Constitutional Rights/Protests

[bva]

<RANT>

You know what really bugs me?

(a) Celebrities and their anti-war comments
(b) Leftist liberals and their anti-war rallies
(c) Foreigners and their opions <insert frog>
(d) Peace groups and their hypocratic oaths
(e) ALL OF THE ABOVE

Answer: e

<liberals/protestors>

What profoundly disturbs me is how people will say "Im opposed to the war but I support the troops!". You do, huh? Well what EXACTLY do you support the troops doing? Fighting in a war? Then how do you not support the war? Without troops is there a war? My what a conundrum... You see this is a saftey clause in the liberals arsenal to be bastards and bitches. They cant really have a cause so they have to fence set. On one side they can have tofu/fondue parties bashing the PUBLICALLY elected government supporting anti-american sentiments and on the other side they can slap each other on the back for not calling our soldiers "baby-killers". Sweet gig dont you think? They have no concept of ideals or beliefs its just a big ruse. If they had such convictions why wouldnt they TRULY sacrifice? Quit your jobs for starters. Your tax paying money supports this wars how do you defend that? I know you cant so dont bother. Isnt it nice to hear these worthless cruds say "Im an American, I have the constituional right to sing "ANTI-AMERICAN THEMES". Hypocracy 101 now in session: If you turn your back on America (which you do by not supporting this war for national security) then why should you have American based constitutional rights? You shouldnt. The reason we have these rights is WAR. We fought for them and now we fight to preserve them. We are facing tyranny head on so our children do not suffer another 9/11. Jane Fonda should have been indicted for treason in the Vietnam era and these idiots burning the flag and defacting/vomiting in the street should be locked up for supporting Iraq tyrannical leadership. Do you idiots really want the Iraqi people to suffer more?? Wouldnt that go against your liberal views? So if NO WAR == torture chamber/rape rooms then support NO WAR?? Dont you realize that women have NO RIGHTS in Iraq. I know you liberals cant like that? So why are you on yor soapbox touting anti-war?? I know, I know I was being merely rhetoric.
Isnt it ludicrous to say its your RIGHTS as AMERICANS to be ANTI-AMERICAN. How can you hold your constitutional values in one hand and then burn the flag in the other? If you really are so anti-war then I emplore them to make true statements. Hunger strike like ghandi. Quit your jobs. Infect yourselves with a virus (ok that was just for me). Make a true sacrifice dont just sauce up with your Grande Latte and head down to University avenue to primp your sparkley anti-american poster and take a dump on the county's door step. Idiots. These people never felt loss, never felt a true sense of comraderie, never endured true hardship and have no intelligent perspective of why they have the right to piss in the face of democracy. Put them in an Iraqi torture chamber for a few hours and ask them again. It's all about the big picture and its about perspective. Personally it's very black and white. You are either on one side or the other. Either you support "red, white and blue" or you support those who oppose us and in this case that's Iraq. A friend of my enemy is my enemy. We need to start enforcing treason laws as well as pay a tax to send these people out of country 1 way extradition to whatever other country will take them <insert a myriad of worthless nations>. Sort of a neat idea dont you think?

<celebrities>

HAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH. The para title says it all, no? Like your opinion really matters to working class folks. You make millions of dollars a series or albumn. You ENTERTAIN that means make us forget about REAL issues. You either pretend to be someone else or you make noise that is palletable to certain people. Tell me again what you think from your 5.8 million dollar home with gold faucets. Oh man you guys crack me up.


<foreigners>

Without America all of Europe would be either speaking German driving VW bugs or Russian drunk and writing awful thinkpieces about flys on walls. Europeans seem to forget this because they are self-centered, egotistical miscreants that have no respect for anything but their own safe havens and backwards notions.

Shut the F up, until we are in your country changing your way of life. None of you have done anything for the good of anyone else without American help or the Big Brother bailing you out. So what credibility could you possibly have. Morons.

<summary>

In short lets just face the facts. 9/11 was a wake up call. Now it is in our best interest to realign the world with the ground shaking truth and that is "ENOUGH is ENOUGH". You even look crooked your going down. You want to kill your neighbors your going down. You want to make WMD your going down. You want to harbor terrorist your going down. You want to support these nations in any way shape or form your going down.

The world needs to recognize and AMERICANS need to recognize that in order to preserve peace longterm then we need to conduct preventative maintenance now. Analogy: If you know you have a loose lugnuts on your right front tire of your volvo family wagon do you wait to get said lugnuts tightened after the wheel comes off on Instertate 5 going to Barstow @ 55mph? Of course not. But why not your not in immediate danger? Eventually it will fall off but not right now it will take a little more time. Try and use that analogy for Iraq. Can he reach us today with major weapons intiate from Iraq. Well I say yes. The people who train on his soil, leave from his soil, are funded from his soil, are equipped from his soil who show up in our streets and skies and perform attacks are certainly equated to immediate imminent risk.

It wouldnt be prudent if I didnt just make one off the wall remark about France so.. As for France - these idiots make my... Ahh forget it I could write a novel on these jackarses I just have some words of advices "stock up on oil as the prices will be SKYROCKETING" and keep your opinions to yourself <you cowards> noone listens to you anyway.

<closing>

A friend of mine sent me a note that sums it all up. Im sure he heard this from someone else but it's worth enclosing as its funny:

"You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the French are accusing Americans of being arrogant."


</RANT>

Do you like????

-BVA

[Mel]

"You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the French are accusing Americans of being arrogant."


Well, I liked the end quote (shown above) but I think the rest is merely a rant that doesn't solve anything.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
What profoundly disturbs me is how people will say "Im opposed to the war but I support the troops!". You do, huh? Well what EXACTLY do you support the troops doing?

I'll ask you the same question I've asked anyone else who's brought this up (and have yet to get an answer for): I have a friend who works at WorldCom. Should I stop being her friend just because of the behavior of her higher-ups?

Fighting in a war? Then how do you not support the war?

There is all the difference in the world between supporting people who are doing their jobs, putting their lives on the line for the sake of their country, and the politicians who led them to it for dubious reasons. The fact that you people can't see that is very, very sad.

Quit your jobs for starters.

And how am I supposed to feed my family?

Your tax paying money supports this wars how do you defend that?

A drug dealer mugs you and takes your wallet and uses your money in part to finance a hit against a rival drug dealer. How do you defend that?

If you turn your back on America (which you do by not supporting this war for national security)

There is not one shred of evidence that this war will make us any more secure, and every indication that it will make us at a greater risk in the future. Meanwhile, the rights our soldiers are over there fighting for are being taken away by the very men who sent them there.

But, I guess it's easy to make stuff up about your opposition than it is to actually try and understand what they are saying.

We are facing tyranny head on

No, we aren't. If we were, it would be George W. Bush we were fighting.

so our children do not suffer another 9/11.

There is no evidence at all that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. This is one of the many lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

Jane Fonda should have been indicted for treason in the Vietnam era and these idiots burning the flag and defacting/vomiting in the street should be locked up for supporting Iraq tyrannical leadership.

Oh, really? What was that you were saying about Constitutional rights above? :rolleyes:

Or do people only have rights if they agree with you?

Do you idiots really want the Iraqi people to suffer more??

If that's all it were about, then I could support the war. But it just ain't that simple. What's the point of liberating Iraq if we enslave ourselves in the process?

How can you hold your constitutional values in one hand and then burn the flag in the other?

Tim Slagle has a routine that makes this very obvious. You can't protect the flag by burning the Constitution. But by protecting people's right to burn the flag, the rights the Constitution stands for are protected.

Idiots.

Your inability to be rational on this subject has been noted.

A friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Then the entire world is our enemy, including ourselves.

Without America all of Europe would be either speaking German

Somehow, I knew this jingoistic crap would surface. Do I get the million?

Morons.

Your inability to form cohesive arguments has been noted.

Analogy: If you know you have a loose lugnuts on your right front tire of your volvo family wagon do you wait to get said lugnuts tightened after the wheel comes off on Instertate 5 going to Barstow @ 55mph?

If you think your neighbors lugnuts are loose, do you get to burst into his home with guns and tighten them yourself?

It wouldnt be prudent if I didnt just make one off the wall remark about France so..

Your complete failure to understand the concept of the word "prudence" has been noted.

As for France - these idiots make my... Ahh forget it

Your complete inability to justify your irrational hatred and jingoism has been noted.

noone listens to you anyway.

You apparently do; otherwise, why are you so upset at them?

A friend of mine sent me a note that sums it all up.

Your inability to have opinions of your own has been noted.

[bva]

Yeah it was funny when he sent it to me. Im not sure I was trying to solve any issues as I think the issues are too problematic and I dont think there will ever be common ground.

Pre/Post war is the time for banter, debate, and protest. During war its time to stand with or against. Until the actual concept of why we have freedom is engrained into the lobes of the leftists we'll never have that common ground. The only solution is consequence until that comes about they'll never know. Almost like back to the early stages of man. Man stick hand in fire, man know fire bad.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by bva
(d) Peace groups and their hypocratic oaths

The peace groups are all doctors?

[Smalso]

Welcome to the forum, bva. You and Jedi Knight, among others, will get along really well here as soon as you are indoctrinated with the matriarchal totalitarianism doctrine. Actually, the main fault I can find with your post is that you did not come down really hard on the left-wing liberal-biased America-hating Commie media.

[Mel]

Originally posted by bva

Pre/Post war is the time for banter, debate, and protest. During war its time to stand with or against.

I'm torn about this.......

I agree that it can be very hurtful to see people demonstrating against the war while it is going on but then I tell myself that it is only a small percentage of KOOKS with no REAL understanding of politics that are behaving like TOTAL morons with the 'die-ins' and the like.

Democracy is not really democracy if it does not allow citizens to have a voice. I think it IS appropriate to be able to voice even THAT opinion in a civilized and thoughtful way.

What if our President decided to suspend the rights of citizens to protest anything he said or did until AFTER he was done? (I think he'd LIKE TO do that, btw)

IMO, we are IN this position because of the arrogant way he went about 'arriving at' this war. He wrongly believed that the worldwide sympathy from 9/11 would be more than enough to give him carte blanche and he wouldn't have to take the international community into account.

Wrongly or rightly, the French were concerned about his utter disregard for diplomacy & they decided to put up a road block. Arrogance vs arrogance & both sides think the OTHER needs to be taken down a peg or two.

In the end of any arguement, BOTH sides have to learn to speak to each other..... why create endless problems for yourself when you could have easily avoided it by thinking BEFORE your knee-jerk reactions are plastered all over the news?

Chirac & Bush deserve each other but the WORLD certainly deserves better than this disgusting show of temper tantrums aka "diplomacy."


I meant to add.... and it is because of these things that we find so many Americans protesting..... they are more ANGRY at this President of ours, and the way he tries to manipulate things & people, than they are against taking care of a brutal dictator.

[bva]

I'll ask you the same question I've asked anyone else who's brought this up (and have yet to get an answer for): I have a friend who works at WorldCom. Should I stop being her friend just because of the behavior of her higher-ups?

The reason you get no answer because it's such a poor analogy. I will still try. If you had enough conviction with your stance on Worldcom then the answer would be yes you should stop being her friend. She would suppport and deliver the principals outlined by said management teams therefore the administrator of those principals you despise/protest. The statement "I support the troops" can only be defined as supporting their actions in combat seeing how that is exactly what war is. So if you do not support the war you should not support the actions of the troops who are combatants in the war.

There is all the difference in the world between supporting people who are doing their jobs, putting their lives on the line for the sake of their country, and the politicians who led them to it for dubious reasons. The fact that you people can't see that is very, very sad.

We people can see a PUBLICALLY/DEMOCRATICALLY elected government government has decided upon policy that is best for our nation based on many issues/concerns. All of which Im not arrogant enough to think I know but then again thats why Im not a politician. It is their job as officials to our nation to do this. If they handle it inadequately then in 4 years Ill place my vote against them. They are exercising the will of the majority not their own free will but the majority support of a union. Remember this.

You got out of control with the quotes so Ill just address each line item worth addressing:


employment:

I guess you could move to another country, gain citizenship and work for them. Your tax money wouldnt go into a horrible blood for oil cause then, would it? Sacrifice for your convictions. There are ways they just are difficult. Live off the land? Why wouldnt you because Democracy has spoiled you. Broadband, PDA's, Sattelite TV, Starbucks, SUV's the list goes on. Your spoiled so living off the land for your convictions would be too difficult it's easier to berate your country.

mugging:

Ridiulous statement.

National Security:

There are plenty of facts that support the removal of Saddam Hussein will promote more security then we have with him being in power. This is common sense. Look at the history of Saddam and his administration and what he has done over his term to his own country, his neighbors and america.

I served in Somalia and I server in Desert Shield/Storm as well as Humanitarian Relief Operation's in Phillipines (Mt Pinatubo) and Bangladesh. No rights of the military personnel are being taken away from them. They are preserving your rights to crap on democracy. Soldiering comes with price and comes with pride it also comes with a strict understanding when you WILLINGLY join. Dont speak for something you dont understand. Be aware that our soldiers are doing there job for our country.

9/11:

Yeah he is innocent. :)

Fonda:

No. has nothing to do with my opinion has to do with facts.

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

Look up a book by a law professor Holzer called "Aid and Comfort" of course it's a book but read it if you are compelled to.


Flag Burning:

This is just a crock. Its like the endless debate and a loophole someone creates to justify a means to a cause. Its ridiculous


Lugnuts:

If the neighbor was wreckless and endangering the lives of other it would be in the neighbors best interest to do the work for him or provide him the tools/assets to do it. Noone is holding anyone at gunpoint. Just becauuse France, germany and Russia decide that war is bad because they gain the mostfinancially from Iraq doesnt mean we stand down. If the UN is too cowardly to react on broken sanctions then it is our duty to uphold them.

rest:

The rest of your posts were just pseudo-intellectual jousts and berates. As usual another leftist with really nothing much to say but I sure bet you feel alot better about yourself. Learn sacrifice. Consume freedom while you have it because one day it could be gone and then life will become much much much worse and then and only then will you understand which level of spoiled you represent.

[bva]

Originally posted by Mel


I'm torn about this.......

I agree that it can be very hurtful to see people demonstrating against the war while it is going on but then I tell myself that it is only a small percentage of KOOKS with no REAL understanding of politics that are behaving like TOTAL morons with the 'die-ins' and the like.

Democracy is not really democracy if it does not allow citizens to have a voice. I think it IS appropriate to be able to voice even THAT opinion in a civilized and thoughtful way.

What if our President decided to suspend the rights of citizens to protest anything he said or did until AFTER he was done? (I think he'd LIKE TO do that, btw)

IMO, we are IN this position because of the arrogant way he went about 'arriving at' this war. He wrongly believed that the worldwide sympathy from 9/11 would be more than enough to give him carte blanche and he wouldn't have to take the international community into account.

Wrongly or rightly, the French were concerned about his utter disregard for diplomacy & they decided to put up a road block. Arrogance vs arrogance & both sides think the OTHER needs to be taken down a peg or two.

In the end of any arguement, BOTH sides have to learn to speak to each other..... why create endless problems for yourself when you could have easily avoided it by thinking BEFORE your knee-jerk reactions are plastered all over the news?

Chirac & Bush deserve each other but the WORLD certainly deserves better than this disgusting show of temper tantrums aka "diplomacy."


I meant to add.... and it is because of these things that we find so many Americans protesting..... they are more ANGRY at this President of ours, and the way he tries to manipulate things & people, than they are against taking care of a brutal dictator.

Mel,

You see its a difficult issue and we all know that. Im not saying abolish free speech or anything of the such. Im trying to project where I draw the line. Im also trying to establish a sensible measure of perspective. The facts are clear. Iraq and the Saddam regime define all that is wrong in the world. we the people elected this government who has the undaunting task to make difficult decisions about US security and National Security in lieu of the inaffective/ulterio motive laiden United Nations. Our brothers and sisters/sons and daughters are on foreign soil doing a difficult job. Now is the time for US unity not segregation. Now is the time for support not distention. The majority do support its the minorty that feel better then the next or feel liberated by pissing on democracy but they should know that their actions have reactions that affect the war and they should know by not supporting US they support the enemy. Cut and dry. I have a problem with that.

[bva]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


The peace groups are all doctors?

hahaha. I think you knew what I meant.. :) Train of thought typing sometimes gets you in a jam but as long as the reader can read the intent then I considr myself lucky. pedantic's can kill ya

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by bva
pedantic's can kill ya

That's 'pedants'. And plurals need no apostrophe...

[bva]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


That's 'pedants'. And plurals need no apostrophe...

ostentatious are we? Must be English. Graduate from Oxford? Ill make sure I do spell/grammar check from here on out just for you. I dont want to get a failing grade.

[Smalso]

by bva: . The facts are clear.

The biggest part of the problem is that the facts are not clear.

[bva]

Originally posted by Smalso
by bva:

The biggest part of the problem is that the facts are not clear.

About why we are @ war with Iraq? Well there's a drove of information that explains why we are @ war with Iraq. I could dig thru archives and archives and adress them but I thought Tony Blair did well in his speech to the house a while back. A wonderful speaker and makes up for the lack of speech writers are president has. Eloquant Jr. Bush is not.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,916790,00.html

Sure people like to mention oil and I presume there is truth to that speculation as well but lets be honest we're cleaning up left over business and this wont be the end of it. There are several other nations who pose similar threats and dont think that will continue (iraq, syria,N. Korea). This is a relatively easy battle for us and maybe by making this statement we can address the other issues diplomatically without having to use force. I think it is imperative to flex so other nations think a bit before radical decisions that could influence the security of other nations. 1) Afghanistan - done 2) Iraq- 4 weeks and done 3) Syria/Nkorea/france??? :) slowly but surely there will be peace again and some semblance of security/stability. I dont agree that this will cause more instability. Some say that but those that hate us and pose threat will continue to do so but maybe a little less with severe consequences. Other nations seeingwhat we are doing will be less likely to harbor/hide this type of behavior because they will be concerned. Its sad it has to be this way but it does. DIplomacy only works if both parties are willing in this case he had 12 years. Thats enough.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by bva
What profoundly disturbs me is how people will say "Im opposed to the war but I support the troops!". You do, huh? Well what EXACTLY do you support the troops doing?

Volunteering for a dangerous job. Most soldiers I know are generally pretty decent people, and I trust our military leaders a lot more than I trust our current government. Their job is to execute their orders; it's our fault as much as theirs that their orders are coming from such a dubious source.

On one side they can have tofu/fondue parties bashing the PUBLICALLY elected government...

Your tax paying money supports this wars how do you defend that?

Who's fence-sitting now? Are we supposed to follow the policies of our publicly elected government, or are we supposed to protest by refusing to pay taxes? You can't have it both ways, so which would you prefer?

Isnt it nice to hear these worthless cruds say "Im an American, I have the constituional right to sing "ANTI-AMERICAN THEMES". Hypocracy 101 now in session: If you turn your back on America (which you do by not supporting this war for national security) then why should you have American based constitutional rights?

As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that says only speech in favor of what one person perceives as American ideals is protected. You claim to be a soldier; that means you took an oath to protect the Constitution, no? I think you should start by reading it.

We fought for them and now we fight to preserve them.

Our rights have been endangered more by our own government in the last year and a half than by anything the entire rest of the world could throw at us.

We are facing tyranny head on so our children do not suffer another 9/11.

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? This war has already managed to get Syria and Iran (more) pissed at us, and Turkey, our long-time ally, wouldn't even let us put troops there no matter how many billions of dollars we offered to pay them. This war only legitimizes the arguments of those who say that the United States is a loose cannon. Terrorism will increase, not decrease, in the months and years to come.

And seriously, terrorism is still a very small threat to the United States. We have had one major terrorist attack, and that was only successful because of the complacency of our intelligence agencies.

these idiots burning the flag and defacting/vomiting in the street should be locked up for supporting Iraq tyrannical leadership.

Can't someone be opposed to both "Iraq tyrannical leadership" and the war? False dichotomy.

Do you idiots really want the Iraqi people to suffer more??

You oversimplify things far too much. First, focusing on the plight of the Iraqi people exclusively is far too narrow. We need to consider the impact of the war on the United States, the middle east, and the entire rest of the world.

Second, our government can't seem to decide why exactly it is fighting this war in the first place. Is it to save the Iraqi people from Saddam? There are plenty of other countries that need saving (Zimbabwe for instance, or hell, just take a map and point to any spot in Africa) which we could easily accomplish without pissing off the entire rest of the world in the process. Is it because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? North Korea has been talking about Los Angeles and New York up in flames, and has all but fired warning shots at us -- why is there not a peep from our government about them? Is it because Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions? If so, we're one to talk.

Third, this is precisely the wrong time to storm into the middle east with guns blazing. I would support this war on humanitarian grounds if not for the timing. Think about it: after 9/11, the United States enjoyed almost universal support. Hell, even Libya and Cuba offered their sympathy. Barely a year later, we've managed to alienate much of Europe completely, we've flushed our own economy down the toilet, and both tension in the middle east and anti-American sentiment worldwide are at an all-time high. And Bush thinks now is the time to destroy the U.N. so he can invade a powerless country in the part of the world that hates us the most?

Isnt it ludicrous to say its your RIGHTS as AMERICANS to be ANTI-AMERICAN.

No. In fact, I think that is the single greatest thing about this country. Anyone has freedom of speech as long as they follow the party line; you can go to the middle of Baghdad, or stand in Red Square during the worst of the Soviet Union, and proclaim your support for your government all you want.

What makes America special is that we even protect the speech of those we disagree with, even including the ones who attack the country who gave them that freedom.

What better proof could there possibly be that freedom of speech is alive and well than to go out on the street and hear something you consider completely idiotic and offensive?

How can you hold your constitutional values in one hand and then burn the flag in the other?

It helps if you get someone else to hold the lighter for you.

Personally it's very black and white. You are either on one side or the other. Either you support "red, white and blue" or you support those who oppose us and in this case that's Iraq.

Ah, the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. Isn't it possible to be against both things? Another false dichotomy. This forum is full of intelligent skeptics; you won't get very far with this type of reasoning.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
The reason you get no answer because it's such a poor analogy.

I don't see how. You're saying we should blame the soldiers for the actions of their Commander-In-Chief, and that supporting the troops means supporting the CIC.

If you had enough conviction with your stance on Worldcom then the answer would be yes you should stop being her friend.

Even though she herself had nothing to do with it and personally speaks out against it?

She would suppport and deliver the principals outlined by said management teams

And your evidence for this is, what?

So if you do not support the war you should not support the actions of the troops who are combatants in the war.

That is such remarkably small thinking...do you treat every issue in such a black-or-white manner?

They are exercising the will of the majority

Well, exercising the will of anyone, even a majority, is not what this country's about. Read that Constitution you keep talking about sometime.

I guess you could move to another country, gain citizenship and work for them.

And what happens when that country acts against another? And the one I move to after that? And the one I move to after that? America is supposed to be the Land of the Free, where we don't have to sorry about such things. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in decades.

Live off the land? Why wouldnt you

Because 1) our government has made that illegal and 2) I shouldn't have to.

because Democracy has spoiled you. Broadband, PDA's, Sattelite TV, Starbucks, SUV's the list goes on. Your spoiled so living off the land for your convictions would be too difficult it's easier to berate your country.

Waaaah. Go cry me a river. None of that has anything to do with your jingoistic claptrap.

Ridiulous statement.

No, it isn't. The government picks my pocket and uses it to finance a war. If that's my fault, then it's your fault for the mugger financing a drug hit. It's exactly the same thing.

There are plenty of facts that support the removal of Saddam Hussein will promote more security then we have with him being in power. This is common sense.

I always thought "appeal to common sense" should be a fallacy, because whenever it's invoked it seems to be in favor of a concept that is neither common nor sensical.

Look at the history of Saddam and his administration and what he has done over his term to his own country, his neighbors and america.

Now compare that to what neighboring regimes have done. You can do a lot worse than Saddam. And we don't exactly have the best track record for setting up governments that maintain the liberty of their people.

BTW, what has Saddam done to America?

I served in Somalia

Okay, so how do you feel about the fact that Somalia is now under an even more ruthless dictator than it was before we stepped in?

They are preserving your rights to crap on democracy.

Bush is holding AMERICAN CITIZENS indefinitely without trial or access to legal counsel. He is EAVESDROPPING on attorney-client communications. He is using the library system to get personal information on people. And he has given himself the power to declare anyone at all an "enemy combatant" and sieze you or your property without a court order, being charged with a crime, or having the benefit of counsel.

George W. Bush is an enemy of our sovereign rights as protected by our Constitution. By defending him, you are an enemy of everything America stands for.

Yeah he is innocent. :)

One more jingoist who can't offer any evidence for the claim.

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

And how are people who protest the government doing that? What obout our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to protest the government?

This is just a crock. Its like the endless debate and a loophole someone creates to justify a means to a cause. Its ridiculous

Tyrants ban flag burnin and protesting. Tyrants stand for all of the things you stand for in your posts. It's jingoism, and it has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in a free society.

Noone is holding anyone at gunpoint.

Hel-lo? Just what do you think the soldiers are doing??? :rolleyes:

The rest of your posts were just pseudo-intellectual jousts and berates.

If you have no rebuttal to my arguments, just say so.

As usual another leftist

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to everyone on this forum.

Consume freedom while you have it because one day it could be gone

It's going away right now! The Bush Administration is taking it from us.

[Mel]

Originally posted by bva


Mel,

The majority do support its the minorty that feel better then the next or feel liberated by pissing on democracy but they should know that their actions have reactions that affect the war and they should know by not supporting US they support the enemy. Cut and dry. I have a problem with that.

As far as the anti-American feelings..... we're damned if we do & we're damned if we don't & it's never going to change. That's life.

It's very distasteful to me also. And it's NOT only the anti-war protestors in the USA.... it's the worldwide protestors that irk me.

I wonder where all these people disappear to when Muslims are killing Muslims..... when Muslims are abused, tortured and denied rights by their OWN governments? When Muslims are ENCOURAGED to blow themselves to smithereens by wacked out fundie freaks???? What do we hear then? SILENCE.

The SILENCE is what ALLOWED these problems to take root in the first place. Silence is what allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of innocent people and silence is what allows the Middle East remain an utterly corrupt corner of the world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
Im not saying abolish free speech or anything of the such.

No, you're just saying we should lock up anyone who speaks out against the war. :rolleyes:

Im trying to project where I draw the line.

There is no line where our freedoms are concerned. The Republicans and Democrats have placed one, and inched it further and further forward, and George III has given it a giant push forward, but that line isn't supposed to be there at all under our Constitution.

The facts are clear.

Is that why you refuse to support them?

BTW, the US was never intended to be a democracy. That you continually use that term shows you that you understand neither the founding principles of this country nor the concept of what liberty really means.

[bva]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by toddjh


Who's fence-sitting now? Are we supposed to follow the policies of our publicly elected government, or are we supposed to protest by refusing to pay taxes? You can't have it both ways, so which would you prefer?



I dont have a problem with the war. I support the war. my tax paying money is going to a just cause. Ifyou dont like the war you have a choice ot not support it by quitting your job which in turn would stop the flow of your tax dollars paying for a war you dont condone. Make a real sacrifice for your cause. Im not fence sitting because I whole heartedly support the US government, the US troops and the war in Iraq.


As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that says only speech in favor of what one person perceives as American ideals is protected. You claim to be a soldier; that means you took an oath to protect the Constitution, no? I think you should start by reading it.


Ive been out of the military for almost 10 years. Im a citizen like you. Our military are serving and protecting for the rest of the nation. Dont start with the "read the constitution jargon" it's such a sad sad retort.



Our rights have been endangered more by our own government in the last year and a half than by anything the entire rest of the world could throw at us.


Our government has shown conviction and our government has stood strong and made tough decisions for our nation. Im not sure how your rights sre being affected? Please ellaborate in depth how your rights have been taken away from you :) Im dying to know it.



What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? This war has already managed to get Syria and Iran (more) pissed at us, and Turkey, our long-time ally, wouldn't even let us put troops there no matter how many billions of dollars we offered to pay them. This war only legitimizes the arguments of those who say that the United States is a loose cannon. Terrorism will increase, not decrease, in the months and years to come.

And seriously, terrorism is still a very small threat to the United States. We have had one major terrorist attack, and that was only successful because of the complacency of our intelligence agencies.




That is your opinion. I think terrorism will decrease and thats my opnion and since it has to do with the future only time will tell on who has a more sound opinion. I dont agree that terrorism is relatively small in the large scope of things. I do agree our intel has had a lapse and thats due to 8 years under soft leadership (e.g Clinton)



Can't someone be opposed to both "Iraq tyrannical leadership" and the war? False dichotomy.



Thats like saying your opposed to murder and oppose to prosecuting people for murder? Too funny.



You oversimplify things far too much. First, focusing on the plight of the Iraqi people exclusively is far too narrow. We need to consider the impact of the war on the United States, the middle east, and the entire rest of the world.


No. We are in Iraq because of resolution 1441 as a result from the gulf war. Period. The fallout from this war will be a liberation of an oppressed people. Thats simple and thats facts.



Second, our government can't seem to decide why exactly it is fighting this war in the first place. Is it to save the Iraqi people from Saddam? There are plenty of other countries that need saving (Zimbabwe for instance, or hell, just take a map and point to any spot in Africa) which we could easily accomplish without pissing off the entire rest of the world in the process. Is it because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? North Korea has been talking about Los Angeles and New York up in flames, and has all but fired warning shots at us -- why is there not a peep from our government about them? Is it because Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions? If so, we're one to talk.


Have you had talks with Powell or Bush or other government officials? Of course not, so how can you say what this administration can or cant explain. The war is clear to me. The resolution is clear. UN is to cowardly ot act and FRANCE WILL VETO any force on iraq. Of course how much do they make on weapons export to Iraq? Gte a grip. Watching too much CNN or hanging on what the village voice is posting. Look at the facts since 1991 and the answers are clear.

N. Korea has sabre rattled year end and year out. Iran and Syria has been more dillegent than they have been not.
I dont know what the internal central intelligence discussions are regarding other potential dangers by other nations. Do you?
I feel confident that they are going on and they will be handled in order of precedence.



Third, this is precisely the wrong time to storm into the middle east with guns blazing. I would support this war on humanitarian grounds if not for the timing. Think about it: after 9/11, the United States enjoyed almost universal support. Hell, even Libya and Cuba offered their sympathy. Barely a year later, we've managed to alienate much of Europe completely, we've flushed our own economy down the toilet, and both tension in the middle east and anti-American sentiment worldwide are at an all-time high. And Bush thinks now is the time to destroy the U.N. so he can invade a powerless country in the part of the world that hates us the most?


We alienated Europe? Where is the United Kingdom? Many countries are behind us and supporting us. France, Russia, germany do you mean? Aret they the 3 of the top 4 profiters from Iraq? Look up the finances and youll see the answer to that. Bush doesnt act alone. :) His administration feels its time to put aside Ulterior motives and hidden agenda, to step past the UN that has proved absolutely inaffective to hold nations accountable for their actions in breach of resolutions put in place to stop war.


No. In fact, I think that is the single greatest thing about this country. Anyone has freedom of speech as long as they follow the party line; you can go to the middle of Baghdad, or stand in Red Square during the worst of the Soviet Union, and

What makes America special is that we even protect the speech of those we disagree with, even including the ones who attack the country who gave them that freedom.


What better proof could there possibly be that freedom of speech is alive and well than to go out on the street and hear something you consider completely idiotic and offensive?


Im not anti freedom of speech. I just think that anti-american sentiment from americans is unacceptable and especially in war time. The time for protests is pre or post war not during. Stand up for your country or get out. If it upsets you that the givernment is making decision for the people move somewhere else. Its simple. I mean peace protests almost always turn disaterous and violent and anti-war protests/puke in's not only affects innocent people but it indirectly provides support to our enemy and I view that as treason.



It helps if you get someone else to hold the lighter for you.

Id love to see that :)



Ah, the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. Isn't it possible to be against both things? Another false dichotomy. This forum is full of intelligent skeptics; you won't get very far with this type of reasoning.



uh oh. Im in for it. I better jump off the US bandwagon or Ill be picked apart. hahahhaha. liberals are like bad movies. You wonder who on earth funded such a crock. Ive yet to see anyone that didnt like my opinions really make a solid point. More like this small personal attacks and enuendos. Nothing about issues.

To me things are black and white. Hard or soft. Apples or oranges.

I support the war. I support the troops. I support my country. I support fellow Americans and I respect their views even if they are different then mine. I dont support treason. I dont agree with all the policies the government makes but I wouldnt take a dump on the white house because the tax program blows nor would I turn my back on my nation. When it comes to war and the security of our nation I stand behind my country.


Jeremy QUOTE]

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't see how. You're saying we should blame the soldiers for the actions of their Commander-In-Chief, and that supporting the troops means supporting the CIC.




no, your saying that for me. Im saying I support the war and support the troops. Im saying if i was so torn by the US enforcing resolution 1441 and liberating iraq that I would make some sacrifice that held true to my convictions. I dont blame the soldiers ofr anything. I love them. Im glad we are fighting. Your the one who wants there cake and wants to eat it too. You want to feel good about pretending the soldiers are victims and the government is evil. Military + Government. the guys and women are over there have enough options ot not go if they dont want too.



That is such remarkably small thinking...do you treat every issue in such a black-or-white manner?

[/B]

More personal attacks. Thats about all your good for. So unless I think like Johnny Liberal Im a small thinker because only liberals and antiamerica/anti-war protestors have true insight. Hrm..
Always the same story from you and your sychopant cronies.


Well, exercising the will of anyone, even a majority, is not what this country's about. Read that Constitution you keep talking about sometime.


And to think I though that we elect public officials and war was brought forth in conjunction with a congressional declaration of war. Didnt Bush get a congressional grant to make this decision, Who holds the seats in congress? Who do they represent? Doesnt the Constitution expressly constrains democratic, majority rule? cmon now.. more of your read between the lines and attack a reworded point. get up a little earlier..

I wont bother responding to anymore of your threads they are just misconstrued leftist jibberish and personal berates. They have no true root. It's just an opinion of a scared little man behind a terminal who believe his opinions are greater then anyone else who dares defy him. Its easy to throw out personal insults from behind the safety of electrons and datagrams but your the same coward that has no true convictions only a shield you call a terminal and smart mouth. Its people like you who I wish ill to just so you might have a drop of perspective. You couldnt possibly understand until you feel hurt to those thing most dear to you.

[/B]

[bva]

Originally posted by Mel


As far as the anti-American feelings..... we're damned if we do & we're damned if we don't & it's never going to change. That's life.


good point.


It's very distasteful to me also. And it's NOT only the anti-war protestors in the USA.... it's the worldwide protestors that irk me.

I wonder where all these people disappear to when Muslims are killing Muslims..... when Muslims are abused, tortured and denied rights by their OWN governments? When Muslims are ENCOURAGED to blow themselves to smithereens by wacked out fundie freaks???? What do we hear then? SILENCE.





The SILENCE is what ALLOWED these problems to take root in the first place. Silence is what allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of innocent people and silence is what allows the Middle East remain an utterly corrupt corner of the world.


You are absolutely right. You see its easier to point a finger when someone else is actually doing something to rectify a situation. When it's all done and all the facts are uncovered what will they say then. SILENCE. Theyll jump in to help because there is something to gain only after all the work is done.

[/B]

[toddjh]

Originally posted by bva
I dont have a problem with the war. I support the war. my tax paying money is going to a just cause. Ifyou dont like the war you have a choice ot not support it by quitting your job which in turn would stop the flow of your tax dollars paying for a war you dont condone. Make a real sacrifice for your cause. Im not fence sitting because I whole heartedly support the US government, the US troops and the war in Iraq.

You're fence-sitting about what you want people who are against the war to do. Are they supposed to abide by the decisions of their publicly elected government, or are they supposed to make sacrifices and engage in civil disobedience in order to get noticed?

You say it's the latter. It's strange, then, to see you criticizing protestors who are doing exactly that.

Ive been out of the military for almost 10 years. Im a citizen like you. Our military are serving and protecting for the rest of the nation.

Are they? That's what I'd like to see, but right now I think they're being used as a political tool. Iraq is no threat to the United States; they barely have missiles that can reach 60 miles, let alone 6,000.

Dont start with the "read the constitution jargon" it's such a sad sad retort.

Fine, I'll read it for you: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What do you think "petition the government for a redress of grievances" means, if not the right to protest against the actions of the country? Not only does the Constitution not condemn "anti-American" sentiment, it explicitly protects it.

Telling people that they should not be able to express their opinions, whether for or against the country, is far more "anti-American" than any flag-burner could possibly be.

Our government has shown conviction and our government has stood strong and made tough decisions for our nation. Im not sure how your rights sre being affected? Please ellaborate in depth how your rights have been taken away from you :) Im dying to know it.

I love how you say you wish you could take away our rights one second, and then demand to know how our rights are being taken away the next.

That is your opinion. I think terrorism will decrease and thats my opnion and since it has to do with the future only time will tell on who has a more sound opinion. I dont agree that terrorism is relatively small in the large scope of things. I do agree our intel has had a lapse and thats due to 8 years under soft leadership (e.g Clinton)

The 9/11 attacks were planned, prepared, and executed entirely during the Bush administration. How much time did he need to whip things into shape? How much control does the president even have over the day-to-day operations of the FBI?

Thats like saying your opposed to murder and oppose to prosecuting people for murder? Too funny.

That theater hostage situation in Russia a few months back is a better analogy. Can't someone be opposed to both Chechen terrorists and the use of a dangerous gas against innocent people? Isn't it possible to oppose Saddam and yet think the method of removing him we have chosen is not the best option at this time?

No. We are in Iraq because of resolution 1441 as a result from the gulf war. Period.

Except that's not what our president is saying. Depending on the time of day, he says it's either because of the resolution, to help the oppressed Iraqi people, or to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks.

Besides, shouldn't the U.N. be the one to decide whether a resolution has been violated? I don't support the U.N. any more than you do; I think the Security Council's unwillingness to lift a finger to enforce their own resolutions makes them completely irrelevant. But we are also being hypocritical here, using a U.N. resolution as an excuse to attack even while we ignore the U.N. telling us not to attack. We should stop being cowards ourselves; if we attack, we should at least have the courage of our convictions and admit that we're doing it for reasons of our own. The wishy-washiness of our president and our government in general makes me very, very skeptical of their motives.

The fallout from this war will be a liberation of an oppressed people.

Maybe. The U.S. doesn't have a great track record in this area. Don't forget how Saddam and the Taliban got into power in the first place. After 9/11, when we needed Pakistan's help with Afghanistan, we did it again. Before then, Musharraf was just another military dictator we hated. then all of a sudden he was our friend. You'd think eventually we'd learn that propping up dictators is a bad move, but we never seem to. And as for removing them, you were in Somalia...as someone else pointed out, we didn't exactly do a stellar job there, either.

So, pardon me if I don't automatically believe that we will set up a wonderful, peaceful democratic country after Saddam is gone.

We alienated Europe? Where is the United Kingdom? Many countries are behind us and supporting us. France, Russia, germany do you mean? Aret they the 3 of the top 4 profiters from Iraq? Look up the finances and youll see the answer to that. Bush doesnt act alone. :) His administration feels its time to put aside Ulterior motives and hidden agenda

Heh. Bush can't even decide what his motives are! How can we be expected to believe there are no hidden agendas?

to step past the UN that has proved absolutely inaffective to hold nations accountable for their actions in breach of resolutions put in place to stop war.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I agree with you. But if we're admitting that the U.N. is pointless, why bother using a U.N. resolution to justify the attack? We can't have it both ways.

Im not anti freedom of speech. I just think that anti-american sentiment from americans is unacceptable and especially in war time.

Then you are anti-freedom of speech. Like I said, even a person in the most oppressive, backward country in the world can stand up and voice his support for the government -- it's not freedom unless you are also free to speak out against it. We're supposed to be big enough to withstand criticism, and we're supposed to be the land of liberty, aren't we? Or are we only the land of liberty as long as everybody happens to do and say exactly what you want?

The time for protests is pre or post war not during. Stand up for your country or get out.

I am standing up for my country. I think this war, and the other incredibly stupid things our government has been doing since 9/11, are putting us on a road that will lead to our destruction -- not from terrorism or from outside attack, but from a gradual erosion of the personal liberties that made this country great, and the spirit of cooperation that we were once able to foster between ourselves and other nations.

If it upsets you that the givernment is making decision for the people move somewhere else.

If you don't like what I'm saying or doing, tough ****. This is my country as much as yours, and I will continue to speak -- with my voice, my vote, and my dollars -- entirely as I see fit.

I mean peace protests almost always turn disaterous and violent and anti-war protests/puke in's not only affects innocent people but it indirectly provides support to our enemy and I view that as treason.

You are welcome to your opinion. Even if others think what you're saying is completely stupid and offensive, you can still say whatever you want. Isn't that great? Isn't that worth protecting?

uh oh. Im in for it. I better jump off the US bandwagon or Ill be picked apart. hahahhaha. liberals are like bad movies.

Who says I'm a liberal? I don't think I've said a single thing about my political views, other than that I support free speech and that I am opposed to the timing of the war.

You wonder who on earth funded such a crock. Ive yet to see anyone that didnt like my opinions really make a solid point. More like this small personal attacks and enuendos. Nothing about issues.

What personal attacks have I made against you? I'm not sure I know what you mean by innuendos.

To me things are black and white. Hard or soft. Apples or oranges.

Yes, and I believe that is a large part of the problem. No matter how simple and clear-cut we would like things to be, the world is a complicated place. Oversimplifications are bound to fail.

I dont agree with all the policies the government makes but I wouldnt take a dump on the white house because the tax program blows

That's a funny position for an American to take. After all, the founders of our nation, the ones we revere and put on our money, went to war against the government because the tax program blew.

nor would I turn my back on my nation.

Then why would you tell me to turn my back on America by leaving it if I don't like its policies? I am fighting for the future of our nation just as much as you are. I simply disagree with you about what that future should entail.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
no, your saying that for me. Im saying I support the war and support the troops.

No, you specifically said that you cannot support the troops without supporting the war. In fact, you said it twice.

Your the one who wants there cake and wants to eat it too. You want to feel good about pretending the soldiers are victims and the government is evil.

When did I ever say that? Now you're saying that for me. Your hypocrisy has been noted.

More personal attacks.

No, it's an attack on your logic.

So unless I think like Johnny Liberal

Dig yourself in deeper there...

Im a small thinker because only liberals and antiamerica/anti-war protestors have true insight.

I really, really, REALLY want you to point out where I said that.

Always the same story from you and your sychopant cronies.

I assume you mean "sychophant," but that doesn't even make sense here, either. A sycophant is someone who kisses someone else's butt. Kind of like you're doing with your unthinking, uncritical support of George III and his pet war.

And to think I though that we elect public officials and war was brought forth in conjunction with a congressional declaration of war.

But they didn't declare war!

Didnt Bush get a congressional grant to make this decision,

That isn't permitted by the Constitution. Congress and Congress alone must declare war. They didn't.

Doesnt the Constitution expressly constrains democratic, majority rule?

No, it doesn't. Just the opposite. You've just shown you don't know the first thing about the founding principles of this country/

cmon now.. more of your read between the lines and attack a reworded point. get up a little earlier..

I wont bother responding to anymore of your threads they are just misconstrued leftist jibberish and personal berates. They have no true root. It's just an opinion of a scared little man behind a terminal who believe his opinions are greater then anyone else who dares defy him.

I'm sure it eases your closed little woo-woo mind to believe that. But I have followed the tenets of skeptical thought in this thread; you haven't.

Its easy to throw out personal insults

You're the one who's been throwing out words like "idiots," "morons," and such. You've even called me "leftist" several times, thus making yourself look like an idiot to pretty much everyone else on here who knows for a fact that I am anything but. But apparently, leftist=anyone who dares to disagree with you.

You have not made a proper response to any of my points, and you have not properly defended yours. You use insults and labels to discount the rebuttals of your insane statements because you cannot back them up rationally.

YOU ARE A COWARD. Deal with that.

[Smalso]

The biggest part of the problem is that the facts are not clear.

About why we are @ war with Iraq? Well there's a drove of information that explains why we are @ war with Iraq. I could dig thru archives and archives and adress them but I thought Tony Blair did well in his speech to the house a while back. A wonderful speaker and makes up for the lack of speech writers are president has. Eloquant Jr. Bush is not.

Your opinion may or may not be clear either to yourself or to others. The facts are not clear; in fact they have been very much in dispute for several months. Otherwise, why all the debate about them?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Smalso

Your opinion may or may not be clear either to yourself or to others. The facts are not clear; in fact they have been very much in dispute for several months. Otherwise, why all the debate about them?

It's the alternate definition of "clear" apparently.

It is fairly obvious that the "facts behind the war" are most certainly _not_ clear at all. Ask 40 different war supporters, and you will probably get 20 different justifications for the war, and probably none of them will agree with bva's assertions as to the "clear" reasons why we are at war.

[bva]

Originally posted by Smalso




Your opinion may or may not be clear either to yourself or to others. The facts are not clear; in fact they have been very much in dispute for several months. Otherwise, why all the debate about them?

To some the facts will never be clear enough. Yes I think asking 100 people you would get MANY similar answer and MANY that agree with my perspective. You would also get MANY that dont. Thats common sense. I think the information is sufficient. Common problem with almost everything is we the public are never privileged to all of the information our government agencies are. CNN wont be broadcasting classified information regarding all of the issue. Im ok with that. I know that our government knows at least 60% more information about the issue then I do. Sure I would like more information but to some people the issues will never be clear so speculation will happen and people will choose what story they like.

FACT

- Iraq did not comply with resolution after resolution. Since 1990 Iraq has failed ot conform almost all of the UN resolution most notabled 660/678 and recently resolution 1441. This is over a decade of defiance and diplomacy failing. Saddam has stretched and twisted and elongated the hand of diplomacy for his own purpose all the while continuing to try and make, test and ascertain WMD.

FACT

- US intelligence provided information that the Saddam regime had not only sheltered but had trained AL Qaeda operatives. Al Qaeda is the terrorsit faction who blew up the WTC on 9/11

FACT

Article 1 section 8 says:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article II section 2 says:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;


Use of force resolution SJ res23

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Just to point out common arguments..

FACT

America tried and UK tried and it was evident that no resolution would make Saddam conform without force. No resolution would be passed with use of force by France. <no force>==non compliance / <force> == strict compliance / then use force..


NON FACT (countless rumor/interpretation)

President Bush is declaring war to put in a puppet govt (aka Pu Yi) and gain mass profit for america via Iraq Oil

NON FACT

America bypassed diplomacy and Iraq was conforming with the resolutions set in place from 1990 on.

===================

Ok so Ive seen statements about people saying this or that which are always based on their opinion. Which is fine. What I said strictly above outlined by Facts are the only reasons I need to support the war.

How has Iraq conformed with rsolution 1441? They have conformed with certain pieces of the resolution but they have not complied with the policy. Example: Im breaking only part of the law so I shouldnt be arrested?




Now as for my PERSONAL OPINIONS:

I think war time protesting could be considered treason. I think it helps the opposition providing them morale support and motivation.

I think saying you dont want war but you dont mind the soldier killing in the war is ludicrous.

So things are clear to me. What isnt clear is why people manipulate the facts to suit their needs. Why vilify their own country when we are fighting someone who defines tyrranny. You stand for the US and their actions or you stand for Iraq and their tyranny. Or you could be SAFE and say im not for either. < Liberal, liberatarian, left wing> DOes anyone ever notice how liberal is defined as tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others when that is the furthest from the truth. Liberals are the most self centered egotistical close minded bastards on the face of the planet. They feel above the majority because the lean adifferent way. The solution is to suffer. It is the only broad-minded antidote to their disease.

[OdderMensch]

bva- is it inconcevable to you that someone could be against murder, and yet be against the death penalty?

ie- support the goals of an organzation, yet disagree with its methods?

[bva]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
bva- is it inconcevable to you that someone could be against murder, and yet be against the death penalty?

ie- support the goals of an organzation, yet disagree with its methods?

I know what your saying. I would liek to say yes but I fear that it would be a set up to call me a hypocrit as it seems to be normal on this board -> coax you in and then twist the intent to appear better. Let me say this: in your general statement it would really depend on the situation with each of those situation being unique to that scenario. The death penalty concept is conceivable sure but I dont think represents what my beliefs are.

In the sense of goals and methods. The goal of this war is to stop a regime. The only methods to that goal is conflict. Diplomacy is a dual party method. We dont have 2 parties that want diplomacy therefore conflict is the only method for our goal.

I understand what your saying and there are definite gray areas and issues that you can apply that logic. I just dont feel this issue is one of them.

Most of the arguments opposed to the war are with regards to their opinion that it is either not worth it or that there is no need for us to be at war with Saddam as imminent danger is not evident in their eyes. Thank god they arent in office. I simply do not agree and the reasons we are at war are based on past and present facts. Is there ulterior motives by this government? I dont know that. Should I make speculation on our future after the war or how it wil be viewed by foreign bodies? Sure. I do and others do. I dont agree that it will be bad. I t will be better than right now and it will be safer in the longterm. That is 100% speculation based on opinion. I dont speak to what i /think/ a government agenda may be I speak to what I know to be true. I just find it funny how someone can sit around and insist they know the intricate details and intelligence surrounding the 100% truths of why we are @ war. Im sure there is more to it then just 1441 and 9/11 but I dont really care because 1441 and 9/11 is enough evidence to support the war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
FACT

- Iraq did not comply with resolution after resolution.

So here we are, not complying with the UN to punish Iraq for not complying with the UN. Makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

FACT

- US intelligence provided information that the Saddam regime had not only sheltered but had trained AL Qaeda operatives.

Information which turned out to be bogus.

FACT

Article 1 section 8 says:

To declare War,

So why didn't they?

Article II section 2 says:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

by a Declaration of War under I.8, which hasn't happened.

Use of force resolution SJ res23

Irrelevant, since it doesn't actually declare war.

FACT

America tried and UK tried and it was evident that no resolution would make Saddam conform without force.

It wasn't evident to the inspectors, who said they were making good progress.

President Bush is declaring war to put in a puppet govt (aka Pu Yi) and gain mass profit for america via Iraq Oil

Strawman.

America bypassed diplomacy and Iraq was conforming with the resolutions set in place from 1990 on.

Strawman; and stupid because Iraq was still our allies in 1990 and the Gulf War didn't start until 1991.

Whereas, every single fact I have given you you have ignored, and every single question has gone unanswered.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
I know what your saying. I would liek to say yes but I fear that it would be a set up to call me a hypocrit as it seems to be normal on this board -> coax you in and then twist the intent to appear better.

Why don't you actually try answering a direct question for once?

[DanishDynamite]

bva:I know that our government knows at least 60% more information about the issue then I do. It's not important, but I was wondering how you arrived at this figure.
Since 1990 Iraq has failed ot conform almost all of the UN resolution most notabled 660/678 and recently resolution 1441. This is over a decade of defiance and diplomacy failing.
Resolution 660 condemns Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678 authorizes "all necessary means" to evict Iraq from Kuwait. These two resolutions have no relevance in regard to Gulf War II. In regard to subsequent resolutions concerning weapons inspections, Iraq was in compliance until 1996. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html) No subsequent resolution has authorized the use of "all necessary means" to ensure there were no WMD in Iraq.
Saddam has stretched and twisted and elongated the hand of diplomacy for his own purpose all the while continuing to try and make, test and ascertain WMD. Whether he has been busy making WMD remains to be seen.
US intelligence provided information that the Saddam regime had not only sheltered but had trained AL Qaeda operatives. Al Qaeda is the terrorsit faction who blew up the WTC on 9/11I'd be interested to see your evidence for this. Are you privy to non-public information?
America tried and UK tried and it was evident that no resolution would make Saddam conform without force. No resolution would be passed with use of force by France. <no force>==non compliance / <force> == strict compliance / then use force.. The US administration made it plain from the start that while a UN resolution authorizing the use of force would be welcome, the US would do as it pleased, no matter what.
NON FACT (countless rumor/interpretation)

President Bush is declaring war to put in a puppet govt (aka Pu Yi) and gain mass profit for america via Iraq OilWhile I hope this won't be the case, it certainly isn't a "non-fact". It is a possible future, and what actually transpires remains to be seen.

[bva]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
bva: It's not important, but I was wondering how you arrived at this figure.

Resolution 660 condemns Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678 authorizes "all necessary means" to evict Iraq from Kuwait. These two resolutions have no relevance in regard to Gulf War II. In regard to subsequent resolutions concerning weapons inspections, Iraq was in compliance until 1996. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html) No subsequent resolution has authorized the use of "all necessary means" to ensure there were no WMD in Iraq.
Whether he has been busy making WMD remains to be seen.
I'd be interested to see your evidence for this. Are you privy to non-public information?
The US administration made it plain from the start that while a UN resolution authorizing the use of force would be welcome, the US would do as it pleased, no matter what.
While I hope this won't be the case, it certainly isn't a "non-fact". It is a possible future, and what actually transpires remains to be seen.

yeah but whats your point. Im clearly pointing out a history of material breached resolution and YES they have alot to do with why the US is over there. They provide a history
Resolutions 678 and 687 -- to use force to disarm Iraq, which has "materially breached" disarmament obligations which are clearly stated in 1441 even for you. The source of this authority is UNSCR 678, which was the authorization to use force for the Gulf War in January 1991. , The Council imposed a series of conditions on Iraq, including most importantly extensive disarmament obligations, as a condition of the ceasefire declared under UNSCR 687. Iraq has "materially breached" these disarmament obligations, and force may again be used under UNSCR 678 to compel Iraqi compliance.1441 then gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that violations of the obligations, including the obligation to cooperate fully, under 1441 would constitute a further material breach of ALL the sanctions we have tried for decade to enforce..



60% was just some out of the air number. The statement intended to suggest we arent privileged to all of the information but the main components are compelling enough. Your too much of a smartass to get it.

As for WMD your kidding right? At the end of the war either Ill be right or you will. WTF do you think all the chemical suits we are uncovering in the hospitals and schoools where the Iraqi stage the attack from are for?


As for information to the public about Iraq and Al Qaeda it was stated all the way back on 9/26/2002 from Condoleeza Rice and again by DOnald Rumsfeld (you do know who they are right) both have stated our intelligence source have uncovered that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in creating, testing, harboring chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. These has been countless reports and a myriad of intelligence sources. So yes Im privi to the same information everyone else is I choose ot pay attention to it.

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


Why don't you actually try answering a direct question for once?

Questions: What do I think of your antagonistic appoach while addressing opinions of others that dont fit the Killian mold?

Answer:
I just ignore you because you are a liberatarian puke. You are a self-righteous pompous miscreant. You think your opinion matters .. oohh Shane your such a skeptic. Your a real though provoker. No your a child who if faced with true adversity would turn tail and run. You epitomize the wrong in the country and you are a very sheltered baby. A yellow coward. You have nothing original to say and you hang on your opinions. Ive been pretty content with the difference of opinions others have put forth in sensible manner. Its been interesting you have offered nothing to the table accept your whining and senseless rambling <NOTED YOUR A BAFOON>. A big fat baby who needs a rattler and a bib.


- resolution 1441 was in material breach by iraq. Period

- Under the Constitution the President has not simply the authority but the responsibility to use force to protect our national security. Congress has confirmed in two separate resolutions in 1991 and again last fall that the President has authority to use our armed forces in the specific case of Iraq.

- We are in Iraqi and we are winning the war it wont stop until its finished.

FACE IT. ACCEPT IT. You kind of sound like the Iraqi Minister of information (They arent in Bagdhad, They arent @ the airport, WE ARE WINNING) -

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by bva
I just ignore you because you are a liberatarian puke. You are a self-righteous pompous miscreant. You think your opinion matters .. oohh Shane your such a skeptic. Your a real though provoker. No your a child who if faced with true adversity would turn tail and run. You epitomize the wrong in the country and you are a very sheltered baby. A yellow coward. You have nothing original to say and you hang on your opinions. Ive been pretty content with the difference of opinions others have put forth in sensible manner. Its been interesting you have offered nothing to the table accept your whining and senseless rambling <NOTED YOUR A BAFOON>. A big fat baby who needs a rattler and a bib.

What a great contribution to the discussion. And learn the difference between "your" and "you're"...

[Supercharts]

"I just ignore you because you are a libertarian puke. You are a self-righteous pompous miscreant. You think your opinion matters. Ooh Shane you’re such a skeptic. You’re a real thought provoker. No you’re a child who if faced with true adversity would turn tail and run. You epitomize the wrong in the country and you are a very sheltered baby. A yellow coward. You have nothing original to say and you hang on your opinions. I’ve been pretty content with the difference of opinions others have put forth in sensible manner. Its been interesting you have offered nothing to the table accept your whining and senseless rambling <NOTED YOU’RE A BAFOON>. A big fat baby who needs a rattler and a bib."

<I cleaned up the Grammar - NNTTM :D >

[DanishDynamite]

bva:yeah but whats your point. You mean aside from pointing out your multiple errors?
Im clearly pointing out a history of material breached resolution and YES they have alot to do with why the US is over there. They provide a history
Resolutions 678 and 687 -- to use force to disarm Iraq, which has "materially breached" disarmament obligations which are clearly stated in 1441 even for you. The source of this authority is UNSCR 678, which was the authorization to use force for the Gulf War in January 1991. , The Council imposed a series of conditions on Iraq, including most importantly extensive disarmament obligations, as a condition of the ceasefire declared under UNSCR 687. Iraq has "materially breached" these disarmament obligations, and force may again be used under UNSCR 678 to compel Iraqi compliance.1441 then gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that violations of the obligations, including the obligation to cooperate fully, under 1441 would constitute a further material breach of ALL the sanctions we have tried for decade to enforce.. Again, 678 has nothing to do with "disarmament obligations". Resolution 1441 speaks of "serious consequences" if Iraq doesn't cooperate.
60% was just some out of the air number. Thanks for admitting it.
The statement intended to suggest we arent privileged to all of the information but the main components are compelling enough. Your too much of a smartass to get it. This is a skeptics board. If you wish to be taken seriously you should not make "factual" statements pulled out of thin air. People here are sticklers for evidence.
As for WMD your kidding right? At the end of the war either Ill be right or you will. WTF do you think all the chemical suits we are uncovering in the hospitals and schoools where the Iraqi stage the attack from are for? We know Iraq used to have chemical weapons. Could these suits stem from that era? Could it be that Iraq wanted to protect itself from chemical/biological attacks from other nations? We don't know and it doesn't matter. Chemical suits are not chemical weapons.
As for information to the public about Iraq and Al Qaeda it was stated all the way back on 9/26/2002 from Condoleeza Rice and again by DOnald Rumsfeld (you do know who they are right) both have stated our intelligence source have uncovered that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in creating, testing, harboring chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. These has been countless reports and a myriad of intelligence sources. So yes Im privi to the same information everyone else is I choose ot pay attention to it. Great. Could you provide a link so the rest of the world can be likewise informed?

[bva]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
bva: You mean aside from pointing out your multiple errors?
Again, 678 has nothing to do with "disarmament obligations". Resolution 1441 speaks of "serious consequences" if Iraq doesn't cooperate.
Thanks for admitting it.
This is a skeptics board. If you wish to be taken seriously you should not make "factual" statements pulled out of thin air. People here are sticklers for evidence.
We know Iraq used to have chemical weapons. Could these suits stem from that era? Could it be that Iraq wanted to protect itself from chemical/biological attacks from other nations? We don't know and it doesn't matter. Chemical suits are not chemical weapons.
Great. Could you provide a link so the rest of the world can be likewise informed?

Lets just get something straight. I dont hinge my day to day operation if the Danish Dynamite finds my posts either appeasing grammatically or if he points out that Ive made a type-o because its the best he could come up with. Or if Shane Killian is butt hurt because I provided him affrimation of what he knows about himself. I certainly dont get my feelings hurt if some liberal decides to disagree with my stance morally. I posted to share an opinion. I continue to post because it is fun. Nothing will get resolved in this post and no opinions wll change nor do I think they would. I posted simply to share my view. I handle my day to day business with my code of conduct. If a liberal is impeding my production as an American I stand up to them to their face. If a foreigner is on US soil and he is taken advantage of a system I stand up to their face. My actions speak more than my words. If someone chooses to tell me to my face that he supports the Iraqi regime and that my president should be assassinated or that 9/11 was somehow deserving I express my opinion to his face. If I dont agree with my government then I exercise my right to vote and hope the majority of Americans share my view. History has shown they usually do :)

Its evident that you are just another dirtball that refuse to hear truths. No matter what I post or what I offer you will refute because you are a fool under the title of skeptic. We are all skeptical but there is a level of skepticism you must apply to day to day logic? Is fire hot? Your a skeptic put your head in the flames :) Thats an over used word. You obviously are just another foreigner who feels above a union you dislike because you gain nothing from it. It's a battle not worth engaging because there is no diplomatic approach. You have your opinion and I have mine. Youve insenuated your opinion is righteous as it is logical and correct and my view is just a ridiculous fallacy based on my ultra jingoistic views and lies. Im a toothless redneck that probbaly beats my wife too. Its the same ole same ole. Self-righteous reverse biggots you make me sick but Ill pray for you.

[DanishDynamite]

bva:Lets just get something straight. I dont hinge my day to day operation if the Danish Dynamite finds my posts either appeasing grammatically or if he points out that Ive made a type-o because its the best he could come up with.I'm not sure of the relevance of this statement as I have not pointed out a single spelling or grammatical mistake. I've only been pointing out your factual mistakes.
I posted to share an opinion. I continue to post because it is fun. Nothing will get resolved in this post and no opinions wll change nor do I think they would. I posted simply to share my view. And you are certainly entitled to your view. However, you should be aware that unsubstantiated or illogical views are not treated kindly here.
I handle my day to day business with my code of conduct. If a liberal is impeding my production as an American I stand up to them to their face. If a foreigner is on US soil and he is taken advantage of a system I stand up to their face. My actions speak more than my words. If someone chooses to tell me to my face that he supports the Iraqi regime and that my president should be assassinated or that 9/11 was somehow deserving I express my opinion to his face. If I dont agree with my government then I exercise my right to vote and hope the majority of Americans share my view. History has shown they usually do :) All very laudable I'm sure.
Its evident that you are just another dirtball that refuse to hear truths. No matter what I post or what I offer you will refute because you are a fool under the title of skeptic. Your continued series of put-downs are tiresome.
We are all skeptical but there is a level of skepticism you must apply to day to day logic? Is fire hot? Your a skeptic put your head in the flames :) Thats an over used word. You obviously are just another foreigner who feels above a union you dislike because you gain nothing from it. It's a battle not worth engaging because there is no diplomatic approach. You have your opinion and I have mine. Youve insenuated your opinion is righteous as it is logical and correct and my view is just a ridiculous fallacy based on my ultra jingoistic views and lies. Im a toothless redneck that probbaly beats my wife too. Its the same ole same ole. Self-righteous reverse biggots you make me sick but Ill pray for you. Wow! Does the word "paranoid" mean anything to you?

BTW, please don't waste your time in prayer (for me or otherwise).

[DavidJames]

"I posted to share an opinion"
"Its evident that you are just another dirtball that refuse to hear truths"

I've seen you post a lot of opinions, but as far as "truths", that's why DD is asking you for sources. Continue to share your opinions but it if you want to claim your opinions as the "truth" you better be prepared to provide evidence.

Oh, and littering your "opinions" with terms like "dirtball" doesn't help your cause.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
I just ignore you because you are a liberatarian puke.

Well, at least you got the political affiliation right...

Under the Constitution the President has not simply the authority but the responsibility to use force to protect our national security.

Only after being called into service, which the Constitution only provides for by either a Declaration of War by Congress or a direct attack against the US, neither of which has happened.

Congress has confirmed in two separate resolutions in 1991 and again last fall that the President has authority to use our armed forces in the specific case of Iraq.

And where in those two documents was war declared against Iraq?

[bva]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I posted to share an opinion"
"Its evident that you are just another dirtball that refuse to hear truths"

I've seen you post a lot of opinions, but as far as "truths", that's why DD is asking you for sources. Continue to share your opinions but it if you want to claim your opinions as the "truth" you better be prepared to provide evidence.

Oh, and littering your "opinions" with terms like "dirtball" doesn't help your cause.

What is my cause?You can look up the same info publically. RUmsfeld and Rice and several others have proof. Do you say they are liars?

[bva]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I posted to share an opinion"
"Its evident that you are just another dirtball that refuse to hear truths"

I've seen you post a lot of opinions, but as far as "truths", that's why DD is asking you for sources. Continue to share your opinions but it if you want to claim your opinions as the "truth" you better be prepared to provide evidence.

Oh, and littering your "opinions" with terms like "dirtball" doesn't help your cause.

What drugs are you taking? Ive outlined facts you refuse they are facts. The earth is round. I guess thats wrong too.

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, at least you got the political affiliation right...



Only after being called into service, which the Constitution only provides for by either a Declaration of War by Congress or a direct attack against the US, neither of which has happened.



And where in those two documents was war declared against Iraq?

If this war is not legit does congress have a right to seek retribution? Impeaching Jr. Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors would seem realistic. Its not going to happen because again he is with in his bounds to do what we are doing.

[bva]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


What a great contribution to the discussion. And learn the difference between "your" and "you're"...

Sorry Ian I promised I would do better. You have to forgive me. your means possesive and you're means you are I just reearched it. Thanks again. You pedantic limey. FANK YOU SIRE.. VERRRRRYYY REFRESHING!! GOOD FOR ME GULLIVER"

Im the one who intiated the post you dont have to reply if you dont like the contributions. Just ignore it you half wit..

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
What drugs are you taking? Ive outlined facts you refuse they are facts. The earth is round. I guess thats wrong too.

The difference is, there is evidence that the Earth is round.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
If this war is not legit does congress have a right to seek retribution?

Yeah, like they're really going to do that. The whole reason they didn't declare war is that it would have meant having a full debate about it, during which a lot of uncomfortable things would have to be discussed, such as the fact that there has been no evidence put forward supporting the so-called "facts" you keep driveling on about. This way, they avoid the uncomfortable questions and cover themselves in case public opinion of the war goes south.

By the way, some of those uncomfortable things I mentioned were asked by Rep. Ron Paul last September:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

I have yet to have a pro-war advocate respond to these despite the number of times I've posted the link. Care to be the first to provide answers?

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


The difference is, there is evidence that the Earth is round.

and there is evidence Iraq was not in compliance with resolution 1441 and that they had affiliations or lent some form of support to Al Qaeda.

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


Yeah, like they're really going to do that. The whole reason they didn't declare war is that it would have meant having a full debate about it, during which a lot of uncomfortable things would have to be discussed, such as the fact that there has been no evidence put forward supporting the so-called "facts" you keep driveling on about. This way, they avoid the uncomfortable questions and cover themselves in case public opinion of the war goes south.

By the way, some of those uncomfortable things I mentioned were asked by Rep. Ron Paul last September:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

I have yet to have a pro-war advocate respond to these despite the number of times I've posted the link. Care to be the first to provide answers?

Ill read the link and gte back to you if it isnt bulletproof. If it is what could i say.


This was an excerpt from an unclassified CIA letter to the senate.
Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

¶Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

¶We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

¶Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

¶Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

¶We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

¶Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda. suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
and there is evidence Iraq was not in compliance with resolution 1441

Then why not let the UN handle it? Why not let the inspectors do their job?

and that they had affiliations or lent some form of support to Al Qaeda.

Provide the evidence for this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
This was an excerpt from an unclassified CIA letter to the senate.
Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Oh, come on! That was debunked months ago! Not even the warmongers are using it as evidence now! CIA Director George Tenet himself said that the information came from "sources of varying reliability," and Daniel Benjamin, director of counterterrorism for the NSC said, "In 1998, we went through every piece of intelligence we could find to see if there was a link [between] al-Qaeda and Iraq. We came to the conclusion that our intelligence agencies had it right: There was no noteworthy relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. I know that for a fact. No other issue has been as closely scrutinized as this one." Benjamin also said, of the CIA's letter you mentioned, that the CIA was "saying that there isn't much evidence." The report was overstated and exaggerated greatly.

There's more evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed than there is for a Saddam/Al Qaeda link.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
There's more evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed than there is for a Saddam/Al Qaeda link.

Careful, we don't need to get him started on that, too. :rolleyes:

Jeremy

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, come on! That was debunked months ago! Not even the warmongers are using it as evidence now! CIA Director George Tenet himself said that the information came from "sources of varying reliability," and Daniel Benjamin, director of counterterrorism for the NSC said, "In 1998, we went through every piece of intelligence we could find to see if there was a link [between] al-Qaeda and Iraq. We came to the conclusion that our intelligence agencies had it right: There was no noteworthy relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. I know that for a fact. No other issue has been as closely scrutinized as this one." Benjamin also said, of the CIA's letter you mentioned, that the CIA was "saying that there isn't much evidence." The report was overstated and exaggerated greatly.

There's more evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed than there is for a Saddam/Al Qaeda link.

Oh certainly I know there is splits between information from the CIA/FBI on reports but this is a history of allegations that started after 9/11 and several new reports have been brought to light since January 03 and our government has put tons of pressure on the CIA to affirm 100'2 and 100's of reports. I provided one small sample. Tenet has been very diplomatic about not saying too much. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a key to the arguments and his stint in the Baghdad hospital. I mean for every one report there could be 2 behind it that points skepticisim. After the war many answers will be uncovered for the public.

Moon landing hoax: funny :) I dont agree

[Smalso]

The more this discussion goes on, the more obvious it becomes that nothing is "clear," not even to you, bva, except that when your arguments are shot down, you are not above personal insults and name-calling. You'll go far.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by bva
- resolution 1441 was in material breach by iraq. Period


Says who? Certainly not the UN at that is the ONLY authority to decide if a reolution has been breached and what the consequences will be.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by bva
RUmsfeld and Rice and several others have proof. Do you say they are liars?

That's a good one. Certainly they are liars! They are POLITICIANS!

The US government has been caught lying many times over the last few months. Why do you think so many people simply don't believe the US government ANYHTING they say about this war?

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
Oh certainly I know there is splits between information from the CIA/FBI on reports but this is a history of allegations that started after 9/11

Note the words "in 1998." "In 1998" is not after 9/11/2001.

and several new reports have been brought to light since January 03

Then why don't you reference them?

and our government has put tons of pressure on the CIA to affirm 100'2 and 100's of reports.

The pressure is certainly there. That means nothing more than the CIA has an incentive to spin the data in the government's direction.

Tenet has been very diplomatic about not saying too much.

What he does say, is that the evidence is at best extremely tenuous. Certainly not enough to justify a war.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

is considered by the CIA to be a fraud as he doesn't share the ideology of Al-Qaeda, his name is not on their list of known Muslim terrorists, and he has never been mentioned in any known documentation of Al-Qaeda members.

CIA Analyst Melvin Goodman, head of the National Security Project, has come right out and told The Guardian, "I've talked to my sources at the CIA, and all of them are saying the evidence [of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam] is simply not there."

After the war many answers will be uncovered for the public.

And if every single other war America has gotten into is any indication (and it very likely is), the answers will be that the government has lied to us yet again, just as it has lied to us about every single war except the Revolutionary War (and I'm not even certain about that one).

Moon landing hoax: funny :) I dont agree

It is, nonetheless, true. At least when the moon hoax people say there are no stars in the pictures from the moon, there actually are no stars in the pictures from the moon. It just doesn't mean what they say it means. But the "evidence" for the Saddam/AlQaeda link doesn't even go that far.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by bva

I posted to share an opinion. I continue to post because it is fun. Nothing will get resolved in this post and no opinions wll change nor do I think they would. I posted simply to share my view.

Now wait a minute. I thought the "facts were clear"? Now you are saying it was only your opinion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Now wait a minute. I thought the "facts were clear"? Now you are saying it was only your opinion?

It is his opinion that the facts are clear.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by shanek


I'll ask you the same question I've asked anyone else who's brought this up (and have yet to get an answer for): I have a friend who works at WorldCom. Should I stop being her friend just because of the behavior of her higher-ups?



There is all the difference in the world between supporting people who are doing their jobs, putting their lives on the line for the sake of their country, and the politicians who led them to it for dubious reasons. The fact that you people can't see that is very, very sad.



And how am I supposed to feed my family?



A drug dealer mugs you and takes your wallet and uses your money in part to finance a hit against a rival drug dealer. How do you defend that?



There is not one shred of evidence that this war will make us any more secure, and every indication that it will make us at a greater risk in the future. Meanwhile, the rights our soldiers are over there fighting for are being taken away by the very men who sent them there.

But, I guess it's easy to make stuff up about your opposition than it is to actually try and understand what they are saying.



No, we aren't. If we were, it would be George W. Bush we were fighting.



There is no evidence at all that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. This is one of the many lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration.



Oh, really? What was that you were saying about Constitutional rights above? :rolleyes:

Or do people only have rights if they agree with you?



If that's all it were about, then I could support the war. But it just ain't that simple. What's the point of liberating Iraq if we enslave ourselves in the process?



Tim Slagle has a routine that makes this very obvious. You can't protect the flag by burning the Constitution. But by protecting people's right to burn the flag, the rights the Constitution stands for are protected.



Your inability to be rational on this subject has been noted.



Then the entire world is our enemy, including ourselves.



Somehow, I knew this jingoistic crap would surface. Do I get the million?



Your inability to form cohesive arguments has been noted.



If you think your neighbors lugnuts are loose, do you get to burst into his home with guns and tighten them yourself?



Your complete failure to understand the concept of the word "prudence" has been noted.



Your complete inability to justify your irrational hatred and jingoism has been noted.



You apparently do; otherwise, why are you so upset at them?



Your inability to have opinions of your own has been noted.


Thank you Shanek, you are one of the TRULY INTELLIGENT people on this board - I must know this since I have been lurking here for about a year ;). Oh and BVA: I am German, so I guess you can just disregard my opnion. After all, i am just one of those pesky Europeans who don't support an administration that has passed laws to imprison me at their whim without the right to a trial... all without the American public screaming out.

You know what is truly American? It is DEFENDING the right of countries to not be invaded (as defended by the US in WWII, as violated by the Bush administration), it is defending the right of the individual to be treted fairly by an independent justice (as also abolished by the current administration), the right to privacy, the right to be treated humaenly and not be tortured, the right to DISSENT, the separation between church and state (as actively abolished by the Ashcroft crew) etc. etc.

So who's Un-American - the dissenters to this war and this administration or... the adminsitration?

[bva]

Originally posted by blackpriester



Thank you Shanek, you are one of the TRULY INTELLIGENT people on this board - I must know this since I have been lurking here for about a year ;). Oh and BVA: I am German, so I guess you can just disregard my opnion. After all, i am just one of those pesky Europeans who don't support an administration that has passed laws to imprison me at their whim without the right to a trial... all without the American public screaming out.

You know what is truly American? It is DEFENDING the right of countries to not be invaded (as defended by the US in WWII, as violated by the Bush administration), it is defending the right of the individual to be treted fairly by an independent justice (as also abolished by the current administration), the right to privacy, the right to be treated humaenly and not be tortured, the right to DISSENT, the separation between church and state (as actively abolished by the Ashcroft crew) etc. etc.

So who's Un-American - the dissenters to this war and this administration or... the adminsitration?


One of my best friends is German. Lives in Stuttgart ad we've enjoyed a very close friendship over the past 10 years. Great guy and a great mind he and his family really helped educate me on German history from first hand experience. I have no argument with what your saying accept for Bush isnt violating anyone's rights nor is Ashcroft. I think we need to understand what treason is and how it should be more clearly defined. Liberal means your tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others but thats not true. Go protest their protests and watch their fangs protrude like a mandrill baboon in attack mode. I have no problem with you not supporting the administration. I dont follow political parties as hardlined as some people. I dont vote in a party I vote in a person and a principal. If Im deceived a vote differently the next time. I dont like the integration of church and state but that is an interpretation and an opinion of what is going on but that has nothing to do with the war. We are beating down tyrranny, we're liberating a country and we providing a safer place for us all. When it comes time to GAIN e.g after the war watch France, Gemrany and Russia jump aboard. So typical. We make the sacrifice and you want to make the decisions.. yeah like that will happen and what will you do when it doesnt :)

[bva]

Originally posted by Smalso
The more this discussion goes on, the more obvious it becomes that nothing is "clear," not even to you, bva, except that when your arguments are shot down, you are not above personal insults and name-calling. You'll go far.

Smalso, the facts are clear enough to me. Thats all that matters. I have enough facts good or bad Im indifferent. I support the war. I accept the facts that I have. Im ok with that. And yes when threatened on a personal level I will defend myself. Notice you've disagreed with me the whoel thread and I have not once said anytihng derrogatory to you. You deliver your message effectively. Since Shanek has mellowed out we've had quality back-forth. Ill address smart rhetoric and coarse words with the same.

[bva]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Says who? Certainly not the UN at that is the ONLY authority to decide if a reolution has been breached and what the consequences will be.

We brought the UN to fruition and we can take the UN away. Im sure that statement upsets you because its true. The UN was laiden with agenda and motive. Is it a coincidence the top 5 countries who gain financially from Iraq was FRANCE, australia RUSSIA, CHINA, GERMANY. I admit I was not hapy the UN forced us to abolish their authority because they would getmud on their face but watch them run now that weve lost lives devestating the the Iraqi regime.

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek



http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

I have yet to have a pro-war advocate respond to these despite the number of times I've posted the link. Care to be the first to provide answers?

He asks some good questions. He makes some bad assumptions. I dont have the answer to all of them but I certainly would be interested to see them addressed from the system. Im going thru and addressing the most pertinent ones that are based on ridiculous speculation. Ill post that later

[bva]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

I just wanted to plug that in as there were more then one of you that defended Iraq and their compliance with resolution 1441 and more than one that refuted any chemical weapons exist. DOnt worry there will be ALOT more. Oh and before you respond yes your right the EVIL US planted them.. Sad sad sad people you are. You defend a madman...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp

More lies right??

[shanek]

Originally posted by bva
I have no argument with what your saying accept for Bush isnt violating anyone's rights nor is Ashcroft.

Tell that to Jose Padilla. Tell that to Lynne Stewart. Tell that to the American Library Association. Tell that to the six college students in Colorado who are in Federal prison for "class enrollment violations." Tell that to Tomas Foral. Or any of the others who have had their rights trampled on by this administration.

[shanek]

Well...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

[bva]

Originally posted by shanek
Well...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

I read that as well. The reports about those drums were unknown and could be WMD sent away for testing. So the report came back negative. The two articles I sent is seperate from the article you sent. PLease speak to the 2 I posted?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by bva


We brought the UN to fruition and we can take the UN away.
Im sure that statement upsets you because its true. The UN was laiden with agenda and motive. Is it a coincidence the top 5 countries who gain financially from Iraq was FRANCE, australia RUSSIA, CHINA, GERMANY. I admit I was not hapy the UN forced us to abolish their authority because they would getmud on their face but watch them run now that weve lost lives devestating the the Iraqi regime.


Funny how easily people buy into the anti-UN propaganda. :)

Reading through the threads concerning the war I no longer wonder how so many people, even the educated and intelligent ones, were so easily decieved by the nazis in my homecountry.

[blackpriester]

Wish I could go out and vote for you... undfortunately, I am neither a citizen nor will i ever live in your area ;), Hope that you will one day see the light and move to the beautiful city by the bay - your kids will ove it there...

- m.

BTW: This:
Bush is holding AMERICAN CITIZENS indefinitely without trial or access to legal counsel. He is EAVESDROPPING on attorney-client communications. He is using the library system to get personal information on people. And he has given himself the power to declare anyone at all an "enemy combatant" and sieze you or your property without a court order, being charged with a crime, or having the benefit of counsel. George W. Bush is an enemy of our sovereign rights as protected by our Constitution. By defending him, you are an enemy of everything America stands for.

..is the best wrap-up up of all the wrongs of the current government I have ever read!


Originally posted by shanek


I don't see how. You're saying we should blame the soldiers for the actions of their Commander-In-Chief, and that supporting the troops means supporting the CIC.



Even though she herself had nothing to do with it and personally speaks out against it?



And your evidence for this is, what?



That is such remarkably small thinking...do you treat every issue in such a black-or-white manner?



Well, exercising the will of anyone, even a majority, is not what this country's about. Read that Constitution you keep talking about sometime.



And what happens when that country acts against another? And the one I move to after that? And the one I move to after that? America is supposed to be the Land of the Free, where we don't have to sorry about such things. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in decades.



Because 1) our government has made that illegal and 2) I shouldn't have to.



Waaaah. Go cry me a river. None of that has anything to do with your jingoistic claptrap.



No, it isn't. The government picks my pocket and uses it to finance a war. If that's my fault, then it's your fault for the mugger financing a drug hit. It's exactly the same thing.



I always thought "appeal to common sense" should be a fallacy, because whenever it's invoked it seems to be in favor of a concept that is neither common nor sensical.



Now compare that to what neighboring regimes have done. You can do a lot worse than Saddam. And we don't exactly have the best track record for setting up governments that maintain the liberty of their people.

BTW, what has Saddam done to America?



Okay, so how do you feel about the fact that Somalia is now under an even more ruthless dictator than it was before we stepped in?



Bush is holding AMERICAN CITIZENS indefinitely without trial or access to legal counsel. He is EAVESDROPPING on attorney-client communications. He is using the library system to get personal information on people. And he has given himself the power to declare anyone at all an "enemy combatant" and sieze you or your property without a court order, being charged with a crime, or having the benefit of counsel.

George W. Bush is an enemy of our sovereign rights as protected by our Constitution. By defending him, you are an enemy of everything America stands for.



One more jingoist who can't offer any evidence for the claim.



And how are people who protest the government doing that? What obout our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to protest the government?



Tyrants ban flag burnin and protesting. Tyrants stand for all of the things you stand for in your posts. It's jingoism, and it has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in a free society.



Hel-lo? Just what do you think the soldiers are doing??? :rolleyes:



If you have no rebuttal to my arguments, just say so.



http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to everyone on this forum.



It's going away right now! The Bush Administration is taking it from us.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by bva



One of my best friends is German. Lives in Stuttgart ad we've enjoyed a very close friendship over the past 10 years. Great guy and a great mind he and his family really helped educate me on German history from first hand experience. I have no argument with what your saying accept for Bush isnt violating anyone's rights nor is Ashcroft. I think we need to understand what treason is and how it should be more clearly defined. Liberal means your tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others but thats not true. Go protest their protests and watch their fangs protrude like a mandrill baboon in attack mode. I have no problem with you not supporting the administration. I dont follow political parties as hardlined as some people. I dont vote in a party I vote in a person and a principal. If Im deceived a vote differently the next time. I dont like the integration of church and state but that is an interpretation and an opinion of what is going on but that has nothing to do with the war. We are beating down tyrranny, we're liberating a country and we providing a safer place for us all. When it comes time to GAIN e.g after the war watch France, Gemrany and Russia jump aboard. So typical. We make the sacrifice and you want to make the decisions.. yeah like that will happen and what will you do when it doesnt :)

bva, I'm sorry you had such bad experiences with liberal (?) protesters - but I actually doubt the people you are talking about are liberals. As a liberal, I do accept your and even my republican attorney's opinion about the state of the world, although I do not agree with them.

As for liberating a country: Who is to decide which contries need "liberation"? Can you remember when we (the US) started pointing our finger at Iraq? Can you remember WHY?

[bva]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Wish I could go out and vote for you... undfortunately, I am neither a citizen nor will i ever live in your area ;), Hope that you will one day see the light and move to the beautiful city by the bay - your kids will ove it there...

- m.
George W. Bush is an enemy of our sovereign rights as protected by our Constitution. By defending him, you are an enemy of everything America stands for.

..is the best wrap-up up of all the wrongs of the current government I have ever read!




Yeah our government and intelligence shouldnt do anytihng to stop terror. Terrorist have rights too!!!

Come on now let's bow our heads in rembrance of another fallen innocent Iraqi "Ali Hassan al-Majid" is murdered unjustly by the treachorous US. GO FRISCO!!!!

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by shanek


Tell that to Jose Padilla. Tell that to Lynne Stewart. Tell that to the American Library Association. Tell that to the six college students in Colorado who are in Federal prison for "class enrollment violations." Tell that to Tomas Foral. Or any of the others who have had their rights trampled on by this administration.


Also tell that to the state of New Mexico...
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/03%20Regular/memorials/house/HJM040.html

Guys, sometimes I am SO proud of America and of the little parts that she is made of, it makes my heart swell like a big patriotic pudding ;). In all earnestness, at least it makes me remember why I love to live here.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by armageddonman



Funny how easily people buy into the anti-UN propaganda. :)

Reading through the threads concerning the war I no longer wonder how so many people, even the educated and intelligent ones, were so easily decieved by the nazis in my homecountry.

Yep, Armag(g)eddon, this is what concerns me, too. Many Americans rightfully view their country as the home of the free, not realizing though, that they as people are not better or worse than, for example the Germans - and that they have to fight for freedom to preserve it. SAFETY over liberty is not an option.
The paranoid, external-influence-hating, safety-over-personal-liberty-accepting mindset that many Americans are currently adopting is VERY MUCH LIKE the one Germans adopted when the Nazis took over. Frightening. Amazing what one government change and a horrible attack on two buildings can do, huh?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Tell that to the six college students in Colorado who are in Federal prison for "class enrollment violations."

Class enrollment violations? That's a crime?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by bva


Yeah our government and intelligence shouldnt do anytihng to stop terror. Terrorist have rights too!!!

Come on now let's bow our heads in rembrance of another fallen innocent Iraqi "Ali Hassan al-Majid" is murdered unjustly by the treachorous US. GO FRISCO!!!!


DON'T CALL IT FRISCO!!! :D

bva, you are putting two peas in one pot that do not belong together. Neither Shanek (i assume...) nor I are against protection from terrorism - it is the fine matter of what you are willing to give up for that protection. If one has to become a "bad guy" to stop the bad guys, nothing is gained. We have to stick by the values of our constitution or the fight "for freedom" is pointless. As Ben Franklin put it so eloquently:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."

And how did you get the idea that any of us mourns a dead terrorist? I mourn the death of civil rights in the US...

[bva]

Originally posted by blackpriester



DON'T CALL IT FRISCO!!! :D

bva, you are putting two peas in one pot that do not belong together. Neither Shanek (i assume...) nor I are against protection from terrorism - it is the fine matter of what you are willing to give up for that protection. If one has to become a "bad guy" to stop the bad guys, nothing is gained. We have to stick by the values of our constitution or the fight "for freedom" is pointless. As Ben Franklin put it so eloquently:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."

And how did you get the idea that any of us mourns a dead terrorist? I mourn the death of civil rights in the US...

Yeah right and Josef Mengele was the paragon of self expression coupled with cutting edge medical science..

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by bva


What is my cause?You can look up the same info publically. RUmsfeld and Rice and several others have proof. Do you say they are liars?

Yes :). Also just sharing my opinion here... hope I won't be called "foreign dirtball", although it would admittedly not hurt too much. Please note that I do NOT claim AS FACT TO --KNOW-- that Rummy and Condi are lying, just think it's more probable than not.

And what do you do when you think something is probable? (At least as a jolly Englishman...) You bet on it. So here is my offer:

If the US finds WoMD (that's what we need to be protected against, right?) in Iraq that are DOUBTLESSLY identified as such, i will write a personal letter to President Bush, apologizing for my doubts in him and praising his insightful policies, after being converted from skeptical, liberal scum into an honest, god-fearing republican (Ugh!).

If they find nothing... you will write the same letter to Gerhard Schroeder (who does not reflect my liberal/libertarian views on politics, mind you!) and tell him how you like his anti-war, humanitarian agenda now, after you conversion from a jingoistic warhawk into a skeptic humanitarian.

Accepted?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by bva


Yeah right and Josef Mengele was the paragon of self expression coupled with cutting edge medical science..

Dude, what's up with you asanine comments? Where do you get the ideas for them? Nothing in my post praised Mengele or any other Nazi - or do you think you are justified in pointing in that direction because I am German?

Just to turn your argument back on you (it's so easy in this case):
I'm sure the Guards in Gitmo bay, holding people who do not know what they are being charged with, have no legal counsel and are being tortured with sensory deprivation, are champions of Justice and are upholding American values... :rolleyes:

[bva]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Dude, what's up with you asanine comments? Where do you get the ideas for them? Nothing in my post praised Mengele or any other Nazi - or do you think you are justified in pointing in that direction because I am German?

Just to turn your argument back on you (it's so easy in this case):
I'm sure the Guards in Gitmo bay, holding people who do not know what they are being charged with, have no legal counsel and are being tortured with sensory deprivation, are champions of Justice and are upholding American values... :rolleyes:

Priester,

In all seriousness I respect your opinion. You have made a few good points and you have delivered your message in a clean manner. You dont have to write bush a letter when you realize why we are there just be more tolerant in the future to opening your idea's to the opposition as well. We will find WMD and we have already began to uncover the truths. The war is just. People say "war for oil" but why does noone say "peace for oil" in the case of france. They want peace because they GAIN from it. Isnt the idea of Janeane Garafalo standing in your corner disturbing enough.

In 1996 the French, who now are championing inspections and the no-fly zones, then backed out of its UN obligation enforcing the Northern no-fly
zone that protects the Kurds.

In 1998 they left the southern no-fly zone, abandoning the Shiites.

"
You may think the U.S. needs U.N. approval and, because France says the same thing, you think they agree with you. But the French spout this righteous drivel because they want to hamstring American influence to their advantage. After all, they virtually never seek U.N. Security Council approval for their own military nannying of their basket-case former African colonies. (Ivory Coast)

France is doing what it thinks is best for France . not the world, not America, not humanity, but France. If that involves screwing America, they'll do it. If that involves leaping to America's defense at the last minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too. If you are a dedicated opponent of an American war, fine. It's perfectly defensible to be rooting for France's success at the U.N."

You can agree with me here, right?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by bva

In 1996 the French, who now are championing inspections and the no-fly zones, then backed out of its UN obligation enforcing the Northern no-fly
zone that protects the Kurds.


The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN therefore France has no abligation to enforce them thus your argument is void.

Get your facts straight and please stop repeating US propaganda aimed at the simple-minded.

[bva]

Originally posted by armageddonman


The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN therefore France has no abligation to enforce them thus your argument is void.

Get your facts straight and please stop repeating US propaganda aimed at the simple-minded.


How about this propaganda: America is in Iraq. America is winning the war. America will be in control of rebuilding Iraq. Get over it yum yum boy. Face the facts: Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441. WMD have been uncovered. How do you like that propaganda? Answer one question: which UN nations profit the most from Iraq? Real simple question you should have no problem answering.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by bva


Face the facts: Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441.


Proof?

WMD have been uncovered.

Proof?


How do you like that propaganda?


Awaiting the proof. And tell me please which UNSC sanction sanctioned the no-fly zones you were talking about.



Answer one question: which UN nations profit the most from Iraq? Real simple question you should have no problem answering. [/B]

I have no idea. But if you know the answer, please tell me and please provide also the proof for it. :)

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by armageddonman


The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN therefore France has no abligation to enforce them thus your argument is void.

Get your facts straight and please stop repeating US propaganda aimed at the simple-minded.

Thank you armaggeddon - German, too, huh?

For the "more simple-minded", as you call them, I want to point out that it is perfectly logical to abhor BOTH the French and the US position - and even the German one ("We will not do anything regardless of evidence...").

A sensible position would be to ask for evidence for the worldwide threat we're supposed to be defending ourselves against FIRST (which has not been shown in a satisfactory way so far, bva, you might agree with me here...). And I am still willing to stand by my bet:

If the US finds WoMD, I write a letter of apology to Bush (although his methodology of shooting first, finding evidence later would still be questionable...), if they find nothing, you write to Chirac, Schroeder or Putin, pick your choice...

Sidenote: I would be willing to die for what I see as an American value - always defending yourself and your allies but never attacking unprovoked. We would be right to stricke BACK at a country that attacks us, but (WoMD or not) we are not right to attack a country that has done NOTHING TO HARM US. And, as the military campaign shows, is not much of a threat anyway.

[Edited for spelling and minor changes]

[armageddonman]

Totally agree with you, BP.

Thanks for the input. :)

[blackpriester]

My latin is a bit rusty and I don't want to google... what does your signature mean?

[blackpriester]

OK, googled, anyway... very clever :).
Does it work for you?
Being clever, I mean?

;)

[armageddonman]

Doesn't really work as I don't have a catapult.

But I was planning to change my sig anyway.

[blackpriester]

Well, then be a good NRA man and get yourself a catapult!

[shanek]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Also tell that to the state of New Mexico...
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/03%20Regular/memorials/house/HJM040.html

Guys, sometimes I am SO proud of America and of the little parts that she is made of, it makes my heart swell like a big patriotic pudding ;). In all earnestness, at least it makes me remember why I love to live here.

We're doing our part. On the 21st, I will be presenting the following resolution to our County Commission:

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/patriot.html

I also made a page backing up our claims:

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/supporting-patriot.html

I'll have to put in a link to the New Mexico resolution. Thanks for posting it!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Class enrollment violations? That's a crime?

That was the reason (excuse) the INS gave for arresting and jailing the students.