Virtual AntiWar march

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Virtual AntiWar march

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:04 pm

http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/


Very original idea...going on today!
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:15 pm

moveon.org wrote:Hundreds of thousands of constituents from across the country are sending the collective message: Don't Invade and Occupy Iraq. Every Senate switchboard will be lit up throughout the day with our message -- a powerful reminder of the breadth and depth of opposition to a war in Iraq.


Image

The breadth and depth of opposition stretches to almost 0.5% of the population!

Maybe this will give the government incentive to enact some laws against tele-marketing:)
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:23 pm

you know i saw this shit 30 years ago during nam, now those people who protested then, are not protesting now, why? cuz they know what is going on, most of the protestors are college kids and for most part have no damn clue. what are they protesting? us going to war cuz saddam wont follow the orders of the UN? gee and what? giving him more time is going to do what? not a damn thing, people open your damn eyes this is something that has to be done, sorry i dont want a war either but sometimes shit just happens.
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:30 pm

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

I dont think most veterans are for the war. But like during vietnam, it was mainly college students against that war too.

Anyway, it seems some countries need wars to survive and get thier way, since thats the only way anyone else will go along with them....out of fear.
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:38 pm

i watched a special on history channel last night showing all the weapons of saddam. and i tell ya what all the biological and chemical weapons he has does scare me. what is even worst is that he used them against both iran and the kurds in northern iraq. killed thousands of women and children, what kind of lunitic does that? that is why we are going to war against saddam. to get rid of those weapons he has.
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:39 pm

kolasi wrote:Anyway, it seems some countries need wars to survive and get thier way, since thats the only way anyone else will go along with them....out of fear.


Oh you mean like terrorism?
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:41 pm

yes terrorism.
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:46 pm

personally i dont want anyone to have nuclear chemical bio weapons...
be it iran, US, china, Korea or canada

why should i feel its ok for the US to have the means of terror, over some other country? as far as nuclear weapons especially considering they are the only one who have used them...twice!
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:47 pm

kolasi wrote:yes terrorism.


So then what you are really protesting is America's attempt to stop terrorism, which means your in favor of people like Saddam Hussein having WMDs. So you think people motivating others out of fear is a good thing? I, like so many other people in this country and the world, am very confused on just what it is you "peace protestors" (read: hippies 2.0) are actually protesting against. Do you want people motivated out of fear? Do you want dictators to be able to hold the world hostage with weapons of mass destruction? What is it that you are trying to accomplish?
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:48 pm

kolsai you have kids?
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:54 pm

kolasi wrote:why should i feel its ok for the US to have the means of terror, over some other country? as far as nuclear weapons especially considering they are the only one who have used them...twice!


Because although we are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons(during world war 2, but i guess we didnt need to because europe had japan and germany under control by that point right?) we have also proven time and again the constraint to know when NOT to use them, and not to use them for imperialistic goals, like say conquering our neighboring countries, destroying Israel, slaying the white devil in the west...
Whereas Iraq, the country we will be taking these capabilities away from, have shown the will and desire to use these weapons, and similar biological and chemical weapons in order to further their own goals, regardless of circumstance. They have used them on citizens of their own country, on non-military persons of both their own and foreign countries population, even though there was no war being fought at that time. Basically we are allowed to have nuclear and chemical weapons because we spent 30 years proving that we knew better than to use them(the cold war), whereas Saddam Hussein has proven that he will use these weapons at his earliest possible convenience if they will accomplish his goals. The U.S. has never threatened a nuclear attack as an offensive maneuver, only in response to previous actions taken against us. The fact that we didn't nuke the entire middle east into the stone age on 9/11 should be proof enough that we can be trusted with these weapons, where Saddam continues to prove that he cannot be.
Last edited by thanuk on Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:56 pm

kolasi wrote:http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

I dont think most veterans are for the war. But like during vietnam, it was mainly college students against that war too.

Anyway, it seems some countries need wars to survive and get thier way, since thats the only way anyone else will go along with them....out of fear.


If fear of the US causes Iraq to give up it's WMD's and stop slaughtering it's own citizens then I'd call it a job well done!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:04 pm

thanuk wrote:
kolasi wrote:why should i feel its ok for the US to have the means of terror, over some other country? as far as nuclear weapons especially considering they are the only one who have used them...twice!


Because although we are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons(during world war 2, but i guess we didnt need to because europe had japan and germany under control by that point right.


Yes... Europe HAD germany under control completely by then :) They surrendered about four months before the nukes on Japan were done.
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:13 pm

Wait Germany surrendered to Europe? I distinctly remember a treaty involving the United States and Russia, but i dont really recall any mention of European nations...
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:31 pm

The whole protest thing here is a joke. Leave it up to the liberal media to make it sound bigger and only cover the antiwar side of things. Not to mention that most of the "antiwar" people who roganised the protests are total pacifists who wouldn't even pick up a gun to defend their own family. Then you get all of the anti-bush people joining in to make a political statement. And you've got the lovely French, together with Germany who are going to prove the UN irrelevant by vetoing the current resolution which only says that Iraq is in violation of the previous (17th!!!) resolution.

Nobody seems to notice that Saddam claims to have no biological or chemical weps, but then he authorizes his troops to use those 'non existant weapons' against us if we attack. Don't forget about the pansy Dan Rather and his interview with Saddam. Of course Saddam would pick Rather to do the interview, he is about as liberal and agenda-drive as they come, and pretty much loves Sadddam. Then of course you get the press saying that its a good idea for bush and saddam to have a debate. The whole thing makes me sick. If you're in the new england area, listen to 96.9fm from 3-7pm. Jay Sevren rocks.
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:34 pm

hey who gave those bio and chemical weapons to saddam to use against Iran?

they had little made in usa, made in Uk made in germany stickers on them
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:37 pm

kolasi do you have kids?, you also forget, they had made in ussr, china, and anyother country in the world that would sell to them.
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:43 pm

thanuk wrote:Wait Germany surrendered to Europe? I distinctly remember a treaty involving the United States and Russia, but i dont really recall any mention of European nations...


*cough* United Kingdom *cough*
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:50 pm

mikayla, not yet...
dunno what wanting no one to have wmd would have to do with me having kids?
Iraq never threatened my country, while the States backed a dictator (that overthrew a democratically elected govt) for 8 years during the 70s, and who tortured and kileld many people. It was all done becasue of fear of communism...becasue the CP had gotten 20% of the vote
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:52 pm

Jegzed wrote:
thanuk wrote:Wait Germany surrendered to Europe? I distinctly remember a treaty involving the United States and Russia, but i dont really recall any mention of European nations...


*cough* United Kingdom *cough*


Oh yeah the good ole U.K. Our only friend in all of Europe. I guess surrendering to the U.K. at the end of wwII is as good as surrendering to Europe, since they were the only country who wasn't under hitler's control when the U.S. became involved;)

Hey Kolasi,

Your right. Saddam got chemical weapons from the U.S. and Germany and the U.K.. And we have sinced realized what a bad idea that was, and we are trying to correct it. Well, SOME of us are....

http://realpolitik.us/archives/000659.php#000659
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:00 pm

i have 2 boys, and what scares me is that saddam can give a terrorist a pen full of anthrax and you would not even know it was there. then the terrorist can do anything they wanted with it when they got inside the US. and that scares the hell out of me. now like n. korea having nukes, that does not scare me one bit. a lunitic who thinks america is the devil scares me all to hell. because he has used biochemical weapons against his own people.
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:06 pm

hussein has never threatened to attack the states.
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:17 pm

saddam has ties to terrorist this is a fact. now the only reason saddam has not attacked the US like that yet is he knows what the retaliation would be. but what is from stopping him from doing it when he is on his deathbed? or from doing it if war is started? only reason why we are going to war is saddam is supposed to get rid of all his WMD and he refuses to do it.
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:50 pm

kolasi wrote:mikayla, not yet...
dunno what wanting no one to have wmd would have to do with me having kids?
Iraq never threatened my country, while the States backed a dictator (that overthrew a democratically elected govt) for 8 years during the 70s, and who tortured and kileld many people. It was all done becasue of fear of communism...becasue the CP had gotten 20% of the vote


So because the US backed a dictator who harmed your country it's OK for you to back a dictator?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:08 pm

ehh so saddam the dictator will leave, and be replaced by a military govt in iraq that friendly to the US. big deal

bottom line is, the US is the #1 powerhouse in the world by far, and wants to keep itself that way. Now, freeing people from opression, iraqi conspiracies to attack the US, duct tape, are all for internal consumption to convince people in the US that these action are necessary.

