Those who think the Iraq war was a good thing look away now.

Post by **Lardmaster** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:05 pm

http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/dep ... anium.html

The link says/funny/ but be warned this is anything but.

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:21 pm

i don't

ok, in response to this, this where are the pictures of people who tastest the sweet taste of mustard gas from u and michael moore's favorite saddam. wut about the torture chambers that saddam set up? the mass graves of 100's of 1000's of bodies... hmm... nice detective work... especially by jokaroo.com.... wow... well i guess more factual than dan rather.

Post by **Donut** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:40 pm

I think theres a reason that we keep politics out of WOK

http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/images/iraq_car22.jpg

Donut

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:20 am

Actually, Donut, global political -- especially the US=bad -- discussions used to happen every now and again on the Kaomaris boards. (It seemed to happen more often when our Irish friends were more involved in the game.) I remember quite a doozy a couple years ago ... which is probably why we haven't had another serious one since then.

I would like to briefly point out that while LM's subject title and SF's response had to do with the Iraq conflict in general, LM's link actually was specifically about the use of DU rounds. Here's a rather balanced and well-researched paper on the topic: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf

-Bryk

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:12 am

yes bryk that is an axcellent resource, i actually used that as my basis for a argument for debate. It was against the use of depleted uranium, my argument on this board is however, that without the use of this weapon, how many people would be slaughtered at the hands of saddam? i agree the affect of DU are negative, but i would rather take my chance with that, than saddam. also i am pretty much appalled by that video and scare tactic. it is like showing aborted babies saying abortion is wrong.

on a side note dan rather is retiring... i wonder if its because he was fabricating news stories??

*shrugs* oh well

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:31 am

LOL SF, what a load of cows manure.

Like the US wouldn't be able to defeat the almost non-existant Iraqi army without the du shells.

It's like throwing a nuclear bomb on them and saying well they're better off now than when Saddam was in charge.

Of course Saddam was a terrible person and did horrible things, but life for the Iraqi's now is worse of than it was under Saddam. I'm not saying that things won't improve in a couple of years time, but right now they're worse off. Plus of course they'll be econimically broke as the US is stealing all their resources by selling them off to their own corporations for peanuts. And the money that comes in doesn't even get used to rebuild...no it gets used to pay off their debt to 'friends of America'.

Basically Saddam would have to spend 20 more years in power killing people in order to get to the number of innocent civilian deads caused by the US bombing and murdering of innocent civilians.

I'm sure all those dead civilians and their relatives agree that they are very happy to see the US bomb their towns.

Post by **Lardmaster** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:20 pm

To be honest I was in favour of invading Iraq initially, that was becuase I (naively) believed what i was told by messrs Bush and Blair. However the reasons we were given, in the main WMD, was of course a total lie. Since then you have to ask yourself the question "is the world a better/safer place since we invaded Iraq?" and the answer I'm afriad has to be a resounding no.

If the argument is about removing a hideous dictator, and I have no hesitation at all in saying he deserves a long and tortuous death, then we have to ask what about all the other dictators in the world who are on a par with Saddam but are not oil rich? Zimbabwe, North Korea, Congo, the list goes on.

On a slightly separate note this is an intersting link (not the daily Mirror headline the bit below it)

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US ... IQ2004.htm

Oh and btw I put this in the chit chat thread as it says this is for all things non WOK.

Post by **Donut** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:41 pm

Saladin wrote:Like the US wouldn't be able to defeat the almost non-existant Iraqi army without the du shells.

I don't think that we used DU shells against Iraq... I think DU shells were a part of our military and would have been used regardless of where we went.

I'm curious why you believe that their lifes are worse off now than they were. I'm also curious as to who "Bush" is selling oil too, and how he got around OPEC? I'm actually very ignorant about the subject but I'm not one to go with unfactual based slander.

