Let's get a debate going!

[erica_11_6]

First of all, I would like to thank Jason (or whoever had the idea) for setting up this forum. It's a great place for younger people to talk about politics, read the opinions of others and just receive education in general.

So, with that said, I'm going to give my opinion on the entire situation because I need to and no adults listen to me because I am just a young person. The straw dog is out in the street. (If that needs explaining let me know.)

I, in no way, support war. President Bush has never been to war and I don't think he can look at the prospect of war objectively. I am under the impression that President Bush is out to "get" Sadaam for kind of embarrassing his father. And also I think that President Bush realizes the opportunity of being in control of some of the world's largest oil fields. But is oil worth death? A resounding NO in my opinion. However, I am upset with members of the U.N. and especially France (but not upset enough to ever, ever call French fries "freedom" fries, which is another debate in itself). Sadaam clearly violated rules set by the U.N. That much is plain. Now, why is it suddenly up to the United States to enforce these rules? Sadaam violated set rules, now every country who agreed with these rules upon entering the U.N. should be left with the burden of what to do-not just the United States. But, my biggest opinion...NO WAR.

Any comments? Any debate?

[NOFXdesendents5]

it is good to see an asskisser lol.

there are a number of pacifists on here whom i respect, (zach or "evil_zach", and dep') and you are not one of them. your start that was the worst beggining i have ever heard.

am i prowar. how the fuck did Bush1. get embarrased in the gulf war? yeah, a victory over a huge power and liberation of an oppressed land in under a week (not counting air combat) sure is embarrasing huh?

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
First of all, I would like to thank Jason (or whoever had the idea) for setting up this forum. It's a great place for younger people to talk about politics, read the opinions of others and just receive education in general.

So, with that said, I'm going to give my opinion on the entire situation because I need to and no adults listen to me because I am just a young person. The straw dog is out in the street. (If that needs explaining let me know.)

I, in no way, support war. President Bush has never been to war and I don't think he can look at the prospect of war objectively. I am under the impression that President Bush is out to "get" Sadaam for kind of embarrassing his father. And also I think that President Bush realizes the opportunity of being in control of some of the world's largest oil fields. But is oil worth death? A resounding NO in my opinion. However, I am upset with members of the U.N. and especially France (but not upset enough to ever, ever call French fries "freedom" fries, which is another debate in itself). Sadaam clearly violated rules set by the U.N. That much is plain. Now, why is it suddenly up to the United States to enforce these rules? Sadaam violated set rules, now every country who agreed with these rules upon entering the U.N. should be left with the burden of what to do-not just the United States. But, my biggest opinion...NO WAR.

Any comments? Any debate?

Your impressions are very far fetched... its out there with those guys who believe UFOs landed in the New Mexico desert to probe humans.

Oil is not the reason we are going to war.

Bush Sr. Is not the reason we are going to war.

I am so glad you at least agree that Saddam has violated set rules... but you know what? he's been violating them for decades. Why war now you say? Because 9/11 happened- and we don't want it to happen again. The United States has taken a stance to attack terrorists and countries who help them.
Iraq is on that list.

Saddam could make this war go away.

But he's not.

So who's fault is it?

Bush's?

no.

[evil zach]

how many threads do we need on THE EXACT SAME TOPIC!!!???!!!

[savestheglory]

This war is not about oil. I don't understand why anybody would think this. Some reasons:

We have an airbase in Saudi Arabia and ground troops in Kuwait right now, why not declare victory, take their oil and go home? It's because we're not after the oil...

Name a country the United States has invaded an conquered in our history as a nation... Can't think of any? that's because we've never conquered a nation and we never will, we are not the world dominance kind of country...

This is not a pre-emptive strike either, this is a continuation of the gulf war (by certain war stipulations and rules), and even if there was no gulf war this would still not be a pre-emptive strike because we were directly attacked on september 11, 2001 so we're counter-striking terrorism (which is funded by saddam hussein)

Another thing: if you think it will kill too many people to go to war.... think of how many people will die if we DON'T go to war and saddam hussein used chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against us later? probably alot more than the few casualties we would suffer because we could vastly overpower him...

[therealhebm]

Originally posted by savestheglory

Name a country the United States has invaded an conquered in our history as a nation... Can't think of any? that's because we've never conquered a nation and we never will, we are not the world dominance kind of country...



ever heard of the phillipines, guam, samoa, or hawaii? not to mention that hugh chunk of mexico formerly known as california.

[savestheglory]

you guys are all wrong... we've never invaded and conquered any of those countries... "conquering" means destroying the country, claiming it as part of your own, and taking all of its naturaly resources... like if we were to "conquer" France, it would be called a "Us Territory" and we would have a branch of our democracy installed there and we would take all the natural resources... we've never done that to any country

[erica_11_6]

Cool, that's exactly what I wanted...everyone to get their opinions out and get debate going, even if no one agrees with me. But now I get a chance to defend myself. I'll try to argue what everyone said but I can't remember everything so here goes...

First, the oil thing. No, I don't think this war is completely about oil. I do, however, feel that President Bush has considered this. The United States quite possibly has the potential to control one of the world's largest oil fields (I believe the world's third largest). That means more money and more power. What leader doesn't want that for his or her country? Also, the United States uses what I believe is a third of the world's oil. It's quite undeniable that the Middle East has some control over us in that respect. Rapidly rising gas prices are direct evidence of this. (In New Mexico it's 2 damn dollars a gallon). No country wants another country to have so much control. Especially a country as powerful as the United States. Another reason I feel this is being considered is because, if we do go to war, it will almost be under the notion of pre-emptive strike. As far as I know, (and anyone is welcome to prove me wrong here) a war has never been fought under those conditions. And, let me say here, that, of course, I have no idea exactly what President Bush is thinking. These are simply opinions.
Now, let me explain what I meant by President Bush trying to justify his father's actions (or lack there of). 12 or so years ago Bush Sr. and his administration tried to oust Sadaam. That's a fact. They failed. That's another fact. I do believe that Bush Sr. definitely has considered this in his answer of going to war. And I do believe that President Bush has other reasons then what he tells the American public. He's trying to take care of father's unfinished business so to speak. And, hey, he's human. But let me stress again, that I, in no way, know exactly what President Bush is thinking. Let me also say that I, in no way, intend to disrespect the president of my country. I will never say anything like, "He's not my president." Because the truth is, he is my president and because of that I believe he deserves respect. I do not, however, feel that I always have to agree with him.
Let me also remind everyone that as of yet there is still no evidence that directly links Sadaam with the events of 9/11. Yes, there is evidence that Sadaam supports terrorism, but not that he contributed to 9/11. If anyone uses this as an excuse to go to war with Iraq I feel they are misinformed. That's another war. But, perhaps, I am misinformed. If anyone feels this way, give me some facts.
And basically I am against war. Period.
So, that is my defense. Strictly opinions backed up by some facts. But I want to say that I am open to everyone's opinion anyone proving me wrong with facts. Oh, and one more thing...I am not an ass kisser!:)
And I don't remember what that comment was about aliens in New Mexico. Let me just say that New Mexico is lame.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by erica_11_6

Now, let me explain what I meant by President Bush trying to justify his father's actions (or lack there of). 12 or so years ago Bush Sr. and his administration tried to oust Sadaam. That's a fact. They failed. That's another fact.


that is not a fact. the fact is, the gulf war was fought to liberate kuwait, the coalition had no intention of removing saddam or invading Iraq. it was a complete success. thats a fact.

[yeat182]

and secondly, the reason we are adopting a policy of "pre-emptive" strikes is because of 9/11. that day proved that we were no longer invunerable and that given that chance and oppurtiunity, people will try to destroy us. everyone bitched that we should've known about 9/11 before it happened and that we should have done something to prevent it, but now they don't seem to be concerned with protecting the people of this country and the world.

[NOFXdesendents5]

my man yeat182, always on the job.

[A_Moronic_youth]

I think you people have forgotten the enemy, it's Al Queda Saddam would never give Al Queda weapons of mass destruction because Iraq is a secular state.

Bombing Iraq is like saying 'Hmmm I hate icecream so I'm going to destroy the potato chip factory'

Fucking Ultra violent Republican morons

[yeat182]

saddam is lilterally a "psychopath", (read Why Nations Go To War), he would not hessitate to give WMD's to anyone if:

a) if they were going to be succesful in using them against the US

b) if he was desperate and had nothing to lose (like right now, since he knows his days are numbered)

[twinker brat]

Here's the war for you in words you'll understand. ;)


Saddam has been dicking this country around and around resolutions for over 10 years now. Bush has finally said to hell with this crap, let's actually DO SOMETHING about it.
Now we're doing something about it.

We can sit around all night as say that Saddam is an ass and needs to be eliminated. It won't make it happen any quicker then passing new resolutions out will. I don't like the idea of war, but I like the idea that my American President is ballsy enough to end the talking bullshit and start with the action. Fuck asking Saddam nicely to surrender his weapons and his power. Walk in, put a bullet in his head, and go.


People keep talking shit about Bush for doing this for his own personal reasons. Well, I ask those people to tell me what they'd do in his shoes. I doubt they'd last a week as a president.
The man is doing what he feels is right to protect the country he is responsible for. I praise his for his boldness on this issue, and I hope saddam is pissing his pants knowing that so many Americans are so close to him, and ready to take him out. Bush may not be the brightest star in the sky, but he's doing what needs to be done. That's a hell of a lot more then what can be said about some people.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by twinker brat
Here's the war for you in words you'll understand. ;)


Saddam has been dicking this country around and around resolutions for over 10 years now. Bush has finally said to hell with this crap, let's actually DO SOMETHING about it.
Now we're doing something about it.

We can sit around all night as say that Saddam is an ass and needs to be eliminated. It won't make it happen any quicker then passing new resolutions out will. I don't like the idea of war, but I like the idea that my American President is ballsy enough to end the talking bullshit and start with the action. Fuck asking Saddam nicely to surrender his weapons and his power. Walk in, put a bullet in his head, and go.


People keep talking shit about Bush for doing this for his own personal reasons. Well, I ask those people to tell me what they'd do in his shoes. I doubt they'd last a week as a president.
The man is doing what he feels is right to protect the country he is responsible for. I praise his for his boldness on this issue, and I hope saddam is pissing his pants knowing that so many Americans are so close to him, and ready to take him out. Bush may not be the brightest star in the sky, but he's doing what needs to be done. That's a hell of a lot more then what can be said about some people.
You are on my good list as well

[erica_11_6]

I definitely understand and somewhat agree with what all of you are saying. But the thought of war makes me sick and that's something I can't control. I can't control the fact that I am dead set against war. Some of you have made the comment that the Gulf War was a success and it was, to a certain extent. But many, many innocent Iraqi people were killed, not to mention the number of American lives taken. To me, that shows that the war wasn't a complete success. We need to understand that what the media shows has been somewhat sanitized. Of course they're not going to say just how badly America fucked up. Do the research...many innocent lives were lost in the Gulf War.
And, I forget who made the comment, but it is a fact that Bush Sr. wanted to oust Sadaam. He failed as far as that goes, plain and simple.
Does something need to be done about Sadaam? Most definitely. He's been called a modern day Hitler. He's a disgusting human being...my God, he gases his own people! But is war the answer? In my opinion, no. If we kill many innocent people it's almost exactly what Sadaam does. But what is the answer? Well, here's where I falter. I don't know. And until I can come up with a brilliant idea I'm sure many of you want me to shut the fuck up. I understand that. But please, don't chastise me for being anti-war. Like I said, I can't help my feelings.

[erica_11_6]

I just realized my signature is fucked up. Disregard the first "the truth."

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
I definitely understand and somewhat agree with what all of you are saying. But the thought of war makes me sick and that's something I can't control. I can't control the fact that I am dead set against war. Some of you have made the comment that the Gulf War was a success and it was, to a certain extent. But many, many innocent Iraqi people were killed, not to mention the number of American lives taken. To me, that shows that the war wasn't a complete success. We need to understand that what the media shows has been somewhat sanitized. Of course they're not going to say just how badly America fucked up. Do the research...many innocent lives were lost in the Gulf War.
And, I forget who made the comment, but it is a fact that Bush Sr. wanted to oust Sadaam. He failed as far as that goes, plain and simple.
Does something need to be done about Sadaam? Most definitely. He's been called a modern day Hitler. He's a disgusting human being...my God, he gases his own people! But is war the answer? In my opinion, no. If we kill many innocent people it's almost exactly what Sadaam does. But what is the answer? Well, here's where I falter. I don't know. And until I can come up with a brilliant idea I'm sure many of you want me to shut the fuck up. I understand that. But please, don't chastise me for being anti-war. Like I said, I can't help my feelings.

Well, You can be the first American Female to hug Saddam, I am sure he'd greatly appreciate it, and feel free to change his mind about developing WMD and to stop being such a meanie.

The Allied forces during the Gulf War killing innocent lives? Where'd ya hear that from? I think that might have been hard because they were liberating a country not invaiding it.

I can bet in the next few days after the US crosses Iraqi territory tonight, you'll see Iraqi people running up to American Troops with smiles and waving American Flags.

[SubtleAsABrick]

erica, will you stop saying george bush sr was embarassed, or beaten or anything like that in the gulf war. we destroyed them, and we had very few casualties, and although they lost many, it could have been avoided if saddam didnt invade Kuwait.

and how can you say we shouldnt go to war if you agree that saddam is evil and "a modern day hitler"

war is inevitable and saddam must be destroyed
the lives that will be lost are minimal compared with the lives that will be lost if saddam is allowed to stay in power and kill his own people

[erica_11_6]

I think I've been misunderstood. And that's probably my fault. In reading my old posts I see I've been somewhat contradicting. Where do I begin?
First with the Gulf War. Did we win the Gulf War? Most definitely. Bush Sr. accomplished so much with the Gulf War. That I'm not denying. The United States definitely did not "lose" the Gulf War. But, did Bush Sr. accomplish everything he wanted to? No, he did not. Sadaam is still in power and that was something he wanted to accomplish and failed. But I'm not taking anything away from Bush Sr. though.
What else? Oh, the comment about me wanting to hug Sadaam or whatever. Give me a fucking break, please. I have never, in any way, supported Sadaam. I'd be the first to shoot him in the head if I had the chance. He is entirely and completely evil. I am not against killing Sadaam. I am just against war and like I've said before, I can't help my feelings. The United States is so obviously superior in military power it's almost like, um, how can I say this? It's almost like we're the bullies, even if we have a good cause. (Shit, let the comments roll about that one.)
Let me also say that I am, in no way, anti-Bush. I have nothing but the upmost respect for that man. I believe he is handling the situation as best as anyone could. I couldn't imagine being in his shoes and have never questioned his motives. I've simply stated I am anti-war. I don't chastise anyone who is pro-war and I ask that you don't chastise me for not agreeing with many of you.
War is inevitable, this I understand completely.
In a related subject, what does everyone think about the Republicans calling french fries, freedom fries? It was the Republicans, correct?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
I think I've been misunderstood. And that's probably my fault. In reading my old posts I see I've been somewhat contradicting. Where do I begin?
First with the Gulf War. Did we win the Gulf War? Most definitely. Bush Sr. accomplished so much with the Gulf War. That I'm not denying. The United States definitely did not "lose" the Gulf War. But, did Bush Sr. accomplish everything he wanted to? No, he did not. Sadaam is still in power and that was something he wanted to accomplish and failed. But I'm not taking anything away from Bush Sr. though.
What else? Oh, the comment about me wanting to hug Sadaam or whatever. Give me a fucking break, please. I have never, in any way, supported Sadaam. I'd be the first to shoot him in the head if I had the chance. He is entirely and completely evil. I am not against killing Sadaam. I am just against war and like I've said before, I can't help my feelings. The United States is so obviously superior in military power it's almost like, um, how can I say this? It's almost like we're the bullies, even if we have a good cause. (Shit, let the comments roll about that one.)
Let me also say that I am, in no way, anti-Bush. I have nothing but the upmost respect for that man. I believe he is handling the situation as best as anyone could. I couldn't imagine being in his shoes and have never questioned his motives. I've simply stated I am anti-war. I don't chastise anyone who is pro-war and I ask that you don't chastise me for not agreeing with many of you.
War is inevitable, this I understand completely.
In a related subject, what does everyone think about the Republicans calling french fries, freedom fries? It was the Republicans, correct?


Bush Sr. never intended to get saddam in the gulf war, he accomplished everything he set out to do.

[DonnieDarko]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
I think I've been misunderstood. And that's probably my fault. In reading my old posts I see I've been somewhat contradicting. Where do I begin?
First with the Gulf War. Did we win the Gulf War? Most definitely. Bush Sr. accomplished so much with the Gulf War. That I'm not denying. The United States definitely did not "lose" the Gulf War. But, did Bush Sr. accomplish everything he wanted to? No, he did not. Sadaam is still in power and that was something he wanted to accomplish and failed. But I'm not taking anything away from Bush Sr. though.
What else? Oh, the comment about me wanting to hug Sadaam or whatever. Give me a fucking break, please. I have never, in any way, supported Sadaam. I'd be the first to shoot him in the head if I had the chance. He is entirely and completely evil. I am not against killing Sadaam. I am just against war and like I've said before, I can't help my feelings. The United States is so obviously superior in military power it's almost like, um, how can I say this? It's almost like we're the bullies, even if we have a good cause. (Shit, let the comments roll about that one.)
Let me also say that I am, in no way, anti-Bush. I have nothing but the upmost respect for that man. I believe he is handling the situation as best as anyone could. I couldn't imagine being in his shoes and have never questioned his motives. I've simply stated I am anti-war. I don't chastise anyone who is pro-war and I ask that you don't chastise me for not agreeing with many of you.
War is inevitable, this I understand completely.
In a related subject, what does everyone think about the Republicans calling french fries, freedom fries? It was the Republicans, correct?


WOW first intelligent post by a Pro-Bush person yet, thank you, this is all I ever wanted, i dont' care if people don't agree with me, all I want is for people to see both sides of the argument instead of spitting out american propaganda

a sincere thank you from me!

please keep posting, because you are one of the few people here with an opinion.

thanks again.

[Matthew]

1. Bush Sr. intended regime change when he attacked Iraq. He says that he didnt because he failed. What most people dont know is that the US Military was all poised to head into Baghdad and take out Saddam. We ordered withdrawal at the alst second. Bush was humiliated by this, and now his monkey of a son wnats revenge.

In my opinion, no war is a success. Anytime a nation must stoop to murder for any cause, a blow has been delt to humanity and civility.

[cornecopria]

nicely put

[yeat182]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
1. Bush Sr. intended regime change when he attacked Iraq. He says that he didnt because he failed. What most people dont know is that the US Military was all poised to head into Baghdad and take out Saddam. We ordered withdrawal at the alst second. Bush was humiliated by this, and now his monkey of a son wnats revenge.

In my opinion, no war is a success. Anytime a nation must stoop to murder for any cause, a blow has been delt to humanity and civility.

1. that isn't true, the UN coalition was formed for the express purpose of expelling the Iraqi army from Kuwait, which is why they stopped at the Iraqi border and no troops invaded Iraq. the troops were ready to head to baghdad because they had soundly defeated the Iraqi army and nothing stood in their way, yet that wasn't the goal, and the commanders ordered them to stop at the border. (read Why Nations Go To War)

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy

In my opinion, no war is a success. Anytime a nation must stoop to murder for any cause, a blow has been delt to humanity and civility.

You my friend have no idea what humanity and civility is if you believe your last comment.

[cornecopria]

Bush sr. wanted to get Sadam out of Iraq and that was the intent of the US led coalition. Bush Jr. is finishing what daddy started

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cornecopria
Bush sr. wanted to get Sadam out of Iraq and that was the intent of the US led coalition. Bush Jr. is finishing what daddy started


that isn't true. he would have liked to have gotten saddam with a cruise missle, but it wasn't the goal of the coalition.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cornecopria
Bush sr. wanted to get Sadam out of Iraq and that was the intent of the US led coalition. Bush Jr. is finishing what daddy started

Actually, and i know you must have a hard time with history, the real reason for the first gulf war was stopping IRAQ from taking control of more oil reserves.

[erica_11_6]

Finally I get some support. The bottom line is I am pro-Bush, but anti-war. That's contradicting and hypocritical, I know. I am pro-Bush simply because he is my president and I feel he deserves the upmost respect for that. He is handling the situation as best as anyone could. I am anti-war because I think more bad then good comes from war. Like I've said before, the United States is far superior in military power then most countries, especially those of the Middle East. Just in the attacks last night an Iraqi child was needlessly wounded. This is because of war. The fact that a child might die because the leader of his counrty is demented is beyond belief for me. It's completely unfair.
Kill Saddam, but don't kill his innocent people.
And we can go on and on about whether or not Bush Sr. intended to oust Saddam with the Gulf War. My belief is that getting rid of Saddam was one of his intentions and he, of course, failed. So of course now he's going to say that he didn't intend on ridding Saddam because he wants to save face. That's perfectly understandable from his side, but the fact still remains he did not accomplish all he set out to do and now, as someone else said, President Bush wants to finish daddy's business. That's not necessarily a bad motive, but I don't think it's a reason for innocent people to die.
I agree 100% with ScreamoEMOBoy. When a country stoops to war (essentially murder) it's like stooping down to the level of the Middle East.

How do I fix my signature?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
Finally I get some support. The bottom line is I am pro-Bush, but anti-war. That's contradicting and hypocritical, I know. I am pro-Bush simply because he is my president and I feel he deserves the upmost respect for that. He is handling the situation as best as anyone could. I am anti-war because I think more bad then good comes from war. Like I've said before, the United States is far superior in military power then most countries, especially those of the Middle East. Just in the attacks last night an Iraqi child was needlessly wounded. This is because of war. The fact that a child might die because the leader of his counrty is demented is beyond belief for me. It's completely unfair.
Kill Saddam, but don't kill his innocent people.
And we can go on and on about whether or not Bush Sr. intended to oust Saddam with the Gulf War. My belief is that getting rid of Saddam was one of his intentions and he, of course, failed. So of course now he's going to say that he didn't intend on ridding Saddam because he wants to save face. That's perfectly understandable from his side, but the fact still remains he did not accomplish all he set out to do and now, as someone else said, President Bush wants to finish daddy's business. That's not necessarily a bad motive, but I don't think it's a reason for innocent people to die.
I agree 100% with ScreamoEMOBoy. When a country stoops to war (essentially murder) it's like stooping down to the level of the Middle East.

How do I fix my signature?


you can be pro-bush and anti-war. that isn't hypocritical or anything, everyone has a right to say they don't like war, no one wants innocent people to die.

as for Bush Sr., he didn't fail in the gulf war, it was a complete success. it was well known, at the time, that he wasn't setting out to remove saddam. it has nothing to do with saving face, before the war began it was made clear what the objectives were, and removing saddam wasn't one of them.

[Love2Hate2Me]

Yes, we did win the Gulf War, but we didn't finish the job. That's why we're over there right now, and that's why we're going to do it right this time. So that we won't be in this situation again 10 or 15 years down the line.

And I in no way agree with that ignorant quote us stooping to war is like stooping to the level of the Middle East. War is necessary sometimes, and this case fits the bill. Saddam had so many chances to save his skin, but he just ignored us and tried to call our bluff. Too bad we weren't bluffing.

[erica_11_6]

Like I've said before, we can argue on and on about whether or not Bush Sr. intended to get rid of Saddam. Obviously we've all heard different information. But, in ten years, no one can say that Bush Jr. did not intend on getting rid of Saddam. No matter what our beliefs and opinions on the war are, I'm sure we all agree that we want Saddam out of power. How to do it is where we all disagree. But nothing anyone says is wrong or ignorant. It's important that everyone is open to the opinions of others, even if you don't agree.
I don't think my comment on stooping to the level of the Middle East was ignorant. I've said this way more than once, but I'll say it again (and probably again and again), the United States is far superior in military power then Iraq, or pretty much any country, is. To go to "war" with a country who does not stand a chance is wrong. Don't punish the innocent people of Iraq for their sick country leader. Don't call this a war with Iraq, call it a war against Saddam and his regime.
Last night President Bush said that every effort will be made to spare the lives a civilians. The death of civilians should not even be an option. Already an innocent child has been wounded. I don't care what Saddam has done, the fact that a child may for this die is unacceptable to me.

[erica_11_6]

Also, does anyone want to share their opinion on calling french fires freedom fries? Personally I think it's the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Yeah, the French screwed up and fucked us over, but in the end, do we need the French? We have a lot of power and I doubt the French could contribute anything that another country couldn't. Be mad at the French if you want, but changing the name of fries is just...immature.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
Also, does anyone want to share their opinion on calling french fires freedom fries? Personally I think it's the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Yeah, the French screwed up and fucked us over, but in the end, do we need the French? We have a lot of power and I doubt the French could contribute anything that another country couldn't. Be mad at the French if you want, but changing the name of fries is just...immature.

WOW two in a row, i totally agree, the french could have added nothing, although over the past two days there tring to change there stance on the war, so that when all there dealings with Iraq come out, after the war, they might not look so bad.

ANd freedom fries is the dumb thing ever........that really hurts them, ive been to France and out side of american resturants (mcd's bk ect) they dont even have fries. But i do think a boycot on french goods and tourism would be a good thing, they fucked us over for there own good so now i think we should fuck them over for our own good. Americans spent near a billion dollars on tourism to france last year, i hope this yr that number goes as low as possible.

[VinnyVegas]

I think that war should be avoided at all costs and as an American I think that the government has done the best job that they could under the circumstances. The only thing that pisses me off is the fact that all of these people are protesting something that they really don't understand. People are protesting just for the sake of protesting, which is ridiculous. Most of these people are uneducated and they haven't experienced war first hand. I lived in highly racist portion of the South Bronx, New York for the first thirteen years of my life and believe me it isn't fun being shot at. In short if you don't like what this country is doing, MOVE TO FUCKING BAGHDAD!

[evil zach]

Ignorant beyond beliefe

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by VinnyVegas
I think that war should be avoided at all costs and as an American I think that the government has done the best job that they could under the circumstances. The only thing that pisses me off is the fact that all of these people are protesting something that they really don't understand. People are protesting just for the sake of protesting, which is ridiculous. Most of these people are uneducated and they haven't experienced war first hand. I lived in highly racist portion of the South Bronx, New York for the first thirteen years of my life and believe me it isn't fun being shot at. In short if you don't like what this country is doing, MOVE TO FUCKING BAGHDAD!

I think that is a very bad arguement, " if you dont like this country move." I personally wasn't happy when clinton was president but i had no intentions of leaving.

As for the most of the protesters being uninformed or just doing it cause its cool or they just really hate bush and would rather have people suffer then to see bush prosper politically, ill agree with that. But i dont think you can group them all that way, some are very smart and well educated (but Micheal More is not one of them!!!!!!), and make decent points.

[yeat182]

the problem with the protesters is that they are drawing police away from their jobs, and especially now that we are at an orange alert, they are endangering the lives of the people in their community, if they block streets and tie up traffic, then ambulances and fire trucks can't get through, and again, the won't be able to respond quickly to an emergency.

[Jim Morgan]

the protesters just go too far sometimes, and some people just dont take it. they laid down right infront of a truck, and the truck just ran them over (real tv)

[erica_11_6]

Justin_stacy, I like how you think.

Anyway, I agree with all the comments about the protestors. It's okay to have an opinion but all the protests I've heard about have just gone too far. For example, in Tucson there was a protest and they threw eggs at the cars that had American flags on them which is just ridiculous and in Albuquerque they blocked a bunch of traffic and like someone said drew all the police to them and Albuquerque is a city with one of the highest crime rates per capita in the U.S. The police should not have had to deal with the protestors.
And honestly I don't think protests really help with the government's decision. It's just something that breeds fights and riots.

[erica_11_6]

Originally posted by evil zach
Ignorant beyond beliefe


How can you say that?

[VinnyVegas]

Originally posted by evil zach
Ignorant beyond beliefe

I'm the ignorant person? I believe you're the one who called yourself an anarchist in some other thread. In theory you could be considered a terrorist yourself because the second definition of anarchism in Webster's dictionary is: resistance, sometimes by terrorism, to organized government. Maybe you should actually research things before you go and attach your name to their beliefs and ideologies.

[evil zach]

I have reserched it fucker. Anarchists ABHOR violence. If you want some sources other then a dictionary for YOU to reserch Anarchy, I'd be more then happy to provide you with some.

That psot just proved your ignorance. First you use the ol' "If you don't like it leave" line (I suppose all the colonists should have left during the 1760's and 1770's then,) and then you call me a terrorist because I beliebe in a political theory you can't even comprehend. Resiting against organized government is terrorism? Then I gess The continetal congress was a terrorist organizatin and the delcaration of indipendance was their manifesto.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by VinnyVegas
I'm the ignorant person? I believe you're the one who called yourself an anarchist in some other thread. In theory you could be considered a terrorist yourself because the second definition of anarchism in Webster's dictionary is: resistance, sometimes by terrorism, to organized government. Maybe you should actually research things before you go and attach your name to their beliefs and ideologies.

Oh my god Zach going to go off on you, i think im going to leave the room! Shock and Awe coming your way.

[evil zach]

do you mean that in a good way or a bad way?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by evil zach
do you mean that in a good way or a bad way?

? i dont know but i'm scared either way. I think that hole "go research something" was quite the dis, i'd let him have it if i was you.

[evil zach]

I laready went at him. its on the page befor this one of you missed it.

[unopinionated]

in my opinion of war, i havnt seen much of a war

WW2 was a war, many people were killed on both sides, etc

but so far i have only seen our forces bombing military targets and going after suddam. our forces havnt been killed yet in combat and there are iraqi soldiers surrendering by the thousands. the civilian casualties for a war or very low and the people we are liberating are thanking us greatly(like the man who started stompong the pic of suddam hussein)...so i dont really see how this so called war so far has been bad, or even really a war

[VinnyVegas]

Originally posted by evil zach
I have reserched it fucker. Anarchists ABHOR violence. If you want some sources other then a dictionary for YOU to reserch Anarchy, I'd be more then happy to provide you with some.


I think that I'll pass on that offer, simply because Anarchism is the most absurd political movement ever created. If you haven't noticed no one takes anarchists seriously. I feel bad for you because you try so hard to be anti-everything in an attemt to be cool. One day when you grow and move out of your little fantasy world you will realize the necessity of a democratic government. Oh, and by the way the dictionary is a great source of information, you should take a look at one some day.

[erica_11_6]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Oh my god Zach going to go off on you, i think im going to leave the room! Shock and Awe coming your way.

That shock and awe comment was funny.

[evil zach]

I think that I'll pass on that offer
surprise surprise.
I think that I'll pass on that offer, simply because Anarchism is the most absurd political movement ever created.
If you are going to critisize a movement you should atleast have some knowledge of it. And no, a dictionary definition dosn't count.
If you haven't noticed no one takes anarchists seriously.
I guess that why Emma Goldman was exiled form the US. Because nobody took her serously and she wasn't seen as a threat to the US government.
I feel bad for you because you try so hard to be anti-everything in an attemt to be cool.
Your joking, right?
One day when you grow and move out of your little fantasy world you will realize the necessity of a democratic government
Maybe, but on the same token I could say that one day when you grow and listen to other ideas because you want to learn about them, and then make up your mind, you will be an anarchist.
Oh, and by the way the dictionary is a great source of information, you should take a look at one some day.
WRONG! A dictionary only gives definitions. They don't provide the theory behind it.

[erica_11_6]

Actually, evil zach, I'm kind of curious about anarchists. I've never really understood what it was all about. Can you give me just a brief, um, summary or something?

[evil zach]

thats kinda tricky. I can give you some links though, and if you have any specific questions i can try to answere them, but I tried to write a briefe summary for my english class and it was over 5 pages long.

[erica_11_6]

yeah, zach, just one link would be cool. Thanks.

[evil zach]

I'll PM it to you, unless anybody else wants it too.

[emomakesmecry]

First off, I would like to acknowledge the fact that your post was well thought out, and you are very dedicated to your beliefs. On the other hand, I highly disagree with you. Bush gave Sadaam 48 hours to come forward, and obviously, he did not. The war was not only Bush's decision, but Sadaam did not do anything to stop him. Also, being the president and going to war is in no way related to Bush's ego. That was an ignorant comment. Bush is trying to protect the United States, liberals included. Also, September 11 was directly related to Osama Bin Laden, and Sadaam came forward after that incident. He obviously thought killing thousands of Americans was not a bad thing. Sometimes you need to look at things from a different angle.

[evil zach]

who was that directed at?

[erica_11_6]

Originally posted by emomakesmecry
First off, I would like to acknowledge the fact that your post was well thought out, and you are very dedicated to your beliefs. On the other hand, I highly disagree with you. Bush gave Sadaam 48 hours to come forward, and obviously, he did not. The war was not only Bush's decision, but Sadaam did not do anything to stop him. Also, being the president and going to war is in no way related to Bush's ego. That was an ignorant comment. Bush is trying to protect the United States, liberals included. Also, September 11 was directly related to Osama Bin Laden, and Sadaam came forward after that incident. He obviously thought killing thousands of Americans was not a bad thing. Sometimes you need to look at things from a different angle.


Who are you talking to? Me?

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
Actually, evil zach, I'm kind of curious about anarchists. I've never really understood what it was all about. Can you give me just a brief, um, summary or something?

No established government

People living without fear

People care for each other and provide for each other.

It's more or less a utopian society that human kind will eventaully reach in their evolution, that is assuming we make it out of WWIII that Bush just started.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
No established government

People living without fear

People care for each other and provide for each other.

It's more or less a utopian society that human kind will eventaully reach in their evolution, that is assuming we make it out of WWIII that Bush just started.
Man your WWIII has been a let down so far man. How many countries involved?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
No established government

People living without fear

People care for each other and provide for each other.

It's more or less a utopian society that human kind will eventaully reach in their evolution, that is assuming we make it out of WWIII that Bush just started.

I've seen the anacharist on the streets of SF and if anything they try to force people to live in fear.


And they dont really try to help each other out, they try to cause people damage, and for the most part they seem to care only about themselves.

[evil zach]

We've already talked about this, I think
any way, they could have been a black bloc.

[erica_11_6]

I'm so sheltered in my little New Mexico town. Forgive my ignorance, please, but how does the anarchist movement (right choice of words?) feel about belief in God? Thanks, evil zach, for those links. I've read most of it.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
I'm so sheltered in my little New Mexico town. Forgive my ignorance, please, but how does the anarchist movement (right choice of words?) feel about belief in God? Thanks, evil zach, for those links. I've read most of it.
Anarchists can hope for world anarchy, but it wont happen. It does sound nice, not having to deal with taxes or stuff like that, but it will never happen. I have a better chance of banging Britney Spears than anarchy ever happening.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Anarchists can hope for world anarchy, but it wont happen. It does sound nice, not having to deal with taxes or stuff like that, but it will never happen. I have a better chance of banging Britney Spears than anarchy ever happening.

You need a penis for that.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
You need a penis for that.
You are fuckin hillarious

[evil zach]

Originally posted by erica_11_6
I'm so sheltered in my little New Mexico town. Forgive my ignorance, please, but how does the anarchist movement (right choice of words?) feel about belief in God? Thanks, evil zach, for those links. I've read most of it.
Generally, most anarchists are atheists, but the great thing about anarchy, is that you can belive what ever you want to. One of the main principle (I think thats the word I want) is that it is morally worng to try and make sombody believe the same things as you. You can try and teach them about your belifes, but in the end, you have to acsept and respect them. That includes a beilife in god, buddah, allah, vishnue, or whoever. There are even some anarcho-christain organiazatins, sorry i can't think of any right now.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
Generally, most anarchists are atheists, but the great thing about anarchy, is that you can belive what ever you want to. One of the main principle (I think thats the word I want) is that it is morally worng to try and make sombody believe the same things as you. You can try and teach them about your belifes, but in the end, you have to acsept and respect them. That includes a beilife in god, buddah, allah, vishnue, or whoever. There are even some anarcho-christain organiazatins, sorry i can't think of any right now.

not to sound like a dick, but then wouldn't you have to accept the fact that most people don't buy into the whole idea of anarchy?

[evil zach]

yeah, thats true, and I have accepted it. Right now the main goal of anarchists is to try and educate people about anarchism.

[yeat182]

cool

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
yeah, thats true, and I have accepted it. Right now the main goal of anarchists is to try and educate people about anarchism.
you are not as dumb as i think, nor as ignorant as i thought. you are a good man zach, different opinions than i have, but i respect your opinions