If someone actually told me that yes i want us to attack iraq because we need the oil, and if we dont have it someone else will and we'll loose our grip on the world...id say that i understand comepletely.

But when i hear BS like, we are going to fight for democracy and freedom, from the moment the allies (Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi) helping have an equal or worse track record than iraq, well then i just think youre trying to take me for a fool.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:17 pm

Kolasi, be realistic. Of course we're not going to war for purely humanitarian reasons. Oil was probably right up there with WMD's on the agenda when our government decided they wanted to go to war with Iraq. However, that doesn't mean we won't be accomplishing a lot of good in the meantime. So maybe the reasons we should support this war aren't the same reasons the government is going to war. But those reasons are still there, regardless. If we can remove a dictator, make the world a tiny bit safer from WMD's, and save the people from Iraq from the torture Hussein is inflicting is the war still bad simply because Bush is really only going in for the oil?

The point still remains that you are supporting a dictator by protesting this war. Or you're a hopeless idealist that thinks simply saying 'please' will get Hussein to give up his weapons. I'm not sure which is worse...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:35 pm

kolasi wrote:bottom line is, the US is the #1 powerhouse in the world by far, and wants to keep itself that way. Now, freeing people from opression, iraqi conspiracies to attack the US, duct tape, are all for internal consumption to convince people in the US that these action are necessary.

What is it that Iraq is doing that threatens the U.S. as the #1 powerhouse in the world? Do you think we fear that the Iraqi army is going to rise up and rival us on the world stage? riiiiggghhhttt.

kolasi wrote:If someone actually told me that yes i want us to attack iraq because we need the oil, and if we dont have it someone else will and we'll loose our grip on the world...id say that i understand comepletely.

Thats the thing all you war protestors dont seem to understand. We WANT the oil, but we definately do not NEED it. Nor do we care if other countries have it, and no, it does not effect our "grip on the world", that you insist we care about but yet have never chose to excercise, or else Europe would be America 2, and the cold war never would've happened because wwII wouldn't have ended in Berlin, but rather in Moscow.
What does effect our "grip on the world", or rather, our national security, is a 3rd world country that is a dictatorship, that is unfriendly toward us, and that has WMDs. Iraq falls into this category. They have oil there? Great, we have tons and tons of oil in Texas. We have estimated more oil in Alaska than exists under the entire region of Iraq currently. We dont need their oil, what we do need is a guarentee that chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons won't be in the next plane that crashes into one of our buildings. The most likely place terrorist will get those weapons? The middle east. The most likely place in the middle east to supply terrorists with those weapons? Iraq.
[quote="kolasi]
But when i hear BS like, we are going to fight for democracy and freedom, from the moment the allies (Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi) helping have an equal or worse track record than iraq, well then i just think youre trying to take me for a fool.[/quote]

See above. Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia? Sure they have bad internal track records, just like Iraq. But they are sovreign nations, and their internal affairs are hardly our concern. However, Iraq has shown that it is openly opposed to the United States, and that it supports people who would destroy the United States. Because of that hostility, their internal affairs BECOME our concern, as they are a threat to our own security as a nation. When Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia start actively supporting terrorists, we will act against them as well. Saudi Arabia does. It is our belief that after Saddam Hussein is overthrown, and the current Saudi government loses his support, that there will be a coup or a revolution of some kind in the country. But on the surface, they claim to be our allies, and in support of our nation. We will take that claim in good faith until they prove otherwise.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:55 pm

So what's going to be the impact of this "virtual" protest on the rest of us, considering the unbelievable phone system jams it has the potential of creating? At least protestors USED to actually have to inconvenience themselves in order to make a statement, showing they were at least willing to put out some effort on behalf of their cause.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:16 pm

Ashiwi wrote:So what's going to be the impact of this "virtual" protest on the rest of us, considering the unbelievable phone system jams it has the potential of creating?