As for the WMD arguement. I don't think that Bush/Blair fabricated them by themselves. I would have to account the info to bad intel, and over-embelishment on the danger. I find it hard to imagine that they would completely fabricate WMD's just to gain support for their War, knowing full well that when we didn't find any... it'd be suicide.

I guess it petervs(sp?) me that the whole world is against the US when we act to help others, and then get ridiculed if we let something slide. I think that the war in Iraq was as much of an example to other countries, such as Iran and N. Korea, that we wouldn't sit by and don nothing... More progress has been made in Iran in the last few months than in a long time. N. Korea however is another story... I find it disturbing that they have made weapons without opposition from the rest of the world.

Donut

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:56 pm

And we're off!

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:56 pm

Donut wrote:I find it hard to imagine that they would completely fabricate WMD's just to gain support for their War, knowing full well that when we didn't find any... it'd be suicide.

Donut

Whether they did or didn't, half of our country didn't seem to care.

Obviously, as Bush got re-elected.

Post by **Lardmaster** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:35 pm

Donut, I am not saying that Bush is selling the oil to anyone. It is quite a complicated economic argument but Iraq were the 1st country in OPEC to receive their entire cash income from oil sales in Euros rather than dollars. As the dollar is getting weaker all the time that means that the US has to pay more and more for oil. (You are now nearly paying for a gallon what we in the UK pay for a litre but thats a different story!!). Now that the US has ousted Saddam and put in a "democratic" govt, they in effect have an extremely friendly Iraq and therefore a huge foot in the door of OPEC to discourage the other member countries from going the same way and even a reversal. Obviously its way more complicated but thats the nutshell. Here's an old but interesting link http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

As for WMD, the guy who's words Blair relied on in the UK is dead (alledged suicide). I have no idea where Bush got his info from. The ladybird book of WMD I assume :p

Just so's people know I am not trying to start a US bashing thread, (that would be too easy) the UK are just as guilty for this, we just don't have the ordanance anymore. We have just spent 700 million on some helicopters that can't fly

And the word you were after is perturbed.

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:18 pm

Ah... politics. Long time no bashing !

There are dozens of undisputed dictators in the world, and as long as they dont sit on one of the biggest oil reserve on earth the US doesnt give sh*t about them. Dont talk about "justice" or "eliminating a dictator regime" - the form of government hardly matters when the CIA looks to support a country (see Central/South America for example).

Along with it comes the fact that a war industry needs a good war every now and then to keep running, and the US has a nice history of being a wary nation. Helps also keep the troops in shape and is a good training centre as well as testground for new weapons. And using weapons means someone has to buy new ones., so keep using them

Last but not least the conservative christians like to see this as some modern crusade. Of course killing more people never helped decrease terrorism, but will rather provoque more reactions - but then diplomacy hardly has been Americas strong point. On 9/11 I proclaimed on these boards that I fear all this would end in a worldwide religiously motivated conflict, and I still have that growing fear. There are as many hardliners on one side then on the other.

The measurement for going at war nowadays is taken from an economical perspective and not from a moral point of view. Ethnological and religious conflicts just help feed the fire.

Post by **Egbert** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:28 pm

So, let me see if I have this straight..........

Since a lot of Iraqis are dying in a war which toppled an evil dictator and may result in a liberation of Iraq from the evil dictator's followers, we never should have started this in the first place. Hmmm.

Well, as I recall, a lot of Germans died in WWII. I guess we were wrong to try and oust Adolf Hitler from power.

After all, Saddam wouldn't have bothered any of the other countries, right? At least, not until he got hold of a nuclear weapon. And why should we care that he brutalized and tortured Iraqi people? It's not us, right?

TK · Post by TK » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:56 pm

Donut wrote:I find it hard to imagine that they would completely fabricate WMD's just to gain support for their War, knowing full well that when we didn't find any... it'd be suicide.

Suicide?

Bush was just re-elected...

TK · Post by TK » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:01 pm

Egbert wrote:Since a lot of Iraqis are dying in a war which toppled an evil dictator and may result in a liberation of Iraq from the evil dictator's followers, we never should have started this in the first place. Hmmm.

So you'll be lobbying Bush to invade all the other countries led by nasty men?

I will steal LM's list - Zimbabwe, North Korea, Congo...?

Interesting that you feel qualified to judge whether Iraqi lives are worth Iraqi "freedom".

If a load of Iraqis made attacks on the US to "topple Bush and make America a safer place", for YOUR "freedom", would you be happy about that?

Post by **Dameon** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:08 pm

Seriously, is the US the policeman of the world? To an extent, yes, but there's a very good reason we went to Iraq and not Congo when it came to picking a dictator to get rid of. That reason is, of course, oil. I'm not saying it was the only reason (Bush seems dumb enough to believe in the WMD crap he was being fed), but it realistically was a big one.

In any case the reason I am anti-Bush is his social pandering to those freaks on the religious right who think it's OK to deny minorities rights simply because they are different. People like that make me so mad! Moral values my ass, more like moral subjugation of people who don't agree to live the way that the Bible, acknowledged to be the greatest work of fiction ever written, dictates. Or at least, the way the religiuos right like to INTERPRET what the Bible has in it, they are famous for picking and choosing certain parts to justify their discrimination.

Anyway, here's one of my favorite sites that will hopefully help put some things in perspective, take a peek!

http://www.sorryeverybody.com

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:11 pm

48 < half... sorry all of you... 51 > half.... man, I should be the teacher around here!

Post by **Dameon** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:08 am

It's funny seeing Dubya's supporters use that argument NOW, when Dubya won the last election even after losing the popular vote. In any case, it doesn't matter all that much to me. Because of Dubya's No Child Left Behind I have decided to switch to teaching in a private school. I hate politicians deciding what's best for the educational community when they have had no training along those lines. More testing sucks. All Dubya is doing with NLCB is driving more qualified teachers into the arms of private schools. Then again, perhaps that was his goal all along?

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:34 am

gore got >50% of votes? no..... clinton? no... never once did i say the popular vote was for bush during the 2000 elections... but what this does prove, is that people noticed he is doign a good job, and more people came out and voted for him the second time. it is just the fanatical people like you Dameon that make the news... but hey, you're a teacher you're in a union, so i understand that every person around you is as fanatical as you, and that is your/their right, just try looking behind the headlines for once. It is teachers/professors like you that discourage me from continuing my education. for my views, my speech teacher has docked me many points/grade in class this year. my student evaluations are the best in the class whilst my professors are B- to a B this is what discourages me. now on the other hand i have one professor who has your same viewpoints, and we have political discussion every class but he does not try to persuade the members of the class towards his viewpoint, which is very admirable. I dont think i would be able to show the same restraint. but ANYWAYS, look to the fact Nick, bush has become more popular, won more votes and with a higher percentage than you coudl have imagined. with all the media against him, it is a wonder how he won.

Post by **Donut** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:06 am

Here's what I thought about when voting.

I agree with Bush on the war side: Do I think we should have gone over their in the first place... maybe not. That's not the point. We're there and we need to do things right while we are there. Getting up and leaving is not an option and the people that claim we need to get out of Iraq are about as inteligent as a brick.

I think Bush is an ass on social issues: I'm pretty much with Dameon here, he summed it up pretty well.

Economy: No way in hell can you blame 1 person for making the economy bad in 2 years (yes, 2 years. People have been losing jobs for 2 years now leaving dubya with only 2 years to destroy the economy). The economy is way bigger than 1 person giving tax cuts, raising pay, or almost anything else he can try.

That being said. I voted for Bush because I felt the most important thing is bringing troops home as soon as possible without completely messing up Iraq. I don't think Kerry could have (I point out the picture of him attempting to catch a football) done this. Social issues will be worked out over time dispite of who is in the presidency at this moment. Maybe I'm a naive teenager... but hey...

Donut