[Saturos S.]

Hotshot101, on Dec 22 2006, 01:15 AM, said:

THe media is bull crap think about it for a moment. Here when a republican is in office they say everything is bad and they try to get him out of office. Then when a democrat is in office they say everything is great. NOw the weapons of mass destruction where not proven to be real or fiction. For all we know saddam had plenty of time to move them out. Second would you want to risk getting bombed if you thought your opponent had WMDs. Would you? I think not.

Well maybe they're saying it because they think he's bad. And that the democrats could do it better. As for reliability, if the media isn't reliable, then who is a reliable source?

Hotshot101, on Dec 22 2006, 04:46 AM, said:

Yes they had no proof they existed or not. Let be smart now. Saddam had plenty of time to move them out if he had any. So for all we know there could have been some they are just somewhere else. They didn't use them against him in the trial because they couldn't get to them before he shipped them. Besides that, again answer my question. Would you want to just sit around and do nothing if you thought a country did have and would shoot you with WMD. Would you risk that? Thats what bush did. He didn't take the chance. Would you take that chance if you knew you could wake up one day dead?

As for you question. Maybe thousand people dead in a WMD attack or definitely killing 3000 soldiers and 5000 Iraqi's in Iraq. It's a tough call, but is the WMD the real reason for Iraq's invasion?

[Toasty]

Now SS, don't be stupid. The WMD's Saddam could've possesed had the potential to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Compare that to the current death toll. Last time I checked, nukes and biochemicals were pretty deadly.

As for whether they were actually there or not, I do believe they were. Everytime the UN sent an inspector down there to look for them, Saddam only let them look in one place. Now because the UN is a pushover, and would just as easily let terrorists run amock as keeping Bush from takeing out all the terrorists, they didn't force Saddam to allow them to look everywhere. Now it is true that the places Saddam allowed to be searched were different every time, he could have easily moved them before the next inspection. Just as easily as he could've smuggled them away before the US went in there.

Like I've said before, the reason for invadeing Iraq was because that's where the terorists who caused 9/11 were camped. Yes, they were'nt of Iraqi origin, but do you ohnestly believe that just because the people were of different nationality, that they couldn't have been in Iraq? The religion they all followed, Islam, stated that the 'holy land' was located in Iraq, or somewhere nearby. That is why they were there. But not only did Iraq house the terrorists responsible for 9/11, it housed many other terrorist cells, that because of 9/11, were becomeing more active. Now I doun't know about you, but when thousands of people begin to show signs of hostility towards me, I'd definately do something about it before they attack me.

[Platinum Sun]

I think it's worth saying that all the evidence that proves going to war in Iraq was a bad idea was obtained because we went to war in Iraq. It's a supreme irony that not many people are aware of. I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Hotshot101]

Evidence? Something the media cooked up right? Well here is something I read that could change that.

You see this couple had a son who died in Iraq and well they went over to Iraq to see if he died in vain. When they got there, they found out the soldiers where being treated as heroes. They found out it was worth while and there son died not in vain, but as a hero. (well this is a true story although the fancy liturature was added in)

SS if you really want to know who to trust then go to the soldiers that were there. My cousin who just went there said the war was going great and that we where winning.

As for the death toll, cmon compare that to what the other wars had as death tolls. 8,000 casualties give me a break. Other wars costed the lives of millions! Don't whine because of that! Those people chose to fight because they knew it was worth fighting and dieing for. They knew the risk. So don't blame Bush and us because they chose to fight for American freedom.

[Eugine]

Most americans and even the soldiers don't even know what they're fighting for anymore >.>

[Hotshot101]

Thats what you think! Bet thats all because of what the media is telling you! You ask any American soldier fighting the war. They will tell you what is really happening. Dude you could just go down there and see for yourself.

Its the world that doesn't know WTH is going on! They just hate us for no reason. Therefore they think everything we do is wrong. Even after we came in and fought the world wars to defend you! I don't really know what the world has against us except there stupid ambitions. Anyone who has study us from your side didn't have an open mind to really get the feel of what we are about!

The war in Iraq is no different. The libral media here and the media of your countries all hate bush, because he just doesn't sit around and do nothing, like Clinton and Carter! just leave us alone.

[Eugine]

You're talking like if you've recently flown back from Iraq x.x

... and, who I am suppose to get my info from? The media of course, I doubt I'd ever go to Iraq, and if I ever do it will definetly be after the war... I like life!

[Hotshot101]

Well don't trust the media on anything besides your weather and local news still, because really all they do in politics here is bash bush. There info is lies when they talk about the war. Over there probaly the same when they talk about the war and the American people.

