|
General Iraq War thread - Use this Thread only ! (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| BLuEOcEaN420 |
personally, iam not anti war per say and some may say that nothing ever justifies war BUT i do think that given a hypothetical situation where one country is being attacked, war is justifiable. BUT this particular war is imo unnecessary. simply worded, i dont thik the mean justifies the result. ive always been usa friendly and consider the US home though i dont currently reside there. BUT this war is just blatantly nothing but dirty excuse by the bush administration, who are money thriving oil digging dirtbags. as Sen. Robert Byrd said, "The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice."
The Washington Post
| quote: | Sen. Robert Byrd: 'Today I Weep for My Country'
Reuters
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; 9:57 PM
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The oldest voice in the U.S. Congress rose on Wednesday to offer a final pre-war warning that President Bush's march to battle is dangerously misguided.
"Today I weep for my country," said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd. "No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
"We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance," Byrd said, adding: "After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
Byrd, a leading foe on Capitol Hill of war with Iraq, spoke in a nearly empty Senate chamber about four hours before Bush's 8 p.m. EST deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face a U.S.-led invasion.
"May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us," Byrd said.
As the white-haired senator concluded his remarks, a number of people in the visitor's gallery rose and applauded before they were admonished to be quiet.
At 85, Byrd is now the oldest member of Congress as well as the longest serving. He was first elected to the Senate in 1958, after six years in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Byrd was among those who voted last year against the congressional resolution that authorized Bush to use force in his showdown with Saddam, and the senator has given frequent floor speeches since then warning against war.
Polls on Wednesday showed strong American support for a war but widespread opposition to it overseas.
"The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence," Byrd said.
Despite administration suggestions to the contrary, Byrd said, "There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11."
The senator said, "We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice."
Byrd said that instead of negotiating, Washington demanded obedience or threatened recrimination. "Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves."
He said many questions about the looming war were unanswered -- including how long it would last, what it would cost, what its ultimate mission was.
"A pall has fallen over the Senate chamber," Byrd said. "We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq." |
sadly, i think too much truth lies in his words. this war isnt about terrorism nor freedom nor is it a war about justice nor liberate the ppl of Iraq from dictatorship and save them from torture.. this war is about money, oil and a combination of an ego and power trip. i dont believe for a second that bush started a war in good faith. i do agree w/ majority of the population that saddam needs to be removed from power and gotten rid of to spare the whole world of his dispicable existence. and sadly hes willing to bring his own country down w/ him to hell. :( if anything, that would be the only reason any form of force may be justified. but frankly. i dont think that was what bush was thinking when he decided that civilian casualties arent important.
anyways, nothing ii think will have any impact on the outcomes of the war, my sympathy to those whose lives are directly affected by this war. and godspeed to those lives thats been lost already. and i do truely hope that after the war, the US can reflect back to what they stand for and gain something from it. cuz it seems that the country needs to rebuild itself more greatly in what they represent than Iraq. godforbid bush gets reelected next year cuz if so.. well, they seem to be digging their grave w/ their own hands. :nervous:
-BLuEOcEaN420 |
|
|
| smallSHEEP |
| quote: | Originally posted by bomberMAN
I think watching any other countries news channel other than the countries at war would give u more accurate information than anything else. don't watch USA channels, or iraqi channels. They'll both hit u with propaganda and bull a lot 2 u. Especially the USA! don't watch british either, afterall they are like helping in the war and . reminds me of italians helping germans in war war 2. PUSSIES! |
Thats very true, although you have to remember that the Italian army is rubbish. |
|
|
| biznology |
i understand what SportTrance is getting at...
everyone here that keeps bringing up the current crisis needs to re read his first post to realize he isnt discussing the second Gulf War.
as far as peaceniks go- if 'violence is *never* the solution' then defending yourself from violent acts with violence is either wrong, or no solution.
thus, club wielding crazy man can always finish the job.
dreaming of peace is just that- a dream. everyone wishes it, but truthfully it is an unattainable goal. if peace was a logical, simple solution to most crises war would never be fought. but peace often necessitates more problems than conflict might| |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| their lies a great difference between warmongering and his weakly connected analogy though. If somebody is coming to beat you with a baseball bat, you have reason to defend yourself, your life and health is in jeapordy, OTOH our War with Iraq is pointless, its like beating a 15 year old blind and deaf dog just because it peed on your front steps. Some people might do that, I don't question that, but is it right?:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| TranceEuphoria |
| I usually watch the german channel N24. All news 24/7! |
|
|
| BLuEOcEaN420 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuperFarStucker
their lies a great difference between warmongering and his weakly connected analogy though. If somebody is coming to beat you with a baseball bat, you have reason to defend yourself, your life and health is in jeapordy, OTOH our War with Iraq is pointless, its like beating a 15 year old blind and deaf dog just because it peed on your front steps. Some people might do that, I don't question that, but is it right?:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: :nervous: |
u hit the nail on the head! i agree completely. though i suppose the reality isnt as simple as that analogy, it gets the point across. at least for this war.
back to the original post, provided that the situation is completely disassociated w/ the present war, i do agree w/ you. i agree that war is jusifiable in some situations.
-BLuEOcEaN420 |
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| quote: | Originally posted by BLuEOcEaN420
u hit the nail on the head! i agree completely. though i suppose the reality isnt as simple as that analogy, it gets the point across. at least for this war.
back to the original post, provided that the situation is completely disassociated w/ the present war, i do agree w/ you. i agree that war is jusifiable in some situations.
-BLuEOcEaN420 |
i second that....
war in afghanistan was justifiable only to a certain extent..the world supported teh riddance of Osama Bin Laden who is at large still a threat and out there somewhere. they have just left that case and gone after Iraq now??wtf...
Hussein isnt a threat as much as Osama is or even Bush is |
|
|
| Wicked Neo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Starfox
thread hijackers!! we are... |
U should know better ! !
|
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| <--count me in the peace alliance ( a little late to post here even tho i change my sig to another one after using the peace alliance one for a fair bit of time) |
|
|
| SportTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee
Hussein isnt a threat as much as Osama |
Is that what the CIA just told you?
Do all of you really need to see two commercial aircraft flying into world trade centers on national telivision to believe someone is a threat? Do you really need a government to come on tv and tell you everything they know?
I said it once, and I'll say it again. Your information stops at tv screen, and a newspaper, and so does mine.
We all know who saddam is. We KNOW he is a liar. We KNOW he has killed thousands among thousands of his own people. We KNOW the he did not FULLY comply with UN inspections. If you ask me, you peace heads are full of a little hypocricy here. Trying to say this war is NOT justifiable, yet knowing how he controls his country and his people, you're obviously not 100% pro peace. If you had ANY concept of what its like to live under Saddam in the first place (regardless if he's a threat to the US or not), you'd probably agree that he shouldn't be in power either. Infact you still agree he should not be in power, yet somehow you believe its possible to take him out, without any force. You're not thinking logical.
This is what us supporters of the war are seeing, and have been seeing. Keep in mind, no one in their right mind agrees saddam should stay in power whether they are anti war, or pro war. Forget the oil, forget weapons of mass destruction, etc.etc..
peace head - "we have no justification as to why we should go to war, although, I do believe saddam should not be in power". Every single peace head has stated this, quiet simply because they do not want to appear as a supporter of saddam.
Its really simple. You believe saddam should NOT be in power, but you also believe the US (or any other country) should not/or does not have the right, to engage in war. Then I must assume two things. A. You have a plan to take him out of power, without any force or violence shall I say (we know thats not possible, atleast anyone who is thinking realisticly) or B. Leave him in power. (which will keep your dream of world peace impossible to achieve)
You're whole justification of "peace" is standing on thin ice with bricks of contradiction and hypocricy falling all over the place. |
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| quote: | Originally posted by SportTrance
Is that what the CIA just told you?
Do all of you really need to see two commercial aircraft flying into world trade centers on national telivision to believe someone is a threat? Do you really need a government to come on tv and tell you everything they know?
I said it once, and I'll say it again. Your information stops at tv screen, and a newspaper, and so does mine.
We all know who saddam is. We KNOW he is a liar. We KNOW he has killed thousands among thousands of his own people. We KNOW the he did not FULLY comply with UN inspections. If you ask me, you peace heads are full of a little hypocricy here. Trying to say this war is NOT justifiable, yet knowing how he controls his country and his people, you're obviously not 100% pro peace. If you had ANY concept of what its like to live under Saddam in the first place (regardless if he's a threat to the US or not), you'd probably agree that he shouldn't be in power either. Infact you still agree he should not be in power, yet somehow you believe its possible to take him out, without any force. You're not thinking logical.
This is what us supporters of the war are seeing, and have been seeing. Keep in mind, no one in their right mind agrees saddam should stay in power whether they are anti war, or pro war. Forget the oil, forget weapons of mass destruction, etc.etc..
peace head - "we have no justification as to why we should go to war, although, I do believe saddam should not be in power". Every single peace head has stated this, quiet simply because they do not want to appear as a supporter of saddam.
Its really simple. You believe saddam should NOT be in power, but you also believe the US (or any other country) should not/or does not have the right, to engage in war. Then I must assume two things. A. You have a plan to take him out of power, without any force or violence shall I say (we know thats not possible, atleast anyone who is thinking realisticly) or B. Leave him in power.
You're whole justification of "peace" is standing on thin ice with bricks of contradiction and hypocricy falling all over the place. |
how redundant can u get ??
anyways..
first u say that our information stops at teh media....then u contradict urself by saying that we all "KNOW" that Hussein is a liar....how would u if u dont know him personally?
i dont think u noticed but america was justified in their combat in afghanistan last year. did u see any anti war protests on such a large scale as u do for this war??
why not??
cos there is no justification for war and US has defeated the purpose of the UN by goin on without the admit slip |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| i said it once and i will say it again...if u think bush went to war to save the iraqi people u are naiive..if this was the only gain to this war it wouldnt have started. |
|
|
|
|
