Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.

For those of you against the war....

Thread Tools
 
Old 04-04-2003 | 06:31 AM
  #41  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

18secFerio

You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.

I see no point in risking American soldiers lives to protect our interests with Isreal and Oil.
You have got to be kidding me! You really think this is the reason we are going to war with Iraq? Have you not listened to our President at all...he only mentions the reasons 3 or 4 times a day in various speaches...not to mention the countless times Ari Fleischer mentions it during the press briefings. Since you have missed it I will reiterate it for you...

1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.

Maybe I'm not listening to the propaganda?
No you have the left wing propaganda down pat...you listened well.

translation: Not only are you wrong, you're also unpatriotic
Let it be known that this is your translation. I have never called you unpatriotic and your conclusions, when based on 1/2 truths, are not 100% correct.

What would Clintons lax pardons have to do with buyer confidence?
Ask any economist, or atleast according to the ones I had in college, it takes about 2 years for a Presidents economic policy to show its effects on the economy. What does that mean? The shitty economy is Clinton's fault because it was flushed down the toilet within the first two years of Bush's Presidency. And what about all the corporate irresponsibility that happend during the last two to three years of Clinton's watch? He did nothing to prevent that which is a large contributor to the mess we are in now. Had he not been so concerned with pardoning people for money and stealing white house furniture for his home in New York, the economy might be different. Even Al Gore knew the economy was shit and did not run in it...because he knew if he did he was certainly a 4 year President.

when he invaded Iran and Kuwait (the only 2 countries he has invaded) it was 1. for defense of himself and 2. to stop kuwait from over producing oil causing oil prices to plunge sending iraq into further economic trouble. Not to take over those countries.
Please support some facts to back these statements up...this is the first time I have ever heard or read these reasons for Iraq's war with Iran, or Iraq's reason for invading Kuwait. NOONE has ever listed these as his reasons!

First of all, if you still beleive Iraq has WMD, you're ludicris.
You have got to be kidding me again! You really believe this? Stop listening to the far left...even moderate liberals know that he has WMD as well as 76% of hte US population...that is why we are there. Live through a terrorist attack that affects you directly...I guarantee your views would change on this subject matter. Mine did!

Oh and ask anyone in the mdia where the bias lies and the overwhelming majority will tell you it is liberal. The New York Times uses the front page of its paper to daily spread liberal propaganda...even other liberal media outlets agree they take it too far. They ignore the real facts and find that one small one to support their left wing agenda and exploit it.
Old 04-04-2003 | 06:38 AM
  #42  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Oh and BTW...I just read this online...

Concerns over the use of chemical weapons spiked as MSNBC reported that Marines testing drinking water from the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah found large concentrations of cyanide and mustard agents. The network said Marine commanders believed it was a deliberate attempt to poison coalition troops.
Taken from here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm

And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
Old 04-04-2003 | 11:19 AM
  #43  
19.3secS2K's Avatar
19.3secS2K
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

Originally posted by DVPGSR
18secFerio

You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.
yeah, because people like you exist in the world.

You have got to be kidding me! You really think this is the reason we are going to war with Iraq? Have you not listened to our President at all...he only mentions the reasons 3 or 4 times a day in various speaches...not to mention the countless times Ari Fleischer mentions it during the press briefings. Since you have missed it I will reiterate it for you...

1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.
Where are these WMDs? Show me them. Show me a news link that shows proof of them. Oh yeah, they don't exist. Lies lies lies.

No you have the left wing propaganda down pat...you listened well.
Not really. I listen to my own intution. And it tells me shits not right in the world. Actually, my father share a similar veiw point as you would, and me and him talk about this situation quite frequently. Even with everything he has to say (which is quite alot, since he has been in the military/knows higher ups/etc etc.), he still has no swain my opinion. I don't really listen to the news anymore. Don't care for democrats. So how am I getting this left wing propaganda? Thats right, because I'm not. I beleive the world is going to hell, therefor I think in according to what won't make God get pissed off to the point of revalation. And if you don't think that will be the case, you have serious Intuition issues. Anyone with half a brain knows this thing isn't going in the right direction. And instead of backing off and fixing it, or ditching it all togeather and swallowing our pride, we make matters worse.

Let it be known that this is your translation. I have never called you unpatriotic and your conclusions, when based on 1/2 truths, are not 100% correct.
it was sarcasim. The half-truth statements getting overplayed. Thats pretty much the rights only argument anymore if some liberal comes up with some thought.

Ask any economist, or atleast according to the ones I had in college, it takes about 2 years for a Presidents economic policy to show its effects on the economy. What does that mean? The shitty economy is Clinton's fault because it was flushed down the toilet within the first two years of Bush's Presidency. And what about all the corporate irresponsibility that happend during the last two to three years of Clinton's watch? He did nothing to prevent that which is a large contributor to the mess we are in now. Had he not been so concerned with pardoning people for money and stealing white house furniture for his home in New York, the economy might be different. Even Al Gore knew the economy was shit and did not run in it...because he knew if he did he was certainly a 4 year President.
It could be just you're college. Not everyone thinks the same things. And enough about Clinton. I'm tired of refrencing and reading on him. He is no longer president.

Please support some facts to back these statements up...this is the first time I have ever heard or read these reasons for Iraq's war with Iran, or Iraq's reason for invading Kuwait. NOONE has ever listed these as his reasons!
Thats because Iraq doesn't list their own reasons.

You have got to be kidding me again! You really believe this? Stop listening to the far left...
Ok, now you're way out of line. Don't you dare for one second tell me what and what not to beleive. That is not in your area for you to tell me. In fact, it should be apparent as day that we're on opposite sides. Deal with it. I sure do.

even moderate liberals know that he has WMD
Again, proof? Lies lies lies.


as well as 76% of hte US population...
That is because the media throws off their opinions. 45% of the population also thinks Saddam played a major roll in the 9-11 attacks. What does that show?

that is why we are there. Live through a terrorist attack that affects you directly...I guarantee your views would change on this subject matter. Mine did!
Why? Because our country brings it upon itself? Because the forign policy has screwed us?

How exactly did you live through a terror attack?

Oh and ask anyone in the mdia where the bias lies and the overwhelming majority will tell you it is liberal. The New York Times uses the front page of its paper to daily spread liberal propaganda...even other liberal media outlets agree they take it too far. They ignore the real facts and find that one small one to support their left wing agenda and exploit it.
real facts? What are the Real Facts? WMDs all over the country? The guys evil? We have a poor history with them?

The way I see it. Iraq had nothing to do with that fateful day on 9-11. They still have yet to do anything to this country. the UN, maybe, but thats NOT in our benifit to mess with it.

Again, Bush knows that this war will altogether increase the likelyhood of terrorism, so whats his reason for going there...obviosly not to make this country a safer place. You tell me.
Old 04-04-2003 | 11:26 AM
  #44  
19.3secS2K's Avatar
19.3secS2K
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

Originally posted by DVPGSR
Oh and BTW...I just read this online...



Taken from here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm

And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
obviously, you didn't bother to read my statements.

Originally posted by 18secFerio
Chemical or Biological? Maybe...... But it's still not proven.
Chem or Bio weapons will be a bit easier to come by.
Old 04-04-2003 | 11:49 AM
  #45  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

18SecFerio

Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.

Oh and Chem and Bio weapons are considered WMD. So when you say there are no WMD but there may be chem or bio it sounds a little hipocritical...so which is it?

Ok, now you're way out of line. Don't you dare for one second tell me what and what not to beleive. That is not in your area for you to tell me. In fact, it should be apparent as day that we're on opposite sides. Deal with it. I sure do.
Don't get so defensive...after all you are the one that has dealt with the fact we are on different sides.

At somepoint I hope you face reality...I guess you just need to touch and feel the WMD to realize our President is right. Then again you probably will never admit that he is right no matter how hard the evidence is stacked against you.
Old 04-04-2003 | 11:56 AM
  #46  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

18secFerio

Does this link change your mind at all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...te-vials_x.htm
Old 04-04-2003 | 12:20 PM
  #47  
19.3secS2K's Avatar
19.3secS2K
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

Originally posted by DVPGSR
18SecFerio

Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.
And you know what, I'll have ZERO problem addmit I was wrong. I never do.

Oh and Chem and Bio weapons are considered WMD. So when you say there are no WMD but there may be chem or bio it sounds a little hipocritical...so which is it?
to me:

WMD= Nuclear or something comperable

Chem and Bio weapons arn't quite WMD, to me. Just how I see it, so thats the context of it when I type it.

Don't get so defensive...after all you are the one that has dealt with the fact we are on different sides.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? That I consciously choose to go against you? Please, my views are not just some wall to act diffrent on porpous. I choose my veiws based on how I feel, and this is how I feel. It's not a concious choice. Like I said, (at least in matters to this topic), its intuition. I don't feel the US is doing the right thing, therefor I look for facts that may support my case. In doing so has nothing to do with porpously undermining the Gov or anything like that. I just like to let the lessknown facts a little better known.

At somepoint I hope you face reality...
Oh, like I'm not already? The Reality is that countrys are messing up, and that lately, things have not gone well for our country.
War is going to help that? Nope.

I guess you just need to touch and feel the WMD to realize our President is right.
No, Front Page information is good enough for me.

Then again you probably will never admit that he is right no matter how hard the evidence is stacked against you.
Like I said, I have no problem admitting I'm not correct. I'm just waiting for that day I can be proven wrong. Hell, I invite it.
Old 04-05-2003 | 09:00 AM
  #48  
dliske's Avatar
dliske
Set a fire, go to jail!
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by 18secFerio



to me:

WMD= Nuclear or something comperable

Chem and Bio weapons arn't quite WMD, to me. Just how I see it, so thats the context of it when I type it.
Unfortunately, your definition misses the mark. WMD DOES consist of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry. Check this site out for definitions:

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

With this in mind, I believe there have been plenty of recent reports that would tend to prove that Iraq does possess them.

David Liske
Old 04-05-2003 | 09:05 AM
  #49  
19.3secS2K's Avatar
19.3secS2K
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

Originally posted by dliske
Unfortunately, your definition misses the mark. WMD DOES consist of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry. Check this site out for definitions:

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

With this in mind, I believe there have been plenty of recent reports that would tend to prove that Iraq does possess them.

David Liske
You missed my point. I don't care what the actual definition is. I was letting people know when I say WMD, I do not mean chem or bio weapons.

btw, it says this right on that page:

Further Reading: In an April 1998 article in Arms Control Today, Wolfgang Panofsky argues that the term weapons of mass destruction should be limited to nuclear weapons because of their unique destructive power.
so basiclly you backed me up. thanks :thumbup:
Old 04-05-2003 | 09:32 AM
  #50  
dliske's Avatar
dliske
Set a fire, go to jail!
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by 18secFerio
You missed my point. I don't care what the actual definition is. I was letting people know when I say WMD, I do not mean chem or bio weapons.

btw, it says this right on that page:



so basiclly you backed me up. thanks :thumbup:
I did nothing of the sort. I can pretty assuredly say that when I, DVPGSR, and others mention WMD, we are referring to NBC weapons (WMD). That page you refer to opines that the CURRENT definition should be changed because of the inherent differences in the weapon's technologies. You haven't argued that. You have simply stated Iraq doesn't possess WMD. You're talking apples when everyone else is talking oranges. All you needed to say was Iraq doesn't possess nuclear weapons, and there wouldn't be this wasted space.

David Liske



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:22 AM.