Basically its going to jam up all the government communications lines that are open to the public, clogging them with anti-war propoganda. The impact is that its going to impede and prevent the government from contacting, being contacted by, and otherwise dealing with the general public. Since the government has private means to communicate internally, its basically going to give washington at least one free day to completely ignore any public inquiries, since they will all inevitably be anti-war protest contacts.
I think of it this way: They are going to sit in your boss's office all day and bitch about things they can't change, effectively making your boss unavailable to legitimate problems that require his attention. Your boss is going to sit there and ignore them, and go about his daily routine as though they aren't there. If you dont like the term "boss", you can change it to psychiatrist, bartender, consultant, or councellor if it makes you feel better.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Salen
Sojourner
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Salen » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:21 pm

I'm pretty sure you can't count UK as having anyone under control in 1944. If the US wasn't there in 42-43, there wouldn't have been a UK.

The thing is this. The US can do it without the rest of the world. We have the air and naval power to destroy every building in the desert. The fact that we actually approached the UN about it is beyond what we needed to do.

The biggest mistake (since restoring France as an independent nation) is that when the inspectors were expelled <---MATERIAL BREECH from Iraq, the US/UK forces didn't level every building the inspectors were barred from.

It goes something like this...

We are gonna look for weapons in the Palace.

You can not enter the Palace.

Are you sure?

Yes, by order of Saddam you can't enter.

Ok, well we are going across town to the hotel then.

*Sound of planes flying overhead*

*Sounds of explosions in the distance*

Cut to Next Day

We are gonna go look for weapons in this factory.

You can not enter.... nevermind have a look around.

That's better.

THE END

Oh and I think France should be next, they support/harbour/finance more terrorists than most continents.
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:47 pm

I think it's probably time for liberals everywhere to cease their protests. Support Bush in the war. It's going to happen either way. If the protests keep up, come next election, Bush will play off the feeling of dissent and blame the liberals for his failed war. If liberals just let him go and support him, he'll have no one to blame but himself when he's standing in a waist-deep pile of shit at the end of his term.
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'
Zellin has left the group.
Kuurg
Sojourner
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Faang
Contact:

Postby Kuurg » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:48 pm

Salen wrote:The biggest mistake (since restoring France as an independent nation) is that when the inspectors were expelled <---MATERIAL BREECH from Iraq, the US/UK forces didn't level every building the inspectors were barred from.

Oh and I think France should be next, they support/harbour/finance more terrorists than most continents.


I agree. this should have been dealt with when the global climate would've been more receptive. Now things are touchy. I disagree with this crap:

NoName wrote:So then what you are really protesting is America's attempt to stop terrorism, which means your in favor of people like Saddam Hussein having WMDs.


jingoistic rhetoric and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality is sad. Anyone who espouses shit like this would make an excellent foot soldier, but I wouldn't want them in any position of power. Recognizing the need for opposing opinions and accepting that they're just as important as your own ideas is harder, and more important than leading the march with your flag, and head, held high.


oh, and Chirac is a dick. he effectively removed any doubt I had about whether France was acting in it's own best interest or that of the world when he leveled criticism at the EU hopefuls for supporting the US.
·• Kuurg •·
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:48 pm

I still dont see how the states invading Iraq is gonna help the people of Iraq?

I hope its not like the 'help' the people in afghanistan got...which is just as bad if not worse than b4, with karzai essentially being the Mayor of Kabul, with the rest of the country being run by war(drug)lords.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:54 pm

kolasi wrote:I still dont see how the states invading Iraq is gonna help the people of Iraq?


See: Japan, Germany, South Korea.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:03 pm

Kuurg wrote:
NoName wrote:]
So then what you are really protesting is America's attempt to stop terrorism, which means your in favor of people like Saddam Hussein having WMDs.


jingoistic rhetoric and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality is sad. Anyone who espouses shit like this would make an excellent foot soldier, but I wouldn't want them in any position of power. Recognizing the need for opposing opinions and accepting that they're just as important as your own ideas is harder, and more important than leading the march with your flag, and head, held high.


This isn't a rhetoric, its a legitimate question. You all appose war, war is wrong, war is bad. So what is it that you hope to accomplish? If saddam has WMDs at his disposal, there will be war in the middle east. Do not doubt that for one second that as soon as Saddam has nuclear capabilities, a nuclear warhead will be detonated in Israel. So basically by not supporting the move to disarm Saddam, you are, in effect, condoning the future destruction of Israel. Now since you are all vehemently opposed to war, I can safely say this isn't what you are pulling for when you protest our current war. So im asking you what is your opinion?
"War is bad" is not an opinion. What should be done concerning the Iraq situation? We gave them a clear altematim in November. "Disarm yourselves, or we will disarm you." That is a direct quote from president Bush. They have chosen not to disarm themselves. What then, oh great proponent of peace, should be done? More inspections? The inspection process has failed; Iraq refuses to comply. Iraq is currently refusing to destroy missiles that inspectors have found and have deemed illegal. That is DIRECT violation of specific guidelines. So what then, oh great thinker, do you suggest we do instead? Nothing? Oh thats right, you have no ideas of your own. You choose instead to criticise the actions of the only country who is doing anything about this threat, based on a jaded ideal that "all war is bad", failing to consider that the small war we are attempting currently is done as an act to prevent a war in the future on a much larger scale. So there's some more "jingoist rhetoric" for you, mister Chomskiite socialist. What is the solution, if it is not the forceful disarmament of Iraq?
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:11 pm

Why blow up the whole country? We've been doing it for years, and boy howdy, a whole lot of good it's done. Look how Saddam has cowed before our might. Our power. He's sooooooooooooooooo obedient now that we've been bombing him all the years. Let's do it on a larger scale!

I oppose the war, but I do not oppose removing Saddam from power. We have the technology, training, and manpower. Why not surgically remove his moustachioed ass like a cancer? Why do we need to turn the whole country into a bomb crater?
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'

Zellin has left the group.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:17 pm

because there are many fanatic followers of saddam, who will turn his death into a cause for martyrdom and make the people of that region suffer.

the ONLY way to replace the current regime is with war.

very few people, besides me, enjoy war.
Shevarash OOC: 'Muma on Artificial Intelligence - Muma OOC: 'someday the quotes really will just become AI and then i'll talk to the AI and be like, hey you come from me, but it will get angry at me and revolt and try to kill me or something heheheh. like in the movies''
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:20 pm

Daz wrote:because there are many fanatic followers of saddam, who will turn his death into a cause for martyrdom and make the people of that region suffer.

the ONLY way to replace the current regime is with war.

very few people, besides me, enjoy war.


Right, cuz blowing the hell out of Afghanistan really stamped Al-Queda out of existence, huh?
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'

Zellin has left the group.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:27 pm

Zellin wrote:I oppose the war, but I do not oppose removing Saddam from power. We have the technology, training, and manpower. Why not surgically remove his moustachioed ass like a cancer? Why do we need to turn the whole country into a bomb crater?


Then maybe you should actually read about what it is you are opposed to. Our plan for this war is to kill saddam hussein and his regime with as little damage to Iraq as possible. Our first stage will be blowing up the most likely locations of Saddam himself, and those places our intelligence indicates are likely to store chemical weapons. After this, we wait and see what opposition is remaining when Saddam is no longer in the picture. We have no plans of flattening cities or destroying infrastructure; in fact our government has specifically stated that any Iraqi officials who do just that will be tried as war criminals. So what you do support is exactly what we plan to do. Unfortunately our country has some form of morality, and assassination of the leader of a country during peacetime is a terrorist act, so we are going to formally declare war and give him a chance to defend himself. We aren't launching daisy cutters at baghdad here man, we aren't dropping bombs from the sky and hoping they land near him. We have the technology to destroy a building without damaging the building next to it, and you make it sound like we are closing our eyes and throwing grenades into the center of a civilian population.

Zellin wrote:I think it's probably time for liberals everywhere to cease their protests. Support Bush in the war. It's going to happen either way. If the protests keep up, come next election, Bush will play off the feeling of dissent and blame the liberals for his failed war. If liberals just let him go and support him, he'll have no one to blame but himself when he's standing in a waist-deep pile of shit at the end of his term.


Now your getting closer to reality. The reasons liberals aren't just going along with it, is because deep down they know, just like saddam knows, that bush will not be standing in a pile of shit at the end of his term. This military action will be swift, direct, and with minimal casualties. There is going to be little ammunition for anti-bush sentiments based on the events of the war, because its not going to be much of a war at all. So your liberal friends are taking their shots now, before the war, in hopes that they can prevent it from ever happening. Why? Because once it does happen, we are going to find the chemical and biological weapons, find evidence of all the crimes against humanity Iraq and Saddam have committed, and find out that Bush has been right all along. At that point its too late, and once war starts it is a foregone conclusion, so their only hope is to prevent it from happening in the first place. The sad part of this whole strategy is that it has nothing to do with Iraq, nothing to do with humanitarian causes or anti-war sentiment, but is only an internal attempt to shift power from conservative to liberal in the U.S., and that is also why it is destined to fail pathetically.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:30 pm

Zellin wrote:Right, cuz blowing the hell out of Afghanistan really stamped Al-Queda out of existence, huh?


Right, because Al-Queda moved from Afghanistan to Iraq once the bombing started, and we didn't really "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan", we hardly bombed them at all. But dont let the facts get in the way of your idealism!
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Musi
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Musi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:34 pm

rylan wrote:The whole protest thing here is a joke. Leave it up to the liberal media to make it sound bigger and only cover the antiwar side of things. Not to mention that most of the "antiwar" people who roganised the protests are total pacifists who wouldn't even pick up a gun to defend their own family. Then you get all of the anti-bush people joining in to make a political statement.


I'm a democrat who absolutely hates Bush, since he obviously doesn't care about all the people that lost jobs since he got into office, but I DO think we need to get Saddam out of the world picture. Would I pick up a gun to defend my family HELL YES! At first, I was against this war, but after hearing Powell talk about the weapons that Saddam has (you KNOW he's hiding them somewhere. How hard was it for him to watch satellite tv and see what Bush was planning with Blix and the UN inspections?) I changed my mind. I hate to see our troops get sick or die, I don't like the thought of killing civillians, but if Saddam and Osama are together (I don't remember where I heard that), just look at how many innocents died on 9/11 :( I have no clue how far the WMD can travel, but I hope to God they don't load an ICBM with chemical/biological weapons and get within range of the US :evil:
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:41 pm

Bush will find his evidence after the war. Oh yes. Whether there is any or not. I have no doubt about that.
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'

Zellin has left the group.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:45 pm

Zellin wrote:Bush will find his evidence after the war. Oh yes. Whether there is any or not. I have no doubt about that.


Well thats quite a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think this statement is proof enough that your sentiment is not anti-war, and has no relation to the current circumstances in Iraq. You have just revealed the truth about yourself and your cause; you are anti-bush, regardless of the situation at hand. That is why no one is taking you seriously.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:50 pm

thanuk wrote:
Zellin wrote:Bush will find his evidence after the war. Oh yes. Whether there is any or not. I have no doubt about that.


Well thats quite a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think this statement is proof enough that your sentiment is not anti-war, and has no relation to the current circumstances in Iraq. You have just revealed the truth about yourself and your cause; you are anti-bush, regardless of the situation at hand. That is why no one is taking you seriously.


Anti-Bush. Anti-war. The two are so intricately wrapped up within one another.
Zellin group says 'I'm still here buddy =)'

Zellin has left the group.
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:53 pm

When your minds are clouded with paranoia and that every ones out to get you, you can justify taking any action.

Its just like the poem "Waiting for the Barbarians"
where every day the town gets riled up becasue the barbarians are comming, and in the end they realize there are no babrbarians and thier life has no meaning.

http://users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/barbarians.html
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:57 pm

They do not have the technology to reach us yet...

All I have to say, if you do not support the war, when and if the next terrorist attack comes within the USA, and you lose someone like I did in 9/11.

Can I laugh in your face and ask you were your loyalty lies now? Maybe you can go wear your "Make Love not War" t-shirt to the funeral.
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:05 pm

like I said....paranoid
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:10 pm

kolasi wrote:like I said....paranoid


I'd love to meet you. Id kick you in the face. Then the next day, when i came to see you again, and you were nervous about it, i'd call you paranoid. You're an idiot.


edit---
Just a reminder. The last time the U.S. was called paranoid, it was coming from the mouth of a Japanese embassador, 20 minutes before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
kolasi
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: washington DC usa

Postby kolasi » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:19 pm

your proving my point thanuk.

I made no claims against you, nor did i wish you any harm, and just cause you dont like what i say, youre threatening to "punch" me. Im not even gonna get into that.

So, anyway, enough of this pointless chat for me...some want war some dont, for whatever reasons


Hasta pronto
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:24 pm

I think that was just an illustration of why you would be paranoid, not that he wanted to kick you in the face...

But I think the Pearl Harbor comment is right on target when proving that you are an Idot.

But everyone has their freedom to speak their mind, except in IRAQ right?

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests