Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 106
  1. #1
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,351
    Last Online

    06.29.07 @ 03:57 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    I wonder how much the price of gas will drop to? Watch out for the Saudi's trying to "take control" of Iraq's huge oil reserves, I think second only to....yep you quessed it, Saudi Arabia.

    I just listened to Bush's speech to the UN and it was pretty damn convincing. Whats the use of the UN handing out all these sanctions if Sadam just laughs and ignores them?

    [ September 14, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Dennis ]

  2. #2
    Atomic Punk Wolfman's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.31.00
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    8,119
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Hear About It Later, Atomic Pu
    Last Online

    07.20.17 @ 03:43 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    What do you expect from a guy that gets to call Satan his bitch in the South Park movie? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,351
    Last Online

    06.29.07 @ 03:57 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    lol......
    From 3-13 to 10-6 and NFC South Champs.....go Saints!

    My Hurricane Katrina pics

  4. #4
    5150 P1's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.01
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    680
    Last Online

    03.29.06 @ 01:41 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Here's a quote from Bush's speech:
    In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

    Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive.

    Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape.

    Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents; and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
    Sounds a lot like Hitler to me.
    They need to do whatever it takes to remove that a-hole from existance.
    "You guys never forced your babysitter to put her dirty feet all over your back-bottom while you handled up onto a tattered quilt?" - Fake Greggo
    "I like to put peaches in my panties and dance around until my knees bleed, Chuck." - Fake Billy Tubbs

  5. #5
    Atomic Punk Wolfman's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.31.00
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    8,119
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Hear About It Later, Atomic Pu
    Last Online

    07.20.17 @ 03:43 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Originally posted by Dennis:
    lol......

  6. #6
    5150 Crown Royal's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.01
    Posts
    581
    Last Online

    12.07.17 @ 01:08 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts

    It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

  7. #7
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    Originally posted by P1:
    They need to do whatever it takes to remove that a-hole from existance.
    And every other 2-bit dictator that mistreats his people?

  8. #8
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    07.30.00
    Age
    44
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana.
    Posts
    1,746
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by MikeL:
    And every other 2-bit dictator that mistreats his people?
    No, but it seems reasonable to go after those dictators that defy strict international laws, sanctions, and agreements time and time again. Hussein fits that description quite well.

    What makes no sense to me is that Iraq, while certainly a valid target for many reasons, is not THE #1 terrorist-sponsoring and harboring state. Iran, Syria, and Egypt should be higher on the priority list. That, of course, is going by the information available to the public at this time. If there is more Iraqi involvement than we know of (and I suspect that there is), then that information needs to come out.

    I do believe that Bush is correct in going after Hussein, but I think the sequencing of the war we're in has gone askew.
    Don't bark at me...<b>I</b> didn't name ya.

  9. #9
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    We (the US) tend to go against the UN when it suits us. Should we be condemned for that?

    Pakistan is harboring terrorists. That's where most of them fled. Somehow they're our ally. Terrorists in Pakistan killed an American journalist. Pakistan's president overthrew a democratically elected official to assume his position. Why aren't we going into Pakistan?

    Bin Laden's fate is still unknown. Are we no longer commited to bringing him to justice?

    The administration seems to be looking for an easy target. Why is it that most of the hawks in this administration have no military experience, yet the doves do?

    I agree with you about the sequencing of things, Abe.

    [ September 12, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: MikeL ]

  10. #10
    Hot For Teacher
    Join Date
    03.10.02
    Age
    35
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    232
    Favorite VH Album

    DLR: 1984 Sammy: FUCK
    Favorite VH Song

    DLR: So This is Love, Sammy: The Dream Is Over, Gary: That\'s Why I Love You
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    considering there are rumours that bush and a few other top dogs in the us gvt have an "interest" in oil companies, isn't it a coincidence that iraq - with it's huge oil reserves - comes out ahead of countries like pakistan in which problem to deal with first?

    saddam hussein must go, i think everyone agrees on that, it's just the timing of these actions that is suspicious.

    last point...i do think it's dangerous to have a potentially corrupt madman in charge of weapons of mass destruction - and that's just george w. bush [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img]

  11. #11
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    07.30.00
    Age
    44
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana.
    Posts
    1,746
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by MikeL:
    [QB]We (the US) tend to go against the UN when it suits us. Should we be condemned for that?[/b]

    Well, the UN hasn't come after us (yet) for the sorts of things that Iraq has done. Of course, I think the UN is the most dangerous institution on the planet, even more so than the terrorists.

