The Official War Room

kanecorp - Keep in mind that toast is merely goading you. When he saw how you responded, he continued to respond in such a way to push your buttons. You oblige by getting more upset, and by doing so, weakening your credibility. A common tactic.

As frustrating as it may be, the best thing is to state your point, anyone reading with any intelligence will see that any "canned" responses are just that. If someone replies that they think a "peaceful" resolution is better, ask them exactly what this "peaceful" resolution might entail, and what they would do if the "peaceful" way fails to achieve any progress. Someone mentioned that it's better to get someone to do something if you make them your friend. Ok, in this scenerio, just how does one make a despodic ruler "your friend". etc.

Don't accept the bait, take the high road and resist the urge to get into the muck. And don't allow them to make you your own worse enemy.
 
well you're in a time of peace, and its been long term
Click to expand...

Thanks to A Bomb. Want to use A Bomb again so that Iraq will know peace too ? Stop comparing what cannot be compared. Please.
 
This thread is for war discussion...
Click to expand...

not for flaming and name calling.

kanecorp - read the site rules. there are NO EXCUSES for this type of behavior. cease your attacks of others now or be banned. Edit your posts now to remove all such personal attacks or risk being banned.

you have the right to argue with others and to take whatever stand on this issue you please. you do not have the right to wage verbal attacks. period. :(

i agree with Ricky's decision to close this thread. i will consider opening it back up after a cooling off period.
 
Bush has just finished his justification of war speech. i think it is very important that people have an opportunity to discuss this if they so wish. i hope everyone has calmed down abit by now. i'm reopening the thread and offering a chance for civil discussion of the issues and the events we are facing.

i'm not going to issue any more warnings. step over the line and find your post(s) deleted and/or your membership here removed. i really don't care which side of the issue you are on, the rules apply to all.
 
I don't really know, but have things like this ever been said before? Bush is looking to fight a preventitive war, and I hope he has knowledge of something other then common knowledge. Under common knowledge, Iraq has been cooperating quite well with the inspections. The inspectors found some old missle casings, Iraq destroyed them. I am sure that the pentagon and CIA and other security/survelliance institutions know more then the average citizen, but I wonder what they know that constitues a war?
I personally liked how GWB wanted the Iraqi soldiers to drop their weapons... He said something like "don't fight for a failing nation.." I LIKE IT :) He also said something like "Please listen to the American/British troops, they will tell you how to help us." Good thoughts, Mr. Bush.
 
Originally posted by mr. K
I don't really know, but have things like this ever been said before? Bush is looking to fight a preventitive war, and I hope he has knowledge of something other then common knowledge. Under common knowledge, Iraq has been cooperating quite well with the inspections. The inspectors found some old missle casings, Iraq destroyed them. I am sure that the pentagon and CIA and other security/survelliance institutions know more then the average citizen, but I wonder what they know that constitues a war?
Click to expand...


i can't imagine that offering us proof of anything is going to compromise the war that Bush has planned so i join you in this questioning. "Show me the weapons" to paraphrase a great movie.

I personally liked how GWB wanted the Iraqi soldiers to drop their weapons... He said something like "don't fight for a failing nation.." I LIKE IT :) He also said something like "Please listen to the American/British troops, they will tell you how to help us." Good thoughts, Mr. Bush.
Click to expand...

as much as i would like to believe this would be the outcome of the war, i know better and find these words to be a bit condecending. they remind me of the enemy radio broadcasts to our soldiers during ww2 and vietnam. we didn't tuck tail and run because of them and i doubt the iraqis will either. if anything it just adds fuel to them to prove that they will stand for their beliefs and not be seen to the world as cowards.

i found mixed messages that can be interrpretted many ways in most of Bush's speech. i think much of the speech could just as easily have been made by saddam with the words Bush and America substituted. but i was glad that he acknowledged that we will be in greater danger for the time being as a result of this action. already we are on alert level orange as a result. at least he didn't try to hoodwink the american people over that one.

my big question is - where in the h311 is saddam supposed to go? who in their right mind is going to open their doors to him? isn't this threat a bit like asking somebody to shoot themselves to save you the trouble?
 
GW has certainly written himself a place in the history books. Who has done more to destroy international treaties and organizations and consensuses (sp) and to make the US the laughing stock of the world through its bullying of France, Germany and failed bribery of Turkey. The US is still feared because of its enormous military and economic power and up until GW came into power respect was interwoven with that fear. The respect is certainly gone and now only the fear remains. Who was the last person to so totally polarize the world? What was his legacy? What will be GW's?
 
the good news is that next year we will have elections. at that point we will see if he is to blame or if the american people are as guilty as he. just as past leaders have made the world better than their predecessors, so will his succesor be given the chance i'm sure. GW may not be listening to anyone now, but we do get a chance to tell him where to go in a short while.
 
Or mabye Bush will have made a brilliant move by attacking Iraq based on unreleased secure information he has seen, and he might just be saving the world with very few people knowing about it... So mabye he gets re-elected big time next year... You always have too look at both sides of the argument you see. Don't be sure that Bush will be gone next year!
 
like i said, we'll see if it's just him or if the american people get to share the blame.
 
im no fan of war, but sadaam needs to get out, so im kind of in the middle on the whole thing

i will say this though, bush has had a tough tenure, going through 9/11, economic slump and now war... even if some of it might be his fault, i wouldnt want to be in his shoes
 
At about this point in the term of Bush-I, he had about a 72% approval rating. Every major Democrat pulled out of the race figuring he would win.
 
I think that by doing this, Bush has jeopardized his ablilty to run for a second term.

What would be happening right now if Gore was president?


and my final two comments
1) kanecorp, watch your mouth
2) toast, stop pushing him
 
"Fighting for peace is like f*©king for virginity."

- I forgot again who was the one who said it (read fryke's signature to find out) but that makes as much sense.

:rolleyes:
 
What was this Rolling Stones song ?
Sparks will fly...

Not only have we proved that our international institutions have neither power or legitimity, we have also proved we are unable to stop the strongest to attack the weakest. 'We' is the Western countries' block. All I hope is that my President won't stop his action for peace now.
 
But is France doing it for peace or for $$$. Why help a country with the second-greatest oil reserves in the world develop a nuclear reactor if not to make weapons?? With that much oil, Iraw needs nuclear power like Cheney needs an invisibility cloak. Making a stand on principle (in any nation) is one thing, doing it to protect one's financial interests is another (and that goes for Bush as well as Chirac or Saddam or anyone else).

But Chirac has said France will join in the battle if Iraq unleases chemical weapons...

All we can hope for now is a quick resolution with a minimum of casualties all around so we can go back to debating things like paying $1 a song to Apple and if the iPod should have a radio tuner, or really important things such as why M$ $uck$.
 
France is protecting not only its economy (because yes, wa have interests in Iraq, just as every OPEP-trading country), but also its people. It's a bit risky to declare war on an Arabic country, you know :rolleyes:.

Chirac will not join war IMHO. Bush is acting unilaterally now.
 
If the Allied (yes, Allied since it's not just the US going in) attack can achieve its objectives quickly enough, this all might turn to Dubya's favor. Few casualties, good ratings, lower gas prices, ruthless despot removed, Palestinian statehood plan on the map (thanks to goading from Blair) is going to boost Bush into a second term and revive popular opinion of him and America across the world (and I'm working in SE Asia right now so I see things a little more from the international POV more than stateside).
Now if Saddam hunkers down and tries to turn Baghdad into a live version of BlackHawk Down, it's going to be ugly. Luckily, Baghdad has nice open streets for the tanks to roll into.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, just that people have a short attention span.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top