Juu Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=ff00cc] [size=1]Well, it seems like we're going to war either tonight or tomorrow. = \ I was really hoping it wouldn't happen, too... ----- There's a Peace Protest tomorrow, and five of my friends and I are going through the neighborhood tonight, posting flyers for the march and anti-war stickers. What are your opinions about going to war?[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor Ding Dong Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 It sucks. Saddam may have lied, but at least now he's disarming. It's better than nothing. But, sincehe lied, innocent people will die. THat seems fair[sarcasm]! The only war i want is Advance Wars, in my GBA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigervx Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [SIZE=1][COLOR=teal] To be honest, I don't like it at all. I mean, the UN weapons inspectors are doing a good job! Looking over the Missile destructions, and they say that Iraq is cooperating. So whats with Bush? When they start demolitioning missiles he yells "SEE!? LOOK! THEY'RE NOT DISARMING!" I mean, it's possible they hold weapons of mass destruction, but the UN weapons inspectors need more time. Hes making the USA look like Some fuastist state, attacking any country at will. We still NEED more proof. But he wants to go to war anyways. I'm sorry, but I don't like the idea of sending our boys out to die in a hail of gun fire for a war they don't believe in. It may not be a cheerful note to leave at the end of a post, sorry mods. But to be honest, its the truth. Most people don't believe in this war. [/SIZE][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syk3 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 It's very sad, but it was kind of obvious he wouldn't disarm. It is inevitable that we'll officially go to war tonight, but we won't be attacking right away. Aparently we are "waiting until there is no moon in the sky" or no sand storms or something. If we had only taken care of Sudam all those years ago...oh well, can't worry about that now. I don't really want war, but it seems we gave them so many chances and tried to avoid this in the past, so now this is for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fiasco Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Good, I hope they all burn in hell. I want them to die. I'm not sad, I hope they hang him by his testicles. The UN, is crap. They really suck, its pathetic. But Syk3, back then, when we attacked IRAQ, it wasn't to get Sudam, although we should of. But hey, this government is messed up anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjaza Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Saddam hasn't done what anyone else has wanted him to for god knows how long now. I think it's rather naive to expect any differently this time, especially with Bush thinking he is the lone ranger. He talked like a cowboy at some showdown at sunrise in that last speech. I just hope no more kids do these stupid school walkouts. They get to leave school (how convenient, considering how many kids just [i]love[/i] school), and complain about stuff most don't even seem to understand. That 60 Minutes report on it didn't help their image much either lol. Oh well. Anyway, I'm not saying anything else in here lol. I can't stand these political threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yu Law Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I wonder how long this one will last -_- 1yr 3yrs 10yrs 20 yrs will our children be born into a life of warefare.....will we even live long enough to have children.....will this ultimately turn into another world war.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigervx Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by solitaire [/i] [B]Good, I hope they all burn in hell. I want them to die. I'm not sad, I hope they hang him by his testicles. The UN, is crap. They really suck, its pathetic. [/B][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=teal] Your only fourteen, you don't know what your talking about. The UN is one of the few things holding together the world. Without it, the world might plung into WWIII you idiot. The UN are not crap, so be quite and don't talk about things you don't understand. I may only be twelve years old, but I know more about the political climate then you. [/COLOR][/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juu Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=ff00cc] [size=1]Well, I actually see some irony in this. The US has hundreds of 'weapons of mass destruction', and they're picking on Iraq to disarm. Our school made a big deal about the walk-outs. They're actually not letting anybody out of their classrooms, since about ten people walked out during the last protest... o.o;[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circ Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'd have though Bush could just have hired some bouty hunters :D This could sooo have been taken care of long ago. Bleh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinetic Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=darkblue] I don't know much about politics, but I'm one of the few people that actually supports Bush in his movement to war. I always seem to be in the minority, being born into a Republican family, and being a Republican myself, although I don't care about the political groups. If we don't do anything about terrorism then what are we going to do? Sit around while another plane flies into the Pentagon? If we don't do something, there will be more attacks. Plus, the troops are already advancing. No protest is going to stop the war. If I somehow managed to get a gun into the White House, and held it to my head saying that I would kill myself if we went to war, they wouldn't stop. They would find a way to disarm me. They would find a way to continue the war. Flame me all you want, but that's my opinion. [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circ Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 If I correctly remember the story, [i]Afghanistan[/i] helped Al-Qaïda. Bush used this to his advantage and orientated american's hatred at Iraq for his own reasons. But hey, maybe I'm just stupid and misinformed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 NO War on Iraq! Blood for Oil! Give diplomacy a chance again. 17 resolutions is not enough of a chance! Saddam is not a mad man. Bush is the leader of a rouge nation known for killing its own people. (ruby ridge, waco texas, oh wait, that was another administration) Saddam has done nothing wrong. (unless you count things like what happend on March 16th, 15 years ago. but if you cant tell me what happend, how many died, where they died, and how they died, you should just quit with your efforts to debate this issue.) It is obvious that we as the american people need to rise up, remove this stalinistic dictator, and replace him with a benevolent leader like Saddam or the men he has modeled himself after... Only then will the world be a safe place. With completly crazy men holding the reigns of the worlds most powerful weapons and armies, we will never be safe and that is why we must give the very power of america to Saddam. The anti-semitism of the world and the violations of human rights are not an issue worthy of attention... only the protest of certain administrations and their attempts to remove the humanitarians of the middle east are worthy of our efforts. Off to war we go... Off to war they go... not you... but them, and people like my father who fought with the army rangers to come home and have pig blood thrown on him by loving people like the hippies of the United states. Indeed, off to war I hope you all go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juu Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=ff00cc] [size=1]Umm... Gokents, are you for or against the war? o.o; I didn't quite understand what you ment. ^_^;; Well, for one, war [i]is[/i] terrorism. The action is considered just the same as terrorism if the UN doesn't approve. If the UN doesn't give one country permission to drop an attack on another country, then the other countries are then allowed to attack that country. Just out of curiousity, what complete-full evidence do we have that the 9/11 attacks were linked to Iraq, anyway? Also, the US never actually won the Persian Gulf or Vietnam War. So, keeping that in mind, I don't support the whole idea that the US is going to win no matter what. Rome and Babylonia didn't expect to lose either. I'm not saying the US is going to win or lose. Just that you shouldn't just assume anything in particular.[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I am strongly against the war. I dont like Sadam, but I can see why he would want those weapons...The same reason we want them. North Korea is a much larger problem. Every empire has had it's day in the sun...Then they colapse back in on themselves. Oh well...I'll just content myself to root for the pretzels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'd prefer another alternative, but Saddam has been in power far too long. And, unlike most, apparantly, I don't think Bush is an idiot. I support the war whole-heartedly. And I find myself in agreeance with SITH; North Korea is a much larger threat than Iraq. However, I think your(Juu) saying 'pick on Iraq', is ignorant. Not saying you, of course, but your statement is. Iraq has done more than it's own fair share of picking and Saddam is a threat. It's never been the US's policy to strike first, and I honestly think that's been one of our problems, but with things being as they are, striking first seems to be the best options. I'd rather see Saddam removed from power than American lives taken any day. The thing that I feel most people don't think about it this(this is no longer directed at Juu): What if there was another large-scale terrorist attack and [i]your[/i] mother, [i]your[/i] father, or [i]your[/i] loved ones were lost. I think it's time for people to face facts, the threat of another large-scale terrorist attack [i]is[/i] real. And who made the rule that terrorist can only strike large cities like New York? Anyone live near a large stadium or college or some other large civilian facility? Hello... I don't think anyone's opinions are so much wrong. I just think people should look at the scenario I provided and decided whether or not the US is justified in attacking a potential terrorist threat. In my opinion we are. I just hope God thinks we are too. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm glad to hear that form someone who has no idea what precidence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [color=red][b]IT'S BEGUN. "About a dozen U.S. and coalition warplanes dropped precision munitions on nearly a dozen Iraqi artillery pieces in the southern no-fly zone that could have been in range of American troops poised to invade southern Iraq, Pentagon officials told CNN. Some of the artillery was located on the Al Faw peninsula, between Basra and Iraq's Persian Gulf coast. Another strike targeted sites northwest of Iraq's border with Kuwait" "Warplanes also struck Iraqi cable repeater sites and command and control sites. In addition, at least one Al Ababil surface-to-surface missile launcher was struck. " [url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html[/url][/b][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]I'd prefer another alternative, but Saddam has been in power far too long. And, unlike most, apparantly, I don't think Bush is an idiot. I support the war whole-heartedly. -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I am with you... As said before, We ARE the Silent Majority. Under-estamation of a man's intelligence is the first step to allowing yourself to be the fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 You meen "slight majority"...And thank you very much Nixon-have your silent majority... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Actually, SITH, if you'll reread my original post, you'll see I know exactly what precedence is. :) I also think following precedence in every single situation is foolish. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i] [B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]Umm... Gokents, are you for or against the war? o.o; I didn't quite understand what you ment. ^_^;; Well, for one, war [i]is[/i] terrorism. The action is considered just the same as terrorism if the UN doesn't approve. If the UN doesn't give one country permission to drop an attack on another country, then the other countries are then allowed to attack that country. Just out of curiousity, what complete-full evidence do we have that the 9/11 attacks were linked to Iraq, anyway? Also, the US never actually won the Persian Gulf or Vietnam War. So, keeping that in mind, I don't support the whole idea that the US is going to win no matter what. Rome and Babylonia didn't expect to lose either. I'm not saying the US is going to win or lose. Just that you shouldn't just assume anything in particular.[/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] I never even brought up winning or lossing. I never brought up terrorism. However you did bring up actions not supported by the u.n. So unless you can tell me what happend to 30,000 people in rowanda while the U.N. stood by and did nothing, just shut up. Im not even gonna honor your stupidity as to what happend in the first gulf war. Nor will I acknowledge your lack of consistancy when you didnt protest the un-approved actions against kosavo and bosnia that Mr. clinton took with out the U.N.'s approval. As for vietnam, I doubt you know a thing about it besides the lacking ideas and concept taught by inept teachers at public schools. (do you even know the years of U.S. involvment? Hint: they arent 64 to 73.) Sorry to be rough, but when you get on my case, youve got it coming to you. Oh, and I doubt I will be back to this thread. I do not believe the political opinions of some people here are worthy of the spent energy it takes to debate issues as complex as these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circ Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Heck, then what happened to the Cambodgian and the Bosnian? Things like that are inherent to human nature. We [i]are[/i] stupid enough to be warmongers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Warmongers is exactly what the anti-war protestors said in the 60's. Those protestors are responsible for the lives and deaths of the very cambodians you are talking about. All 2 million that pol pot killed. Had the support been there in this country, we would and could have prevented that slaughter, but the anti-war mongers were louder than the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm just saying it's not our problem. We just are chosing to make it our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts