Personal rant...

[Iron Chef]

Well, this just plain sux... Here we are on the brink of war and as an American citizen who has voted in every major election and considers himself very vocal on certain issues, I am powerless to do anything except sit idly by and watch the downward spiral...

Don't get me wrong, I am as patriotic as "mom's apple pie and the game of baseball" so to speak, but the issue here is not one of patriotism-rather it is one of our current administration carrying out it's own personal agenda all in the name of safety and security despite mass public outcry (myself included).

It's really quite depressing actually from my side of the fence so to speak to watch this whole episode unfurl before my very eyes. From the constant French-bashing because of their dissenting opinion to the "Let's go kick Saddam's arse!" sentiment so many uninformed fellow Americans seem to be expressing lately, things can only get worse...

Oh well, i've said my peace and I thank you for bearing with me. Just wanted to vent a little before the pay-per-view like coverage frenzy begins of America's next great blunder.

Note: The following pic shows a demonstration in my hometown recently. Despite the obviously inclement weather, we still had just over 200 people show up that day. It was a great show of solidarity that day and we were glad for the blizzard-like conditions because it only further demonstrated the strength of our convictions. Anyone can demonstrate indoors or during summerlike temperatures but try protesting in that weather. 8-p

[thomas]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Gus. I know that a lot of Americans do not support their administration in this regard, and it's sad to see that peace supporters are denounced as being "unpatriotic".

I really don't understand the French-bashing ("Freedom fries"), as France's stance towards the intervention in Iraq gave the war alliance exactly the excuse they needed to attack without further a-do, namely without UN support (thus seriously damaging the role of the UN in future - besides, there are other countries ignoring UN resolutions since decades without serious consequences). I also doubt that the U.S. administration aims at ensuring security and safety (although I'm sure Mr. Bush believes that). Oil, military-industrial complex, global hegemony, crusade for peace and freedom, well, whatever! Probably it would have been more patriotic to focus on urgent domestic issues such as unemployment, social welfare, environment - but heck, is there anything more beautiful than the coloured chains of anti-aircraft fire in the nightly skies over Baghdad?

Thanks for letting me rant too, lol. Who could ignore a message like the one below?

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/photospecials/0303/antiwar/images/01.jpg

[Iron Chef]

LOL Now THAT is what I call a protest, sign me up!!! 8-p

Yeah, your're absolutely right about the current administration's lack of focus on domestic affairs. Granted, Bush has an already shaky history re: his environmental policies yet aside from the recent 24/7 Elizabeth Smart coverage (which has all but dwindled), there has been very little in coverage except for discussions of terrorism here on the homefront and bringing the war to Saddam. It saddens me to know that soon we will have to deal with inevitable fallout from this course of action and needless to say it won't be a pretty sight... 8-( At any rate, good to vent once in a while even if in the grand scheme of things it accounts for very little. Thanx for that great pic too lol. If we could orchestrate something like that here, i'm sure we'd have a MUCH higher turnout 8-p

[den4]

hee hee hee.....people still having the delusion that their votes really have an effect, when both parties spend more time fighting each other than actually passing policies for the nation...this is not to poke fun at any person, but the one fact is, in the US, people vigorously attempt to cure the symptoms rather than finding the solution to the actual problem...and people are pacified by watching tv, where the intelligence level of the shows continual its slide into the abyss on an hourly basis.. :D well, ok...talk show radio does an even better job bringing out the morons that attempt to comment against the radio show host who is always in charge of them shows with a push of the "hang up" button....

in a lighter vein of the modern comedy of errors, check out these sites to lower your blood pressure... :D

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46223
http://titaniumcounter.com/temp/emergency/

and, Iron Chef, before you go back to the Kitchen Stadium, perhaps you should check these out, too.... :P

http://winstars.free.fr/english/bush.html

personally, I don't think much of any of the previous administrations since the last century....especially within the last 4 decades, where partisan politics appear to be the job, and handling actual issues is just an appetizer, to be nibbled at with feigned interest, then tossed aside and ignored as the main dish of political bickering arrives....then collect their daily salary for a hard day's work at doing absolutely nothing useful....least of all their real job... :D

but that's my take on that issue.. :D

it's to laugh, as Daffy Duck used to say....