    Pakistan is harboring terrorists. That's where most of them fled. Somehow they're our ally. Terrorists in Pakistan killed an American journalist. Pakistan's president overthrew a democratically elected official to assume his position. Why aren't we going into Pakistan?

    Theoretically, we're 'in' Pakistan, which supposedly is what's keeping the bulk of their terrorists in check. But, Pakistan is a temporary, disposable ally, one we needed simply for a staging ground.

    Bin Laden's fate is still unknown. Are we no longer commited to bringing him to justice?

    Unknown, yes. I posted quite a while ago the report I heard that said he died on December 16, 2001. If this is a war on 'terror', bin Laden is just one of many, and once you (a non-specific 'you') look past the initial outrage from 9/11, you'll realize (hopefully) that there are many more targets to pursue.

    The administration seems to be looking for an easy target.

    Well, it could be argued that, in order to gain more popular support, we need an easily defeatable opponent to instill confidence.

    Why is it that most of the hawks in this administration have no military experience, yet the doves do?
    Bush's big mistake was the personnel he chose to surround him. Powell is a joke...he was 12 years ago, and he's more of one now. His plan to fight Iraq back in 1990 was laughed out of the place, and someone else's was chosen instead. He's a token Negro in an administration that was certain to be accused of racism and all the other things Republicans get tagged with. In order to avoid such accusations, Bush took the easy way out, and it's not boding well for unity amongst his ranks.

    The problem I have the doves is that, even when they agree that military action must be taken, they want it done humanely. I am not Mr. Pro-Violence, but war is war. War is ugly. War is never humane. If you want victory in war, you've gotta fight 100%. People will whine about this forever, but attacking two cities in Japan full of civilians brought WWII to a close, and in the long run saved MANY lives. Also, what people seem unable to understand is that, in war, we have to worry about out OWN asses, not the enemy's. Let them deal with protecting their civilians; if they fail, too bad. It's war, not backgammon.

    The concept of 'winning' a war was badly damaged because of Vietnam. The opposition to the war is what made it a failure for us. Without that interference, our forces could have gone all out and ended it much more quickly, more efficiently, and with less American casualties. But the doves wanted to 'fight nice'. Well, fighting nice in war seems pretty contradictory to me.
    Don't bark at me...<b>I</b> didn't name ya.

  12. #12
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,351
    Last Online

    06.29.07 @ 03:57 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by AbeVanHalen:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeL:
    [QB]We (the US) tend to go against the UN when it suits us. Should we be condemned for that?


    Well, the UN hasn't come after us (yet) for the sorts of things that Iraq has done. Of course, I think the UN is the most dangerous institution on the planet, even more so than the terrorists.

    Pakistan is harboring terrorists. That's where most of them fled. Somehow they're our ally. Terrorists in Pakistan killed an American journalist. Pakistan's president overthrew a democratically elected official to assume his position. Why aren't we going into Pakistan?

    Theoretically, we're 'in' Pakistan, which supposedly is what's keeping the bulk of their terrorists in check. But, Pakistan is a temporary, disposable ally, one we needed simply for a staging ground.

    Bin Laden's fate is still unknown. Are we no longer commited to bringing him to justice?

    Unknown, yes. I posted quite a while ago the report I heard that said he died on December 16, 2001. If this is a war on 'terror', bin Laden is just one of many, and once you (a non-specific 'you') look past the initial outrage from 9/11, you'll realize (hopefully) that there are many more targets to pursue.

    The administration seems to be looking for an easy target.

    Well, it could be argued that, in order to gain more popular support, we need an easily defeatable opponent to instill confidence.

    Why is it that most of the hawks in this administration have no military experience, yet the doves do?
    The concept of 'winning' a war was badly damaged because of Vietnam. The opposition to the war is what made it a failure for us. Without that interference, our forces could have gone all out and ended it much more quickly, more efficiently, and with less American casualties. But the doves wanted to 'fight nice'. Well, fighting nice in war seems pretty contradictory to me.[/b]</font>[/QUOTE]I think there were numerous reasons why we lost in Vietnam. I think the protestors helped to bring a "clueless" war to a merciful end. I wasn't alive during the war...but I do have two relatives who fought in it. They are convinced to this day that the war was waged to take the heat off the civil rights movement. Was that the reason the war dragged on? It has just as much merit as other excuses.....

    Iraq is a totally different issue. I don't think there will be that much protesting as long as we move quickly. We would/should have a defined goal in removing Sadam and destroying his nuclear and chemical weapon stockpiles......I think we could do this within 6 months.....
    From 3-13 to 10-6 and NFC South Champs.....go Saints!

