What are they gana say when...

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 1:50 am

This war is over and:

it is realized when it ISNT about oil.
There are chemical weapons Found!
he has alread Used weapons he wasnt suposed to have had (but more are found).
we Lierate the people and in a reasonable amount of time lt them alone (major military force leaves)

all this and it is Still done in record time, Extream minimal of civialian life lost, and minimal amount of our troops lost.

What is gana be said then? Anything? Excuses about how we should have let the inspectors do there job when it is later Proven they they would not have been able to find the chem plants cause they were hidden to well or something, or what?

I cant wait for the excuses to start rolling in.

And what was that about being bogged down. Stupid ass journlests. Sheesh, who the hell do they think they are?

Hay, God bless america! This time Might is right!

Greg

Lady In Red · Post by **Lady In Red** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:52 am

I'm sure most will stick their tail between their legs and look pretty foolish!

I'll be very glad when the "troops" get's back home! They have been away a long time.

And yes nexus_7

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Post by **sbp** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:23 am

These dips won't ever admit there are wrong. Same old crap from the lamers. We're still the bad guys no matter what.

Thank you coalition forces for getting rid of that despicable regime.

Hipnotic_Tranz · Post by **Hipnotic_Tranz** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:49 am

I saw pictures of the protesters in cali and it just seemed to me that the only reason they are doing it is because they are "bored" and so they have something to say when they grow older. Give it up, stop trying to re-live the 60's--that was a totally different time <img src=http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hipnotic_ ... es/sad.gif>

MK888 · Post by **MK888** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:40 pm

I wont hold my breath waiting for an apology from the French/German/Russian team. They will probably say we planted the stuff.

rogue · Post by **rogue** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:42 pm

What will they say when they DONT find chemical weapons? When they DONT find Saddam? Probably something like "Gee, this war as about as useful as Vietnam."

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:47 pm

listen to the news wise guy, they are reporting soem chems were just found.

So, what ya gana say?

Greg

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:38 pm

I am gonna say "so what." I expected them to find chemical weapons. There was never any doubt Saddam had them and had some bio weapons too.

Light casualties? Not a surprise to me. However, no war equals no casualties.

Egyptian President Mubarak saying that every day the war goes on creates a 100 new Bin Ladens? I am not surprised by that either.

Time will tell, but there is nothing in any of the news you cited that would stop young Arabs from hating the US. As far as they are concerned, even if an Iraqi civilian was killed by a stray Iraqi anti-aircraft shell, it is still a person who died because of a war started by the US.

What the hell does finding chem weapons, low casualties, etc. prove?

I think all you guys who get so pissed about those who disagree about the war are protesting a bit too much. Maybe you feel an elevated need for justification. Either that or you really like the idea that the US has the power to do what it wants, when it wants. I am sure it all seems great, using all this high tech hardware to kick the crap out of a second or third rate power.

It does scare the crap out of me that you seem to believe everything you are told. ... I think it took about 30,000 dead and the Tet offensive in 1968 to wake up the last generation that fell for that.

rogue · Post by **rogue** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:43 pm

They've been reporting that theyve "found" chemical weapons for the past week or so. However, all of these reports were false, and most have turned out to be fertilizer. I see no reason to see any new reports as anything other than such. Read here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 0407175243

blade · Post by **blade** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:09 pm

No doubt, the same dips from france, germany and russia will come up with some excuse to overlook the facts. Like we planted them or pass it all off like Lmandrake did.

What the hell does finding chem weapons, low casualties, etc. prove?

I think all you guys who get so pissed about those who disagree about the war are protesting a bit too much. Maybe you feel an elevated need for justification. Either that or you really like the idea that the US has the power to do what it wants, when it wants. I am sure it all seems great, using all this high tech hardware to kick the crap out of a second or third rate power.

It does scare the crap out of me that you seem to believe everything you are told.

I really expected more from you. Are you so blind to the facts here? :; "elevated need for justification"

Now that is pathetic. As is your entire tirade. You can't convince others to agree with you by using insults and put-downs. That just makes the difference far greater to overcome.

Most of those who disagree are like how HT described, older idiots who protested in the 60's and know no other way. Others, they just want to be known as "for peace" regardless.

It's ok to disagree, but how some of those who disagree come across and try to make their petty point, it's beyond sickening. No matter what they'll not be convinced. Take the dixie dogs for instance.

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 5:01 pm

Blind to what?

Is one country's possession of chem/bio weapons justification for another to invade it?

What do you think? If the answer is no, then what other factors justify the invasion?

Is it possession of chem/bio after being told by the UN to get rid of them?

If so, aren't you relying on the UN's authority to invade? Is it proper to invade without it? Or do you get to pick and choose what portions of the UN's decisions you like?

If the UN doesn't have anything to do with it, then what is the justification? Saddam had chem/bio weapons and he is a really, really bad guy?

Hmm, the crackpot who runs North Korea has chem/bio and is a really, really bad guy. Is he next?

Most of you were little when Qaddaffi of Libya was Ronald Reagan's middle eastern anti-Christ. There were direct links between Qaddaffi and certain terrorist groups. Maybe Qaddaffi had chem/bio weapons (bet he had and has some chemical). I guess Reagan, like Clinton, was an appeaser because he did not invade Libya.

I don't think I am blind to anything. Saddam did his level best to develop nukes. He did his level best to develop bio and chem weapons. He has a proven track record of aggression and was/is a ruthless dictator who killed, tortured, bullied and abused his people. He made sure that the UN weapons inspection teams were misled and decieved. Nobody liked Saddam very much, even in the arab world.

Given all that, it is my opinion that the war was premature, unnecessary, and will have some bad consequences. If we had to invade every country that was developing chem/bio and nukes and was led by a bad guy, we certainly missed out on a lot of chances so far.

I suggest that this war my have some negative consequences that are not discussed very much, including insuring that we don't have any supporters or sympathizers in the Arab world.

Al Qaeda is not made up entirely of mindless fanatics. Right or wrong, there is a philosophy behind their twisted beliefs and it is not unsophisticated. Much of this philosophy, and the most dangerous members of Al Qaeda, emerged from Egyptian Universities. Guess what the opinion of the US is at those institutions right now? Are we winning their hearts and minds?

It seems to me that the situation did not require that we act unilaterally in opposition to most of world opinion and the UN.

We are the most powerful nation on earth. We are also the most decent nation on earth. If we use our power in ways that seem to the rest of the world as violating international law, we do not appear to be decent. Instead, we look like a country intent on doing whatever it wants because it can. I think the fundamental greatness of this country lies in what it can do FOR the rest of the world, and not what it can do TO it. Unfortunately, I think that the attitude we have displayed in invading Iraq against the wishes of the UN and without the support of the international community is more suggestive of the latter rather than the former. I think that is a damn shame, because we are fundamentally interested in doing good.

I know that most of you believe that we had no other choice. What I don't understand is why you get so ticked off when somebody or someone suggests otherwise. I don't have a right to disagree? The French don't have a right to disagree? The Germans, who have been staunch allies until now, don't have a right to disagree?

Finally, I note that my points "petty points," people who are against the war are "lamers" and name calling and other broad characterizations are perfectly legitimate here if you are for the war. Evidently, I either never got over the sixties, am just one of those naive people who is always for peace, or just don't understand the facts. However, if somebody says they are against the war, without name calling, their conduct is somehow not civil. I apologize for suggesting that anybody criticizing those against the war has improper motives.

NascarFool · Post by **NascarFool** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:44 pm

Finally, I note that my points "petty points," people who are against the war are "lamers" and name calling and other broad characterizations are perfectly legitimate here if you are for the war. Evidently, I either never got over the sixties, am just one of those naive people who is always for peace, or just don't understand the facts. However, if somebody says they are against the war, without name calling, their conduct is somehow not civil. I apologize for suggesting that anybody criticizing those against the war has improper motives.

:chug Well put. I agree 100% with you. Are the protesters blind to the news ? Do you idiots listen to what the Iraqi people are saying after the Iraqi soldiers are driven out of their towns ? What about the 100+ coffins with all those executed Iranians from the 1980's that the British found in that warehouse ? ? Complete with pictures and written details before, during and after they were executed. S.H. is one sick fuck. I'd love to shake the hand of the soldier(s) that rips a bullet through his sorry ass to end his rein of terror.

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:56 pm

Well, the initial report of the hundreds tortured to death has changed here.

dadx2mj · Post by **dadx2mj** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:48 pm

Most of you were little when Qaddaffi of Libya was Ronald Reagan's middle eastern anti-Christ. There were direct links between Qaddaffi and certain terrorist groups. Maybe Qaddaffi had chem/bio weapons (bet he had and has some chemical). I guess Reagan, like Clinton, was an appeaser because he did not invade Libya.

NO I remember pretty well I think. Reagan did not invade Libya because he did not have to. He bombed the crap out of Qaddaffi's personal house killing a couple of his kids if I remember right, and Qaddaffi backed down so no invasion was needed.

Slugbait · Post by **Slugbait** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:18 pm

Yup, that's what I remember about Qaddaffi, too. He was considered a loud-mouth lunatic, and he changed his tone and demeanor drastically after several family members were pinpointed by a missile launched from many miles away...and realized that we thought he was there at the time.

Some madmen have a sudden spite of lucidity when they realize they're being used for target practice.

Not Osama, tho'...Clinton nailed his phone, but he wasn't using it at the time...