Madass wasn\'t supposed to have any scud missiles and more than 2 have landed in Kuwait....one near a shopping mall....hence the hempress\'s arguement about him obviously having weapons of mass destruction.......as for the news.....i only watch the bbc as the American ones can tell some porkies and fiddle the numbers a bit........only recently while in the states, Tony Blair said that 2 british soldiers had been executed, when they hadn\'t......all to add fuel to the fire.....the famalies were devastated, at the thought they had been executed......how dare he use those dead soldiers as political pawns......Peace out.....Sid
saddam has admitted to having a thousand something liters of anthrax which we still have not accounted for and iraq leaders hve threatened to use chem weapons once coalition forces cross a certain point on their way to bagdad. why would they threaten if they have no womd? they are not stupid enough to bluff because that would just piss us off more.
They do have scud missiles, but I\'ll get to that in a sec. I watch a lot of news, mostly cspan, pbs, and the little bits of foreign news I can find. I also listen to all sorts of radio and regularly read things online, and I\'ve never heard anything about Saddam threatening to use anthrax (under the current circumstances). Put up a link that shows what is and not what someone thinks is happening and I\'ll agree, but I really doubt that one. And as for the scuds, who gets to decide what\'s a \'weapon of mass destruction\' and what\'s not? scud missiles are just one kind of weapon that Iraq in particular isn\'t supposed to have, not anything that\'s been classified as a weapon of mass destruction until recently, when it became convenient. Yes they can be used to kill a lot of people but only if you have a lot of them, which I don\'t think they do (as they\'ve only used a couple so far, and we don\'t know the entire circumstances of these attacks). I don\'t think the US government is going to resort to deep, involved conspiracies but I wouldn\'t hold it above them to just generally lie occasionally or at least put a spin on it which the news media happily eats up. Remember folks, all those nasty things they\'ve said about marijuana? You know, that it funds terrorism, it causes death and rape and the such, they\'ve said the exact same things about Iraq and Saddam, and they haven\'t tried any harder to substanciate their words about this than they have about the ganj. They\'re willing and able to lie already, and they\'ve shown that they\'re willing to trample on our rights as well (the US Patriot Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) and kill in our names despite only holding a minute majority of support (that changed after the war actually started of course, which doesn\'t have to heppen...) Now, on the subject of the Patriot Act, I\'ve been doing a lot of thinking and one of the most prominent pro war arguments is that during war the president and our troops need our support so we shouldn\'t dissent. This suggests that it\'s not possible that there could be any conspiracy or even any \'wrong-doing\' in the US government, and the anti war people are protesting this because they know it\'s a just war but are simply stubborn or something. Well I just want to show all of you what the govenment\'s willing to do, based on what they have done (remember what they\'ve said about weed...), and this is only going to be a small part of it. I don\'t wanna ask anyone to read that whole thing (it is long, but please do if you feel obliged) so I\'ll post the few parts of it that I find alarming. I\'ll mark the more ineresting parts. I\'m putting this first section up to show that our government has a nice wide range of people of which they can claim to be terrorists. Terrorism is a loose title that they can attach to any person or organization with which they have a problem. Kind of like communism during the cold war. Some of the things I\'ve chosen to highlight will be followed by a comment. TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES >Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. >Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. >Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information. Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. >Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power. >Sec. 208. Designation of judges. (Comment: That\'s a scary one, they get to choose some of the people who make the laws and decide who goes to jail, if they can do that with anyone they deem a \'terrorist\' then what\'s to stop them from locking up dissenters and unfavorable groups like pot heads or \'suspicious foreigners\'?) >Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants. >Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications. Sec. 211. Clarification of scope. >Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb. (Comment: what\'s that? six or seven cections pertaining to seizure of private information...and what the hell is the legal definition of \'life and limb\'??? But wait, there\'s more...) Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant. >Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA. (Comment: I dunno what \'trap and trace\' might be but it sounds like more information hoarding, and not in a kind way) Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. >Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. (Comment, are they talking about hackers perhaps? Is that count for foreign and domestic threats?) >Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information. (Comment: Happy News Lady: \"So, Mr. Rumsfeld, could you explain Title II, Section 218 of the Patriot act to us?\" Rumsfeld: \"Foreign Intelligence Information!\" News Lady: \"...what?\" Rumsfeld: \"That\'s it...\" Lady: \"Moving on then...\") >Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism. (Comment: This means that one group, and ultimately whoevers in charge of that group, can search any sort of information, be it material or electronic, without any sort of checks or balances. How does it help anything that one small concentration of people has so much power?) >Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence. (Comment: More of the same stuff, they go a little farther each time though.) >Sec. 221. Trade sanctions. (Comment: Another statement like law, what does that mean? Do they just get complete control of all trade sanctions imposed on foreign countries? More extreme concentration of important power.) Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies. Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures. >Sec. 224. Sunset. (Comment: oooooohkaaay....) Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap. (Comment: immunity for compliance? I think that means that regarding whatever this FISA wiretap is no one can be held accountable.) This next part is large and a lot of it is erroneous to my point so I\'ll put up the beginning, the part pertaining directly to their definition of \'terrorist\'. I\'ve marked and commented on these as well. SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM. (a) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (B)-- (A) in clause (i)-- (i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows: `(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of-- >`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, (Comment: One person can designate whomever he wants as a terrorist.) or >`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,\'; (Comment: Public endorsement of acts of terrorism? \"undermines efforts\"? That means they can classify you as a terrorist thereby being able to arrest and detain you without representation as long as they want if you even say that any particular terrorist act was good or necesarry. I don\'t support anything that results in death and/or destruction, but if I did I shouldn\'t be arrested for it. That\'s a direct jab at free speach.) My whole point here is that they are willing to go to some unprecedented extremes to control information and power. They\'re been fighting an unjust war for years, the war on drugs. They fought an unjust war in the 60s and 70s, and it\'s happened before a thousand times over before that. Each time it was because a small group of people got too much power, why are so many so sure that it\'s different this time?. The Patriot Act pretty much just contradicts everything in the Freedom of Information Act, with quite a few little bonuses in there as well. To whomever says that anyone shouldn\'t speak their mind because of any particular circumstances, be it war or general unpopularity, the people protesting think they are fighting for everyone\'s rights just as much as any soldier out on the field does. The government has started to push in one dangerous direction, I\'m not going to let them blindly lead us off what I believe to be a cliff while they\'re claiming it\'s a bridge. If it\'s a bridge then i\'m just wrong, if it\'s a cliff we all die.
Ok...cool...then I was right....awesome Personally, I really don\'t care...I know that sounds terrible, and I know I should, but I really don\'t care. And I can\'t make myself either
Hey, I just replied to the post and the majority are against it! Yay! Great Minds think alike! But really.. If I wasn\'t so scared about the political impact this war will have on the whole world, I\'d say I didn\'t care, like when we bombed the shit out of them last time... But this time, some other countries are REALLY pissed off... And if I recall everything correctly, the last World Wars started because of a fucked up web of alliances and treaties that pulled the whole world in... And it kind of sounds like it\'s happening again. No War in Iraq! No Bloodshed!
Man, you\'re wrong. Great minds think differently and are thus made even greater through debate. I support military action. I just wish the government wouldn\'t be making their propaganda so obvious. I hate it. It\'s stupid. Some people are so taken aback by it that they completely change their ideals to anything that goes against it. Not the wisest decision, in my mind, but it happens. Simply assuming that you are intelligent because somebody else agrees withyour point of view. It\'s like agreeing that Hitler was evil. He wasn\'\'t evil, he just had a set of ideals that most humans are vehemently opposed to. Man, where the hell did this rant end up? If I said anything stupid, hold it not against me, for I am kind of fucked up.
Well saying HItler wasn\'t evil is quite stupid. Okay you can take the perspective of Aadolf himself who was so disgusted by jews and anyother people that didn\'t fit his narrow idea of an perfect human, that he had to get rid of them. But that idea in itself is just plain \"evil\", and yes you can say that there aren\'t such things as good and bad, it depends on the perspective maan, yeah right but demolishing 6 000 000 yews just because they were jews isn\'t right no matter how you look at it. ps. Hitler couldn\'t have achieved what he did in such a huge scale without IBM.
Man, I was so fucked up when I wrote that. Sometimes I get the urge to write random rants. And sometimes they actually make sense. I forgot completely about the whole Hitler thing. I was just wondering what the reaction would be. Not nearly harsh enough, in my opinion. Hitler was fucked up, nobody should act as he did. In our human perspective, Hitler was basically evil incarnate.
Ok, None of what you posted had any relevance to what I said, but it doesn\'t really matter man, you were fucked up. Basically you just attack one thing I said. \"Great Minds think alike!\" Which wasn\'t even the main body or point of the post, but that\'s ok. I was only slightly offended. Debates are usually held when people attack other people\'s points of views and point out flaws in them. It becomes an argument when you start attacking someone else\'s character.
im a full supporter of the war, but im in the minority pparently. in my view we are just getting rid of one of the most ruthless and dangerous dictators to ever live, so i dont get why people feel so strongly against it just because they think there are other motives, like oil,frankly i dont care as long as we get rid of saddam. i feel strongly enough about this that i have resolved that if the war is not over in one month, i will enlist, when you have a view you got to back it up
Then wot the hell r u sayin?? U can\'t even back your comment up and your tellin others 2. *LMAO* u joka
im saying that im for the war, are you still with me? im also saying that even if this war has other motives, like the gain of oil producing land, i dont think it matters as long as we get rid of saddam. and if you still understand me, im finally saying that because i turn of legal age to enlist in one month, and since i support the war, i feel obligated to enlist, mainly so no anti war whiner can say \"you wouldnt be for war if you were forced to fight in it.\" do you understand me? shoudl i type in capital letters so its easier to see? thats what i mean when i say \"when you have a view you got to back it up\" that was said as a personal mantra, not as an order to anyone else.....now lets chill oh and why the hell did you copy and paste my statement onto your post. my post is right above yours, if people wanted to know what you were talking about you could have just typed my name before your glib speech.
Darkmatter, man, I\'m sorry if I touched a nerve. I really didn\'t think that post made enough sense to be insulting (it really had no point whatsoever), but obviously you think otherwise. I was not attacking your intelligence, but rather the assumption that people of like mind are somehow more intelligent than others with differing views. Back to anactual discussion, however, this is most definantly not going to turn into a WW3 situation. It\'s just not going to happen. A war of that size requires multiple countries of similar power. The U.S. has, by far, the most military power in the world. Terrorist attacks do not qualify as WW3.No religious fundamentalist group will be able to procure enough money to start a real war with us. They are doomed to continue using their inferior weapons and training to terrorize civilians.
hear is one more thing that i have to add, some war protesters have said \"thounds will die needlissly\" well hears what i got to say to them \"FOR GETTING SOME THING!!!!\"
Yeah that was an mass kill for thousands of innocent victims but let\'s not forget laos where USA killed 1 200 000 innocent farmers \'cos they tought Laos was an important target in order to elliminate Vietkong, while in fact there were not a single on vietkong member in laos..... or the 1 567 innocent people that have been killed in iraq by UK and US forces. Or HIROSHIMA!!!!!! etc. etc. etc. don\'t expect the whole world to burst in tear every time sept.11. is mentioned...
ok one, what is losa and two I DONT EXTIP THE WORLD TO BURST IN TO TEARS EVERY TIME 9/11 IS METION, the point iam trying to put across is that there is a reason were over there, they did attck us, and if u think that saddam had nothing to do with it then ur just dumb
okay, I was gonna leave this post alone until i saw that, that\'s a bold statement, one that requires you to back it up lest you become what you\'re calling others. Come back here with credible, real evidence, based on what is -not- on what someone thinks, and then call me stupid. edit: oh, and though i\'m repeating something I put in another post, I\'d just like to mention that the 9/11 attacks were once called \'shock and awe attacks\'. this war has succeeded in bringing a lot of the west and the east together, now we can all be terrorists!!!