 there were several terrorist attacks across the globe including the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Several of the attacks had been in France, including a nightclub bombing that killed many American servicemen. US intelligence pinpointed the source of the terrorist attacks as Libya. In response, President Reagan ordered military air strikes on terrorist camps inside Libya. Some of the fighters were to launch out of bases in England. Reagan called then French President Francois Mitterand just to ask permission for our fighters to overfly France on the way to Libya. To go around France meant a 16-hour round trip flight for the pilots. Mitterand refused, despite several of the terrorist attacks having happened INSIDE FRANCE. He then had the gall to tell Reagan: "Don't let it be just a pinprick (the air strikes). Really let them have it." The French of all people should know the consequences of inaction. Wishful thinking has cost them their country twice in the last eighty years.<p>The problem with the anti-war activists is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. They don't know any of the FACTS about Iraq and what has happened there. They have paid no attention to the last twelve years and cannot tell you the contents of a single UN resolution. They cannot tell you the names of the military operations that support those resolutions. They would be shocked to know that Americans get shot at virtually EVERY DAY enforcing those resolutions. They have no idea about the sacrifice America has been willing to make for those resolutions to work. They would know it if they ever decided to pay attention. They would know it if they sought out the actual facts. It's in the newspaper every day. It's on the news every night. But they have no idea about the real situation in Iraq. They don't care either. They just want to sit around the coffee house and complain that the government couldn't keep them safe on Sept 11 and then complain when the government now leans forward to keep them safe in a post Sept 11th world. If we don't do something, there WILL be another Sept 11th and it will be ugly. There may be one regardless of what happens in Iraq, but that can't keep us from acting on this. There are people out there that want to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. There is no way to stop every terrorist attack. There just isn't. But we HAVE TO stop the terrorists from getting chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We can't afford to look back one day and realize we could have cut them off at the source. <p>The problem really is wishful thinking. Everyone (including Bush, including me, including anyone else who would bleed in war) wishes there will be no war. We hope there is another way. That is just wishful thinking. Sometimes there is no choice. Sometimes it has to get ugly for the greater good. Look at history for a guide. I've alluded to it several times already. In case you haven't figured out my historical comparison to Hussein, it's Hitler. In the mid-1930s, Hitler began to rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations said "stop." Hitler said "okay" but kept on arming. The League of Nations said "stop" again, but Hitler ignored them. Then Hitler invaded Poland. The world community said "hey, don't do that." Hitler said "if you give me this and this and that, I'll stop. The world said "okay, whatever you want. Anything is better than war. Just stop." It was called “Appeasement." We know what happened next. It was the worst example of diplomacy in history. That mistake cost the world MILLIONS OF LIVES. World War II could have been stopped cold before it started simply by standing up to the bully. Everyone was so afraid of war that they let Hitler get away with whatever he wanted. They gave him an inch and he took a mile. No one stopped him, so he kept on going. Sound familiar? I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein will start invading his neighbors again and take over the Middle East. Note the "again" part--he's already invaded two of his neighbors and set himself up to invade a third before we stopped him in 1990. However, if he gets a nuclear weapon or if he gets long range missiles to deliver chemical weapons, he will be the biggest menace the world has ever known. He will be able to wipe countries off the face of the earth with one button and will blackmail the world to get what he wants. Will everyone be so afraid of war then that they'll give him whatever he wants? If the United Nations does not have the backbone to support it's own resolutions and ensure compliance, then it will go the way of the League of Nations. Why would anyone ever comply with Security Council resolutions if there are no consequences for non-compliance? Do you want to live in that world? <p>"I just don't trust Bush," you say. Why is everyone so willing to trust the Iraqis and so unwilling to trust our own American leaders? The Iraqis say they don't have anything. They say the aluminum tubes are not for nuclear purposes, despite all the evidence. They say they forgot exactly how they destroyed thousands of gallons of Vx nerve gas and anthrax, but "trust us, we destroyed them way back in 1991." And so many people say "didn't you hear that? They said they didn't have any. Everyone pack up and go home now. We're safe. They SAID so." WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why does everyone want so badly to believe a man and a regime that has invaded and gassed it's neighbors, gassed it's own people, has ties to and harbors terrorist groups, defies EVERY SINGLE UN RESOLUTION against it, tortures political foes, let's its own children starve ON PURPOSE, and has a
history of pathological lying on almost every matter? Are you so cynical about the American government that you would trust the Iraqis before you would trust us? You may not like our leaders. Fine, vote them out if you feel that way. But how can you honestly stand there and believe that the IRAQIS are telling the TRUTH and OUR leaders are LYING to you? Many people say this is about oil. Those people embarrass themselves. They have no grasp of the facts. They have nothing to say, so they blame it on oil. This has nothing to do with oil. Our leaders are not evil. This is not a conspiracy to boost their friends' bank accounts. We do not boost our economy by paying for it with American lives. Anyone who thinks that hasn't really thought about this at all.<p>I don't want a war. Trust me I don't. I want Saddam Hussein to go into exile and live out his days in Argentina or Paraguay or wherever evil dictators go to live. I want that more than anything. But when he doesn't leave, I will be on the front edge of the charge across that country. Because I know the facts, I am comfortable with that. I know the risks and I will take them because I know the consequences if I do not. I am glad that Americans don't take war lightly. They shouldn't. But before marching and protesting and singing their songs, why don't they actually look at the facts? Let me tell you, it was a big morale killer this weekend to see all those people running around with poster board signs and singing hippie songs when I knew that not one of them had any idea what they were talking about. I don't want blind patriotism. That doesn't help anyone. What I do expect is that any American who feels strongly enough to try to influence foreign policy, which--let's face it--is the goal of demonstrations, would actually have a clue about the subject they are trying to protest.<p>Right now there are 150,000 of your fellow Americans in the middle east and another 100,000 on the way. If we get the call, we will steamroll across that country like the world has never seen. Civilian casualties will be painstakingly avoided, but there will be no mercy on the Iraqi leaders or its military. It will be an overwhelmingly violent campaign. It has to be for the greater good. The quicker the war, the fewer overall casualties occur. History has taught us that, too. How will you feel when you hear the news that the war has begun? Will you be angry because you feel it is out-of-control American imperialism? Will you feel bad for the Iraqi people (who, by the way, are about to become free for the first time)? Or will you feel a mix of pride and sadness for the Americans--pride that Americans are risking their lives to protect you and sadness because some will not come back? I frankly don't care how you feel. I'll do my job either way. But don't you owe it to yourself to know the truth about the world around you? You don't see American troops deserting and running to Canada do you? There are a lot of your fellow Americans that feel strongly enough about this to risk their lives for this cause. Maybe they are on to something.<p>T-BONE
94 Mazda MX-3 BPT Custom Intake/Exhaust T3/T4, 51mm BOV, Tial WG, 2.5" Piping, 880cc Inj, Godspeed Intercooler, TEC II
My MX-3 Website
My MX-3 Website
Re: War talk
[QUOTE]Originally posted by EBUCKS:
[QB]Hey Ryan,
All I was trying to say is that the US are a completely divided bunch. Once the war starts are you going to cage all middle eastern people? Canada had a civil war at it's confederation. Upper Canada vs. Lower Canada, known today as Quebec and Ontario, respectively. Today, Quebec lisence plates have a sig, if you will, that says je me souvien, which means 'I remember', or better put they still haven't forgotten that war, and they even tried to separate from the rest of Canada 130 years after this war. Case and point with the Japanese, someone said that they have no problem with the US, as their markets flourish at the hands of US businesses going off shore. Come on! You think that they've forgotten? And word on "da street", from talking to my relatives that do live in the US, is that they are "no uncle Tom, going to fight uncle Sam's war".
--------------------------------------------------
Japan is not upset with the U.S. I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Its almost funny, also, Japan cannot go to war, its got a U.N. agreement that it cannot deploy its troops outside of Japan for a certain amount of years due to WW2. <p>
quote:
You can't tell me that people from the middle east that reside in the US today are not upset with the hastiness to which the US is going to war. Also, you can't tell me that hatred by the ignorant, toward muslims is not growing amongst us all. I repeat 'by the ignorant'.
Tell me this, are there any muslims in the US army?
--------------------------------------------------<p>
There are muslims in the U.S. army, and they are ready to fight Saddam just like anyone else. He is not a good man, not even to a lot of muslims. I hope this whole war can be avoided by Saddam's leaving, but that won't happen.
[QB]Hey Ryan,
All I was trying to say is that the US are a completely divided bunch. Once the war starts are you going to cage all middle eastern people? Canada had a civil war at it's confederation. Upper Canada vs. Lower Canada, known today as Quebec and Ontario, respectively. Today, Quebec lisence plates have a sig, if you will, that says je me souvien, which means 'I remember', or better put they still haven't forgotten that war, and they even tried to separate from the rest of Canada 130 years after this war. Case and point with the Japanese, someone said that they have no problem with the US, as their markets flourish at the hands of US businesses going off shore. Come on! You think that they've forgotten? And word on "da street", from talking to my relatives that do live in the US, is that they are "no uncle Tom, going to fight uncle Sam's war".
--------------------------------------------------
Japan is not upset with the U.S. I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Its almost funny, also, Japan cannot go to war, its got a U.N. agreement that it cannot deploy its troops outside of Japan for a certain amount of years due to WW2. <p>
quote:
You can't tell me that people from the middle east that reside in the US today are not upset with the hastiness to which the US is going to war. Also, you can't tell me that hatred by the ignorant, toward muslims is not growing amongst us all. I repeat 'by the ignorant'.
Tell me this, are there any muslims in the US army?
--------------------------------------------------<p>
There are muslims in the U.S. army, and they are ready to fight Saddam just like anyone else. He is not a good man, not even to a lot of muslims. I hope this whole war can be avoided by Saddam's leaving, but that won't happen.
-Mark Lathrop
1992 MX-3 RS-T
B6T with some goodies
"...I told those fudgepackers I liked Michael Bolton's music..."
1992 MX-3 RS-T
B6T with some goodies
"...I told those fudgepackers I liked Michael Bolton's music..."