The Bush Administration has launched a war against Iraq, a war that is unnecessary, unwise and illegal.

Egad! You again?

Clearly war against Saddam is required and it surely is legal, but perhaps it wouldn't be necessary if people like "Frenchman" hadn't convinced Saddam that when the UN said "or else" after 12 years of trying to get him to live up to his promises to disarm, they weren't serious. Could it have been billions in French oil contracts that caused the French to become Saddam's biggest defenders? Hmmm? Then again, perhaps it wasnít profits that motivated them. After all, the French do have a history of codling dictators. Mugabe for tea, anyone?

>>>FORGIVE me for re-posting but this was part of a strong debate last night on the Michael Bore thread that I think is also appropriate here... this was my reply to Tannhauser's post re: information I had posted regarding the Bush Administration vs. Hollywood pundits

*********************************************
To: Tannhauser: in regards to "the war has lost the US so many friends abroad..."

My answer to that is to ask you to check the dates on all the back-stabbing our "friends" have been serving up to us. All the information about the surreptitious anti-American activity by our friends that is now coming to light began long before Bush was in office, never mind waging war with a butcher. What else can one think except that Bush's real offense was prosecuting a war THAT WOULD EXPOSE THE MISCREANTS calling themselves our friends. With "friends" like that.... well, you know how that saying ends.
So. It stands to reason that we could not lose friends we didn't have...
You are evidently from another country. Chances are, your country receives massive aid and trade packages from us along with most other nations in this world.
Do you and your fellow non-Americans even GET how hurt and angry Americans are that we feed and protect you and then you spit on us and burn our Flag?
Do you see Americans burning Flags of other nations the way you always see our Flags being burned?
Do you see Americans dancing in the streets with glee when another nation suffers some kind of catastrophe?
Who does the world call on for protection? America. Then it jeers our military might as arrogrant and imperialistic.
Who does the world call on for relief from famine? America. Then it claps and laughs when our troops protecting food caravans are dragged through the streets by the thugs who caused the famine in the first place.
Who does the world call on for assistance in a natural disaster? Does anyone call Iraq? Or France?
We in the US work our butts off; we are good, moral people with big hearts and it is OUR young men and women who put their lives on the line again and again - FOR OTHERS. We always have and always will because that's just the kinda people we are. We have a strangely unique view in this world - a view which allows us to empathize with the poor and oppressed ELSEWHERE.
Call us naive, or a nation of boobs, or arrogant - just DON'T call us anymore when you need help.
If all you out there in other countries are now afraid of us... you have reason to be.
Because believe you me - bottom line - your underhanded perfidy has caught up with you all and we're done taking b****ch slaps from your right hand while your left hand is digging in our pockets.

Posted by: AHA on March 24, 2003 08:12 PM

ps - BREAKING NEWS *** UK Commandos assisting Sh'ites in uprising against Saddam

Well, well, well. Seems our illegal war might not be so ill-conceived after all....

AHA - This guy has been hanging around Scrappleface for a while. He's a real hoot. He has several different angles to approach why the US is so evial, why he is so smart, how the evil Americans slaughtered Indians, why we shouldn't be proud of the WWII vets, etc. etc. and even sometimes begs us to believe him. Anyway, his normal MO is that his argument gets shot down in flames, then switches angles. He's here for our amusement, I think.

Pooke; could be he's from a now idle weapons factory that had to stop shipping to Saddam in violation of UN Sanctions?

I do enjoy the "we're isolated in the world now because of US policy" gibberish. This sort of nonsense can only be spoken by those too young, or too dumb to remember the early 1980s when everything now being said about Bush was said about Reagan. We were right to ignore the euro-trash with signs in the streets then, and we're right to ignore them now.

the only thing as consistantly funny as the Frenchman is Scott himself.

hey... wait a minute. Could the Frenchman really be Scott? I mean, think about it for a minute. What better way to keep us ScrappleFace regulars coming back than to see what idiocy has driveled from the keyboard of the Frenchman? Building brand loyalty via a communal battle of wits with the proverbial unarmed man? This is pure genius! Biting satire on the front page than fully exposes the idiotarians of the day, and in the comments section an invented hack who spouts bs history, bad websites and illogical statements peppered with name calling and loony liberal whining!

Keep up the good work, Scott!

Gang
Gotta hand it to the anti-everything crowd. They do make predictions on subjects that will be verified - "America will attack Iran next" America is building an Empire" "6 million Iraqi refugees", "Bush wants oil" and on and on and on. Of course, Frenchie doesn't forecast, he just does the hit and run, or the occasional quote from some French thinker from 200 years ago (as opposed to modern French intellectuals). Of course, when proven wrong the fearless forecasters will either a) deny deny deny or b) claim their exposure of the motive is what stopped the event - when Iran is not immediately invaded they will take credit, likewise on the oil issue.
Still we will have the satisfaction of being proven right, those of us who believe Dubya is not a horrific robot vampire bent on conquering the world.
Their ridiculous predictive obsession will bring them down. Of course here they'll just change screen names and come back - and it'd be dull here without Herr Frosch, wouldn't it? C'mon, he's more fun then "Hanging Chad" - so no forecasts from you Frenchy, okay? Meanwhile the real public warblers will have to go back under their rocks for a while. Some longer then others. Just something to keep in mind as we play with the lunatic fringe.
How about this one: After this "war" Bush makes Palestine his #1 foreign policy issue? Haven't heard that one from the Iran/NK/etc. crowd.

oooh yah.. Scott... lmao.

Chemical Warfare at it's absoulute finest. What an ingenious subtle conspiracy !

Proposed strategy is to send Hans Blix to investegate all these "facilities" in France and Belgium. We will know that he found the evidence when he comes back in about 12 years as Hans Blimp asking for more time for an internatioal coalition that can win without war.
(Which China will veto... most likely)

Modern French Intellectuals...come on, greyhawk, enough with the oxymorons! By the way, has anyone ever seen Frenchy and Scott in the same room at the same time?? We may have uncovered something there!

Phrog! hee hee hee

Frenchy,
Let's dissect your fact filled cerebral remark.
1. Unnecessary. Since you gave myriad of facts to back this up, allow me to respond with just one that is near and dear to my heart. In the later part of January, this year, Maddas told the world he had agents in this country and they were well armed awaiting his orders. Now Frenchy, I love my wife, family, friends, neighbors, and country. Anyone that threatens our home soil should be taken care of immediately. My personnal preference in this case is Saddams head on a stick for that threat. (I take him at his word)
2. Unwise. Out of the 458 reasons you gave for this war being unwise, can I question you on two?Thanks, I knew you would allow me. You meant unwise as in we are losing alot of support from Europe and other parts of the world? Well Frenchy, the heck with them. When this rescue mission is over all of them (including the French) will come crawling back for money, food, technology, US taxpayer funded education, etc, etc, etc. Being the type of people we are, (sigh) we will continue to give to the world. Your obvious second factoid of being unwise is our (US) audacity in helping to replace a murdering dictator that is so beloved by the citizenry of his country. I know you've read statements from some of the escapees that said if Saddam was just alittle angry with someone he would them head first into an industrial plastics plant shredder. If someone really makes him mad, he throws them in feet first. Nice guy, heh Frenchy?
3. Illegal. I am calling for a vote from all Scrapple participants to make Frenchy, Prosecutor for the World Court (nice title, heh Frenchy)to prosecute the case of the whole world against the United States of America after the war is over. All for say aye. The ayes have it. Guess what Frenchy, it looks like even the bedwetting, waco liberals voted with us on this one. I only see one hurdle for you Frenchy. You may have to recuse yourself (should be re-accuse) when evidence is presented that France broke numerous laws by selling the Iraqis banned elements included in the food for oil program.

frenchie,
You're right about one thing. This is an un-necessary war. If the french, germans, and un would have had the guts to back up 1441 twelve years ago, saddam would have been gone by now.
The Marines would like to thank you, and your buddies for your cowardly, greedy actions that has given them the chance to capture, and hang that scumbag saddam.
Former Marine, and Vietnam veteran

It is not surprising that Germany supports Facist Nationalist Socialist Parties and their leaders. They had a love affair with one for many years, and deep down they are probably in love with Saddam too. Ahh the good old days: a little gas, a little propaganda, a lot of killing and intimidation by Brown-shirts (I guess the Iraqi S.R. wear black). Nostalga.

The Bush Administration has launched a war against Iraq, a war that is unnecessary, unwise and illegal.

Where do you find time to post this crap Frenchie?
Shouldn't you be beating up on someone you can win against?
You know, like Ronald McDonald?
Maybe Hamburgler or Grimace?

Or, you could just do what comes naturally to the French and surrender...
You might get a free Happy Meal.

Gotta disagree with you about who's funnier, Tom. This Ooglay Hussein guy is damn funny! I love this guy!

Seriously...in order for anything in the world to be "illegal", there has to be a legal jurisdiction under whose laws the alleged transaction would actually be "illegal". When did we ever put our national security under the oversight of the UN? When did we ever legislate that the President of the United States would be under UN authority? Obviously the US will veto any anti-US resolution ever to come up in the security council, so no such declaration will ever pass. You can say (we'll disagree, of course) that the war is wrong, immoral, sinful, obscene, whatever...pick your own adjective. But to say that it is "illegal" is just plain foolilsh.

However, the French notion of war being "illegal" certainly explains their proclivity to surrender the first chance they ever get.

Still behind enemy lines.

The French press makes me puke.

Read 5 newspapers today, listened to various TV and radio reports and begin to wonder which of these is not state-owned.

They see a negative angle in EVERYTHING the coalition achieves. Yes, Frenchie it is a coalition, but not the coalition of the wimps who have been sleeping tight for years while Saddam was having thousands of people tortured to death. The same wimps who today throw a tantrum because of all those hypothetical civilian deaths in Iraq. Even the crooks at the head Iraqi propaganda machine could not find more than the odd 100 at most.

These French journalists turn any and every fact whichever way fits their lousy precooked arguments.

As a result, the French see this war as lost.

Folks, let's face it it's in their genes, somewhere deep in their chromosomes as will be amply demonstrated in the latest issue of NATURE.

Always bad to stand at the wrong end of the barrel!

Looks like the Germans are boycotting Budweiser. I didn't think they drank cold beer! So long Becks, it's back to Bud for me. Gulp, gulp, ahhhhh. This exclusive beechwood aging produces a taste; a smoothness and drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price.

to:
frenchman
your unnecessary, unwise and illegal.

I know who Oogley is.

Please Believe, I would not bother you people, but no one here will pay any attention to me! Mommy and Daddy, (Mommy says to call him by his real name, 'Uncle Daddy') spend days at a time in their room. I have many lovely cousins and siblings, whom I pro-create with, SOME, are females! Time to go now, it is time to 'stomp the grapes'. Uncle Dad says to wash my feet first. How stupid he is, I will have to wash them afterwards, why do it twice? PUL-EEZZZZEE BELIEVE!!!

robert:

maybe you should look a bit harder at your own constitution.
Unless it changed over night it is illegal under US law:

-to wage a war of agression against a country (and no, Saddam didnt't fly a plane into the WTC)

-having a war without a declaration of war by congress (unless I slept through the war declaration of congress last wednesday)

-assasinating or trying to kill another head of state

so since you don't consider international law necessary, maybe some good old US laws might do the trick instead.

And hey since international law is crap, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply for Iraq either and they can actually torture and hang all 'unlawful combatants' they caught so far after putting them in shackles and cages of course.

sputnikx

PS KIDS
FRANCE IS NOW GOING TO VETO
( ANY )
UN RESOLUTION IN REBUILDING THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ IF THE (BELLIGERENT) UNITED STATES AND (BELLIGERENT) ENGLAND HAVE ANY PART OF IT

HOW GAY CAN FRANCE GET ;-D

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid;=34∈=world&cat;=france

This says enough, the cowards want to get their hand in the cookie jar after having done nothing. I hope the iraqi's will say screw off frenchies! You left us to rot, get the hell out of here!

Sputnikx,

The U.S. Constitution says no such thing. You should actually read it, it is a very short document. The Constitution does not limit in any way what the U.S. Government can do to foreign entities (governments, people or treaties), the Constitution only gives a process that should be followed. It does limit what individual States (such as California, for example) can do. Perhaps you don't understand the basic structure of the U.S.Governement.

Regarding the declaration of war, the U.S. Congress declared war on Iraq 3 to 4 months ago. You must have been sleeping. (BTW, a declaration of war does not say: I declare war on Iraq or Saddam or the Bath National Sociality Party. Instead, Congress says: Mr President, here is our authority to raise an army and send it to Iraq to fight a war.)

To: Sputnikx
Re: Posted Mar 25, 2003 07:43 PM
Subject: Saddam Hussein/Iraqi Conflict

It is legal to defend against an imminent attack or act of agression (apply new rules of war vis a vis terrorism and the effortless exportation of same to your thinking - keep up, please.)

This conflict has not been labeled "war" by our President. The US Congress gave him the power to use whatever force necessary to defend the nation against terrorism (doesn't the fear of WMD inspire terror in you? Get it?) Everyone ELSE calls it war, probably using the word as an adjective rather than a noun. President Bush has named it for what it literally is - an act to safeguard the US and defense against terrorism (the collateral advantage is that it will free the Iraqi population from Saddam)

Saddam is not a "head of state", rather an assassin who seized power ILLEGALLY, and so far below anything considered human, he wouldn't count anyway. And neither does that edict (which is NOT in the constitution, by the way).

Saddam never has, doesn't, and never will abide by the Geneva Convention. HE is the one who has called this conflict a WAR and therefore HE is the one who has invoked the Geneva Convention. And, er, he already HAS committed the brutal acts you described in your post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid;=578&ncid;=578&e;=9&u;=/nm/20030325/ts_nm/iraq_usa_boycotts_dc

"The German restaurant boycotts of American products started small but spread rapidly after the Iraq war began on Thursday. The conflict has struck a raw nerve in a country that became decidedly anti-war after the devastation of World War II, which it initiated. "

My question is: If Germany is so against the war because of their own guilt after the havok they created then they should feel our stopping them in WW2 was justified because we stopped them from causing more destruction. If we were right to stop them in WW2 then are we not equally justified to stopping another tyrant in 2003?

Their logic makes no sense and they know it. They just count on the media not pointing it out. They are not against the war. They are against America. They are against us finding out that they sold weapons to Iraq against UN law. They do not want us to find out that the whole world disregards the UN regulations when it limtis them yet they still want it to limit us.

FOX NEWS - WAR ALERT
THE PENTAGON IS REPORTING

Could the Frenchman really be Scott?

Special Forces
Have picked up communication via internet chatter,
The defense department and intel sources have also issued statements that an increase in internet chatter " may " confirm who the frenchman is

Hey, I just realized something while reading PLEASE SHUT UP FOOLS' post.

"UN RESOLUTION" should actually be one word: unresolution. Sounds kind of wierd, but it is surprisingly accurate!

TO
ALL SCRAPPLE GANG

THIS IS A MANDATORY COMMAND FROM THE TOP BRASS
************************************

http://www.bushcountry.org/

************************************

You know, now that I think about it, you never see Scott and frenchfry in the same place at the same time...

But then, Scott IS decidedly funnier and not in such a pathetic way.

Thanks Scott.

Get a life, poodle boy.

Sputnikx
Your grade on that post: F+ (lying about constitution to the gomers is only saving grace)
Comments from the committee:
Stick to the script! How many times do we have to tell you:
"We are for the troops but against the war"
"We want to free the Iraqi people from the terror of Saddam - just not through warfare!
Your repeated bashing of the US troops and calls to support Saddam are disruptive in the group meetings and when uttered publicly can potentially turn "fence sitters " against us!
Yes, we need you on our "coalition" but a lot of the guys want you out. For gosh sakes, Todd still thinks you're psychotic because of what you did to his cat!! A lot of the guys from the steam bath say you've been a little caustic there too.
I'm trying hard to support you, Sputnikx, but the bottom line is that when I read things like your post above or the ones on the "Axis of Weasels" story I begin to wonder if we made a mistake allowing your little neo-nazi group to join with us. Yes, we are anti-America above all, but you are driving people away!!
We gave you the media package, Sputnikx, use it! Get with the program!

Peace out!

Still behind enemy lines.
NO SATIRE THIS BUT FACTS:

This tuesday an assorted bunch of a few hundred high-school kids tried to demonstrate in front of/inside the Lorraine American Military Cemetery (largest in Europe - with more than 10.000 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives to liberate France of all countries !!!).
Had to be stopped by riot police.
These b****rds were there with the full approval of school authorities during school time! The people here thought they would put up with a little show around the local McDonald's. No, they chose a military cemetery.
I guess they must be getting their sex education during history classes or something of the sort to have the nerve to choose such a spot to demonstrate. Nerve I admit is an ill-chosen word as most of them started wetting their pants as soon as the riot police officer said they would be dispersed with gas or water-cannons if they did not clear the place.

The Chirac government is breeding a whole new generation of anti-American zealots around here.

High time to broaden out the Axis of Evil concept.

I am getting the precise coordinates ready although I am hesitant whether a good bit of old carpet bombing would not be appropriate in this case.

Saddam didnt't fly a plane into the WTC.

Other things Saddam probably didn't do:
Rob a 7-11
Pee on the Louvre
Fight in Vietnam
Eat sausage for Breakfast
Riverdance
See the academy awards in person
The list goes on and on...

And France didn't win world wars I or II.

And I didn't win the lottery.

And Michael Moore didn't finish the Adkins Diet

So why did the french people murder all the royalty - yes murder. they seized them and cut off their heads. They didn't fly planes into the world trade center either.

What is riverdance ?

Hey Sput-boy!

It is also not unlawful to assassinate a foreign head of state. There was an executive order forbidding any US agency from doing so, but no laws. "W" can rescind it any time he wants to by simply issuing a new executive order.

Personally, I think we should have given Saddam an Execrine Headache #.308 years ago.

"Saddam didnt't fly a plane into the WTC."

Neither did the Taliban, but they and Saddam will meet the same fate. this isn't about who flew the planes on 9/11. It's about refusing to close our eyes (as we did towards OBL and his ilk for better than a decade before 9/11) to those who aim to do us harm. But, then again, thinking people already knew that.

Riverdance is what we're going to do on the foreheads of the Iraqi's dressing like American soldiers.

Bill, we will be organising a peaceful protest in Manhattan tomorrow. Sput, please remember not to block 7th Avenue. This worked against us in San Francisco when people couldn't get to work. Oh, and don't forget your BUSTCARDS!

http://www.release.org.uk/bust.html

BTW: When do we get BART!?

why in h**l would I support American troops?

I am
a) not American
b) can't see what good those American troops are doing
and
c) consider them terrorists on Iraqi soil

I would say you shouldn't be surprised that people actually fight back if you p**s in their front-yard.

And I don't know who made the US God on earth to decide when to overthrow a government and when not to. But I am surprised it picked this time a non-elected president, unlike in Chile, Argentina, Persia, etc.

This is nothing else than the attack on Poland which marks the beginning of WWII - remember it was Hitler's supposed answer to Polish terrorism on German soil. I guess Bush learned a lot from Hitler, propably read 'Mein Kampf' also and is after world domination.

Also, I find it ironic that people on this pro-republican back clapping site full of wannabe Nazis are calling me a Neo-Nazi - I really don't know if i should laugh or cry at this. I also assume, people here have no clue what a Nazi is, eh?

sputnikx

to AHA:

if this is not a war, than maybe you should look up the word in a dictionary, but since I doubt you have one, here i will paste it for you:

Main Entry: war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

Seems like an open and declared armed hostile conflict between two states or nations to me - but maybe I am mistaken here and the US is not a state or nation, because according to the UN and general knowledge, the State of Iraq is!

Also I wouldn't consider the Head of State of all your main allies to be elected - why don't you go and kill the Queen of England and Juan Carlos also, all of their ancestors, to let me quote you: '..is(are) not a "head of state", rather an assassin who seized power ILLEGALLY!'
And your president didn't even get the majority of votes, so much for legitimacy.

sputnikx

The tragedy of America in the post-cold war era is that we have proved unequal to the responsibility that our own power placed upon us.

Some of us became intoxicated with it, imagining that we could rule the world.

I would be wanting in courtesy if I did not expressly say that sputnikx's posts are among the limited number of posts I approve and admire.

Frenchman, did you ask what Riverdance was? Aren't you always telling me to go look it up? Are you really Frenchman?

You can't be. The real Frenchman would never agree with the likes of Sputnix, who thinks we can execute already dead people and doesn't know what an electoral college is.

Bobby,

Nice to read you again !

Are you feeling better ?

to bob:

exactly, the process goes like this:

Congress declares war on a nation (it can't give a carte blanche against nations or for various reasons and it can't 'authorize force', it has to make a DECLARATION OF WAR) (Article 1: Section 8) this means transfering the decission to wage war to the President is against Article 1, section 8 of your constitution.

it is also congress which rasises an army not the president
(Article 2, Section 8, of the Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term that two Years;" and "To provide and maintain a Navy.")

also about assasination Saddam:
"It is especially forbidden. . . to kill or wound treacherously, individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE (1956), which has incorporated this prohibition, authoritatively links Hague Article 23(b) to assassination at Paragraph 31:

... and this article has the consent of the Senate, which makes it the "supreme law of the land" under Article 6 of the Constitution (the "Supremacy Clause"). Even if Congress were to repeal the rule found at Hague Regulation Article 23(b), that would not permit U.S. officials to legalize assassinations. Because the Nuremberg Tribunal (1945) ruled that the obligations at the Hague Regulations had entered into customary international law as of 1939.

well besides the fact this goes against the UN charter also:

Article 1 of the 1974 U.N. Resolution on the Definition of Aggression defines this crime, as ". . .the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."

i wonder who didn't read the constitution?

Sputnikx

About riverdance, my Internet research was inefficient. It seems to be some Celtic Flokloric dance. Isn't it ?

Any news of Hamas ?

Sput...continue to sputter...

Your posts illustrate my point exactly - some sH*****thead from a sH*****hole acting like he/she has something profound to say about the US. What's the matter - did the State Dept turn down your visa request? Were you recently deported from US soil for unAmerican activities?

Q: What makes supposedly moral humans defend someone like Saddam and the Taliban? Wouldn't concern for world safety, and safety of the Iraqi or Afghan population outweigh any outrage(fear) of US riches/military superiority? Do you struggle with that? Did you make a conscious decision to that effect? You and others like you preach constantly against the US disregarding world opinion and accuse us of pursuing a course of isolationism in our actions. Isn't it actually isolationism to IGNORE problems? You can't have it both ways.

merci toi frenchman ...
same here for your posts

Hey Frenchy....I don't know if they'd report it overthere (because it's not something you like to hear), but have you heard of the Uprising in Basrah???? The Iraqi troops are firing on their own citizens??? Oh....but Saddam is a helluva nice guy, and we need to let him go like you did Hitler....

Think about it:

Had the US been Anti-War during WWII......Would you be french???? Is war always un-necessary to you? How do you accomplish anything peacefully? Give Saddam 12 more years??? Another 4,300 days to LAUGH HIS A** OFF AT THE UN. (Don't think he didn't, because you know he did.) He's laughed at the UN for twelve years, but NOOOOO!! He needs more time to laugh at ALL OF US....even your stupid self, Frenchy.

Take the blinders off and open your eyes people....

Also, Sputnix, the President at any time can declare war on a country for 90 days WITHOUT congress's approval....(even though we already have it)

Oh....and treating the Iraqi's captured humanely and showing them being treated as such on TV is far from showing American soldiers with holes in the middle of their heads....

Argue that.

Dusty.

Yes, thank you Frenchman. Since you are always so kind as to provide links, here's one for you.

http://www.riverdance.com/home.htm

I've seen Riverdance on PBS. It's really neat.

What news of Hamas are you referring to?

Dear Bobby,

If I don't make a mistake,I suggested you in one of our delicious and witty exchanges to try to find the political and financial origin of Hamas.

I will give you some help.

Try to find who had interest to divide the palestians.

This comment in the forward, written by Thomas Schelling, of the book "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision", by Roberta Wohlstetter, says it all....

"There is a tendency .... to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The danger is a poverty of expectations, a routine obsession with a few dangers that may be familiar rather than likely."

Our President is not allowing the US to fall victim to the (no longer) unfamiliar which was the (no longer) improbable.

Terrorism = the unfamiliar

to AHA,

i don't need a visa to go to the US, and I have never been refused entry at the border either.

To the safety and freedom of Afghani and Iraqi people:
I really think the US admin. gives a f**k about the people there, as you can see in the now 'liberated' Afghanistan which is nothing different from before just with growing opium en masse. The president is neither elected by the people nor has he any power or command over more than a few blocks in the rubbles of Kabul. Israel gets about 100 times more in aid than Afghanistan with no justification whatsoever.
The US admin. has never intended to invest into nation building nor into liberating people. It is only acting in the self-interest of the US and for economic reasons.
Or why would the US have supported the assasination of the elected president of Chile, installed the Shah in Persia, supported the military coups in Paraguay and Argentina, and supports the Israeli government in it's illegal occupation.
The US also financed and contributed weapons to the Taliban in order to fight the then Soviet government in Kabul.

George W. Bush stated in person that:
the US has no interest in nation-building and
that foreign policy is not his priority.

If the world says nothing about the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq, where will it stop and who gurantees that lets say India doesn't do the same, or China, or Russia, or Brazil, or Mexico - it's a pandoras box your President is oppening.

Well if this is your idea of America making the world a more democratic and safer place, than you must live in another world than I do.

Hamas was founded by the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, was it not? And don't they receive funding from private benefactors (many in Saudi Arabia) and ex-patriats?

to dusty:

please quote the referring article in your constitution, because I couldn't find this article.

I remember seeing dead and burned Iraqi soldiers back in 1991 on tv and the burning streets of Baghdad and Basrah just the other day including the dead civilians from bombing a market place today - what is your problem with seeing a dead American soldier? I thought that is what war is all about: killing people.
Also I saw Iraqi soldiers with their hands tied and beeing searched while they had to kneel down (all against the Geneva convention) - what makes some POW more equal than others?

sputnikx

If it were true that the US were acting only in its own self-interest, how is that deplorable? Is not a nation supposed to act in its own self-interest?

I will concede that if, in the last 50 years, the US had not twisted itself into knots trying to please and curry favor with absolutely everyone, trying to make everyone happy, we'd be much better off. However, with all the upheaval during that period, and the fluidity of the world's national borders, resettling and creation of governments, and with the world looking to the US to police the new world order - I think we can be forgiven for acting like we're the order-keepers, judgement makers etc....

Having said that, we are now under attack. That's a fact. Would you suggest we allow ourselves to be attacked? Perhaps as penance for having had the gall to "lord" it over the world? Be realistic, please. We can't undo the past. Right now we have to establish that we will not tolerate attacks. Once that happens, then we can work on foreign policy.

Oh, and did you know other people here have been using your name? I wish they wouldn't, because it gets confusing. I even responded to one of them thinking it was you!

Sputnikx
Sometimes on this site people go alittle too far.
You've reached your limit. I know 3 people that have tatooed numbers on their forearms and I've heard things that have given me nightmares. There is no way I can comprehend the amount of horror Adolf Hitler committed and I'll bet all I have you can't either. For you to compare the President of The United States to Hitler, is offensive to the extreme. I have military relatives interned different places in this country as well as one still serving the U.S.S. Arizona. These men fought to give me and every American citizen the right of free speech. They didn't die for you. Unless you are the coward I expect you to be, it would be my pleasure to exchange personnal information with you on some protected site. Then I propose we meet at an agreed upon site somewhere on this planet to settle this between ourselves. I am a person of honor and am willing to back up what I believe and what I say. Are you?

I get him next Jim. My son is buried at Arlington National Cemetery (May 29, 1978 - December 8, 2002, 1st Lt, USAF, C-130 pilot) My brother is buried at Riverdside National Cemetery ( Vietnam, USMC, 1969-1970). Binding a POW hands when first captured is NOT a violation of the Geneva protocals for the handling of enemy combatants. All sides in a conflict have a right to secure any enemy combatants. They don't have a right to toture or rape them. During WWII Ger,am prisoners were brought to the US and even allowed to go to the local towns to eat from the camps they were in. we actually treat enemy prisoners of war better than our own criminals, because even though they are the enemy, they are also soldiers and are doing their duty. The Iraqis were quick to surrender because they knew they would be safer and better cared for in our custody than serving in Saddam's military.

I don't think they should show any bodies on tv, regardless of which side.

But I don't control the media, other than i don't watch it.

So what do you think is happening to Jessica Lynch, a 19 year old PFC who is now MIA?? What if she were your sister?

Germans and French are boycotting American products. Reports are that the Arab world has also joined the boycott. Not that I'm complaining - only wondering if they are going to boycott the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars in aid they receive from the very bullies they scorn. Or will they, perhaps, follow their natural instincts that compel them to soil their own nests.... after all, we should just leave everyone alone - RIGHT, SPUT?

ps Sput - you never answered my question regarding the ethics (or lack, thereof) of those who, rather than feel any discomfort at the sight of America's military might, prefer to continue to relegate 20 million innocent Iraqis to Saddam's tender ministrations.

well, i should say that it is ilegal indeed, because Lady Bush didn¥t care why the UN is made, and know Lady Bush wants to all international laws be supported, i don¥t know how Lady Bush can show her wossie face to all nations, and please, don¥t be such a wossie and leave this message

Darth - glad to see you join the fray. I don't believe I have, to date, acknowledged your loss. Loss is such an inadequate word to describe it.

Darth
Thanks for your remarks and alittle solidarity. I shudder to think what may be happening to that young lady. Yesterday, her mother was asked what,if anything people could do to help. She answered pray for her duaghter at 9am eastern time. I did. I hope it helped. I'm glad we are shutting down their media. Unfortunatly, they are using it to relay strategy. As far as our media goes, I can't help myself watching FOX as Rick Leventhol is with the 1st Marines 3rd LAR and we have a scout there. To the Americans on this site that want to compare our President to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Mussolini, stop it or d**n you to h**l. To you europeans that wish to compare our President to the above, think about this: if you were on fire standing in front of me, I would not waste one squirt of my bodily fluids to put you out.

Can you believe Kofi Annan's remarks this morning?

He admonished the US to treat the POWs in their custody per the Geneva Convention !!!!!

I could scream. Not one word to the Saddamites about EXECUTING their POWs...

Have we fallen down the rabbit hole?

Jim, thank you, too, for your support.

Sputtermouth,

"To the safety and freedom of Afghani and Iraqi people:
I really think the US admin. gives a f**k about the people there, as you can see in the now 'liberated' Afghanistan which is nothing different from before just with growing opium en masse."

No...no different at all...Oh wait!! Aren't there like 2.3 million women going to school now that weren't going before we went there??? That's right, the US is evil for letting those women learn.

Please excuse yourself of your ignorance in your delay trying to think of a response to that one.

"Also I saw Iraqi soldiers with their hands tied and beeing searched while they had to kneel down (all against the Geneva convention) - what makes some POW more equal than others?"

Securing hands are the first thing any police office does to preserve his own safety. Against the Geneva??? Not at all. Searching them? Lifting shirts? Whatever could we be LOOKING FOR?!?!?!? Couldn't be bombs that they strap themselves with.....Nah....Couldn't be for another gun when the American turns his head. For the actions of the "Fake-out Surrenderers", I would feel better if they indiscriminately shot anyone holding a gun.

Again, excuse yourself of your arrogant ignorance.

Dusty.

Sputnidx,

I'm glad to see that I got you to actually read the U.S. Constitution, and I see that you agree that you previous statements were incorrect. BTW, the Constitution is the only "Supreme" law of the land, that is why the "Supreme" court can only judge things based on the "Constitution". Congress has based many many laws that were later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

Regarding raising an army, as I said, Congress told the President to raise an army. You see Congress itself has no "employees", the President is the Chief Executive and therefore actually hires people, which is exactly what I said. Again, please take a civics lesson in U.S. Government before commenting ignorantly.

The remainder of your post is a joke. According to you, I guess, the Armed Forces can only point guns into the ground.

to dusty:

Can you please tell me where those women go to school? As far as i know the country is divided by warlords who have not much belief in American democracy and the rule of the gun is the main law. It is a spit in the face telling people they are better off now.

The Geneva convention forbids that POW get their hands tied. This is not the police and a criminal here, it is two armies fighting each other, hence it is prohibited for both sites. It seems to me that you get your facts out of a cracker box, maybe you should do some research.

sputnikx

to Rob:

no, my statements weren't incorrect:

Congress gave the AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE to George W. Bush - this is not an official DECLARATION OF WAR as required by Article 1 section 8.

Congress is not allowed to transfer this decission (same article)

Right now we have an authority to use force transferred to the President - which is a double breach of your constitution.

The remaining 'joke' as you call it is about assasinating a head of state not for fighting war - so read it carefully before you call it a joke.

Sputnikx

to all the angry army personal posts:

I regret your personal losses, but it is not me who is responsible for this (maybe you should ask your government) and I don't see the point in arguing about your dead soldiers - it will always be American heroes defending Americas freedom.

I just wonder whos freedom you were defending in Vietnam and Afghanistan? What about a random Iraqi soldier captured by American forces. You are so concerned that one American life is so much more worth than anybody else it is disgusting. Dead Iraqis seem to be no problem, but a dead American is - you are all hypocrits, your soldiers are not defending freedom they are agressors in an illegal war.
I hope we will see the commanders and commander in chief in The Hague.

But anyways, if the city of Baghdad doesn't surrender and you have to go in a cruelsome house to house fighting, you will lose this war anyways and all your credibility as a democratic nation on the way.

sputnikx

Yes, Sputnikx, you are wrong. You see, YOU are not the person who decides what is constitutional or not, the Supreme Court is. The U.S. has a Government that consists of more than one person. The Supreme Court has found that the so called "War Powers Act" that the Congress used to give a President the authority to do exactly what the current President is doing now has been found to be constitutional, regardless of your personal opinion. Every time the U.S. sends troops somewhere, someone tries to sue to stop the action and everytime the Supreme Court does not stop it. This is well tested.

Again, please take a lesson in civics, because you are ignorant. I'm not saying your are stupid, which is a condition that you can't really do much about, but ignorant, which is curable by getting an "education".

Sput ... I'll ask for an answer from you again.

My sister, on the fence about this situation, asked me, "what if we go in and wage war on Saddam, and we found no WMD, no ties to terrorism and no evidence he planned to attack the US?"
My answer was, "Now that I know about the starvation and torture he inflicts on his people, can we leave them in his hands?"
Knowing what we know about Saddam's brutal proclivities and the suffering of his people, is it ethical to leave them to suffer? How would you have handled this situation?

Don't think for a moment that we don't agonize about this.

People
You are dealing here with an honest-to-God anti-semitic, hitler loving, America hating, fascist. Note that most of what he says is only about what he is against, leaving us to determine just what he is for. You must read carefully to discern that. He's named himself after the high water mark of communist achievement. He will claim socialism as his political ideology, but I believe that's only because of the lack of support his real viewpoint would gain. He is obviously and undeniably a strong admirer of totalitarian regimes. His feelings towards actual human beings (casual disconcern for the dead or their survivors on any side) reveal much about him, as did his posts on the "Support Troops" site before ScrappleFace deleted them.
He's obviously spent a lot of time reading and little time socializing with humans, and has a lot of criss-cross in the internal circuits. I'd like to think he doesn't get away from the computer much, and there's some supporting evidence for that...
One thing I can not yet discern is his age. (And please don't tell me it could be a girl) Assuming this person is an older hippy type with a cloud of pot smoke around his head reliving '68 over and over again would be one thing. But I don't think so. His rage makes me think he's younger, a sad pathetic high school kid, and then something about him screams "Columbine" to me - and I don't find that funny.

For additional hate spew from this guy, visit the "Axis of Weasels" story linked in the upper left sidebar.
This guy is out of bounds.
Frenchman, no kidding, this one's not your type.

BTW, Spudnikx, I think there might be a problem of language here. Is the authorizing the use of force equal to war? The intent is obvious to anyone and everyone. Force means force. War is an embodiment of force, specifically, embodiments of force of one country against another are considered "war".

I think that, for example, the only "serious consequence", as specified in the UN resolution that passed with their support, that the French/Germans/et. al seemed to put forward was increasing the number of inspectors sent to Iraq and giving them more time. Perhaps to these Europeans, this is a serious consequence. But the language "serious" would indicate that something else was required. There didn't seem to any other suggestions.

One more thing, I believe that the U.S. representative to the U.N. indicated that the current action in Iraq was actually based on resuming the war that removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ended with a conditional stopping of force against Iraq. The U.S. claim is that the conditional was found lacking and therefore force was resumed.

I'm just reporting what I hear.

THE GREAT STATE OF OREGON
***************************

IS NOW READY TO PASS A BILL
ALL VIOLENT ANTI WAR PROTESTERS

SHALL BE DEEMED AS TERRORIST
****************************

Sputnikx
Yes you are responisible for for our dead. Your world view is why we fight. Your views caused the Japanese rape camps, your views caused 5 million jews to be brutally murdered. You are the "chemical als" of this planet. You are the terrorists that fly planes into buildings full of innocent people. If we don't defend the the Iraqi people, you are why some will be put into industrial shredders. Most of the people that post on this site do it to rant or just express their views. You have an oily evil about you that is almost palpable. If I were Catholic, I would attempt to convince a preist to exorcise you from this site. Mankind will always fight you and your kind. You will eventually be put down. Everything in nature has to have a balance. You and your kind exist to remind humanity just how bad we can be.

**********__________________________________
**********
**********__________________________________
**********
**********__________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

In defense of our STARS and STRIPES

Made by liberty, made for liberty, nurished in the spirit,
carried in it's service, and never, no not once, in all the earth
made to stoop to despotism !
~Henry Ward Beecher~

Patriotism is not the holding of a flag unfurled
But the making it, of the goodliest in the world.
~W J. Linton~

From treason's rent, from murder's stain,
Gourd Thou its folds till peace shall reign.
~Oliver Wendel Holms~

Horrah ! For the RED WHITE AND BLUE !!
~~eat your heart out... anyone who can't understand it...and keep the faith.
Pray that your day of deliverance will come.

Whoa.. JP That was uncanny.. high fives !!

I don't know, grey hawk.
It could be frenchfry off his medications again.
But frenchfry usually uses more current rhetoric :)

At any rate..

Welcome spudboy.
Avail yourself of the information dispensed on this site.
Revel in the satire and soak up some of the reasoning of free men and women.

The change'll do ya good.

Keep on Rockin' in The Free World.

P.S. I'd like to thank all the usual suspects for all your posts here and elsewhere. I really appreciate you folks.

Hey Sputnikx
I seem to remember most Europeans and a lot of others claiming that Reagan would push the button and start WW3. Last time I checked you're still here. Could it be that you really don't understand? You're just as wrong about Bush now as you were about Reagan then. Why can't you see that? Maybe once you stop getting all your information from CNN you'll start to realize the truth.

I think the thing that p****s me off most about these supposed peacenik types, is that we actually paid someone to put this c**p into their heads. Exactly where did all those commies go after the fall of the USSR? Apparently to our schools and to Hollywood. Where the Hell is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

AHA,

You are "spot on".I think we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I swear it seems like the world is getting stranger and stranger. "That Tosser" Kofi Annan's is a jack*ss. He always has been, always will be. The UN is a joke. We need to take a good hard long look at who we think are our friends in this world. Who would have thought years ago that Eastern Europe would become a strong support center? I think it is time for new trading partners. Get rid of nato - Get rid of the UN. We need a new Alliance - frog, kraut and UN free.....

Anybody want to help place this add in The London Times...?

Wanted : Eastern European Countries that are tired of fat pompous,rude,french veto bullies, to form a new alliance with England, Spain,Denmark,Portugal, Austraila, Italy,Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,Philippines,Israel, Kuwait, Afghanistan, "The New Iraq", various South American Countries, Texas,and the Good Ole USA.

Texas got status cause of George...and I forgot "The New Kurdistan" .They should get something out of all this mess.Give um Hell "GW"!

wow, cool I am blamed now for every dead American on this earth - let me get my oscar for that one. As far as I remember the majority of people who actually kill Americans are: exactly Americans themself, so leave me alone with your defending the world rethoric. The only thing America defends these days is its believe in the US dollar and thats it.
Well you have all the typical signs of a falling empire so I am actually getting less and less concerned about it and I am almost sure you will loose this war in the streets of Baghdad and Basra. In case you haven't noticed, Iraq has already won the war of hearts, which is the biggest humiliation in my eyes, if a tyrant gets the sympathy of the world, you should wonder what went wrong.
oh yeah and i was baptized catholic, so maybe your woodoo crap will still work on me, even with me beeing an atheist now.

and a special one to greyhawk:
well, well, I am impressed - this must have been the first post of yours which made actually some sense. You seem to have also a lot of time on your hands since you keep examing me a lot. But I actually enjoy this, so I should encourage you and tell you, that you got some points right and on some others you are way off.

sputnikx

to Rob:
an 'authorization of force' is not a 'declaration of war' in my eyes and quite a lot of your law experts agree on this one too.

Authorization means you are transferring the decission to another institution or person because to authorize doesn't mean it will be implemented immediately.

Declaration means you are doing the decission, and it is implemented with the second you declare it.

So if Congress is the sole institution to declare war, how can it transfer this single right to the president - which in this case will unite the legislative and executive in the wake of a conflict.

I don't know if that was the intend of the founding-fathers of the constitution to put all decission making power in the hand of the President alone.

sputnikx

Sputnikx,

You still don't get it. Congress declared war on Iraq. Do you see American Troops in Iraq? I do. Maybe it is a dream?

Law experts (btw, I don't have any) can and have made similar arguements to the Supreme Court. They lost. It is very true that many people do not like this result, but I think that is true of many legal decisions.

We cannot ask George Washington what he thinks, he is dead. But, the "War Power Act of 1973", which equates the language "declaration of war" and "authorization of force" says in its preamble: It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

In this case, force was explicitly authorized by Congress, so the President did not unilaterally do anything. No such worries.

It is nice to see that you are starting to think and learn. Maybe soon you will see that Nazism is bad for everyone, even Arabs.

Sputz
I guess you are right. Iraq has won the "war of hearts" in all of the minds that are as sick and diseased as yours. Yep, the Iragi soldiers are forcing women to stand in front of them and then they are firing at our soldiers. Their brand new tactic is to kidnap children shove guns in their hands, and tell them fight or die. And if they don't fight, they threaten to kill their families. Yes, I can see how the cowardly, liberal b******s of this world would find this type of war appealing.
I stand by my original remark that there is an oily evil about you and your ilk.

hey rob:

how about section 2 of the 'War powers act' 1973:

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

so which one of the three are you quoting?
No. 1 is not the case and no. 3 is not the case either, so I must assume there is a specific statutory authorization

so here we go ... 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' 2002:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

There is no new UN resolution, as far as I can remember - and it said specificly:
TO ENFORCE UN RESOLUTIONS

The UN is not authorized and never had called for regime change neither has it made a moral case for Iraq (this one is for ANA).

There is no current threat from Iraq against the US (nor actually one of it's neighbour states) and no WMD have been discovered - but this has disappeared a long time ago as a reason and from the minds of America.

How sad it is to see your administration fishing for arguments and ignoring it's own acts and laws on the way.

I still have the opinion that even that wording doesn't allow for military action against Iraq and is in breach of the constitution.

sputnikx

PS: Don't you think if i were a Nazi i would give a [ ] about the UN and the power of congress and following procedures? I thought you would be more intelligent than the other punch of name-callers on here who are already scared I will take over the world.

Sputtermouth:

Apparently you have not seen the hundreds of resolutions giving Iraq "more time" to disarm. Haven't you noticed that Saddam ignored every one? But that doesn't mean anything, he's a helluva nice guy, right Sput? No....Nor does it mean anthing that he just indicriminately fires missiles at neighboring countries, because he doesn't like them. Aren't there racial problems over there??? Don't the Iraqi's think the Kurd's are beneath them?

What I want to know Sputterbiiiiooootch, is how you condone Saddam's actions and how you propose to "peacefully" remove him. Can it be done? Have you thought of it? Can you get past "The U.S. is wrong!" whiny little attitude and TRY to correct something for once in your life? HOW? Tell me how you get him out peacefully!!! Let me guess, more sanctions on the Iraqi people (which is like putting more gun laws on law-abiding citizens, as in, who does it affect more? The one's who care or the one's who don't?) I noticed Saddam has many new palaces...Where'd he get the money?? Oh no!!!! OIL FOR FOOD!!!! Oops....I guess he changed that to Oil for the lining of my pocket as usual.

Just tell me sput....

How?

(I'll be you've never even thought of it)

If ignorance is bliss, then Sput's world should be happy and peaceful.

Dusty.

to ANA and the moral fight of America:

well let's take a look at this one - I actually do agree that we have an obligation to morally support the Iraqi population, but this doesn't mean bombing the country to rubbles, humiliating the proud Iraqi nation and impossing an American style regime based on what you believe in. Are you really so naive to think your 'one size fits all' approach actually works. Even all so-called Western countries differ in their view of democracy and how a state should be run. Shouldn't it be up to the Iraqi people to create their own country?

And since you seem to be so keen about waging wars in the name of morals, liberation and the good of the world, why don't you ask your president to actually help those people who are currently struggeling?

here i give you some examples:
(RE: ... is the US response)

-The Basque provinces in Spain
(RE:uhh, ahh, well Spain is kind of an alley and a democracy .. or isn't it?)

-The people of Tibet - occupied since 1951
(RE: well China has a lot of people and weapons too, we only liberate weak and defenceless countries)

-Mugabes Zimbawe
(RE: there are just a few diamonds there and nothing else worth fighting for)

-Chechnia
(RE: well Russia might be weaker than 10 years ago, but still - we rather say nothing and make a deal on Afghanistan)

-the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iran and the self-proclaimed Northern Kurdish territories
(RE: well we didn't care about the Kurds while they were gased and hey why would we piss our most important NATO alley (Turkey) off - so nah, I am sure the Turks and Iranians will sort the little Kurdish problem out)

-Palestinia - occupied since 1967
(RE: .. ha, ha, ha .. well we can't let our best alley Israel go, since we pump it full of US $ and vetoed already most UN resolutions plus the 30 resolutions Israel has ignored so far and I don't have to say how important jewish party contributions are and the new found love of the christian right with the Jewish fight for a holly war)

-Mauretania - occupied first by Spain and then by Marocco
(RE: .. where the heck is Mauretania)

But this is not even my main point. War creates more hate, war and violence, if you haven't learned that by now than I don't think you will ever learn.
If WW I had ended differently without the humiliating acts afterwards, WW II would probably not have started.
There was no military involvment in the struggle of Eastern Europe and they all became democraties (more or less) without a fight.
South Africa had no American forces on it's land and still, Nelson Mandela (back then considered a terrorist by the US admin.) was the first president of a non-apartheid regime.
Almost all Latin American countries went from dictatorship/military rule to democracy without any liberating US Army involved (US involvment was usually on the site of the dictator and military junta though).

So please where is your moral case here?

sputnikx

"The only thing that evil needs to survive in the world, is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

Putz....eerr....Sput...Which one does that place you in? The evil??? I mean, you want to do nothing and peace just to magically appear. This isn't a cartoon, putz, it's the real world.

Recognize the world you actually live in.

Dusty.

p.s. Putz, about the name calling, I'm still trying to piece together all the adjectives and adverbs necessary to define your "world view" (which, might I add, doesn't seem to be the planet Earth)

One more thing I've found to be quite curious in my quest for knowledge.

Sput...Tell me when the Palestinia (country or state) ever existed. I've never found that country in any history book. I've found the people, but no land with their name on it.

How is this possible?

Dusty.

If the US (coalition) did follow the UN mandates.. they would be the ONLY ones who EVER have. So all you pinkos should quit with the UN authority rhetoric. It's a joke.

France and Chiraq et.al are daft to think that having a "veto" power makes them "President of the World". It's like giveing a carpenter nothing but a dull axe for a tool... to go build the world. It's been a control the US charade since it's inception. No wonder, that you resent anyone with a real tool box and a bit of construction skill and experience.

well Dusty:

can you decide, what you want first: either it's talking about disaming Saddam Hussein or the change of his regime.

Well let's start with disarming:
The weapons inspectors would have been still there had not the US used them to spy on the independant nation of Iraq and used the informatin to attack Iraqi positions in the also 'illegal' no-fly zones. So contrary to popular believe, Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, they were withdrawn by former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter because of this. I can't see any of the dangerous WMD George Bush kept talking about? The peace treaty required from Iraq to stop it's programs of atomic and biologic weapons, it does in no way say Iraq has to disarm completely. Signing a peace treaty with him made George Bush Senior offically accepting the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein as the Head of State, so it is very hard to argue that all of a sudden he is not anymore.

To the liberating Iraqis:
First of all the 'oil for food' program is inhuman and should be scrapped immediately. This idea was a purely American to control Iraq while not at war. Iraq is not the waste land and mediaeval state you like to portray. The Iraqi people used to be one of the richest in the region before the food for oil program started, had the lowest rate of illiteracy and best educated people in the region (yes the rate was even lower than in the US). Iraq was and still is not less democratic than any of your main allies (Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia) in the region.
There has been an uprising in 1991, which was encouraged by George Bush Senior and than coweredly abondend and left to be taken apart by the Iraqi Army.

The Iraqi people will be ready to overthrow their rulers when they are ready for it (also see: South Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia, Argentina, Chile, etc.) and in general the richer people get the more liberties they expect (see South Corea, Taiwan, Thailand, etc.). There is usually a transition period going from dictatorship to democracy - impossing this on a state by force will probably have the opposite effect (see Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.).
In case you will bring up Germany as an example for going from dictatorship directly into democracy, I must say that Germany had its Republic of Weimar and experience with democratic and republican ideas before Hitler. So did also the after-military junta countries Portugal, Spain, Greece, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, El Salvador, Honduras, etc.

I think it will be more productive to engage Iraq or countries on your shoot-down list into trade (see China and Iran) which is a way more powerful weapon than a rocket or grenade and tends to soften countries and promotes more democratic values than bringing it in with the iron fist which usually makes the people of this country rally around the ruler - be he a despote or dictator or military ruler (see Iraq now, the bombing of German civilians, Somalia, Vietnam)

I am sure this peaceful solutions are nothing acceptable for you and you rather want to try out the newest American weapons and kill innocent and your own country man in a land far away from yours.

Sputnikx

second note to dusty:

well, please show me when the State of Israel existed!!

Maybe you should look at the UN partition map after the British protectorat ended and you can actually see a state of palestine

http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm

UNITED NATIONS 1947

Sputnikx

Sputter,
You just keep digging in deeper.

Dis-armament: Ordered by the UN. Not "just stop making them," but "get rid of them."

No-fly zones: Enacted by the UN.

Oil for food: Started by, and run by, the UN. More than $9 Billion in escrow. Over $500 Million in "administration costs" to the UN. Has more than 4000 employees (who work for the UN).

"Show me a map with Isreal on it." Are you serious? How about the map your precious UN drew when it created Isreal? Have you looked at that map.

As for all of the other dictators around the world: just give us time.

p.s. it is spelled "ally" not "alley."

Sputz
I see you posted you your answers in our lightning round. Let's see how you did.
1. "this doesn't mean bombing the country to rubbles" GONG!! I'm sorry Sputz. Wrong answer.
What you were referring to was a type of bombing that occurred back in world war 2. It was termed "carpet bombing". Since the world did not have smart bomb technology, the Germans, British, and Us dropped thousands of bombs over a wide area and let gravity do the rest. Killed thousands. Reduced the landscape to "rubbles". In this little skirmish, even Arab television shows most buildings intact, electircity working, people driving their cars around during the bombing. One recent telling photo shows a tank under a bridge. The bomb goes under the bridge, takes out the tank and doesn't harm the bridge. What a shot. ZERO POINTS
2."humiliating the proud Iraqi nation" GONG!! I'm sorry again Sputz. O for 2. I will allow you a small amount of latitude on this. You may not have been willing to accept the television pictures on both Fox and CNN showing Iraqi civilians waving and hugging US soldiers and the signs saying thank you USA. They are being humiliated by tons of relief from the coalition that is more than they had before. The only "proud Iraqis" are the murderous regime and their supporters. The populus is ruled by terror, torture and murder. For the populus to be humiliated, would propably be a step up. At least they would know they have feeling and emotions. ZERO POINTS AGAIN
3. "imposing an American style regime based on what you believe in" . Sputty, Sputty, Sputty. You really blew this one. You are drawing a conclusion not based upon facts in evidence. THE CURRENT REGIME IS STILL IN POWER. The judges say if you would have have stated something like ; in your opinion, or I believe that America will impose a regime based upon it's belief, we may have given you a few points. But, you are assuming and you know the old saying of what happens when you make an assumption. (Samuel L. Jacckson says it makes an ass out of you and umption. Whoever umption is. Must be a friend of yours)
Very sorry Sputzmeister, you did't score a single point in this round. And since your base facts were wrong, your whole post has been deemed irrelevant. If you will go back and recheck you facts, rethink some of your positions, you may score a point or two in some future round. Scrapple People, let's all give Sputz the clap, sorry,I mean applause for trying even though he was totally wrong.

sputnikx is a good example of what his Iraqi and french bretheren call, "the socialist feyadeen", he dresses himself up as a peacemonger and then when surrounded by people of truth, he lies down to block the avenues of democracy and shows his true uniform. The uniform of the cowardly and brutal dictators. His masters - Saddam and the socialist goat loving,necrophiliac Chirac.

france the largest manufacturer of panty shields in the world,will soon be removed by "The New Euro of the Willing" and will find itself,as a restroom stop on the way to the Spanish Riviera.

Mark my words -McDonalds freedom fighters in france will once again be afforded the right to work in peace and harmony, while breaking the shackles of the oppressive, anti-"big mac", burger phobic, french. Once again you will hear words of freedom shouted out from the arch de triumph:

TWO ALL BEEF PATTIES -
SPECIAL SAUCE,
LETUCE,CHEESE,
PICKLES,ONIONS,
ON A SESAME SEED BUN...

God Bless the USA, God Bless the McDonalds Freedom Fighters!

Spudnikx,

Again, saying that the President is acting against U.S. law is just wrong. If it were true, then he would have been stopped long ago. There was plenty of time. There are many lawyers and even members of Congress that are against this war, and they have tried all they can do to stop it, but the law is just not on their side.

In terms of me calling you a Nazi, I did not. I called Saddam and the Baath party Nazi's because that is exactly what they are. I, personally, do not like Nazi's or any other facist dictatorships (Russian, Chinese, or otherwise).

You, perhaps (I don't know because I don't really know anything about you but I would guess you are a European, probably Austrian or Dutch/Flemish or maybe German or Russian only because of the name) are, in my opinion, more interested in limiting the power of the U.S. than in eliminating Facist regimes. I do not know if this is because you like Facism or because you do not like the U.S. or because you think that U.S. is not doing a good job of eliminating Facism (i.e. the approach is bad or the result is bad). Perhaps it is just a "gut feel" on your part that any country that tinkers with other countries internal operations or structure is doing something bad. Or perhaps you think that even Facist regimes have a right to exist because they are only hurting their own people, and who are we to judge that. I guess my comment assumed that this is what you are thinking. Well, I am judging it, and so are Bush and Blair.

Anti-war movements do not come up with alternatives to Facism, so one might say they support it. I think this is only true if one understands the relationship here. Most anti-war people near me, and there are lots of them, just don't like seeing pictures of war on the T.V. or papers, it offends them- not very intellectual all this killing.

After the war, and after Blair and Bush leave office, we will see whether they can go to Belgium.

This will be my last post.

Rob
He calls himself (herself, it) a Canadian. He says we Americans are killing ourselves. Give him a cigar (not Clinton's) he's right. But the
Ruwandans hacked up 1,000,000 with machetes - ouch
Hussein grinds em up in industrial shredders.
Germany baked 5,000,000. But Canada has come up with a unique way of offing their population. It's called socialized medicine. Canada is the only country on the planet, that is not considered a third world country,that has lost 5 years of life expectany off it's population. The life span of the average Canadian today is 72. It's down from 77 in the last 20 years. Sputz says we have all the typical signs of a falling empire and he is becoming less and less concerned. I think I now understand why. He probably won't live long enough to see it happen.

Jim,

it is nice how neatly you make up your ideas, i just wonder on what they are based on? Info cards you find in your Kelloggs boxes?

You haven't showed one of my arguments wrong, you only personalized this debate, called me stupid and bring up unbased information - you should take a lesson from Rob, his posts are intelligent and show he puts thought and effort into it.

According to Statistics Canada the life-expectancy has risen in Canada, and is higher than in the US anyways, here maybe you should bother looking up some facts: it is around 78 years right now
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89F0123XIE/04.htm

Your great example of Germany is neither unique nor right - what 5 millions are you talking about - if you talk about the murdered Jews, that number is around half of that. There were more Russians and Germans dead after WWII than Jewish, so maybe you should mention those also.

You say there is no destruction in Iraq. What do you think those bombs do? Re-arange the sand in the dessert - Hello, I must have been in the wrong physics class but as far as I remember do bombs in general destroy the object they hit after falling to the ground - and you claim to have served in the army?

It is also a joke how all of you right wing nazi-wannabees scream kill the Iraqis and kick some [tail] than go on trashing liberal ideas, calling me a Nazi and in the end say you are upholding liberal values by invading Iraq. How much more hypocrit can you get.

Well so please one of you enlighten me:
What is the reason for invading Iraq (since its neither WMD, nor oil according to this board here) and that of all the administrations you had, exactly the most right-wing one searched in it's hard and found so much love it wants to share it with the Iraqi people.

Sputnikx

to Rob,

it is sad to see your last post on here. It has been a pleasure arguing with you so I will not contradict or otherwise minimize your last post about the legitimacy of Bush's action since I have stated my opinion earlier.

I am European and Canadian and no, I don't have a fetish for fascist regimes. It is interesting to study the manipulative effects, control mechanism and the superiority idea, but they ultimately fail at one point or the other.

About the US - yeah you got some of it right:
I can't grant the US the right to intervene into another nations affaires, the very point the US administration is complaining about right now in matters of the world and the UN.
Also, the US administration has previously had no problem beeing cosy with dictators and despots - so the quoted US fighting them is a bit hairy.

I also rather not use the term fascist nor Nazi, because this is not the case with most dictators. Nazi is a uniquely German term from the NSDAP party name and is based on it's party ideology. Faschism implies an antiliberal, intolerant, extrem nationalistic hierarchic structure with to some degree a mentality of superiority (e.g. white supremacy) and is hardly applicable these days to any nation - so here i have to disagree with you calling Russia and China a fascistic regime.
The only qualifying ones were the late Zuid-Africaans regime and the current Israeli Government under Ariel Sharon (which I am sure will earn me on this site another anti-semitic remark).

Sputnikx

Sputz
Here we go again. The only way I can respond to your post is to answer each paragraph. I will number each paragragh so you don't get confused.
1.You made an assumption again. If you would have asked about a kelloggs box or a cracker jacks box, etc., I could have answered yes, no or elaborated. But you said "your" kelloggs boxes. Unless your peeking in my windows, (which I doubt)
you are drawing a conclusion not based upon fact.
I don't purchase kelloggs products by the way.
2.I believe I have proved some of you arguments wrong. You don't believe it so it becomes a moot point. If it bothers you that bad, ask a third party. Be very careful what you accuse another person of saying. Check every post I have responded to about you on this site. I've poked alot fun at you, and hit with some hard satire, but I have not written you are stupid. That's close to being slanderous. I will agree with you about Rob's posts. But it's extremely arrogant of you to tell anyone to take lessons from someone else. You included Rob in this and he may not like that. All three of us are individuals and do things our own way. I respect that. The problem with all liberals is that they want to destroy the individual concept. I use one prominent example. Our past president, Bill Clinton, gave a speech in which he stated the most important document ever written is the United Nations Charter. He chose this over our own Constitution. A portion of that charter contains this: (I don't have exact wording handy, if you don't believe this look it up yourself) the rights of the individual shall not be usurped unless they conflict with a desision of the United Nations. That's just plain wrong.
3. About the life expectancy of Canadian citizens. I checked your site and you are right. The only point I will make is I searched google by typing in life expectancy candian citizens, united states citizens, french citizens, several more countries and all countries said nothing but good things about their improvements in medicine, health, life expectancy, etc.
4. Check this site for my example of Germany:www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/o.3604,439168,00.html Yes it was about the Jewish people and my numbers were off. It was 6 million not 5 million. As far as the German and Russian
death toll being higher, stop being arrogant again. Don't tell me what to put in my own post. If you want to challenge or refute anything I
post, have at it. I noticed you didn't add any facts to back up you numbers. Should I take your statement at face value?
5. You better go back and re-read my statement about damage. I said that MOST buildings are still intact. And they are. If you choose to watch Fox, Cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, msmbc, or some of the Arab stations on the net, you will see the same thing. The electricity and water is still on except in Basrah. The Iraqi soldiers cut them off.
About physics, you din't go to the wrong class, my personnal opinion is you didn't go at all. I am not going to go into a lesson about gps targeting, trajectory manipulation, charge definition, etc. If you're interested, you'll check it for yourself, if not, you'll continue to rant without knowing what you are talking about.
An adult would not make light about service in the armed forces whether they are liberal, conservative, libertarian or most anything else. The way you made your statement about my service leads me to believe a. you are young, brash, and have no respect, or b. you are an adult that is mentally immature. I never made a statement that I served in the Army. Your statement is an absolute lie. I never stated what branch of the Armed Forces I was in. And that part of my life is none of your business.
6. This is only my opinion, but I believe the height of hypocracy is the world knowing what has been done to the people of Irag by a murderous dictator. The thousands gassed, raped, tortured, imprisoned. Can any of us imagine the terror, the anger, the desolation, the hopelessness that these people must feel? And then a segment of the worlds population refuses to do anything about it, and protests the war because civilians may be hurt. Sputz, that's the main reason I support this war. I really don't care if you believe it or not.

Why do you guys bother arguing with Slutpix. He's an idiot. What we say on the iternet to idiots is this:

Buttnix; STFU

Sput:

I have tried to show you enlightenment. US(good)/Iraq, and for that matter, Hitler, USSR, Stalin (bad).

I'm not sure what "STFU" means, but I have to agree with Darth's sentiment: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Sput: We talked about this yesterday. Why do you suppose Baghdad (and Basra, etc. ) are still crammed full of civvies? Everyone knows that's where the ugly fighting will be. Its because, as the Brits found out yesterday, the Fedayeen will shoot them as they try to flee. Why? So that Saddam can blame their deaths on Coalition forces. This is a regime worth defending? Who is actually waging a terror campaign against the Iraqi citizenry? And where is the proof that it was a Coalition bomb that blew up in the Baghdad market. (Of course, to the rest of you, this is the kind of slanted Anti-American propoganda crap I warned that we would be facing).

Regarding pows, even on Al-Jazeera and arabnews.com, I have seen no Iraqi pows with bullet holes in their foreheads, and no wounded Iraqi pows being forced to sit up to give tv interviews. I have however, seen coverage of US Marines carrying Iraqi wounded to safety during and after battle. And there was a poignant pic on one site of an Army grunt sharing his water canteen with the Iraqi who was trying to kill him moments before.

As I explained to you last week in our debate about Communism/socialism and capitalism: The top practitioners of Communism (Russia/China) gave the world a divided Germany, Eastern Europe, North Korea and Cuba, to name a few cesspools. The US gave the world a reformed, reconstructed and prosperous W. Germany and Japan. The US has guaranteed Canadian safety for over 50 years. So, I repeat, US (good)/Iraq (USSR, etc) (bad). If we do the job right in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we did before, I don't think the locals will complain too much, at least in the near term.

I can support you in voicing a dissenting opinion, but it would help if you were right.

Later,

yaksun

Postscript to the above: And If it was, regrettably, a Coalition explosive that killed those civilians in the Baghdad marketplace, the fault lies with the man who put the military target there to begin with - with complete disregard for the safety of his own citizens.

y

Get him Darth - Sputnikoff is typical of the aletist, self loving, disadvantaged,brain mush, that wouldn't say half the things he does if someone had placed the barrel of a AK47 in his face. He is like one of those little birds that eats the ticks off the back of the hippo and then scurries off to hide in the tide pools to hide from larger predators.
A-typical liberal jerk and a freedom usurper. Never fought for freedom but thinks he has, because he calls America names and bashes the President. Wake up America these people are not our friends...Ignore them and they will run away.

STFU stands for Shut the [French] Up!

[Editor's Note: Okay...so it didn't say 'French'. It just had an "F" and some non-alpha characters. I assumed he meant 'French.']

Ah, that's kind of what I thought. Thanks for the education.

pss: Add South Korea to that list of nations the US helped out of the tank and into undreamed-of prosperity.

yaksun

Jim:

I liked your post. If you, or anyone else cares to, go to the article entitled: "Exclusive: As Long As it Takes". In it, the (other side) Arab News states:

"On camera, the general feeling among the crowd was sorrow at losing Saddam. OFF CAMERA, the citizens of Umm Qasr and Basra appeared GENUINELY EXHILERATED at the prospect of a brighter future, after Saddam had been removed. (emphasis added).

www.arabnews.com (28 March 2003).

fyi

yaksun

Scott I like that better. Thank you. So when a new york cabbie gets upset at another drive he says french you, or better he can say you french!

Jim,

to no.1) my Kelloggs comment had a question mark which implies even by American English standards that this was a question - meaning, it is not an assumption, it is a question.

to no.2)it is true, you didn't call me stupid, you just called my posts irrelevant and me a terrorist, etc. inpersonating everything evil on earth

to no.3) well since your search didn't return any results besides improvements, how could you find out that Canada was the only non 3rd world country where the life expectancy dropped if i may ask?

to no.4)
i get an error page when I try to go to the link from the Guardian.
here is a list with all civilian and military death in WW II
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
the numbers for the Soviet Union go from 13 to 28 million
for Germany from 4 to 8 milion (not including Austrian and Czech/sudeten german causalities of around 800.000)
the number of murdered Jews should be around 3 to 4 million (here is an interesting article from the Institut for historical review http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/A3.html )
So I find it interesting that the number of killed jews keeps adding a million every couple of years and we are now at around 8 million with still rising numbers. It was butcherie I agree, but capitalizing out of this forever with inflated numbers and a barrage of anti-semitic screams for even asking how the numbers add up is not a very truthful way either.

to no.5)
here is what you wrote: ' In this little skirmish, even Arab television shows most buildings intact, electircity working, people driving their cars around during the bombing'

I will take your first point of little skirmishes -
offical pentagon reports show:
600 cruise missiles and 4300 bombs dropped in six days ( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/27/1048653777798.html)
this according to mathematics should give at least a few thousand destroyed buildings and as far as I remember were even the TV stations bombed, because they weren't portraying the American view according to Colin Powell.
Also I wonder where you would put your anti-aircraft guns? outside of the city in plain field or maybe where you need it, inside the city?

Also I don't watch CNN, FOX, MSMBC here because Canada is actually still an independent country with it's own tv channels, and we consider all of those mentioned above US government channels. I watch BBC, CBC and Radio Canada and some European newpapers.

Ok, i agree you didn't mention you served, you mentioned army personal in your family. I have the opinion that I support Soldiers, the Army or any armed resistance if your country is attack and you act in pure self-defence. On the other hand i have never and will never support in any way and Soldier who fights a war of agression or is invading another country for the interests of the State, money or the self-serving purposes of a President. Every soldier has to search his conscience and has responsibilty for his actions also, they are not owned by the government or it's people. Various countries have as a constitutional right the right to refuse service in the face of an illegal war or war of agression. Maybe the US should add an article like this one also.

to no. 6) Now you sound like your government, maybe i should remind you why the US is in Iraq in the first place:
-to rid Saddam Hussein of his WMD
-to uphold UN resolutions

nothing less and nothing more - so let's see how your leader scores on this one:
- I haven't heard a word about WMD in the last few days, there have been none discovered nor used by the Iraqi forces. The scud-missiles report was disclaimed the day after and now all we hear is about removing Saddam Hussein, which was never endorsed by either congress nor the UN itself. Also all of a sudden there is a moral case for war - how nice, I couldn't find this part in any UN resolution either nor in the Authorization of force by Congress.

-all UN resolutions state that the purpose is disarment (and only of WMD). It doesn't mention to change the type of government or abolish the state of Iraq which was by the way a founding member of the United Nations. It also doesn't call for occupation and managing of the country by other states. If you read this out of any resolution than please show me this part or the protocoll from Congress which states this part.

Sputnikx

wow Darth Chef, I am impressed how swiftly and intellectually founded you showed your arguments. If STFU and changing my name to something not even remotely funny is all you can do than this is pretty lame and I feel pity for you.

Sputnikx

to Yaksun:

have you noticed that I haven't commented at all to the bombing of the Baghdad market. Since there is no clear proof who is responsible I am not going to jump in the propaganda war myself.
Yes I have noticed there are no refugees from Baghdad and Basra, but neither are there any from other cities or villages or the country site. It seems to me quite impossible to keep all the 24 million at bay.

Has anybody of you thought what you would do if the US were invaded by a foreign force? Would you all flee to Canada and Mexico or would you maybe defend your country? I am sure all of you on this board would also rather shoot your own country men who would want to flee than allow them to defect, because they are all traitors.

I can't believe none of you nor your government has put any thought into what Iraqis may think about having foreign troops occupying their country. This is very short-sighted and will return with full force in a bloody fight for each block of Baghdad and Basrah.

Also Yaksun, I am not defending Saddam Hussein, I don't understand why everybody keeps saying that. It is not pro Saddam equals against war - what logic is that?
This war was fought under the promise to find WMD and to uphold UN resolutions not about which regime Iraq should have. So don't change the rules and play by the facts.
And a moral case of war for peace is an oxymoron in itself, it's like raping for virginity!

Sputnikx

Well, Sput, regarding your post to Jim (excuse me Jim for butting in), one could convincingly argue that total disarmament of Iraq would never be possible so long as the current regime remains in power. So long as there is a Saddam there, there would always be a quest for WMD.

Also, I think the presence of 3000 chemical suits and antidotes leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Iraqi military was/is expecting to see the deployment of chemical weapons. Since the Coalition has not only pledged NO FIRST USE of WMD, and since the Brits today have verifed that there are no such Coalition weapons yet "in theater", that narrows down the list of combatants who might employ them. But don't take my word for it. Wait until it looks like Coalition forces are about to enter Baghdad.

And finally, even if there are no WMD there, it is unreasonable for you to carry on like Saddam is worthy of defending. In simple terms, he is a very bad man. I had questions about our going in, as you know. But I have never questioned the fact that the world, and Iraq, will be better for his demise. And you can mark this down for future reference, when it is done, and he is dead, there will be a great sigh of relief from many who are right now ripping the US from every forum.

Cordially,

yaksun

Sput:

I re-read your last post. Now, you are venturing into the realm of incredulity. Here are your words:

"Has anybody of you thought what you would do if the US were invaded by a foreign force? Would you all flee to Canada and Mexico or would you maybe defend your country? I am sure all of you on this board would also rather shoot your own country men
who would want to flee than allow them to defect, because they are all traitors."

First, comparing an invasion of the US to our invasion of Iraq is mixing apples and oranges. In less than 2 years, if the public doesn't like the job Bush has done, they will vote him out and he will have to leave office - whether he likes it or not. Only if he tried to retain power at gunpoint would your comparison be roughly equal. The unfortunate citizens of Iraq would have been stuck with Saddam not only him for life, but also likely with his sons thereafter.

Second, Saddam is a bad, evil man. George Bush, however I might disagree with him on certain issues, is not. He is not malevolant. He does not murder America's Olympic athletes for losing, he has never used poison gas on his own populous. He doesn't even wear a cheesy moustache.

Third, and this is where even I am starting to lose patience with you, the citizens of Basra being shot by their own countrymen were non-combatants: families, you now, men, women and children. They were fleeing in an attempt to try to save their own lives, and to escape brutal repression. They were not fleeing to take up arms. Just a few moments ago, CNN, yes biased old CNN, reports on the battle for An Nasiriya thusly:

"Iraqi paramilitaries are forcing citizens to volunteer their sons to fight...If (citizens) didn't (comply with the militia's orders), they said they would shoot a sibling," said Marine Capt. Peter Tabash, who speaks fluent Arabic. Tabash says a civilian told him Iraqi forces shot a 9-year old boy because his family refused to cooperate with paramilitary groups."

Despite their words and in some cases, gruff exteriors, I don't believe too many of our posters would ruthlessly execute 9-year old children for any reason. Even in defense of one's own nation, its simply better to have non-combatants out of the way. Yes, there is a degree of nationalism which is influencing the actions of some Iraqi citizens. But mainly it is the rank fear of having ones children shot. Your contention also fails to consider that many of the hard-core Iraqi fighters are beasts who know that when they lose, they will be held accountable for all the torture and killing they have committed. Therefore, they have little to lose in committing further atrocities to delay the final day of reckoning. This alone separates them from anyone on this board, or anyone else fighting for the noble cause of defending one's country. Your comparison is invalid. Therefore, there is no reason to further refute your contentions.

It is accepted as a given that you don't like the US. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't like war for moral reasons. Your attempts to equate the US government, its soldiers, and its ordinary citizens with the conduct of the war by Saddam is beneath your intelligence however. You would do better to save your other arguments for a more favorable occasion - like when we invade Canada. ;-) (Just kidding)

yaksun

Yaksun:

the invading US was a hypothetical question - I didn't name a country or a reason, I didn't equal you with Iraq other than how you would react if an invasion would occur, if you were willing to defend your country or if you would flee.

But anyways, this will be my last post on here. So for all of you who fear my world domination, you can go back to safely trashing liberal values without dissent and re-arranging the old and new world.

For you Yaksun, it was nice engaging in a conversation/argument with you, I enjoyed it a lot - you and Rob came actually up with some very good arguments.

Your last joke about invading Canada though, is not really a joke up here and people are openly talking about it (and I am not joking here). First war for oil, than war for water .. since you are running out of drinkable water fast down there.

I don't know if you as an American realize this but a lot of people around the world are scared that all your military might won't be used in a good way. If you want you can attack and annihilate every nation on this earth and from what I have seen so far from your current administration, I am anything else than reasured this won't happen.
Yes election is next year, but according to Rob, Congress gave up all it's power and it is the sole decision of George W. Bush to attack whoever he seems fit to keep the US safe and if this means getting access to drinking water I wouldn't be surprised to see your precice bombs falling on Montreal and Toronto soon.

I know that George W. Bush is just a stupid and easy to manipulate poor lad - thats why I consider the man behind everything, Donald Rumsfeld the most dangerous person on earth right now.
He would use an atomic bomb without twitching his eye and has nothing than utter disrespect for non-Americans.

So next time you turn on your TV and see Baghdad in flames, imagine this beeing my country, since you have been here already.

It is the Pandora's box George W. Bush/Rumsfeld opened which will ring in a new era for the world, but not one of peace and stability it will be one of fear, hate and disaster.

so take good care Yaksun and I hope you will do your utmost to stop the lunacy before it is too late.

Sputnikx

Yaksun
YOu are a gentleman. Thank you. Sputz asked if any of us had thought about what we would do if we were invaded. Yes sir, they would die.

Sput:

I understand. And as I keep telling you, relax. We're not like that. However, if I were Chretian, I still think I'd change my name to Smith, Jones,... or Blair. ;-)

Jim:

Thank you. And you are quite correct. They certainly would, unless the legislatures succeed in disarming the public.

Have a fine weekend

yaksun

Greyhawks Saturday Afternoon Cowboy Movie Matinee

Slim: Say, who was that feller, tex?

Tex: You mean the loud mouth one that would't listen to nobody, Slim?

Slim: Yep. He sure liked to hear hisself talkin...

Tex: Well, he never really introduced himself. His Go-by was "Sputkiss"...

Slim: Some folks just don't catch on too quick, do they? Shucks Tex, if'n he represents Canada's best 'n' brightest maybe it's a good thing they're a'sittin this one out...

Tex: Maybe so Slim. Maybe so. C'mon, podnah, we got mans work to do! (Tex enters his M1 while Slim boards an A10. Sun sets)

Bomb-a-deeda bomb-a-deeda bomb-a-deeda, happy trails to you, until we meeet again, happy trails to you, keep smilin until then...

It is Ooglay. Who is Sputnikx? I don't know but she sure likes talking. If palace women talks so much she gets beating with a stick no thikker then her master's thumb for kindness. Then she gets a divorcing and we stone her to death because she knows too much and is too big talking. This is not religeous it is just my brothers like to kill them that way. Once my glorious father in his mercy (may his kindness never fade) just shot one because he could not bear to kill her slow. I am guessing Sputnikx was on your side in war? Ooglay has no time to read her heathen postings...