DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > The General Forum

The War

Inuyashafreak	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 12:05 AM What is your opinion of the war and why do you feel that way?
Fraser	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 12:49 AM I think Inuyasha should win. I mean, come on, he's like... cool and stuff! What war may you be talking about?
Inuyashafreak	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 12:51 AM Inuyasha should win..huh? lol!! I would be talking about the war with Iraq? What do you guys think about it and why do you think that?
tsand19151	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 1:59 AM in my opinion it was a mistake. the US went in based on a lie. to me it's all about the oil. people dying, children truamatized for life, i don't feel any safer from "terrorist".....total mistake.
BIR	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 6:30 AM ^100% agree w/tsand.... It was never about helping Iraq..I think it was It was about revenge.But Bush went about it the wrong way.And now were in a big mess over their,they say it will talk Ten yrs to get everybody back to the states.. Thats just sad.
sinai	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 8:39 AM the only thing we should be debating about Bush is whether to impeach or assassinate.
jimbobber1985	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 8:41 AM bush went in to keep the petro dollar. iraq was gunna start tradin in euros u know
EmpireDay3	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 9:13 AM all for it. smart move at the right time. But, if we were really really serious about terrorism we'd be in syria and afghanistan by now...
Stercesderised	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 10:26 AM war is stupid, period. in the end, war is really only between a population of about 50,000 people (the governments) where the bombs are dropped on the other 99% of the population who have to deal with it. I think it's fucked up that terrorist's would fly planes into buildings (or blow up civilians in general), I think it's stupid that a dictator would gas his own people, and I think it's stupid that the US government wouldn't at the very least state that the pretext for war is that they feel threatened by a dictators comments that they wish to bring down the US (for those that don't remember Saddam saying that...). I do have to say it's kind of funny that before the war pt II in Iraq that the general consensus was that the US, and the world, should have finished the job in Iraq. Just like the Iran situation, people are all up in arms again. The general consenus is that Iran shouldn't have nukes, so the government is acting on that. When the US ends up going to war with Iran, will the same people say it's a mistake?
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 10:54 AM why didnt us war with north korea or say anything when they came out and said THEY HAD nukes, iraq didnt have womd, and the us said they did, when the un said wait and well inspect... its all weird.
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 10:57 AM not that us is to blame, the un have no control, and should think about north korea,
zedsalt	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 11:00 AM Before it started, folks were saying that all the sabre-rattling that was going on must've been driving me NUTS (what with my being such a peace-loving teddy bear of a guy, y'know), and I kept telling everyone that it didn't bother me in the least. Sanctions had always been very effective, and I maintained that all of that macho posturing and the threats were designed to bring Iraq back into compliance. I kept telling everyone that actual military action was stupid to the point of insanity and that there just weren't enough utterly incompetent people in D.C. to let an actual war break out. Lord, I hate being wrong.
GeneHilbert	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 11:02 AM Should have done it 15 years ago, Saddam needed to go..... I’m sick of this bunch of religious zealots blaming us for their pitiful lives. Instead of creating a better world for themselves they kill innocent people as a political and religious statement….. That my friends - is bullshit……. If their in such a damn hurry to meet Allah – the least I can do is buy them a ticket….. However - now we know France, Germany, Russia can't be trusted in regards to arms sales and economic sanctions. Spain is spineless. The UN is full money launderers, professional extortionist and a useless over financed façade. Kofi Annan needs to go also……
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 11:35 AM haha nice view point there buddy, but not that many people do sacrafices, if you ever seen iraq life... theres good people, it is where the garden of eden originally was, and killingg extremists ok, but all the collatoral damge of killing innocent people, fuck taht, un is full of money launderers, us is the biggest money grabber .
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 11:35 AM BUSH needs to go.
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 11:37 AM not everyone in iraq has a camera, so for every bad video out, there could be 100 of good people and life.
hate9wicket	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 12:44 PM Here is an interesting take on this "war" http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/33787/ We never left, we've been bombing Iraq pretty much non stop for 15 straight years, can someone tell me why Saddam Hussain is any worse than the Kuwaiti or Saudi Royal families?
GeneHilbert	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 1:02 PM To my knowledge Kuwaiti or Saudi Royals never committed genocide... of course the Saudi Royals have there own problems - now the hatred they've been fermenting by supporting the extremist Mullahs has now come home to roost...
EvilPicnic	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 1:40 PM Gene, we are at least partly to blame for 'their pitiful lives'. The middle-east was once the most advanced region on the planet in terms of science, maths and medicine. Since then the West has invaded, cut up, and bombed the area into the warring factions we know today. Obviously there's more to it than that, but you have to admit the West isn't completely blameless. It's much like the whole Make Poverty History thing. The West makes a big fuss about how poor the 3rd world countries are and how we should do something about it, when it's the debts that they owe us and can probably never repay that keep them poor. We are hypocrites.
Fraser	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 1:47 PM Well, I think he had an ok reason for going in. With all the stuff Sadam Husein did in the past, its about time he got taken out. Of course, I dont think how he went in, or with the various lies was a good thing.
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 4:07 PM you relise the first war was also for false reasons, bush gave an ok to saddam to invade kuwait, tricking him becausse he could show the world what a horrible person saddam was, remember the iraq girl who came up and said the iraqis werethrowing babies out of hospital windows and doing horrible things, but ended up really being a senators daughter?
ZsigE	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 4:44 PM Stupidly complicated situation all round. I had absolutely no love for Hussein, but it's looking more and more like we took the wrong course in sending in troops. I just can't believe that anyone seriously thought we'd be welcomed as heroes by everyone, or that we'd be able to get out. Basically, now we're in a situation where a huge proportion of troops are committed to attempting to rebuild a country which has become Terrorism Central, while countries which have been very openly aggressive (North Korea, just for a change) are completely ignored while they build up their nuclear arsenal. I don't think we should invade Iran (it's entirely hypocritical to say "no-one gets nuclear weapons...err...except us, because we're the good guys, OK?"), but even if that wasn't the case, pretty soon we'll be spread so thin there'll be no option in the first place. Screwed-up all round. The minute you start killing people, something is very, VERY badly wrong, and continuing is not going to help. What will? Haven't a clue. Just hope and pray that something good will come of the whole mess.
Inuyashafreak	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 5:29 PM I think that the 9/11 incident was staged and it was for bankers to get money by giving loans to the government. You guys should check out this website and tell me what you think afterwards. The website is "www.reopen911.org" and be sure to keep an open mind. And I agree with the majority that this is a stupid, no-point-to-it war.
GeneHilbert	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 5:48 PM EvilPicnic..... NO, No, No - these people believe in a culture that is prime for manipulation. Look at their culture, religious based sectarianism. They believe YOU/WE/ME are the devil, and that you/we/me and your/our culture are the root of their problems. I didn't tell them that. So……who do you think feeds them that bullshit... Their political leaders and influential Mullahs.... Why…….? Because it gives them a damn convenient scapegoat. Someone different than themselves to blame for their ignorance, lack of education, lack of food, comfort, money (two goats in every yard –and all the opium they can smoke) and whatever else they can be convince of that their government lacks to supply them – This is our fault……….. Bullshit….. Same as fascism blamed their problems on the Jews - the Mullahs and their supporters blame us......
K3VIN	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 5:50 PM not everyone in iraq hates america, YOU are being fed that they are.
Inuyashafreak	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 6:02 PM I agree that not everyone hates America. It's about half and half I think. Maybe sixty-fourty.
Inuyashafreak	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 6:04 PM http://www.reopen911.org
downtowndonnie	Date: March 20, 2006 @ 6:32 PM I beileve full heartedly in the war in iraq. However, I think the war was managed poorly, and we should have been able to pull out of there a lot earlier
BIR	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 4:16 AM "Should have done it 15 years ago" I Agree! "I’m sick of this bunch of religious zealots blaming us for their pitiful lives" So what about the pitiful life's here in America,who shoud we blame? "They believe YOU/WE/ME are the devil, and that you/we/me and your/our culture are the root of their problems" Not Really,Most of the younger gen has the internet and are really smart.although there are also the one's who Hate the U.S.A for killing their friends and familys,but I cant say thats wrong of them..some of the people have only see bad all there life's they are living with years of Hate/Death/Violence. Your brain can only handle so much of that,then it effects you and you start to think that its exceptable.. when it's not. "eye for and eye will leave us all blind" Out. da Babbling
K3VIN	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 11:26 AM ^word.
K3VIN	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 11:27 AM what some people fail to relsie though, the bushes mandate 15 years ago was to get iraq out of kuwait, it was not to kill saddam.
JeraldHenry	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 3:14 PM War is always bad, and a last resort. But, it beats letting them come over and blow up more buildings and more Americans.
K3VIN	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 3:24 PM ................. did iraq go over to the us and blow up buildings? i dont think so, the al-queda had no connection to iraq... its been said many times.
aflunky	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 4:17 PM I'll reply to this one soon.
8111	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 8:23 PM boy its amazing how people can still eat Bush's shit and wonder what the funny taste in their mouth is
K3VIN	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 8:25 PM i think you mean disgusting
downtowndonnie	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 10:25 PM K3VIN - "what some people fail to relsie though, the bushes mandate 15 years ago was to get iraq out of kuwait, it was not to kill saddam." One of the main reasons Saddam was left in power was that the allied UN force in Iraq was worried about being able to handle any wmd weapons (mostly chemical) that saddam might have. Some likely motivation for his removal was that the technology had been developed to repel any such attacks. So the Bushes could finally finish it off.
downtowndonnie	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 10:33 PM in fact, after the US had declared an end to hostilities in iraq, they hoped that Saddam would be over thrown in some kind of internal coup, which the CIA tried to instigate. However, this failed, and thus our buddy Saddam stayed in power.
downtowndonnie	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 10:39 PM in fact, after the US had declared an end to hostilities in iraq, they hoped that Saddam would be over thrown in some kind of internal coup, which the CIA tried to instigate. However, this failed, and thus our buddy Saddam stayed in power.
Dizeazed	Date: March 21, 2006 @ 10:52 PM I’d like to know how it's possible for a society that has the knowledge to figure out how to create a shuttle that will take you to the moon, without blowing you up or sucking the air out of your lungs... Yet we can't find Osama... On Earth?...
sinai	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 8:31 AM i posed that question in a different form in another thread diz, "how the fuck did the atomic bomb go from some scientist's wet dream to leveling a city in three fucking years, but cancer we just can't seem to figure out..."
ShadowMom	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 8:41 AM Priorities. Look where your tax dollars go.
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 10:05 AM ...... cancer evolves, the research done in cancer is phenomenal, look at what 15 years ago, cancer in yor limbs means losing a body, now you can be cured a lot, the cancer survival rate is a lot higher then it used to be, things like cnacer and the common cold are things very hard to find out how to just cure, instead of just treating it, atomic bombs to become harder to make if you have the product.
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 10:05 AM body part*
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 10:08 AM one theory i have is that the republicans actually have osama and they are gonna hold on to him and say they caught him comin around election time, then go on about terrortist protection, also something catastrohic may happen too... but on the real, how are you gonna find a guy, who has 4390535 impersonators, is in a country probably you aren't in... its hard shit... he could be underground, plus do you think we are still truely looking for him.
zedsalt	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 10:51 AM Personally, I find the saddest aspect of "War is always bad, and a last resort. But, it beats letting them come over and blow up more buildings and more Americans" to be the high probability that Jerald is a reasonably bright, well-informed person. I mean, it SEEMS so obvious to most of us that the Hussein regime and Al Quaeda have always been bitter eneimes...and there certainly hasn't been any new facts come to light that dispute that notion...but look at what a well-administrated misinformation campaign can do! They don't need to feed us slogans through loudspeakers 24/7. Take any politician who gives ineffectual lip service to a "cultural" issue or two, have him (almost never "her") repeat the idea a few times, and voila! instant truthtwisting. They make it look so pitifully easy.
