dammit

this website is sooooo slow.
now when it lets me reply again, its the next day and im sober.

anyway, i personally don't think we should attack Iran, Pakistan or N. Korea.
I was just using the arguement to say that if we are so concerned with liberating people from horrible dictators and keeping the world safe from terrorism there are much bigger fish to fry than Iraq.
About Pakistan,I agree the official stance of the government is against terror. hell they allied themselves with us right before we attacked afghanistan.
I think thats just a front though to keep america publicly out of their business. they have a history of supporting terrorism (especially in india), and i think still are through the "underground." I wouldn't put too much trust in their support.
and you say that this war is a bad thing for the economy?
if you'll remember america was in a not to good recession right before the gulf war, and afterwards during the 90's there was an economic boom.
the government will be spending alot of money to finance a war, and that money goes to american businesses (the whole military-industrial complex).
by taking over iraq we get the economy boost of war, plus get to take over their oil supplies.
I don't know too much about the oil situation in alaska. (don't know how accurate this info is) what i have heared though is that we don't have as much up there as is claimed and also there is alot of public sentiment agianst the pumping of oil out of alaska because of environmental reasons. so pumping oil out of there would cause a politician to lose public support.

quote:

Originally posted by montie dammit this website is sooooo slow. now when it lets me reply again, its the next day and im sober. anyway, i personally don't think we should attack Iran, Pakistan or N. Korea. I was just using the arguement to say that if we are so concerned with liberating people from horrible dictators and keeping the world safe from terrorism there are much bigger fish to fry than Iraq. About Pakistan,I agree the official stance of the government is against terror. hell they allied themselves with us right before we attacked afghanistan. I think thats just a front though to keep america publicly out of their business. they have a history of supporting terrorism (especially in india), and i think still are through the "underground." I wouldn't put too much trust in their support. and you say that this war is a bad thing for the economy? if you'll remember america was in a not to good recession right before the gulf war, and afterwards during the 90's there was an economic boom. the government will be spending alot of money to finance a war, and that money goes to american businesses (the whole military-industrial complex). by taking over iraq we get the economy boost of war, plus get to take over their oil supplies. I don't know too much about the oil situation in alaska. (don't know how accurate this info is) what i have heared though is that we don't have as much up there as is claimed and also there is alot of public sentiment agianst the pumping of oil out of alaska because of environmental reasons. so pumping oil out of there would cause a politician to lose public support.

Yes I definetely think there are other countries where people are worse off but I never really thought that this whole thing was about humanitarian aid to begin with. Anyway, I would agree that Pakistan has connections to terror groups in India but I doubt that they would support terrorist actions against the US, simply because the potential fallout and risks involved would be tremendous.

Anyway war is by no means an effective, efficient, or for sure way to stimulate the economy. If it were so successful, you would see a lot more economically depressed countries utilizing war as an economic tool. Yes the arms industry does get a boost in demand but it's such a small sector of the economy, that its economic effect on the entire economy as a whole is miniscule to the point of negligeble. We didn't see economic booms in the Vietnam or the Korean war. It did have an impact in WW2 but that was more as a result of the economy being propelled to full employment after the depression. At any rate it would be far more efficient to simply to take the money used in defense spending and pump it back in the economy or lower taxes. The boost in the economy after the gulf war was as a result of the IT/Internet tech boom rather than the war. No economist would ever preach war as a sound economic tool.

With regards to the Alaskan oil fields and political fallout, don't you think the President is experiencing MUCH more public fallout in America AND the rest of the world??? There are a lot more people against war than there are against drilling in Alaska ...

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax here is the way i look at it. hes fucked up so is his regime. he should have been taken out long ago by a coalition or something. US has nothing to fear from 100 mile missiles. I think this is a grand opportunity to do a great thing. go in, set up a democracy, and then we can leave. We can get rid of our bases in saudi arabia, pakistan, and iran, because the iraq threat will be gone and then the middle east can be well rid of us. Bush probably isnt doing it because hes a sweetheart, but does that mean it shouldnt be done? Its very clear what we are going to do with our bombing strategy, and the civilians know it. Its their fucking choice to be his shields if thats what they want to do. People should evacuate and get the hell out of there and leave Saddam to his fate. Bush isnt going to be the one in Iraq, the regular American troopers are and THEY are going to be the ones implementing the day to day treatment of the people. Americans, believe it or not, feel fuckin sorry for those people. I think regardless of what Bush says, the troops are going to go in there and do their best to help the people. Hopefully after this is done, UN will realize whats up and help get a solution for pakistand/Israel while were over there. God, itd be so nice to never haave to think about the middle east again.

American idealism at it's greatest

___________________

quote:

Venus: And there are troops of savage giraffes whose necks are on fire, like the starry ejaculations of fireworks in the very pale sky of childhood ... Venus: Enter, enter here - men of all kinds and races, victims of reality! You who have the thirst for dreams. ... Venus: You, on life's bitter road, drenched in hard sunlight who have the thirst that once more the dark marvel of dreams...

quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker American idealism at it's greatest

Id say getting .001% of the world population mobilized for rallies and thinking thats going to impress the other 99.9% is idealistic.

Phef, what's the big deal? The shittiest pop band in the world is against war. And what then...?
Iraq needs to be liberated from the psycho-freak who's in power. Only in that case trance will play on its soil! lol

I totaly agree, it'd look much better if the lingo's said "FUCK US" - and no need to interpret with our brains - our "units" would do it for us haha

Last edited by mezzanine on Mar-14-2003 at 02:56

Why is this thread still going?????

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

cuz it's all about flaming

___________________
writing lyrics aint what it used to be

quote:

Sarin - The chemical released by terrorists into a subway system in Tokyo, Japan in 1995. A small amount killed 12 and injured several thousand, including hundreds whose lungs were completely burned. One of the most common nerve agents. Shelf Life - The period of time a gas mask and/or filter will last while in storage (at normal temperatures and humidity).

quote:

Botulin - 3 million times more potent than sarin.

I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that Saddam IS a threat, regardless of how cool it is to say fuck war...

if the states gets Bio'd i'm getting the fuck out of Toronto

___________________