| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2004 12:03:54 PM · #1 |
I think the President's war was both illegal and wrong! The President had absolutely no right getting involved. Even with altruistic intentions of removing an evil dictator and ending the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It still doesn't change the fact that we had no right to be there in the first place. Besides, how many people have we maimed or killed while plummeting their cities with bombs. We never had any authorization from the UN to do this! More importantly, they never attacked us, ever! We should have never diverted our focus from the actual terrorists that struck our soil. The whole thing was nothing but a big mistake. Nothing you can tell me will ever persuade me into believing the war was ever justified. The whole thing was concocted by the President and his cronies to make large corporations like Boeing and GM incredibly rich. We should have listened to Germany! Europe and North Africa had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbor!
Edited to emphasize the sarcasm that was obviously missed!
Message edited by author 2004-09-20 13:27:01. |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 12:08:31 PM · #2 |
well, you know this is going to start up a whole lot of comments. I agree with you, but people will say that they did in fact attack us. (the no fly zone) Nevermind that WE would have attacked anyone flying in our airspace had it happened on our territory.
I think the fundamental thing that most people don't remember is that our country was founded by a bunch of "radicals" If this sh*t was happening in our country we would call the insergents "freedom fighters"
|
|
|
|
09/20/2004 12:26:21 PM · #3 |
First off the war was not illegal, you might not like it, but illegal it's not.
We had every right to be there, you might not like it or agree with it or think it's just, but we had EVERY right.
The UN didn't authorize the Iraqi invasion because the 3 countries that had ILLEGAL business with Saddam objected. Plus Kofi Annan's son, was busy raking in millions of dollars from the Oil for Food program.
Whats this about Pearl Harbor BTW? Also, the president never claimed we were going into Iraq because he was invloved with 9/11. The war on terroris is not and should not be limited to Al-quida. Much like mobsters you can't take out one crime family, you gotta crush em all...
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I think the fundamental thing that most people don't remember is that our country was founded by a bunch of "radicals" If this sh*t was happening in our country we would call the insergents "freedom fighters" |
Our country was not founded by RADICALS. Our founding fathers also didn't invade Canada. I'm also sure that the british WOULD have enacted no-fly zones if such a thin existed...
BTW: Where was all this critisism when Clinton was in office? I supported HIS actions against Iraq and so did you... I also support President Bush and I will help him hopefully win 4 more years...
There is NO way you can convince me that Kerry is capable of being a leader. Bush is NOT the best man for the job, but we only have two choices, and it's pretty clear cut for me... |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 12:42:40 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Also, the president never claimed we were going into Iraq because he was invloved with 9/11. The war on terroris is not and should not be limited to Al-quida. Much like mobsters you can't take out one crime family, you gotta crush em all... |
Um, actually I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons Bush gave for going to war was because Sadam was involved in 9/11. He made direct incorrect ties between the two.
and speaking of mobsters, what's Dick Cheney and Haliburton if they're not a crime family? Halliburton profiteers off of wars. They sure are making a bunch because of this war.
They are all a bunch of "mobsters" who are making money off of death.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2004 01:12:12 PM · #5 |
Who said anything about Iraq? Stick to the subject people. This thread is about FDR's illegal war against Germany! Europe and North Africa had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbor!
Message edited by author 2004-09-20 13:19:04. |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 09:19:04 PM · #6 |
Bravo. Bravo.
Very well done.
Sure puts some current events into the proper perspective. Wonder if those criticizing today will be found on the wrong side of history. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 10:48:29 PM · #7 |
Wow, what a great history lesson!
So many things to learn from the study of WWII, such as the numerous American industrialists who supported the fascists, including, Mussolini, Franco and Hitler from the 1920's through the 40's. People such as William Randolph Hurst, Prescott Bush (whose bank, Union Bank, was seized from him by the American government under the Trading with the Enemy Act for financing the Nazis), Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy, Charles Lindburgh, John Rockerfeller, JP Morgan, Andrew Mellon and Allen Dulles. Companies such as GM, Ford, DuPont, Alcoa, Standard Oil and General Electric, and IBM just to name a few.
This article states: "what is critical to recognize is that American corporations and wealthy individuals played an important part in the construction of the Nazi Empire and the various fascist groups of Europe leading up to World War II. Without American support it is doubtful that the fascist powers of Europe would have ever achieved their positions of power and been able to develop the military institutions necessary to wage the Second World War."
So it could even be argued that had it not been for the American Industrialists WWII may never have happened. Sounds alot like today's scenario with Iraq. Saddam Hussein is armed to the hilt with WMD's by the same people who fight him in 1990 and 2003 and encourage him to use the weapons. VP George Herbert Walker Bush under Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld met with Hussein back in the 80's to arm him against Iran. At the same time, they also ran Iran-Contra.
Gee, thanks for the history lesson! |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 11:34:35 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
well, you know this is going to start up a whole lot of comments. I agree with you, but people will say that they did in fact attack us. (the no fly zone) Nevermind that WE would have attacked anyone flying in our airspace had it happened on our territory.
I think the fundamental thing that most people don't remember is that our country was founded by a bunch of "radicals" If this sh*t was happening in our country we would call the insergents "freedom fighters" |
No, if we had people in our country shooting mortars and rockets into crowded markets, kidnapping and killing janitors, truck drivers, shopkeepers and security guards, sabotoging electrical, water, and energy distribution networks, and attempting to stop the upcoming elections through a vicious campaign of violence and intimidation, we would not be calling them "freedom fighters", we would be calling them worthless sub-human pieces of shit. |
|
|
|
09/20/2004 11:47:06 PM · #9 |
Well, I think the war was a mistake. I can't support it anymore.
Saddam was an evil @$$hole but I can't say that the people are better off then they were before. There may be a civil war in Iraq now. Is that good for the people? No.
In addition: 1) We have spent over $200 BILLION dollars on this. 2) We have lost over 1000 American lives there. 3) We have not dimished terrorism by this action, in fact terrorism has increased. Another head cut off today by the religion of peace (Islam). 4) Iraq is full of Islamic Terrorists now.
Instead Bush should have focused on Afganistan, Al Queda and OBL. Or resources have been wasted on the war in Iraq for GW so he could spread Democratic values on a 7000 year old tribal culture. Great planning George. We were never at risk because of Iraq. There are no WMDs, no links to Al Queda (or very insignificant), no reason at all.
Bush is flooding the USA with illegal immagrents to make his corporate buddies happy (cheap labor), flooding the country with H1-B visas, allowing corporations to destroy American jobs, allowing millions of jobs to leave the country, on and on. Tough on terrorims? You would think tough on terrorism would NOT include allowing people to flood into the country illegally, wouldn't you?
Kerry? Says he will restore jobs, give everyone health care, etc. But at what cost? Sky-rocketing taxes? He seems like he will say ANYTHING without even thinking twice as long as he preceives that it's the right thing at the moment to say.
I'm not going to vote for either. There's no reason to.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2004 11:58:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Well, I think the war was a mistake. I can't support it anymore.
Saddam was an evil @$$hole but I can't say that the people are better off then they were before. There may be a civil war in Iraq now. Is that good for the people? No.
In addition: 1) We have spent over $200 BILLION dollars on this. 2) We have lost over 1000 American lives there. 3) We have not dimished terrorism by this action, in fact terrorism has increased. Another head cut off today by the religion of peace (Islam). 4) Iraq is full of Islamic Terrorists now.
Instead Bush should have focused on Afganistan, Al Queda and OBL. Or resources have been wasted on the war in Iraq for GW so he could spread Democratic values on a 7000 year old tribal culture. Great planning George. We were never at risk because of Iraq. There are no WMDs, no links to Al Queda (or very insignificant), no reason at all.
Bush is flooding the USA with illegal immagrents to make his corporate buddies happy (cheap labor), flooding the country with H1-B visas, allowing corporations to destroy American jobs, allowing millions of jobs to leave the country, on and on. Tough on terrorims? You would think tough on terrorism would NOT include allowing people to flood into the country illegally, wouldn't you?
Kerry? Says he will restore jobs, give everyone health care, etc. But at what cost? Sky-rocketing taxes? He seems like he will say ANYTHING without even thinking twice as long as he preceives that it's the right thing at the moment to say.
I'm not going to vote for either. There's no reason to. |
***Chris, my respect and admiration for you has grown by leaps and bounds from your last post. I do agree with you on all counts there though I think that it's hard for sure to say what kind of president Kerry would make, as any man running for the office of the presidency is bound to say whatever it will take to win the office, and I'm sure he's no exception. Kerry is a Skull and Bones man but has also chaired committees in Congress to investigate and fight against some of the most notorious corruption. He was only one of a few who investigated the S&L scandal back in the 80's even though he was castigated by both republicans, as well as, democrats. For this, he has earned my respect and I will surely vote for him, just on this alone. I hope you will too.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 00:00:22. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 12:21:24 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Chris, my respect and admiration for you has grown by leaps and bounds from your last post. I do agree with you on all counts there though I think that it's hard for sure to say.... |
Thanks Oly, I know I must be on the right course if you finally have respect for me. ;) LOL
But the fact is, we never should have gone into Iraq. It was a mistake in judgement by GW. The time and resources have been wasted. End of story.
Instead, GW should have focused these resources on:
1) Securing our borders against illegal immagration. All terrorists get into our country illegally, right? So you would think that it would a priority. But no, that will effect George's corporate buddies so we can't do that.
2) Put money into new ways of protecting our Ports. If a nuke is shipped into a port such as Long Beach, CA, on 1 of thousands of containers that come in on just ONE ship, and explodes, our economy will STOP instantly. There will be no food on your shelves, there will be no 2gig CF cards for you to buy at CompUSA, there will be no toilet paper to... So why hasn't this been done? Well again, this puts a "burden" on corporate America. So we can't do that.
3) We could racially profile people in America based on whether or not they are Arab/Isalmic. After all, who is a threat? White grandmothers flying from BFE to YourTown, USA? No, they are male arabs between the ages of 21 to 35 years of age. So would it make sense to question/investigate these people more rigorously then others? Yes! But, we can't do that either... That would be "racist". Although it would make sense, it's not politically correct.
Kerry may be the better alternative. I don't know. To be honest, I would vote for Kerry I think if I had to, but in California it doesn't matter, he will win here so I don't need to worry about it. I'm not voting for either as a protest vote. And I'm switching from Republican to Independent tomorrow (or the day after). The Republican party no longer has the values I believe in (besides Gun Laws and family values), but everything else... No.
EDIT: I know this is gloom and doom for a lot of people, but it is reality. Instead of hiding your head in the sand and not worrying about, you should think about it a little. It's very important.
So anyway, this is the last I'll comment on this. Probably. :)
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 00:34:05.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 01:57:11 AM · #12 |
ChrisW123, awesome.
Very happy to see your change of heart and mind.
I highly suggest everyone interested in what makes this world tick, check out the Pulitzer Prize winning
The Prize. This book really puts in perspective what we are doing in Iraq and our relationship to the Middle East. You will come to understand that our entire way of life exists only because of cheap energy called fossil fuels (oil).
Also, to touch on what Chris had said about our borders, I present this article Who Left the Door Open?
Despite all the talk of homeland security, sneaking into the U.S. is scandalously easy—and on the rise. Millions of illegal aliens will pour across the U.S.-Mexican border this year, many from countries hostile to America. TIME looks at the damage, the dangers and the reasons the U.S. fails to protect itself
By DONALD L. BARLETT & JAMES B. STEELE – TIME Magazine
Continue reading... |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 11:39:38 AM · #13 |
| I hope that the voters who can not vote for either presidential candidate will still go to the polls and cast a ballot. A no show voter is tallied as apathetic and lazy. A ballot without a vote for president is a vote of no confidence for BOTH candidates. Please go to the polls. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 03:51:12 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
 |
Hi! I degrade threads to improve the forums. |
Hi! I spew political opinions and cause anguish between people with opposing views in order to make the forums a better place! |
Interesting. This thread was interestingly posed, had great comments, included a revelation of a members change of opinion, kudos both ways on that score, no fighting, name calling, and no entry from me.
Until you, who had earlier participated in this very thread, evidently decided that enough good will among members was being shone?
So you stepped in with another of your rather insulting pictures. So, where was the anguish, the spewing of opinions you are protesting with your thread disruption policy?
If you are going to disrupt a thread, don't you think it best not to PARTICIPATE in it, lest some anguish-causing opinion-spewing person like myself just might color you with the hypocrite tool. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 04:04:14 PM · #15 |
I think your president is an idiot. On that note so is Kerry. Why discuss politics on a photography site???
|
|
|
|
09/26/2004 12:49:19 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 05:28:19 PM · #17 |
The NY Times today put out a 15 page article entitled Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq.
I HIGHLY recommend people read this to see more insight into how the Bush administration does business and the BS they pushed as evidence to convince America and the world to invade Iraq.
A ralated picture to the 1st part of the article speaking of the aluminum tubes the Bush administration pushed as proof here.
Also, another article speaking of the pre-war information known but ignored, Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions. |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 01:01:39 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
10/03/2004 10:37:34 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 08:20:12 PM · #20 |
A diagram of the refuted aluminum tube evidence:
This data was known BEFORE many of the Bush administration officials used the 'evidence' to push for the war.
You can educate yourself to the rest of the lies and misleads on this subject here. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 10:55:50 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A diagram of the refuted aluminum tube evidence:
This data was known BEFORE many of the Bush administration officials used the 'evidence' to push for the war.
You can educate yourself to the rest of the lies and misleads on this subject here. |
Can't imagine why no one is commenting on this since this was the main reason that the Bush administration said it was going to war with Iraq. The case for Saddam Hussein attempting to restart his nuclear arms program with purchasing of aluminum rods that did not meet the specs for a centrifuge to enrich uranium was made by the vice president on more than one occassion. The Bush administration claimed it was faulty intelligence reports that they relied on, but this article puts that theory in the trash since this article now shows that the US energy dept was refuting the claims that the CIA and Dick Cheney was making. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 11:40:47 PM · #22 |
Per the video, clearly Saddam had nuclear weapons
//www.gotlaughs.com/funpages/bigbombs.cfm
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 11:57:39 PM · #23 |
I have removed 7 posts from this thread.
All parties please be reminded that making posts that are irrelevant to the thread topic in order to disrupt the thread is not permitted on this site. Repeat violators will be subject to additional action, including temporary or permanent suspension of their DPChallenge accounts.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 06:21:37 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I have removed 7 posts from this thread.
All parties please be reminded that making posts that are irrelevant to the thread topic in order to disrupt the thread is not permitted on this site. Repeat violators will be subject to additional action, including temporary or permanent suspension of their DPChallenge accounts.
-Terry |
Thanks. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 12:08:56 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A diagram of the refuted aluminum tube evidence:
This data was known BEFORE many of the Bush administration officials used the 'evidence' to push for the war.
You can educate yourself to the rest of the lies and misleads on this subject here. |
Can't imagine why no one is commenting on this since this was the main reason that the Bush administration said it was going to war with Iraq. The case for Saddam Hussein attempting to restart his nuclear arms program with purchasing of aluminum rods that did not meet the specs for a centrifuge to enrich uranium was made by the vice president on more than one occassion. The Bush administration claimed it was faulty intelligence reports that they relied on, but this article puts that theory in the trash since this article now shows that the US energy dept was refuting the claims that the CIA and Dick Cheney was making. |
Well, I have NEVER said it before, but it looks like the Bush administration well... kinda lied to the American people about the war. Good thing no one has got hurt or lost loved ones, though. ;( |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:51:53 PM EDT.