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 11:00 AM lets not fail to mention didnt america fund the al-queda to go into afghanistan and do somethin bout the russians but left them in the cold?
AgentMGD	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 11:52 AM I spent my weekend marching and protesting the war - have been doing it since it started ...it's time to bring ALL the troops home. we have caused enough damage to a nation that was NO real threat to us. yeah we liberated the Iraqi from an evil dictator but i stil think the real reason why we are there is because of OIL. This nation cannot afford another Vietnam. Bring the troops home!
downtowndonnie	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 1:54 PM ^^ When it comes to pulling out of Iraq, its not a question any more of wether or not its right for them to have gone in there in the first place. Its a question of when Iraq is ready for US troops to leave. If we pulled out now, Iraq might very well fall into civil war.
downtowndonnie	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 1:56 PM I think its pointless to continue protesting it honestly, it just lowers morale in the troops and that can cost lives, and mean the troops will stay there longer...
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 3:18 PM ... iraq doesnt want them there... ro do they? i thoguht they were horrible suicide bombing people who are extreme...? or are htey rational and want the us there to protect against thhe very few bad people?
downtowndonnie	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 4:26 PM well, as much as I know they probaly want to kill each other in a civil war, it would be more civil and humanitarian to stay in and try to establish some sort of order in the country that we caused to deteriorate to that state in the first place. Afterall, we toppled there gov, why would we just leave without firmly establishing a new one?
tooles	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 4:43 PM It doesn't really matter anymore who wants the US to be in Iraq or not. If we don't set up a stable government, it'll just be another thing for the Islamic population to hold against us; the region will again descend into a theocratic, povertous breeding ground for extremism and the whole Middle Eastern problem will be worse off than it was before the invasion. We are, for better or worse, in a position of responsibility...and what's more, we have a real chance to form a stable, reliable partner for peace in the Middle East. Maybe it'll take some time, but I think that's something worth fighting towards.
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 5:06 PM why cant the us stabilize itself?
downtowndonnie	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 5:24 PM ^^well put tooles
K3VIN	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 5:27 PM u.s.
celtaidd	Date: March 22, 2006 @ 5:53 PM U.S and Allied Forces
sinai	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 8:38 AM protesting the war doesn't lower any soldier's morale. when you getting shot at, you could give less a fuck about who agrees with the position your in, the only thing lowering your morale is getting shot at in the fucking first place. and if you believe that we have a chance to build a reliable partner for peace in that clusterfuck, then you were one of the people who actually thought that iraq had terrible weapons and were a threat to us in the first place. by the way, how did that end up turning out?
zedsalt	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 11:08 AM Anybody out there with a definition of the phrase "civil war" which would NOT cover what's going on in Iraq right now? Let's up the ante- can anyone show me a fact or figure that would preclude the use of the phrase "all out civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq? I'm not arguing against the fact that American troops are achieving good things in Iraq; I'm saying that their presence is enough of a DEstabilizing, exacerbating force that it makes such efforts statistically insignificant.
AgentMGD	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 11:42 AM I think its pointless to continue protesting it honestly, it just lowers morale in the troops and that can cost lives, and mean the troops will stay there longer... protesting is my civil liberty to express my opinions and views about the war ...i support the troops(my father served in Vietnam, Desert Storm and this one) HOWEVER i do NOT support the reasons, objectives and goals (which this administration has yet to define) for going to war in Iraq. will someone please explain to me who is the real "enemy" here? granted we did liberate a dictator which our very own CIA put into office back in the 80s however no one invaded our shores to liberate us from a king and tyrannt during the American Revolution even though we did get assistance and financial backing from foreign countries like France, Spain, etc. it's time for the Iraqis to secure and define their own borders. it's time to bring the troops home.
K3VIN	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 11:48 AM look at all the people who have been in the army on this site....
K3VIN	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 11:50 AM some have songs anti- it
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 12:03 PM "hate" is a strong word i resent the actions of my government, i did not vote for them to be in power and if it was up to me i would've had them up in court for what i consider to be a string of war crimes. now, before anyone goes justifying that war, just remember... you paid for it... and still will be for years... and for what? rising oil prices? there's a handful of winners in this... the ones who walk into the disaster zones afterwards and get the contracts to rebuild... and mind they aren't ALL connected in some way to the government individuals responsible for the crap what started it... it is all wrong....
tooles	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 5:35 PM Haha. So Sinai, what would you suggest? Sit back? Chill out? Let a lot of people die of problems we could solve? A lot more people will die in a civil war than die in attacks on the small pockets of insurgents that exist today. How can you possibly justify a position of nonchalance? This is our problem, because if we don't help solve it, we will only suffer the consequences later down the road (vis-a-vis Sept. 11, 2001). I think it's pretty sick to say that there isn't a chance to build peace. That "clusterfuck", as you so charmingly put it, is full of innocent people who don't deserve our apathy.
K3VIN	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 5:37 PM save the poverty in us...
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 23, 2006 @ 5:39 PM you can put a price on a barrel of oil... you CANT put a price on a dead soldier, his grieving family or a nation being targetted by terrorists. is all this really worth it? is it?
sinai	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 11:10 AM "That "clusterfuck", as you so charmingly put it, is full of innocent people who don't deserve our apathy." or our wrath, but that didnt stop ya the first time did it? "I think it's pretty sick to say that there isn't a chance to build peace." OH YEAH?!?! WELL WHERE THE FUCK WAS THAT ATTITUDE WHEN WE WERE TELLING YOU NOT TO GO OVER THERE IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE! sorry, don't mean to shout, but you walked right into that one, and i like to really enhance my more amazing points, nothing personal. "A lot more people will die in a civil war than die in attacks on the small pockets of insurgents that exist today." and exactly how long of a timeline are you using for that calculation? because if that shit goes on for years and years, i doubt it. and i can use the phrase "rousing success" if you'd like, as long as you understand that by saying "rousing success", i mean "clusterfuck" i'm willing to make that sacrifice to you, it's the kind of man i am.
zedsalt	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 11:18 AM Tooles, what you're saying would make a great deal of sense, were it not for the fact that our presence there IS THE PROBLEM. It is our presence in the Middle East that has put us in danger. It was our presence in the Middle East that made us the target of attacks by Saddam Hussein's mortal enemies in Al Quaeda. It's not like a "cut our losses and go home" approach would be a new tactic for the U.S. in the Middle East. I mean, we go charging in without any real international support...or, indeed, the knowledge of the American citizenry...make an infinitely worse mess of a bad situation, the American administration changes hands, our troops come home (or are shipped off to the new administration's pet mess), the locals fight it out much more quickly than they would have if our troops had remained, and the people on the Middle Eastern streets grow to hate the U.S. even more. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result."- Mark Twain
K3VIN	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 11:35 AM history does not repeart itself, we repeat history!
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 11:37 AM Calm down sinai. At the beginning of this whole thing I was a supporter of the war. Both the citizens of the US and the UK were sold misinformation by our governments. Remember the WMD's, the missiles which were to be raining down on us within 15 minutes? Undoubtably Saddamm was a horrible monster of a dictator who needed deposing. But invasion was completely the wrong way to go about it, and the only reason why I and my friends ultimately decided that it was probably for the best was the way Blair kept stressing that Iraq had the capability to bombard us with missiles, which naturally worried us. Now it's been revealed that the whole thing was a crock of shit we can see the mess we're in. We came in heavy-handidly and completely ripped the central government to shreds, removing all of the figures in power without replacing them with anyone with the people's fear or respect. And so we're stuck here. If we leave the place goes to the dogs as the rival factions duke it out and appoint a new bastard to the throne. The longer we stay the more we behave like an occupying force and lose the trust of the Iraqi people. It's an impossible situation which our stupid governments have put our armed forces into. To run would be irresponsible, and so the only solution is to stay until a strong enough Iraqi government is in place and then leave as soon as possible, and who knows how long that'll take? I believe that the UN sanctions and international boycotts would have ultimately worked: eventually the Iraqis would have been pressurised into sorting things out on their own. But our arrogant governments (with vested interests) were impatient and went for the quick and stupid option.
K3VIN	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 11:43 AM us and britian went to war without uns permission.. punishment should ensue!!!!!
downtowndonnie	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 1:02 PM ^^I agree with a fair amount of what evilpicnic said, with the main exception being his last statement that UN sanctions might have worked in the end. The main problem with imposing UN sanctions on a country run by a dictatorship, especially one where the dictator could care less about the people, is that the economic effects are only felt by the people. The dictator can then just sqeeze whatever he lacks in boycotts from the rest of the citizens in the country. If there was a peaceful solution that could have been found, I don't think it would have laid in sanctions.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 1:56 PM I believe that the notion that any country can democratise any other country leads us to misunderstand the fundamental concept of democracy building and misread our own history in Britain or America, where the struggle for democracy was a long, slow and internal: a struggle in which people over centuries seized their own rights, and not one in which overnight a foreign invading army somehow liberated us from external conquerors and made us free. Wars fought even in the name of noble objectives create not democracy but anarchy. Any social scientist will tell you that anarchy is the condition in which tyranny breeds. Where you have previously had a secular tyranny like in Iraq, you might get a theocratic tyranny. In places like Afghanistan where you have had a theocratic tyranny, you may get a warlord tyranny. Left to its own devices, Iran is far more likely to achieve democracy, though slowly, than Iraq where it has been imposed from the outside. Democracy comes bottom up and not top down. Recent events show therefore that "preventative democracy" is a better answer to terrorism than preventative war, but for "preventative democracy" to work we must understand the nature of democracy. By failing to do so, America has turned what might have been friends of the democratic process in Iraq into humiliated and vengeful enemies of the US military. The US and British Governments seemed to imply that if you liquidated the Ba'athist dictatorship, automatically in its place would appear overnight a democracy, as if the only thing that stood between Iraqi society and democracy was the presence of a dictator. American history from 1776-1789 and through the civil war shows the 200 hundred years it took to achieve an insufficient democracy in the United States. Our leaders would do well to first read our own history prior to talking about having to democratise other people. You don't start with a Parliament, a Bill of Rights, a constitution, a free press and an independent judiciary, but with citizenship, education and civic institutions in the neighbourhood. When Alex de Tocqueville toured America in the 1830s, he found much that was wrong, but was pleased that liberty was local and started with civic institutions. Real democracy building requires a concentration on education, a fact recognised in the formative years of the US when John Adams of Massachusetts agreed with Thomas Jefferson of Virginia that the constitution would not work without state education for all who would be citizens. In the formative years of the United States, If America had understood this it would have put its tanks not in front of the Iraqi Energy Ministry but the schools and libraries.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 1:57 PM (sigh)(Waits for the blowback...)
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:08 PM (sigh)(Waits for the blowback...)
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:26 PM ^^No blowback from here. I agree with you, I said similar in my last post - you can't remove a dictatorship and expect a working democracy to spring up out of nowhere. But still - Hussein was a vicious, aggressive dictator, a danger to both his people, and potentialy to the people of other countries. Would you have us do nothing? I still do think outside pressure would've worked. It would've taken musch more time, in which more Kurds would've been killed, but would ultmately've been less messy.
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:37 PM That's all well and good, draco, but what are we supposed to do in the interim? Let people kill each other while we just grin in that father-knows-best kind of way? I have this same argument with my history prof every week, so I'll leave it alone, because I'm tired to death of it. Sinai, dude, man, c'mon. All shouting pushed right to the side, my attitude hasn't changed. The war has always been about instating a new government in Iraq--correct? I have always supported this because I believe we owe it to the region to build something positive...sorry to paraphrase, Zed, but the fact that our presence has repeatedly caused problems makes the political situation in Iraq and the Middle East our problem. What I'm saying is that we need to stop this endless cycle of 'go in, come back with our tails between our legs' that Zed is talking about. I'll say it again--we're in a position now where we can actually start to work towards stability. Leaving now would only mean our sons and grandsons would have to clean up our mess. I just don't see how that's a good solution.
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:43 PM ^^No blowback from here. I agree with you, I said similar in my last post - you can't remove a dictatorship and expect a working democracy to spring up out of nowhere. But still - Hussein was a vicious, aggressive dictator, a danger to both his people, and potentialy to the people of other countries. Would you have us do nothing? I still do think outside pressure would've worked. It would've taken musch more time, in which more Kurds would've been killed, but would ultmately've been less messy.
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:44 PM fuck, sorry peeps, silly mistake.
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 2:45 PM Don't worry,we all love the silliness.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 5:42 PM tooles, In no way am I saying that what was going on was good. People killing each other is never a good thing. However, that doesn't justify attacking a country that, though not on hte same page as us, has never attacked us. Also I personally believe that before you try and fix other countries, we gotta worrie about #1, the USA. The president has been so busy with the war, he's neglected his own country. Hurricaine Katrina Proved that. We are there to change the country into a democracy. In the long run this will benefit Bush cuz of oil. Now I ask any military our there, which one are you willing to die for? Are you willing to die for Iraq, or are you willing to die to make certain people rich because we are definately not fighting for our freedom.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 5:47 PM (waits for blowback)
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 5:49 PM You don't need to wait for bowback. It'll come naturally if you eat enough cabbage.
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 5:51 PM It's not about oil, dude. That's just not a credible excuse. What is more interesting is your statement "that doesn't justify attacking a country that, although not on the same page as us, has never attacked us." Do you believe that we should never take military action in a country that is not an aggressor? Does this mean you would have supported the UN staying out of Somalia? Rwanda? Do you currently support apathy towards the crises in Darfur? Are you saying that there aren't universal standards of human rights that we are obligated as humans to uphold? Do you think that bodies like the UN Security Council should be kept from peacekeeping missions? I'd sure like to hear your reasons for thinking these things.
EvilPicnic	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 5:56 PM See? Tooles has been on the beans!
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:00 PM
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:04 PM whoa, tooles, you ought to go back and read again and a) not take the context out from the original statement and b) not twist my words back so i sound like some anti-war peace loving hippy. and as for trying to put me on the spot about issues that weren't even talked about, Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur, of course i would bloody well support the UN. i just dont see the UN trying to enforce what is becoming a single nation's view on the rest of the world. now, excuse me, because if i stoop to this narrow-minded level, i would suggest then that you would support military action wherever you thought necessary... and we ALL know the mistakes of military action. do NOT justify your reasons by calling yourself a supporter of human rights... where were the fucking rights of innocent Iraqis when you and my government shelled the shit outta them? my opinion of you is of someone who would blindly follow the leader who's word is Gospel... and if thats the case, you are seriously in the wrong place.
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:15 PM Haha dude, first off, I was talking to draco in that last post. Second, there is nothing wrong with saying there are justifications for military action. You say we ALL know the mistakes of military action. Do we ALL know the mistakes of never using military actions? Absolutely. You would never be able to convince me that we didn't make huge mistakes by ignoring Rwanda. To your second point, where were the fucking rights of innocent Iraqis getting repressed or killed under a violent dictatorship? To your third point, the one where you call me a blind follower and seem to suggest I am a religious nut of some sort, I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Where have I even mentioned following a leader? Read what I have to say and let me know. I am a Canadian, and a member of the Liberal Party, so I am not at all uncomfortable shouting out the mistakes of my federal or provincial government, both of which are controlled by Conservatives. So next time you accuse me of "narrow-minded"-ness, make sure you're not just arrogantly grouping me with an easily snubbed demographic. That said, I'm not trying to get on anyone's toes here. If you follow the thread, it was pretty clear I was responding to draco and not y'self. Take 'er easy, man.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:21 PM Oil is credible, Bush and Cheney were both former oil company execs. Oil Prices have skyrocketed since they took office with no real credible reason, You know they still have heavy stocks in oil, thus, they got rich. As for my other comment, I simply believe that they did nothing to us to justify going to war with them. While we forget about Osama, who was the brain behind the reason for this war on "terrorism". THe Gov't isn't even thinking about him anymore. Bush used the fears of 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Talkng about weapons of mass destruction. After the dust cleared there was none. So Bush switched to say that we are there to change the country to a democracy. I don't know about you, but I don't meddle in other's affairs unless I'm involved. I may try to help, but that's if you ask for it. Plus, as I said before, while we were trying to make this other country better, ours were suffering for various reasons. Saddam was not a good man, and needed to be stopped but at the cost of how many Americans? What about now? Saddam is captured, Iraq is begining to run on it's own once again. So why are so many troops still there? It's not just to train Iraqi troops. LOL @ EvilPicnic
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:24 PM same things said in all fairness. correction. and if you dont want to be pidgeon holed, dont say for one minute OIL wasnt on the minds of the aggressors. of course it bloody well is, the worlds supply is running out if you aint noticed, prices are going through the roof, we are all getting belted shitless and no amount of military action is going to stop the rot, only who gets whats left. and if thats the price of "peace" then fuck it, blow the East off the map and be done. and go back to horse and carts. no offence to anyone from the East but i refuse to stand by and listen to words, whether yours or his, that would otherwise take any remote hint of conspiracy when its becoming blatently obvious its not cut and dried as you might like it to be. nobody is innocent in this. not even you or i. our actions somewhere have all resulted in this. i never asked for a war and i wish i had never even bothered trying to say something. my opinion. THIS war is BULLSHIT. ALL THE FUCKING WAY. Thousands of people died. It's NOTHING like Somalia, its NOTHING like Vietnam, its NOTHING like any war ever fought on ANY front. BUT THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME. EVERYONE LOSES. Excuse me! Please, pick some more off. Pick it all off. I got nothing better to do right now... or we could always go and pick a fight with another country.... say, which ones HAVENT we fucked with?
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:25 PM Then why are they there? I'm sorry man, I just can't see the whole "oil conspiracy" thing...I guess it just seems too inhuman to me. I know that there are facts that can suggest a relationship, but it just seems to far-fetched to me. That's just an opinion, and I certainly wouldn't base a paper on it, but that's the way I feel.
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:26 PM That one was at draco again, Mr. Buzz.
K3VIN	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:26 PM my opinion is that things are too complicated, but for the whole non political side, i know it all!
tooles	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:28 PM I'd get into this more, but I've got two papers to write this weekend and I need to get all of my drinking done tonight. It's a hard-knock life.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:41 PM We're training Iraqi troops, rebuiling cities, and maintaining a military presence. Keeping a military presence means that they are sitting on a base, standing watch, and getting shot at. There's no real reason, just there to be there. A lot of them can be home now, but now they're talking about keeping troops there for a few more years. I don't think this is reasonable. ChillinBuzz, I agree with you, and I see that this is a subject you're passioned about, you're on the borderline of ranting, try to keep calm with your words and your point will come off better.
draconigena	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:43 PM Yeah, I'm gonna go get drunk too, this political talk is giving me a headache.
aflunky	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 6:48 PM Blah! What a mess.... although, Draco has some good points. Don't worry, I'll be out of the Navy soon. I will talk politics after that.
100thmonk	Date: March 24, 2006 @ 8:49 PM man tooles, you should get yourself a job as a campaign speech writer, they wouldn't even have to think the stuff up themselves. if i recall correctly i think somebody had a "feeling" that there were WDM's, but those as well as most of the other excuses manufactured for this war have not been supported by evidence. your twist on what we are doing out there is probably the best excuse except for the fact that WE are the ones most responsible for the state of affairs in iraq, and have been for two generations of bush presidency. i cannot deny the fact that your butter soft take on things makes me feel much better about it all. it's a very sweet pill you are offering. let's call it "OMNISCIENOL", it will encourage our natural ability to think we are good and we know how to help everyone else in the world. do we really think we are good?

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: