Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

He is not facing impeachment, that is ludicrous.

Last time I watched the news, which was like 2 nights ago, he was. Its not like they're going to impeach him tomorrow, but hes on grounds for impeachment. He said we were going over there to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. He ruined our aliance with France and most of the UN. And now the weapons are no where to be found. Tony Blair is in a bind right now because of the same thing.

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

If you supported the war in the first place, but now don't because of the WMD thing, you're a moron. If it's only now that you realize that some of the stuff they were telling you just might not be completly true then you can't be helped. The government lies, deal with it.

This war was, and always has been about oil (Bush,) and displaying the might of the US military (Rumdsfeld.) Yeah, we really liberated the crap out of those poor bastards. I'm sure once Haliburton (oh yeah, that's Chaney) takes most of the government's money and pockets it the Iraqi people will be much better off.

I didnt support the war in the first place. I thought that the weapons of mass destruction thing was bull since the beginning. I mean, it was ridiculus! I was watching CNN, and the Bush administration said that if the UN weapons inspecters found weapons, they would attack and dissarm Saddam. Then they said that if they DIDNT find weapons of mass desruction, they would use that as proof that he was hiding them! So either way, we were going war, and that news report was enough to convince me that Bush had no idea if Saddam had weapons or not.

I think Bush would have gotten more support if he said the reason he was going over was to finish a job started years ago and to free the people of Iraq. His reasons could be that it was the humane thing to do and that it would prevent the spread of communism/dictatorships/tyranny.

But its the American's job in this world I guess, sticking our nose into places it doesnt belong. Look at Vietnam. We're trying to be the international police force, and its not working.

Oh well.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Last time I watched the news, which was like 2 nights ago, he was. Its not like they're going to impeach him tomorrow, but hes on grounds for impeachment. He said we were going over there to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. He ruined our aliance with France and most of the UN. And now the weapons are no where to be found. Tony Blair is in a bind right now because of the same thing.

He never was facing impeachment, never will be. You need to listen clearer to what it being said. Besides, you can't impeach Bush, because you can't link him to a crime. Presidents are always scape goats, but the truth is they only give the OK. Along the way his advisors will look at the intelligence, make decisions on the best course of action, and then brief the President. The President says OK, and it's done. Plus, everything the President said was written by someone else, and evaluated numerous times before the President even sees it, so it there was anything questionable that was being said, it would've been taken out. Speeches are checked much more closely in matters of national security.

Now if you believe in all that, there are no WMD, you are a moron.

I didnt support the war in the first place. I thought that the weapons of mass destruction thing was bull since the beginning.

Which is a clear sign that it is a partisan issue for you, and you wouldn't support Bush no matter what the reason.

I think Bush would have gotten more support if he said the reason he was going over was to finish a job started years ago and to free the people of Iraq. His reasons could be that it was the humane thing to do and that it would prevent the spread of communism/dictatorships/tyranny.

Iraq is not communist. And Bush did say that, people didn't care. Many who support the war find it a good enough reason, then again, many who opposed the war had, and still have no idea what Saddam was actually doing. But we live in a selfish world, ending a oppressive regime is not a reason to go to war, because it doesn't affect Americans. For the same reason that until a bomb lands on your head, you could care less about WMD.

But its the American's job in this world I guess, sticking our nose into places it doesnt belong. Look at Vietnam. We're trying to be the international police force, and its not working.

Who says we don't belong? People will support and oppose anything we do, so we might as well do the right thing. And in so many ways, Vietnam was successful.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by gekko

He never was facing impeachment, never will be. You need to listen clearer to what it being said. Besides, you can't impeach Bush, because you can't link him to a crime. Presidents are always scape goats, but the truth is they only give the OK. Along the way his advisors will look at the intelligence, make decisions on the best course of action, and then brief the President. The President says OK, and it's done. Plus, everything the President said was written by someone else, and evaluated numerous times before the President even sees it, so it there was anything questionable that was being said, it would've been taken out. Speeches are checked much more closely in matters of national security.

I watched in on CNN, they said he was, Im not the original stater of the fact that he was on, once again, grounds of impeachment. I was just stating what I heard on the news. Tell them about the speeches and national security. And the way your putting it, the president is just the vessel of the words for the words of the people behind the scenes.

Which is a clear sign that it is a partisan issue for you, and you wouldn't support Bush no matter what the reason.

Incorrect. The reason I thought it was bull was because of his reasons for thinking they had the weapons. I didnt disagree with him just because hes a republican or whatever, I just didnt think we should go attack some country when we havent seen a scrap of evidence that they have them. On the contrary, the UN weapon inspectors couldnt find anything, and they still cant.

Who says we don't belong? People will support and oppose anything we do, so we might as well do the right thing. And in so many ways, Vietnam was successful.

Your right, anything anyone does will have mixed opinions.

Vietnam was successful!? Thats the first time Ive heard that. Go to Washington DC, and stand in front of that wall, you know, the one with the names on it. The LONG list of names. And say that again, real loud, so people can hear you.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I watched in on CNN, they said he was, Im not the original stater of the fact that he was on, once again, grounds of impeachment. I was just stating what I heard on the news. Tell them about the speeches and national security. And the way your putting it, the president is just the vessel of the words for the words of the people behind the scenes.

I've read the articles that were written. Bush is not facing impeachment, and no one is currently trying to get him impeached. ATD.

Incorrect. The reason I thought it was bull was because of his reasons for thinking they had the weapons. I didnt disagree with him just because hes a republican or whatever, I just didnt think we should go attack some country when we havent seen a scrap of evidence that they have them. On the contrary, the UN weapon inspectors couldnt find anything, and they still cant.

You said you thought it was bull since the beginning, which means you didn't give him a chance. And next time pay more attention, the main arguments were over whether these weapons were a threat to America, not whether they had them. You would have to be blind to the obvious to believe that there are no WMD.

Vietnam was successful!? Thats the first time Ive heard that. Go to Washington DC, and stand in front of that wall, you know, the one with the names on it. The LONG list of names. And say that again, real loud, so people can hear you.

If that's the case, why not go look at the list of WWII casualties, or Revolutionary War casualties. Oh, and I hate to kill your point, but people would generally be happier to hear someone say that the something was accomplished by the death of the soldiers than to say their death was worthless.

And yes, look at the reasons we went into Vietnam, and look at the end result. Wasn't pretty, but Vietnam did stop the spread of communism.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by gekko

And yes, look at the reasons we went into Vietnam, and look at the end result. Wasn't pretty, but Vietnam did stop the spread of communism.

*CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP* And the world is a much better place because we got rid of that "evil" communism. I'm not going to try and suggest that communism or socialism is a better option because they're not. They don't work, but none of those countries are any better off because of capitalism, and life in the united states would not be any different if communism were still around... well maybe we'd have McCarthyites running around arresting people for thinking differently.... oh wait, we do have guys like that, they work for Johnny Ashcroft.

And communism fell because Russia ran out of money. Had we not spent so much money building up a useless military force (useless unless you consider Armageddon a legitimate function) to fight the evil "reds" communism would still be around. There was no reason to fight it in the first place. Because the wealthy felt so threatened by the thought of a revolution in the united states they made sure that everyone saw the russians as evil, godless people. We built the largest military force in the world and russia had to try and match it, but because communism doesn't work, they couldn't, and collapsed.

Yes, other countries, for fear of constant B52 flyovers raining fire on their humble villages, desided not to attempt communist revolution. I'm not sure why that's something to be proud of but, ok, I guess.

[gekko]

Stonecutter,

Heh. I almost find that funny coming from you. For someone who grew up long after Vietnam and the Cold War, you speak like you actually know what threat this "evil communism" posed. 30 years later communism is all but dead, but it wasn't back then. Communism and capitalism are two completely different societies, and we don't know what the result would be if communism continued to spread. When societies differ, there can be conflict. I don't see communism as a threat, but I wasn't alive back then, so I have no idea what it was like. In 30 years, our kids may not see some guy sitting in a cave reading the Quran as a threat either.

But at least you're not clueless, like some little Canadian in here.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by gekko

Stonecutter,

Heh. I almost find that funny coming from you. For someone who grew up long after Vietnam and the Cold War, you speak like you actually know what threat this "evil communism" posed. 30 years later communism is all but dead, but it wasn't back then. Communism and capitalism are two completely different societies, and we don't know what the result would be if communism continued to spread. When societies differ, there can be conflict. I don't see communism as a threat, but I wasn't alive back then, so I have no idea what it was like. In 30 years, our kids may not see some guy sitting in a cave reading the Quran as a threat either.

But at least you're not clueless, like some little Canadian in here.

Well, if you weren't alive back then either, then don't use "the end of communism" as an excuse for that war. You don't want me to argue it because I wasn't alive but you insist on arguing even though you weren't alive, but oh well, it's not my fault you've got no argument to stand on.

FYI, There was no excuse for that war and yes, we did lose. If for no other reason than the political and, more importanly, social unrest in the united states.

What threats does communism pose then?

Actually, what threats does socialism pose? (communism - violence = socialism) Unless you've got a lot of money that you're afraid of losing, it's actually not much.

The wealthy don't want to lose money. That's the big threat. Spend a little, create some enemies for the poor and middle class to hate, have tons of tax dollars go your wealthy friends to build a nuclear arsenal that you need to fight the "evil reds" and you're all set. The rich get richer, and the lower classes don't mind, because they're "fighting evil."

[Vampyr]

Im not Canadian, but Im going to say something here.

Canadians are educated in American politics, every day. They watch CNN too, they are using the same internet you are. When was the last time you went to a news site on the net and it wasnt about America? It happens, but not very often. And at my school, we did learn about Canada and its history. Not as in depth as our own, but you know, enough.

So if you consider Canadians stupid when it comes to American politics, then your wrong. Thats what happens when you live in a country thats not involved in almost anything and you live above a country involved in everything.

And on what Stonecutter said, hes right. The principles of communism isnt bad at all. In theory, its a utopia, a perfect society. Carl Marx wasnt a bad guy, it just doesnt work. Now back to watching...

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Im not Canadian, but Im going to say something here.

Canadians are educated in American politics, every day. They watch CNN too, they are using the same internet you are. When was the last time you went to a news site on the net and it wasnt about America? It happens, but not very often. And at my school, we did learn about Canada and its history. Not as in depth as our own, but you know, enough.

So if you consider Canadians stupid when it comes to American politics, then your wrong. Thats what happens when you live in a country thats not involved in almost anything and you live above a country involved in everything.

And on what Stonecutter said, hes right. The principles of communism isnt bad at all. In theory, its a utopia, a perfect society. Carl Marx wasnt a bad guy, it just doesnt work. Now back to watching...

Yes, communism in theory works. But it only works in real life if your leader can decide what is fair and balanced.

[Bond]

I'm not going to waste my time digging up all of the evidence for you. It's obvious you, yourself, have never researched the evidence and went through the reports. It's too bad you just listen to what CNN tells you rather than finding things out for yourself.

If you would like to read the British Dossier may learn something: www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by gekko

You said you thought it was bull since the beginning, which means you didn't give him a chance. And next time pay more attention, the main arguments were over whether these weapons were a threat to America, not whether they had them. You would have to be blind to the obvious to believe that there are no WMD.

Well, since the beginning, he hasnt had evidence. Thus there in lies why I didnt trust it since the beginning.

If that's the case, why not go look at the list of WWII casualties, or Revolutionary War casualties. Oh, and I hate to kill your point, but people would generally be happier to hear someone say that the something was accomplished by the death of the soldiers than to say their death was worthless.

Well, we won WWII and the Revolutionary War, so they didnt die in vain. Er, and hate to burst your bubble, but we lost Vietnam. We didnt stop communism from spreading. Hence the fact that the other side won, so they got what they wanted...

The soldiers deaths weren't in complete vain, fighting for your country is one of the most noble ways to go out. But, in the end, we did lose.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Well, since the beginning, he hasnt had evidence. Thus there in lies why I didnt trust it since the beginning.

He always had evidence. Just because no one shows you, doesn't mean it's not there. Showing evidence doesn't help our cause. "Hey look guys, here they are at a chemical facility that we haven't inspected yet." Wait, I got an idea! Why not move them before inspectors return?

Well, we won WWII and the Revolutionary War, so they didnt die in vain. Er, and hate to burst your bubble, but we lost Vietnam. We didnt stop communism from spreading. Hence the fact that the other side won, so they got what they wanted...

We lost Vietnam? Please, explain to me how we lost Vietnam.

We kicked their ass, bad. We won all the battles, and I don't think there's been a war where we have ever done better. So from a military standpoint, we sure as hell didn't lose.

We went in to stop the spread of communism, you know, the old domino effect. That sure worked. Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand all stayed free of communism due to Vietnam. Indonesia kicked the Soviets out in 1966 because of Vietnam. Vietnam not only stopped the spread of communism, but started the fall of communism.

South Vietnam lost the war, they never got their independence. The US accomplished what they went in there to do.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by bond

If you would like to read the British Dossier may learn something: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...tart=1&ie=UTF-8

[/url]

Im assuming that was for me, but the link is broken. The only thing I learned from that was suggestions for looking stuff up on google.

By the way, Gekko, Im not trying to argue with you, Im just debating. I find debates quite fun.

[Bond]

Yes, I couldn't get it to link to the HTML version, so you can now view the PDF version and learn something.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Im assuming that was for me, but the link is broken. The only thing I learned from that was suggestions for looking stuff up on google.

By the way, Gekko, Im not trying to argue with you, Im just debating. I find debates quite fun.

Works for me. http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

And finding debates fun is not necessarily a good thing. To debate means you have formed an opinion are are prepared to defend it. At 16, I see no reason why you need to form opinions on politics. In all honesty you would be better off absorbing information, and asking questions to help understand instead of arguing. Then over the next few years you'll learn something, but get really pissed off when you have to argue a 14 year old on a gaming forum about politics. Just my advice.