[Iron Chef]

Heheheheh... those links are great but that last site with the mock-up posters and photos is absolutely hilarious! I haven't laughed out loud like that in some time heh. Thnx for the great links, it's just what I needed 8-)

[den4]

no prob...dude...amazing what people come up with when they have too much time.....

[Vicidian]

Yes, war sucks. Something you should all be admiting to yourself is Saddam has brought on this war. Twelve years of evading UN reolutions; twelve years of deciet; twelve years of a growing threat. Granted I'm as ignorant as any other average Joe in the world, I feel I have enough information to form a genuine opinion.

The French have been cowards for a long time. Which is quite amazing considering their earlier history. They used to be great fighters. Something changed in teh WW era, though. Now, they are not just cowards, but also liars and morons. They have commercial ties with Saddam, and they are responsible for giving Iraq their first nuclear abilities. That is what the deal with bashing them is.

[Iron Chef]

C'mon man... labelling the French "cowards, liars, and morons" across the board simply because they don't agree with the current course of action is a bit crass don't you think? I try to stay away from using such broad generalizing statements as they tend to be a slippery slope often leading to further inflammatory statements. And although we may disagree on what the proper course of action should be in this case, I don't think it's constructive to resort to name-calling. At any rate, everyone is entitled to their own opinion--that's the beauty of free speech. 8-p

[thomas]

Originally posted by Vicidian
The French have been cowards for a long time. Which is quite amazing considering their earlier history. They used to be great fighters. Something changed in teh WW era, though. Now, they are not just cowards, but also liars and *****s. They have commercial ties with Saddam, and they are responsible for giving Iraq their first nuclear abilities. That is what the deal with bashing them is.

I'd also plead for refraining from generalisations and strong words. If favouring peaceful resolutions over military aggression is considered cowardice, then I'm guilty of being a coward too. As for commercial and military contacts, support for dictatorships and global subversion: I suggest we better avoid getting into a "quid pro quo" game here.

[Vicidian]

No, I wouldn't generalize you as a *****. There has to come a time when you realize that somone is not going to follow in diplomatic resolutions. I too prefer peace to war, but this is one time peace won't protect anyone.

When I say the "French," I mean their government. Saddam and his son Uday have both threatened (and now attacked) other American allies who have no troops commited in this war. He's threatened to use biological warrfare and the French think "He has no WoMD." Then in the last minute they say they'll help, but only after some of the most deadly weapons have been used. If that isn't cowardice, the word has no meaning.

So, if we didn't start this war Saddam's stockpile would just grow. The only reason UN inspectors thought that it was working was because Saddam has much more experience hiding then they do finding.

And also, for those who think I just hate people whodon't support this war, you're wrong. I may have lost respect for other nations, but I have hated the French(gov) for a long time. Notice how they are the only ones I "bash."

[kirei_na_me]

To any of you that think George Dubya and the rest of his gang are just regular good guys, I just hate to tell you, but they're not. This war is about greed and nothing more. It's about protecting our main interest there--oil. That's all it is. Why can't anyone see that? We think we can overpower everyone. What gives us that right, anyway? Don't you think it's a waste of precious human life to go over there and die for oil? It's not about gaining freedom.

And the French are cowards because they want to abide by the UN's rules? Americans have never known suffering. We have never seen a war on the mainland United States(9/11 does not count and it can't be compared to the American Revolution or Civil War, either). We haven't seen our cities leveled by fire bombs and we haven't seen thousands of our innocent children killed like most of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have. That's why we think nothing of going over to some tiny country(compared to us) like Iraq and blowing them to smithereens.

I don't know why I'm taking the time to post this, because it's really pointless.

Just know that there's another American that absolutely does not agree with this war.

[den4]

What time is it?
it's time for:
http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf

also, I think our mass media and certain vendors and representatives have gone overboard in renaming french fries to freedom fries, french toast to freedom toast.....etc.....what? Are we now gonna rename the Statue of Liberty to Statue of Freedom, just because the French made it and gave it to us? This trend is stupid.....people need to chill out on this bashing thing....just makes us look stoopid in the international community (may not affect us immediately, but as economical ties progress in the future, would you do business with some raging, ranting ***** that will change your product name just because your government fails to live up to your expectation?) As they say in Japan, in some proverb that probably came from China, "To lose your cool now will cost you later...."

I agree that saddam needs to get taken out, just like the other bastard, ol' Kimmy Jong ill-in-da-head, but bashing potential allies isn't cool, and is bad form, regardless of our personal feelings about it....The Frenchies do have problems, but scapegoating them as the source of all problems is pathetically petty and does not become a nation that wants to promote freedom and democracy. Yes, the Frenchies have done some dumb things, but like most dumb people, their views should be taken into consideration and disregarded, and this name calling needs to stop because we're better than that.... :D

[Vicidian]

Kirei, it's called propaganda. Your minds have been affected by it from Liberals and Conservatives. You don't KNOW that this war is about oil. Truth is, you don't know much of anything as to the polictical motives of this war. Same for me. However, I feel so amazingly strong about this war being righteous. I am an American, and I am a Texan. I've met President Bush several times while he was still our governor. I do not see that man disobeying the U.N. security council, risking the lives of his own troops and the Iraqi civilians for oil. For one, if this was about his own personal motives he wouldn't have started this war. You know how many more people hate him?

[Iron Chef]

"...I feel so amazingly strong about this war being righteous. "

Hmm... slippery slope indeed. That's a very dangerous attitude to adopt don't you think? Human history has proven this time and again in various conflicts throughout the world. At any rate, I did not start this thread to "justify" why we should or should not go to war with Iraq. Rather, my point was to simply express my frustrations that in this day and age when diplomacy fails we inevitably resort to military aggression and as an American with a dissenting opinion I feel powerless in the process (despite my best efforts). The issues involved here are certainly not black and white and could be probably be debated ad nauseum but I get enough of that just watching the 24/7 news coverage now. 8-p

[Vicidian]

That's a very dangerous attitude to adopt don't you think? Human history has proven this time and again in various conflicts throughout the world.History has also proven it to be the only attitude to adobt at times.

Anyway, I expressed my opinions of the French and why they were being bashed. Someone brought the war into this and i felt a need to defend Bush.

[Twisted]

Originally posted by Vicidian
History has also proven it to be the only attitude to adobt at times.

Apparently, history has taught us nothing... :(

[thomas]

Since the dawn of mankind the caveman with the biggest club had the final say, no matter what had been previously decided by the United Caves or by international caveman law. I just decided to boycott Caveman News Network reports until the show is over and withdraw into my secluded cave. Hail to the Flintstones.

[Chipi]

This whole USA-Iraq-France thing makes me (and I believe also my fellow people here in Finland) so unbelievably angry and frustrated. I canｴt believe what Iｴm hearing and seeing- can people still really be this _stupid_? And, at the same time I know that human is the most stupid thing ever invented.
Iｴm happy that thereｴs still some reasonable americans (such as Iron Chef based on his comments), for if there wasnｴt, the hatred against USA would be inormous...
For now I myself donｴt judge the citizens of america, but I do "judge" Bush, and his government...However, I do wonder, do Americans really think of Bush as an excellent president and a good leader? He might be a nice guy in person, but Iｴm sorry to say, his impression on tv etc. is everything else.I wouldnｴt want him to be my leader, on any price.. (donｴt kill me for this, pleaseplease :))

[mdchachi]

My two yen:

You don't KNOW that this war is about oil. Truth is, you don't know much of anything as to the polictical motives of this war.

Yes, we don't know. We do however know that there has been many despotic dictators in the world -- in the past and currently. We also know that the U.S. generally turns a blind eye to genocide and evil regimes in places where they have no economic interests. One doesn't need to believe in UFO's or conspiracies to see that oil plays a not insignificant role here.

However we also have to recognize that the situation is different in the sense that after 9/11 the U.S. feels more vulnerable to dictators and terrorists who would like to see us harmed.

My own belief is that Bush feels that this is the right thing to do -- to neutralize a threat to the U.S. and liberate the Iraqi people. PLUS, hey, if he and his friends can get some nice oil contracts out of it too then it's a win-win-win situation.

After the war is over and if/when we see Iraqis rejoicing in the streets on TV and as Iraqi scientists reveal the weapons programs they were secretly working on, I believe world opinion (at least in the Western world) will quickly shift. I just hope we can pull it off.

As for France, I think it's important to recognize that France's actions have nothing to do with following a higher moral path. It is simply in the government's interest domestically and economically to oppose the U.S. and keep the status quo. Many leaders including Bush would probably do the same were they in their shoes. I also think this business of renaming french fries and french toast clearly shows how really, really useless and ignorant some of our lawmakers are. Especially considering that they are doing France a favor because french fries are not something the French want to be associated with in the first place.

I do wonder, do Americans really think of Bush as an excellent president and a good leader?

Most Americans are apathetic and ambivalent about Bush and politics in general. When he was elected, 24.1% voted for Bush, 24.4% voted for Gore, 1.9% voted for somebody else and roughly 49.6% didn't vote at all*. I suspect the numbers wouldn't be all that much different today. Same goes for the war. Yes you see protestors on TV and you see other people claiming that it's a "righteous" war; as sad as it may sound I believe most people don't believe strongly one way or the other. I think it's a failure on Bush's part that he couldn't resolve this issue diplomatically. But, then, Clinton couldn't either.

For one, if this was about his own personal motives he wouldn't have started this war.

I definitely disagree with this. History is full of examples of leaders making decisions based on their own personal agenda. Doing something for the good of the people or the world is the exception. Why would anybody care how many people hate them if they could redeem their father's mistakes and enrich themselves and all of their friends. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily the case but I don't discount the possibility.


* election numbers from http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

[den4]

I am just hoping this isn't being made into a holy war, where some radical Christian right, wanting to make sure of self-fulfilling prophecies, isn't trying to tweak current events to make sure their vision of the coming days follows "their" version of how the world will turn out. This is not a bashing against Christianity, but I do have problems with any radical extremist group that believes in their delusion that they are acting on behalf of God, when their actions closely fit better with the Evil Ones.....and by radical extremist religious groups, scenes from the aftermath of Jonestown, Waco, Texas, the subway in Tokyo and all the doomsday cult groups come to mind....
Before Bush supporters get on their soap boxes, I did not say that Bush, himself, believes in this, but from hearing the rants on the various radio talk shows (possibly a pressure valve for the folks that believe the talk show host isn't manipulating the audience, so they can rant and rave their opinions for pro or con of various topics, usually with the quality of the tabloids---for those in other countries that don't enjoy these "quality" shows), the conservatives do seem to believe it is the will of God that Saddam is taken down, and the liberals, well, they have their usual rants, too...

so, I also do believe that the oil is merely a good focus point for the media, but the agenda appears to be different.....

of course, as with all things shown in the media, from around the world, it is difficult to know what is going on these days....I suppose we'll all read about it in the years to come after the victors write their version of history.... :D

[den4]

wonderful run-on sentences, yes? :D

[kirei_na_me]

I agree with you, den4. Even though I do still believe the war is mostly about money/oil and revenge, I still think it has something to do with Christians believing their way is the only way, too. And not only Christians, of course. I mean, so many wars have been fought in the name of religion, right? It's just so ironic and hypocritical. Another thing that most people just can't seem to think about and understand...

Speaking of religious fundamentalists, I have Jerry Falwell practically living just down the road from me. Isn't that a scary thought?! :shock:

[kirei_na_me]

Have any of you seen this letter composed by Michael Moore(of Bowling for Columbine fame)? I thought it was pretty good.... http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php

[Vicidian]

It's blatantly biased. For one, we know he was WoMD now. He's already used scud missles he should not have. Bush is not "gung-ho" on war. If this were the case, he would not be in office. He claims he speaks for the general public of America and the world. Who the hell is he? I don't know him so he damn sure doesn't speak for me.

[thomas]

Just a little technicality: while Saddam's possession of Scuds constitutes a material breach of U.N. resolution [insert #] - as its range exceeds 150km - there is still no evidence that Iraq possesses WMD. The Scud itself is a ballistic missile, but no WMD. Mr. Bush should have listened more closely to Hans Blix before pulling the trigger. Of course, we are all aware of the fact that there was no real interest in a peaceful resolution.

[Vicidian]

Agh.. METRIC system. LOL. Sorry, I'm not used to it. I'm guessing that is somewhere around 93 miles?

Anyway, Iraq's missles can reach up for 408 miles. Four times international law allows them. If I am not mistaken, I heard on CCN (from a liberal Anchor, mind you) that suspected areas of where the missles hit were tested postive for.. some kinda nerv gas maybe. I was actually in the bathroom and only heard a little bit. Thereby proving he had biological weapons if I understood right.

"The Scud itself is a ballistic missile, but no WMD."

He has lied about two things, what's to stop him from lying about others?

"We are all aware of the fact that there was no real interest in a peaceful resolution."

Yet we waited 12-13 years to strike? If there was no interest in peaceful resolutions, Bush would have attacked much closer to his inauguration. Hans Blix said he saw some cooperation, but he also said that the Iraqis were indeed playing keep away with something with the inspectors.

Also, if you get CNN in your area, make sure to watch how happy the liberated Iraqis are. They tear Saddam's picutres, shake hands with the troops. One guy took of his shoes and started smacking a portrait of Saddam.

( Augh.. I can't seem to stay out of this debate! xD )

[Vicidian]

Hm, I just noticed this post.

Originally posted by mdchachi
Yes, we don't know. We do however know that there has been many despotic dictators in the world -- in the past and currently. We also know that the U.S. generally turns a blind eye to genocide and evil regimes in places where they have no economic interests. One doesn't need to believe in UFO's or conspiracies to see that oil plays a not insignificant role here.
I think it is one of the pros to war, but I don't see it being the sole, or even a significant reason in the war. What economic good was there in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Western Europe, and other countries? Granted not every fight we've been in was successful, but that just goes to show war isn't waged for economic reasons solely.

Especially considering that they are doing France a favor because french fries are not something the French want to be associated with in the first place.
They shouldn't be. The proper term is "frenched fries." Besides that, their Belgian. That's childish politics for you though.

I think it's a failure on Bush's part that he couldn't resolve this issue diplomatically. But, then, Clinton couldn't either.
Clinton didn't even try.

I definitely disagree with this. History is full of examples of leaders making decisions based on their own personal agenda. Doing something for the good of the people or the world is the exception. Why would anybody care how many people hate them if they could redeem their father's mistakes and enrich themselves and all of their friends. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily the case but I don't discount the possibility.
Of course it's possible, but I don't think it is. Conservatives believe you are responsible for your own actions. Bush is probably one of the most.. well, biased about these feelings. It may be a "typical politician" to do things for personal reason, but every one of you are hypocritical for even thinking that. I guess the French are also working solely on personal motive. I have no doubt that Bush is acting on his feelings of vengeance for everyone: the Iraqis, the American people, and anyone Saddam has hurt. And yes.. his father.

Bush has many reasons for this war. As I've said before, international, personal and economical reasons. What's the problem if it's helping much more than harming?

[thomas]

Originally posted by Vicidian
( Augh.. I can't seem to stay out of this debate! xD )

LOL, how often have I told that to myself already.

Anyhow, the mere assumption that someone might be lying is not enough, you have to prove it. Hans Blix has pointed out a couple of times that it would have been possible to disarm Iraq peacefully. However, a peaceful disarmement would not have served U.S strategic interests, namely to station massive troops in Iraq - and they won't be leaving anywhere soon.

Yet we waited 12-13 years to strike? If there was no interest in peaceful resolutions, Bush would have attacked much closer to his inauguration.

There was also no interest in lifting the sanctions: the sanctions allowed to control Iraq and its oil production, to maintain no-fly zones that were bombing grounds for allied aircraft, and they allowed to maintain large US troops contingents in Saudi-Arabia until today: King Khaled Air Base is one of the largest in the region.

Of course, Iraqis are happy to be freed from their oppressor, but this campaign isn't about peace, democracy and doughnuts.

[Vicidian]

Well then, why do you oppose the war? I can understand the opposition of Bush, but why the war? You see how good it is for the Iraqis.

I just read your first part. It is not assumption that they used scud missled that by far exceeded their limit. It is fact.


------- ------- ------- -------
"Blix told the U.N. Security Council this month that it was 'questionable' whether the Iraqis had destroyed all of their Scuds and that about 50 Scud warheads were still unaccounted for.

Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles."

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/71484.htm

[den4]

You make some interesting good points, Vicidian...and I saw your other debate in that link you had posted...
But, in the end, whether we agree or disagree with each other, it should be enough that we, in our own view, believe ourselves right, and hopefully have also the wisdom to learn from others greater than ourselves...even if we don't agree with them...
One of the great flaws in this current environment is the "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Assuming that the US policy is right, for those that agree with it, that should be enough...you are never going to change the viewpoint of others by force (and that shouldn't be our mission in life, since in the end, the effort of changing viewpoints should rest upon that individual, not for us to change it for them.
As a great conservative friend I have once said, sometimes it's just best to observe and know when to keep quiet...yes, that goes against the grain of many americans, but it is a lesson we should learn to live with...otherwise we end up putting our foot in our mouths, like the French tend to love to do....
The only ones we can change is ourselves....and that's only if we want to....holding these debates is healthy, so long as we understand that that is all it is.....nothing wrong with having pride in one's country, since we all have that to one degree or another....but putting pride before good common sense and judgment creates an environment of intolerance, and wise people don't fall into the trap....
my point is not to try and change your views.....far from it....treasure your values and your views, but also learn what you can from others...if you find your current views flawed, or need tweaking, nobody else need know that....sometimes the hardest thing in the world to do is to know and acknowledge one's own humility, and not let personal pride get in the way of good judgment....
this is not necessarily directed solely to you, Vicidian, but to all, and especially me, since I'm always tending to get into situations that prove that I know less than I should, and I have a far path to tread before I know even a tenth of what I would like... :D

peace dudes.....or war....but in the end, only Death shall claim us all if we are unwise.... :P

[thomas]

Originally posted by Vicidian
[B]Well then, why do you oppose the war? I can understand the opposition of Bush, but why the war? You see how good it is for the Iraqis.
I oppose the war, because it has not been sanctioned by the international community and therefore lacks legitimacy. There are certain international rules within the framework of the UN that nations have to comply with. The UN system certainly has its flaws, but by-passing these rules and regulations creates a dangerous precedence in regard to the resolution of future conflicts. As den4 stated in his post, if it really boils down to "with us or against us" the US administration has to acknowledge the fact that they have lost a lot of friends by pursuing their "pro-active" policies.

"Actio et reactio": if this war is also about fighting terrorism, then it is clearly counter-productive. I am afraid that in the end it will lead to more violence.

[den4]

alternatively, and not just to take it from the US advantage, if the UN cannot manage itself in a responsible manner, and cannot form an actual "United" Nations, then perhaps the charter needs some tweaking, also, since it appears that special interest groups within individual nations are allowing functionality of the UN appear as a dysfunctional family of bickering children in the best of times....We need mature representatives that hopefully can seek the betterment of the nations....but I suppose in the current climate that is not likely....

the thing that always amazes me is how fast our technology advances, and yet people remain spinning in the same hamster wheel, going nowhere fast.....stuck in the same problems for countless generations....you can say what you like to suit your personal comfort zones (or security blankets), but the reality is the problems we have today is really not so much different than the ones our ancestors had at the beginning of recorded times....the tools may be different, but the results are always the same.....ain't life grand? :D

[jeisan]

it seems to me that the bush administration went well out of its way to start this war. after 9/11 we were hunting the deserts of afganistan for bin laden and i even remeber saddam saying he would help the US in anyway possible. then after several months of fruitless searching all of a sudden the attention is turned to hussein and what hes been up to for so long. im very unclear on this connection and what even happened to osama.

i too have met (to use the term loosely) bush when he was still governor of texas, and my impression of him then wasnt very good. what happened was he came to my school for a demosration of distance learning, which is basicly video conferenceing. anyway they locked up everyone in their classrooms but imanaged to forget something and had to go to my car. as i was walking to the parking he was walking in with a couple bodyguards. i figure might as well say 'hi' to the guy, so i walk up n say 'hi' which was returned with a half hearted grunt from bush complete with evil looks from the bodyguards as they stomped on by. i know that i was just a student but still...

I think it is one of the pros to war, but I don't see it being the sole, or even a significant reason in the war. What economic good was there in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Western Europe, and other countries? Granted not every fight we've been in was successful, but that just goes to show war isn't waged for economic reasons solely.

well the US was peddeling herion in vietnam. theres a documentary video on it. i cant quite remember the title but its about Bo Grites (sp?) one of the most decorated officers from that war and how he went to talk to a vietnamese general and he told him about the herion and all that so Grites takes the papers back to the US, which are promptly destroyed, so then he goes back and gets video proof ,which is the documentary, but no one beleives him. its a pretty sad story. the cover has a picture of the statue of liberty crying on it.

[Vicidian]

Haha.. that is a load of bullshit. The only thing that Nam was about about was the containment of Communistic ideas.

[jeisan]

i find it pretty far fetched that the only reason that the US and other countires sent 100s of thousands of people to their deaths was to stop an idea from spreading in a small jungle country only to just give up and leave one day 30 years later.

[Vicidian]

What about Korea? What possible other reason whould we have to fight there other then containing communism? The cold war too. The only reason so many people died was because no one has ever battled on terrain like Nam. Nixon wasn't just about to call all those troops back in an instant.

[mdchachi]

Have any of you seen this letter composed by Michael Moore(of Bowling for Columbine fame)? I thought it was pretty good....
The more I read about Michael Moore the less respect I have for him. Just last night he accepted an Academy Award for best documentary -- for a work of fiction!
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[kirei_na_me]

Whatever... :giggle:

[Iron Chef]

Re: Michael Moore, I give him credit for voicing his opinion whether I agree with him or not. I thought it ironic though in that Holywood celebrities by their very nature use the exposure they get and their celebrity status to voice their concerns or influence issues they feel are close to their hearts, yet it was the "lowly" and most certainly uncelebrated documentary maker who decided to use the event as a forum to make a political statement, heh. Go figure 8-p

[jeisan]

the only people who died in the cold war were spies, its not like there were raging battles and air strikes. as for korea i think we were also protecting japan and our interests therein. being that after the japanese lost WWII and had to disband their army the US army/navy was meant to be defending them from attack, especially korea. im not saying that americas involement in these wars wasnt to stop the spread of communism, just that it wasnt the only reason. if you look back on the cold war era, and how scared people (americans) were of the so-called "red-menace" you can easliy see that communism was as good an excuse as any to go to war. while other, less honorable, reasons were left out entirely and nobody even thought to question. all is not what it seems on capital hill.

nixon was elected into office on the pretence of "getting our boys out of nam" yet he sent over another 100,000 troops. hypocritical, no?

[Vicidian]

Those are the WORST conspiracy theories I have ever heard. America using the ideology of containing communism to wage war for the illicit sale of heroin. I'll grant you that no war is fought for one reason in only in the interest of protecting foreigners, but I refuse to believe the Nam thing. Do you realize how many people were disgusted by the government? Ever think they would be lying to further defame those in power at the time?

[jeisan]

i never said that they waged war to sell heroin, i just said they were selling heroin during the war, and that i saw in a documentary video about this guy which clearly shows US army trucks hauling it around. be it real or fake, i wouldnt put it past the government. i can see no real reason, communistic, dope peddling or otherwise, for the US involement in vietnam. i wasnt around at the time to see these things personaly i cant say anything for sure. but its fun to speculate and debate :P

[ChennehCis]

Gus, I have joined the boards today and I have alot of respect for you.

I do realize you are against this unprovoked war, but do this for me

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

it's a link to a clip from a talk radio show. guy calls in, debates w/anti-war protester. well, not really debates, but kinda destroys her. he's an iraqi exile. how would you answer his question, that is, if you can.

[Iron Chef]

"How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

Great question btw, and one that is by no means easy to answer. As an Iraqi exile, his perspective is both informative and insightful. And in response to your query of whether or not I am able to answer the question he poses, rest assured I am. Nevertheless, for reasons of my own already stated in the "Why Bush wants war" thread--I simply no longer have the desire to "debate" this sensitive topic. The course of action has already been decided in this matter and the proverbial die has been cast so to speak. Those of us who are opposed to this war will cast ours in the next election...

p.s. You may think my response is merely "dodging the bullet", but I assure you I am by nature a very outspoken individual not afraid to voice my opinion. I simply have chosen (for reasons of my own) to no longer weigh in on discussions of the war with Iraq at this point, nothing personal.