I haven't flown to Iraq, my cousin told me everything, because as I said he was there fighting the war.

You know I find it really wierd that most countries hate us for no reason. What did we ever do to you?

[FlamingDuck]

Hotshot's getting fanatical ;).

I don't know why people hate America. I'm not even sure that all that many do. There's bias in the media, Hotshot, there always will be. It's called freedom of speech.

[Eugine]

I find it ironic that an American is saying that American news channel are 'lieing' about the American-led war - saying they're losing e.e;

Why would Americans honestly lie about something like this? The whole world watches these stations...
... I mean come on, why would every newspaper lie? <__<

[Golden Djinn13]

Eugine, on Dec 31 2006, 03:40 PM, said:

I find it ironic that an American is saying that American news channel are 'lieing' about the American-led war - saying they're losing e.e;

Why would Americans honestly lie about something like this? The whole world watches these stations...
... I mean come on, why would every newspaper lie? <__<

Its the Republicans that want everyone to believe we are winning the war and lying to themselves that we are. I don't see how anything has been solved since we entered this war though...Thats just my opinion, but I'm expecting an argument back from "someone"...

[Hotshot101]

Yeah I know. We won't try to change it. Just gotta know not everything they say is true. Why I am saying ther lieing is because they sound so biased its crazy.When a republican is in office all you here from the media is this "the economy is going bad, everything is just horrible" and they also they try to find anything and I mean anything to give the man a bad reputation. An example is one of our senators did one of the samethings clinton did and the democrats dogged him day and night till he resigned. My family was like, so what Clinton did that and he was the president. We didn't dog on him at all, except for getting him impeached because he didn't do a dang thing.


Oh ya when the democrats are in office, the media says "everything is going great, are economy is up everything is just sky high"

It is serously like this.

[Alex the Adept]

Ok, I hate George, and I can't change my vote, so I'll just say it.


**** Bush! **** Bush! **** Bush!

[FlamingDuck]

Are you saying you're old enough to vote? Anyway, Bush has a couple descisions to make that may change his position in my mind.

[Giro888]

Well, we do have a lot of prejudiced people in america, but a lot of us are pretty nice. As for Bush he doesn't give a damn about America, all he wants is power. Bro, what do you know about it Anyway? probably only a little more tan me.Scratch that last.

[Toasty]

Golden Djinn13, on Dec 31 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Its the Republicans that want everyone to believe we are winning the war and lying to themselves that we are. I don't see how anything has been solved since we entered this war though...Thats just my opinion, but I'm expecting an argument back from "someone"...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are winning the war. Yeah, I'm Republican, and no, I'm not lieing. The Democrats are trying to say that we're losing becasue they can't stand being wrong. As of now, the only thing hindering us, is the fact that the Democrats in the Government are trying to do everything they can to keep American soldiers here in America. All that does is hinder our troops who are already there, and thus increasing the death rate of our soldiers. We're there, we've been there, we might as well finish what we started.

Bush doesn't just want power. You're only saying that becasue that's what people tell you. He doesn't care about the oil the hold in the middle east, and we havn't pilfered a single barrel of oil either. We wen't to the middle east to take out the terrorists who bommed us, and now were takeing out more of them. The only difference now, is that once we're finished in Iraq, the Iraqi people will finally be able to stand on their own two feet without a dictator. And to those of you who say Sadam was better left in power, let me remind you that he tried to build a super cannon. One that was meant to demolish the israelis and other countries around him. Luckily, us Americans intercepted the last 8 parts of it before it could be assembled.

[Someone Else]

People like blaming whatever problems they have on other people, and so a lot of countries are going to blame a lot of problems in the world on the number 1 power. And who's the number 1 power right now? The USA is.

And with that said, I have no idea why we're in Iraq still and in my opinion Bush had no rights to go in there in the first place.

[Toasty]

I assume you were alive when we went in there, right? 9/11, all that crap, well we took out the terrorists responsible already (except for Osama Benladin). Then we took out Sadam (the dictator who almost made a giant cannon). Now we're trying to keep Iraq from collapsing so they can build their government.

[Shikonaurum]

Iraq

A giant cannon? Could I hear more about that?

Why we are in Iraq at the moment is almost completely distaching itself from why we entered. There's little point of connection; as noble as it sounds, we did not enter Iraq for the sole purpose of removing a despotic dictator who happened to be in the "posession" of nuclear weapons. The Libby trial has already established that the grounds for entering Iraq were shaky at best, unless you'd like to claim that there was more perjury in a trial about perjury.

All the while, I do believe that we are responsible for the situation that Iraq is in right now and that we shouldn't pull out for the time being. Not because it would be reputation-damaging -- loath as I am to pull off an overused Vietnam parallel, but we've been there before. We've been wrong before, and in fact, if Schwarzanegger's turnabout is any clue, humility does help one's reputation.

Eventually, however, we'll have to say "This is too much." We can't afford to hold steadfast to the end. And in the case that Iraq erupts into civil war, I suppose we could mark that off as inevitable. I honestly don't see the purpose of pressing further, but I think that we owe it to the Iraqis to push the troop involvement a little more before breaking away. What happen will happen, whether or not we leave now or ten years from now.

Domestic Affairs

And to address the nation's affairs, President Bush cannot be credited with helping the economy. Although, granted, he was put into a difficult set of circumstances when September 11th occurred, that in no way makes for the billions, if not reaching a trillion, in debt we have incurred. Small gains in jobs and other things can be measured, certainly, some to his credit; then again, President Bush is also responsible for the No Child Left Behind act, a system that teaches a class according to the pace of the slowest child, not the average. I can't say that it was a terribly impressive idea.

Former president Clinton did actually do things, and I don't just mean the charming Lewinsky scandal. Saying that he did absolutely nothing damages his reputation as a man who finally leveled out the national debt and actually caused us to have a surplus, the first time in years. He was a conservative spender, much more than we could ask of the current government; most of all, he was a moderate.

I find it bothersome when people say that a president didn't do anything because he was a moderate and catered to both sides. I also find it bothersome when a president leans too much to one side without any touch of bipartisanship on the plate.

I would think that is why any nation is hated; being much too partisan. Venezuela and South America are leaning towards the far left, and nobody likes them. Highly conservative nations such as the Middle East are seen as oppressors of freedom. Meanwhile, the United States is no longer striking a chord of harmony.

Moderation is key. There is none, or none that I can see. Please prove me wrong; I'd like to believe there's still hope for us in the next two years. Saying that the Congress is Democratic and the White House is Republican does not count.

[Toasty]

Shikonaurum, on Mar 7 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

A giant cannon? Could I hear more about that?

Well, basically, Saddam wanted to build a huge ass cannon capable of launching warheads incredibly long distances. The main purpose was to wipe out Israel (go figure. :( ), even though it was quite possible that Israel's air force would find it before it could fire too many shots, and bomb it to smitherines. It wouldn't have been very hard to destroy since it would have been stationary. I can't remember it's exact dimensions (would it have been fully assembled), but it's comparable in size to Germany's Paris gun, possibly larger.

And on a side note, WMD's doesn't specifically mean nukes. They thought it was more likely he had chemical weapons, such as nerve gas. And it still would have been easy for Saddam to evacuate his WMD's (if, which I believe he did, have any) before allied forces could find them. For all we know, he could have had them stored somewhere in Switzerland the whole time.

[Shikonaurum]

Damn those Swiss. Always at the center of things...

I'm kidding, to those Swiss out there. XD My apologies.

Wow. I find it fascinating and somewhat expected that Iraq would build such giant cannons for the purpose for destroying Israel; in fact, most nations in the Middle East seem for the entire destruction of Israel, especially Iran. Israel's reputation definitely hasn't increased after dropping cluster bombs on Lebanon's civilian areas. Israel is possibly bringing it upon themselves now, but that's probably for another topic.

Ah, forgive me on the WMD-nukes discrepancy. Canisters of nerve gas, hm? Now, I need to jolt my memory -- was it on the basis that Iraq was producing WMDs, or that it was in the possession of them?

And while the U.S. government couldn't obtain concrete proof because weapons were probably shipped if there were any at all, I believe that there's a problem in going into a situation without concrete evidence. Wars can't be initiated by speculation, and the White House can shove all the blame they want onto Scooter Libby, but in the end most of them are at fault.

"Suspecting," or even "strongly suspecting" a justifiable reason doth not make.

[Toasty]

Well that's the problem with today's society. A lot of the time, even when everybody absolutely knows for sure someone did something punishable, they aren't punished because of the lack of evidence. Sure, this keeps innocent people from being imprisoned, but only some of the time. Most of the time, it's what get's innocent people into jail. Because of the lack of evidence on the person who really did it, the innocent person, who despite being innocent was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, get's accused and sentenced. We need to quit enforcing things like this so much, because the more we do, the more bad guys get away. I'm not saying we shouldn't throw it out the window, but strong speculation alone should be enough for a very thourough investigation at the very least.

It's true I was speculating about the evacuation of the WMD's, but it's still possible that he could have done that.

And Saddam was accused of possesing WMD's, but I'm not sure if he was also accused of makeing them. I know Iran is being accused of makeing weapons grade radioactive material though.

[Shikonaurum]

While we can argue the faults of the legal system as we like, one cannot apply the same standards to the justice system as you can with governmental politics. The two go hand and hand (on occasion, if politicians bother listening to them), but they are not the same. The laws set down for politicans are not the same ones set to judging whether a person is guilty or not guilty. The problem here is that the entire fate of the nation was dependent and followed a suspicion; the situations, in my view, are completely different.

And yes, I agree, strong suspicion should be the basis of investigation. However, there was no reason to incite a war when U.N. officials were being allowed into the nation of Iraq, where diplomacy may have gotten somewhere, and where in the first place bent as many rules as possible taking the decision from what ought to have been the U.S. Senate's.

I find something curious about the situation; Saddam used nerve gas in the genocide of the Kurds in the 1980's, didn't he? I seem to recall an explanation so as to where the nerve gas went, or something or other, but it didn't seem to be a prime suspect in the days before the war in Iraq. Would you happen to remember what the reasoning was?

(On an off tangent, I believe the "War in Iraq" to be a misnomer. War? War seems just too strong for a country that was easily overrun. It's just a fight for democracy now... I guess it doesn't have that much of ring to it on the evening news?)

[Toasty]

The UN isn't good for anything. When they went to search for WMD's in Iraq numerous times, Saddam would let them look everywhere except for in one spot, though that spot was different every time. The UN never even tried to make Saddam let them look in that last spot, so for all we know, he could've stored them there, or had something there he didn't want us to find. That's what led to the suspicion of WMD's in Iraq, along with a history of using them, and testing them on their own people.

As for the name of the situation in Iraq, the media is yet again, using something inacurate just to grab the attention of viewers. All of the information associated with it is accurate (mostly), but they use an innacurate name to entice people to watch. Obviously, "the War in Iraq" is a lot more catchy than "The Fight For Democracy." It used to be a war, but that was when we were invading. Now it's more of a defence.

[Shikonaurum]

Ah, the dear U.N., who is loved by all and can never get its way with, well, just about everything except money. Saying the U.N. does for nothing is going slightly overboard, though. A coalition of nations is never gets together just to do nothing. Anything constructive in favor of one thing or another, that's a different question.

I will agree with the claim that they possibly had chemical weapons.

The evidence for the War in Iraq is definitely a touchy topic. However, as evidenced by the Scooter Libby trial, much of the evidence the United States used to get us into the war in the first place was false. I'd like to correct something I'd overlooked before: WMDs were not specifically talking about chemical weapons in this situation. They were talking about nuclear weapons as well.

The claim that Iraq was definitely getting Uranium from Niger? False. The truck suspected to have contained nuclear weapons? Never had them. Every piece of "solid evidence" used to get us there and to convince the Congress to get us there was a lie.

Why? Because the rest were unsubstantiated claims due to speculation. This was not the Bush administration's choice alone. They had to get Congressional approval. And this war would not have went the way it was had they just said "They have a despotic dictator and a history for using chemical weapons, are located in the Middle East and possibly harbor terrorists, and we only have suspicions."

Yeah, bureaucracy is a pain, but perhaps there are safeguards for a reason.

Excuse me for the tone, I'm a little off-kilter today. x_X

It's a defense in Iraq indeed, for what it's worth. Funny things happen when you try to protext a country from itself.

[Toasty]

Well, I guess you could say that. At the moment, the country is in a state of sczitophrenia. Most of the country want's to become a free democracy, while the rest (the terrorists still in Iraq) want to throw it all back into a dictatorship. We're there at the moment to protect the majority of it's inhabitants from the terrorists who also live there.

A conspiracy theorist might say that all the evidence was planted by Saddam as an ultimate humiliation for the U.S. He planted the evidence to reel 'em in, and then when their evidence was no where to be found, America looks like the bad guy, and the Iraqi's look like innocent bystandards. But that's just what a conspiracy theorist might say.

[Eugine]

The rest doesn't want Iraq to turn back to 'dictatorship'. It simply doesn't want a government that recognise America, and I understand why.

[Shikonaurum]

Not recognizing America is a hard thing to do; I think it's more like "not being America's lapdog."

My friend had an idea once, saying that perhaps we should let Parliament vote whether or not we should stay in Iraq. If they vote that we should leave, then it was a democracy and we can leave. If they vote that we shouldn't, it still shows that it was a democracy and we could still leave. XDD

He was kidding, but I found it amusing.