    My Hurricane Katrina pics

  13. #13
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    Originally posted by Dennis:
    Iraq is a totally different issue. I don't think there will be that much protesting as long as we move quickly. We would/should have a defined goal in removing Sadam and destroying his nuclear and chemical weapon stockpiles......I think we could do this within 6 months.....
    The protesting has already begun. Europe isn't behind us. The Middle East isn't behind us. Where do we stage this attack from?

    The campaign season in that part of the world is December-March. We'd need to have a sizeable contigent of troops in place (but what place??) by December.

    I don't think people realize what this entails. The logistics of moving tens of thousands of troops, and then the spectre of fighting in the streets of Baghdad. City fighting is something we're not used to. It's extremely costly in lives.

    Abe, your comments about war being war really don't have any meaning. Everyone wants "a clean fight," but no one is under the impression that such a thing can happen in Iraq. If anyone is, let's just hope they're not in the leadership. Your comments about Powell are unjustified as well.

  14. #14
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by Bammo:
    considering there are rumours that bush and a few other top dogs in the us gvt have an "interest" in oil companies, isn't it a coincidence that iraq - with it's huge oil reserves - comes out ahead of countries like pakistan in which problem to deal with first?
    Gee, that's an original accusation. Using that rationale, your Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is strongly supporting the U.S. in its efforts against Iraq, must have "interest" in oil companies, too, right?!?

    Originally posted by Bammo:
    saddam hussein must go, i think everyone agrees on that, it's just the timing of these actions that is suspicious.
    Would it be less "suspicious" if we wait until Saddam -- whose hatred of the West and America are significant, unlike the current Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf or his government -- has his nuclear program online and holds the rest of the region, as well as all oil-consuming nations, hostage?!? That's the scenario that should send a chill down the spines of the citizens of all nations, including the citizens of Great Britain.

    Originally posted by Bammo:
    last point...i do think it's dangerous to have a potentially corrupt madman in charge of weapons of mass destruction - and that's just george w. bush [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sssh.gif[/img]
    What a witty retort. To draw a moral equivalency between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein is about as stupid and idiotic an analogy as can be drawn. I'm sure Prime Minister Blair would agree with me.

    I have no problem with people disagreeing with a preemptive strike by the U.S. on Iraq whatsoever. It's a worthwhile debate, with pros and cons to both sides of the argument -- some of which are eloquently expressed in this thread and on this message board. But using the oil accusation and a moronic analogy in this debate in the face of other compelling evidence for and against a strike against Saddam just doesn't cut it in my book.
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  15. #15
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    11.30.17 @ 06:15 PM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    Geez, I was wondering when this would blossom into a debate on this board.

    Even I, as a staunch conservative, really really question both the timing and the motive behind an Iraq attack. Something seems off, and I'm reluctant to pinpoint exactly what it is. Part of it surely is how our war on terrorism has "gone askew" as Abe mentioned. I totally agree. The focuse became blurred at some point about six months ago when we were looking for targets. Iraq came up to the top of the list for whatever reason....I guess thats what confuses me. Is the "war on terrorism" even directly tied to this upcoming battle?? I mean I know its "tied" in to the reasoning, but I don't think that it is at all the main point. It seems like retribution. I actually see a couple (but not many) good points the Iraqi's made in rebuttle to Bush's address to the UN today. Why now? After 10 years of both us and the rest of the world being complete pussies with regard to upholding regulations and inspections with them, what is the big push to nail them NOW when we have already made a claim to make war on terrorism our main objective? Pakistan, syria and other countries should be farther up the list imo. Granted, I'm not involved in coordinating any of this and I don't have the full plan laid out in front of me to make an educated conclusion on what should be done at this point. But from this angle, right now, our agenda doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    Bammo, how you can label Bush as a mad man with weapons of mass destruction is beyond me. I don't agree with that at all.

    Abe, I agree with you about Powell being unjustifiably in the position he is in. He's the popular choice, but not based on performance. I don't think I agree so much with the token negro thing though. There may be an element of truth with that, in that some of his popularity has to do with him being a negro, and his popularity being a reason for him being in that position, but I don't think that was an intention of the administration (making a quota on race) when he was selected.
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. FDA issues warning on impotence drugs...concerns about blindness
    By Texas Poundcake in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07.08.05, 09:32 PM
  2. Readers Digest invade my every oriface!
    By Goo in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07.08.01, 05:49 AM
  3. Dave Concerns
    By Scott in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10.18.00, 12:41 PM
  4. Attention! This Concerns Everyone Here At Vhlinks!
    By THE MARD in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08.18.00, 12:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •