Discover Freedom - DPChallenge Forums

03/08/2003 01:25:32 AM · #101

Originally posted by stephan:

Originally posted by achiral:
You have a minority opinion. This is a democracy and the majority support action on Iraq.

Maybe in the US but in many other countries this is not the case. In the UN Security Council there are currently 4 states supporting a war and 5 states against a war. This looks like a majority against a war to me.

Originally posted by achiral:
Your propaganda laced statements indicate that you really don't care to have a good discussion.

Calling somebody elses opinion "propaganda laced statements" doesn't look like you're interested in a good discussion either.

Originally posted by achiral:
No one wants war, but no one wants an insane dictator harboring WMDs either.

I find these "Nobody wants war, BUT ..." statements very funny. Either you support war or you don't. In this case there is no inbetween.

Originally posted by achiral:
Given the fact about what we have learned about Al Qaeda, why is it so impossible that Hussein would sell or give WMD to terrorist organizations?

Because neither there is proof of a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda nor that he has WMD any terrorist organisation can't get from somewhere else. I don't account someone guilty without proof. This is something I learned in our free and democratic world.

1. The US doesn't need the majority of the world to okay its decisions, it can make them just fine on their own.

2. You obviously didn't read the rest of my post.

3. You are ignorant if you think anyone wants war. Unfortunately this is something the world has to deal with. No I don't want war, but I know for a fact Iraq is hiding weapons and could do serious damage to US interests in the region if they wanted to.

4. You also don't have proof to think that there isn't any connection between Iraq and terrorist organizations. That's why opinions like that don't make sense right now. Iraq won't tell us what's going on with their weapons. We and many other nations want to know what's going on. Because Hussein chooses to defy the security council, we unfortunately will have to get information by force.

5. People keep saying that pro-war people don't actually care about Iraqi people and worry more about oil. I care about both. The stated objective is disarming Iraq, not liberating their people. This will be a positive outcome, along with the oil that will come from Iraq. And don't be foolish and think that Germany and France don't want that oil just as much as the US. No one in the administration says the primary goal is liberating the Iraqi people, but who can deny that they will be better off after Saddam is gone?

03/08/2003 01:33:34 AM · #102

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by Geocide:
Man, it seems most of us americans forget so much!!!

The more I read, it seems that Pres. Bush has managed to convince our country's populace that Saddam Hussein has something to do with terrorism... In psychology we call this transference of hate. It seems we�re out for blood, any blood. A mob mentality if you will.

I have a prediction, and this shows how much trust i have of the US gov, something big will happen which will convince the majority to move forward into war. The only problem is that this something that will happen will be pulled off by our own gov't. The American people need just a nudge... If this sounds crazy just look at the war PR and or our countries history (US folks). Remember the fictitious stories of the last war in Iraq that surfaced?

And another note on history, this won't officially be war. The last official war was in WWII.

If not terrorism, I keep hearing that the true move for this strike is to spread democracy, this is crap. It�s democracy that halting this war. It�s democracy that convinced turkey to not support the US troops. It seems to me, given all the protests, that democracy is what were lacking in the US.

Well�s Big Brother theory is becoming more and more true everyday. You know how they tracked Bin Ladden a couple of days ago? The computers were able to identify his voice on the phone. Had he used a phone in Canada, they would know.

I�m usually not a conspiracy person but we, as Americans are showing our true colors and it�s apparent that RED and WHITE were more prominent than we thought.

Let's also not forget how 1,000's of people were disenfranchised by our own goverment and thereby throwing the election. The popular vote was not for our current president.

You have a minority opinion. This is a democracy and the majority support action on Iraq. The election argument is rediculous, get over it. I don't need to explain the electoral college, because you know about it, and choose to ignore it. If Gore would have been elected, you would be hearing the same things from republicans about how he is illegitimate because half the country voted for Bush, but those arguments do nothing for the issue at hand, yet seems to constantly hold people from the left side back. Your propaganda laced statements indicate that you really don't care to have a good discussion. Although I disagree with lisae on pretty much everything, she has done a good job of laying her position out, and I can respect that. But stuff like this that you write doesn't do anything for the discussion it just keeps moving everything towards regression. President Bush had the support to attack Iraq well before Semptember 11 I'm assuming. Especially since nothing new has come out of Iraq since then. It's all the same old tired crap from Saddam. No one wants war, but no one wants an insane dictator harboring WMDs either. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Earlier this week there were reports that as part of Iraq's compliance with resolution 1441 of the United Nations, Iraq was going to provide reports the detail the country's destruction of nerve agents. The idea of doing that NOW is completely crazy. It was in his best interest, if it is the truth, to have done so months ago when the 11,000 page Iraqi arms report was given to the UN. This to me looks like the kind of delay tactic that Saddam has always used. Give the world community something to nibble on while he plans his next move. No one on either side will claim that Saddam Hussein is a stable leader of a country. Everyone knows he is an oppressor. Given the fact about what we have learned about Al Qaeda, why is it so impossible that Hussein would sell or give WMD to terrorist organizations? This is what makes the situation different than North Korea. North Korea is a poor, needy country that is also ruled by a crazy leader, but regional pressure should be able to stop NK's violent and inflammatory rhetoric and actions. Countries around NK including China do not see NK gaining nuclear power as a good thing, and pressure from these countries will be able to deter NK, even after Nk builds the nukes. On the other hand you have Iraq, in a region where there is already great instability. If Saddam decided to use WMD against Israel for example, countries in that region will not be as likely to do anything about that because they want Israel out as well. To eliminate the most imminent threat of this occuring makes sense in my opinion.

"This is a democracy and the majority support action on Iraq."
The CNN/Gallup Polls do reflect this but they also state that Bu$h should give the UN more time. //www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
So, if this is truly a democracy, why are there all these troops in iraq.

I understand your points but i see no need to personally attack another indiviuals intellegence. THis is healthy conversation and everyone and they're opinions should be respected. Nonetheless, As far as the election goes, thousands of people we indeed denied their right to vote. No matter who won, this is a major problem and is by definition aginst the very premise of democracy. So, no, i'm not going to "get over it."

"President Bush had the support to attack Iraq well before Semptember 11 I'm assuming."
This is not correct.

"Your propaganda laced statements indicate that you really don't care to have a good discussion."
This also is not correct.

"Everyone knows he is an oppressor. Given the fact about what we have learned about Al Qaeda, why is it so impossible that Hussein would sell or give WMD to terrorist organizations?"

Pure Parinoia, so should we destory any 3rd world conuntry that has WMDs?

At the moment, terrorism has nothing to do with iraq as far as the US is concerened, but there is a resonable PR campain to convince people like yourself, that there is some sort of tie.

If we were as geunie as we say we are, and so loving of our way of living, then we would allow Iraq to experience due process, there has yet to be enough proof to KILL thousands of innocent people nor innocent solidgers.

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 02:08:36.

03/08/2003 02:01:59 AM · #103

achiral, i think you could benefit from listening to why the John Brady Kesling (sp?) resigned from his position of political councilor in US embassy Athens (www.npr.org) Very interesting.

I imagine it's very easy to sit in your easy chair in Oak Park, IL and say "yeah, let's kill all these people because it MAY effect our interests over 3000 miles away, and oh yeah, their leader is a bad guy anyway and oh, yeah, they need democracy....and Jesus, yes, let's make all of them just like us!"

It sickens me when people say our "interests" you realize our "interests" = Money.

How would you feel if the Chinese govt flew across the pacific and told us we�re living the WRONG way, and that we should live like them? Plus they have �interests� in our land so they�re going to force it upon us.

I think the US is acting much like the old Roman Empire, and like the Roman Empire, we as a country will collapse under the weight of our own arrogance because of individuals who share your opinions.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/08/2003 02:07:16 AM · #104

Oh, also, attacking unilaterally will destroy delacite diplomatic relationships that have been in the making for several years... All of this for what? The possibility that saddam could help terrorists.

I say let the UN take care of this and we (US) should quit acting like cowboys...better yet our administration should quit acting like a pack of rabid dogs.

Our true colors as americans really are shining through...

---edit ---
let me clarify that last sentence....i mean this is where the rubber meets the road and it very intresting to see where everyone stands. I meant nothing anti-american.

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 02:30:47.

stephan

Casio QV-4000

03/08/2003 02:23:00 AM · #105

Originally posted by achiral:

1. The US doesn't need the majority of the world to okay its decisions, it can make them just fine on their own.

Exactly this attidude frightens the people around the world. Lisae already pointed that out very good.

Originally posted by achiral:

2. You obviously didn't read the rest of my post.

I did. Why?

Originally posted by achiral:

3. You are ignorant if you think anyone wants war. Unfortunately this is something the world has to deal with. No I don't want war, but ...

So you support war or not?

Originally posted by achiral:

I know for a fact Iraq is hiding weapons and could do serious damage to US interests in the region if they wanted to.

Wow.. "serious damage to US interests in the region". This sounds not like a reason for military actions. So you agree that the Iraq is no direct threat to the US?

Originally posted by achiral:

4. You also don't have proof to think that there isn't any connection between Iraq and terrorist organizations.

I don't have proof. But your and the British intelligence have. At least regarding al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by achiral:

That's why opinions like that don't make sense right now. Iraq won't tell us what's going on with their weapons.

But they currently tell the UN inspectors.

Originally posted by achiral:

We and many other nations want to know what's going on. Because Hussein chooses to defy the security council, we unfortunately will have to get information by force.

Then you have little confidence in your intelligence. Information can be gathered without force. You don't _have_ to start a war.

Originally posted by achiral:

5. People keep saying that pro-war people don't actually care about Iraqi people and worry more about oil.

Who said that? Not me. I said they could care _more_ about the people, but I didn't say they don't care.

Originally posted by achiral:

I care about both.

Equally?

Originally posted by achiral:

And don't be foolish and think that Germany and France don't want that oil just as much as the US.

I'm not foolish. I know that my government has reasons beyond playing the peacekeeper role. They supported wars before, too. And I don't like that.

Originally posted by achiral:

No one in the administration says the primary goal is liberating the Iraqi people,

Maybe not the primary goal but they sure have visions.

Originally posted by achiral:

but who can deny that they will be better off after Saddam is gone?

Me. Lisae already explained the problems of a civil war among Sunites, Shiites and Kurds. The whole region is a bit sensitive and invading Iraq can make things very worse.

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 02:36:02.

Antithesis

Canon EOS-10D

03/08/2003 05:41:38 AM · #106

Originally posted by achiral:

... but I know for a fact Iraq is hiding weapons and could do serious damage to US interests in the region if they wanted to.

OK, so you've seen it with your own eyes? So, tell us exactly what they have, where the weapons are, and what damage they can do.

Originally posted by achiral:

4. You also don't have proof to think that there isn't any connection between Iraq and terrorist organizations.

Sorry, but I thought the onus was on the accuser to prove wrong doing, not vice versa. Your faulty logic does not go unnoticed.

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

03/08/2003 10:04:40 AM · #107

Again, I think this has to do with how much you are willing to educate yourself about the world and its views of the U.S.

achiral, i'm not sure if you really believe what you are saying, or if you are just arguing cause you like the attention you're getting. If it's the first, I think you should turn off your CNN right now, and visit the local library (please, don't take this as an insult- i'm sure you are educated) and read up on the middle east and the U.S. involvement as well as the Israel influence. Then and only then can you draw conclusions about what's right and wrong in the region.

The U.S. has played the role of world police one too many times...it's time for them to realize that the world does NOT revolve around them.

Froober

Canon EOS-10D

03/08/2003 11:11:30 AM · #108

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by Froober:
A question posed to those of you who so eloquently oppose America's plan to deal with Saddam/terrorism:

If our plan to deal with Saddam/terrorism is so wrong, what is the 'right' course of action...including contingencies and time frames?

The right thing to do is reach concensus with the UN security council and America's allies on what to do. The wrong thing to do is act unilaterally.

I don't think that's a particularly difficult idea to grasp.

All the governments that are currently against this campaign - France, Germany, Turkey, Russia and the "alliance of the unwilling" are political leaders in their own right. They know as much about what's going on as Bush does, and they oppose him.

I'm not here saying I know what to do or have all the answers. I simply believe that it's wrong for Bush to act alone.

Edit: You also pretty much asked why I (probably not just me, but I'm sure I'm one of the main people you were referring to) would devote so much time to learning about these issues and arguing about them. Well, it's just what interests me. Some people play computer games or knit jumpers... I watch the news, read newspapers, and argue about politics. I have friends I do it with. We go out to dinner and shout at each other :). I come from a family where my father ran for government seats several times when I was growing up, and I've been a member of the Greens for quite a few years now. Politics is just one of my passions, among many.

Inevitably, there will come a point in any group's dynamics in which the concensus cannot reach agreement on an issue, basically paralysing the effectiveness of said group (at least in the area of such disagreement). I am certain that the countries that oppose taking action against Iraq have their reasons for taking such a stance. I am also certain that America and those who support us on this issue have equally valid reasons for wanting to take action. You can't always fly with the flock in life. Sometimes you've got to go out on your own.

I don't think that's a particularly difficult idea to grasp. ;o)

The fact that America seems to be willing to go ahead without the UN (or are these speeches merely a political tactic to pressure the UN into taking action on the non-compliance issue?), alienating several of our allies, indicates to me that the situation must be urgent.

At any rate, I am well aware (as MCI pointed out earlier) that I cannot possibly be aware of all of the variables involved...and any specific argument I would make would be based on incomplete data...moot points. So, I'll step out of this discussion.

To those of you left...have a nice debate ;D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/08/2003 11:38:35 AM · #109

Originally posted by zadore:

next time there's another hitler, we'll let him destroy europe, because people like you honestly do not care to take a look at certain parts of history. you pick and choose. in my opinion, the only terribly unjust was that the US has gotten into was Vietnam, and it was only after a while that Americans realized that we shouldn't have gotten into that situation. i just believe that the administration of the US knows more than zadore and stephan on dpc. i'm sorry that's what it comes down to. you can't give any arguments that will convince an anti war person because there is no reason for any of us to believe that the government is wrong, YET. if this all turns out to be as you antiwar people say it is, i will change my position, but neither you nor i have any proof differently right now. i guess with people like you guys it will take an attack on your country to realize the urgency of the problem of rogue states and terrorists, willing to develop and use wmd. but we could just sit around and be held hostage by terrorists that gain these wmd from regimes like husseins. sounds like a great alternative. i don't have time to go and respond to all of stephan's response to me, but just by reading it i can tell that both sides have been brainwashed. i can't believe how diametrically opposed people are on this. oh well, in a month this will all be settled

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

03/08/2003 11:52:13 AM · #110

I'm not scared of an attack on this country...it will NEVER happen, cause we don't stick our noses in other people's businesses (Ethiopia, Bosnia, Kenya, Afghanistan, Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, blah blah)

You are paranoid, and so you should be. The world has turned on you and now you are scared (understandable). But don't assume that these terrorists are out to get everyone else (again, that's what your president tells you - lie) cause their not. They attacked YOU, not me, so don't start telling everyone that this is a war to save the WORLD.

I feel safe now, just as I did before 9-11. I don't worry about Saddam getting his troops on a boat, sailing to Canada, and bombing Toronto...that's actually comical.

So I suppose that after Iraq, North Korea will be next...after all they DO have missiles capable of hitting the US west coast, and man are they pissed at you still...but then again who isn't??? Even the British population dislikes you, only the government is supporting you.

Like Froober said....this is a pointless discussion because I will never be able to change your mind, just like you won't change mine...I do try really hard to understand your point of view, but you have done nothing but to repeat the words of your leader, which leads me to believe that you are not making an effort to find out MORE abou what's going on. 60-75% of US population oppose the war, 90-95% of the world opposes a war....that leaves about 150 million out of 6 billion people who think there should be a war....that's pretty sad! :(

...last post for me...hope you don't have family in the front lines putting their lives in danger for Bush, who sits comfortably behind a desk every day.

03/08/2003 12:08:56 PM · #111

Originally posted by zadore:

thank you for finally showing your blindness

america has done far more good for the world than bad, you know it and it hurts to even think about it probably, but if it wasn't for us you would be speaking german

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 12:10:47.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/08/2003 12:11:07 PM · #112

Originally posted by Froober:

I am also certain that America and those who support us on this issue have equally valid reasons for wanting to take action. You can't always fly with the flock in life. Sometimes you've got to go out on your own.

I don't think that's a particularly difficult idea to grasp. ;o)

Right... the fates of thousands of men, women and children should be decided by a group of mavericks, who cannot convince their allies that they are right, who want to "go out on their own" because "you can't always fly with the flock in life".

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

03/08/2003 12:16:05 PM · #113

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by zadore:
I'm not scared of an attack on this country...it will NEVER happen, cause we don't stick our noses in other people's businesses (Ethiopia, Bosnia, Kenya, Afghanistan, Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, blah blah)

You are paranoid, and so you should be. The world has turned on you and now you are scared (understandable). But don't assume that these terrorists are out to get everyone else (again, that's what your president tells you - lie) cause their not. They attacked YOU, not me, so don't start telling everyone that this is a war to save the WORLD.

I feel safe now, just as I did before 9-11. I don't worry about Saddam getting his troops on a boat, sailing to Canada, and bombing Toronto...that's actually comical.

So I suppose that after Iraq, North Korea will be next...after all they DO have missiles capable of hitting the US west coast, and man are they pissed at you still...but then again who isn't??? Even the British population dislikes you, only the government is supporting you.

Like Froober said....this is a pointless discussion because I will never be able to change your mind, just like you won't change mine...I do try really hard to understand your point of view, but you have done nothing but to repeat the words of your leader, which leads me to believe that you are not making an effort to find out MORE abou what's going on. 60-75% of US population oppose the war, 90-95% of the world opposes a war....that leaves about 150 million out of 6 billion people who think there should be a war....that's pretty sad! :(

...last post for me...hope you don't have family in the front lines putting their lives in danger for Bush, who sits comfortably behind a desk every day.

thank you for finally showing your blindness

america has done far more good for the world than bad, you know it and it hurts to even think about it probably, but if it wasn't for us you would be speaking german

no comment...i know your type and I despise your type.

03/08/2003 12:16:49 PM · #114

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by Froober:
I am also certain that America and those who support us on this issue have equally valid reasons for wanting to take action. You can't always fly with the flock in life. Sometimes you've got to go out on your own.

I don't think that's a particularly difficult idea to grasp. ;o)

Right... the fates of thousands of men, women and children should be decided by a group of mavericks, who cannot convince their allies that they are right, who want to "go out on their own" because "you can't always fly with the flock in life".

the fates of 3000 people in new york were decided by mavericks

03/08/2003 12:17:34 PM · #115

what's the matter zadore, cat got your tongue? we finally got down to it. you only see the bad in the US

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 12:19:33.

03/08/2003 12:19:53 PM · #116

Originally posted by achiral:

the fates of 3000 people in new york were decided by mavericks

Is this a "two wrongs make a right" argument?

I don't understand why the deaths of 3000 people justify the deaths of many, many more than 3000 people, none of whom were involved in the WTC attacks. None of the Iraqi civillians who will die in this war attacked your country. And all their grieving relatives and friends will see YOU as the enemy who slaughtered THEIR people for no reason, thus increasing Islamic hatred against the west... against ALL of us.

03/08/2003 12:23:02 PM · #117

this is true, i agree that i don't want one civilian to die. if it were as easy as just sending a CIA operative in and assassinating saddam i think that would be wonderful. or better yet let him leave the country. or die suddenly of old age. who knows. i'm not saying it's ok to kill civilians on either side. but what you are saying is as long as the number of people killed in america is less than the number possibly killed in a war, america has no reason to go to war, which i disagree with

03/08/2003 12:30:24 PM · #118

Originally posted by achiral:

I appreciate what you say here. Thank you for saying it.

However, I didn't mean for it to sound as though it would be OK with me if it was 3000 or fewer casualties. When I watched the WTC buildings crumble, live on TV, I sat there hoping that all the people who were losing their lives in front of my eyes would NOT be used as a reason to kill more innocent people. That's been my main hope ever since Sept. 11 2001. We've already seen a lot of people die in Afghanistan because of stray bombs and accidents.

I am not the type of person who is against war for any reason. I think a war is justified if a) you have gone down every diplomatic path to negotiate peace, and failed, and b) there is no doubt that innocent civilians are going to die if you DON'T act. I don't believe this is the case right now. Hans Blix asked for the inspectors to be given more time. If there is any person in the world right now who knows what the threat from Saddam is, it's Blix. I think he deserves to be taken seriously.

Froober

Canon EOS-10D

03/08/2003 12:33:41 PM · #119

Originally posted by lisae:

LOL...your rhetoric is incredible. I wonder who would be guilty of deciding fates here...could it be Saddam? Afterall, he chose not to comply with the UN resolutions.

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 12:35:47.

03/08/2003 12:34:24 PM · #120

It's not the job of the US to dictate the happenings in the world.

IRAQ has nothing to do with terrorism! Get Bin Ladden (or who ever is responsible) then move onto IRAQ.

I believe that everything in the macrocosm almost always can be brought down to the microcosm. If you find out that your neighbor has a gun you don�t go and attempt to force them to not have a gun, you find a way to where neither of you want to use that gun. It is this principle that will protect countries like Canada for many many years.

We�re just trying to stop everyone from having what we have. Isn�t this a bit hypocritical? Imagine NRA members argueing that no one should own guns.

If you had a son on the front lines, would you risk his life for what you know about the issue?

Message edited by author 2003-03-08 12:35:35.

03/08/2003 12:36:15 PM · #121

Have you ever seen wag the dog? That how easy we americans are swayed.

03/08/2003 12:41:47 PM · #122

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by achiral:
this is true, i agree that i don't want one civilian to die. if it were as easy as just sending a CIA operative in and assassinating saddam i think that would be wonderful. or better yet let him leave the country. or die suddenly of old age. who knows. i'm not saying it's ok to kill civilians on either side. but what you are saying is as long as the number of people killed in america is less than the number possibly killed in a war, america has no reason to go to war, which i disagree with

I appreciate what you say here. Thank you for saying it.

However, I didn't mean for it to sound as though it would be OK with me if it was 3000 or fewer casualties. When I watched the WTC buildings crumble, live on TV, I sat there hoping that all the people who were losing their lives in front of my eyes would NOT be used as a reason to kill more innocent people. That's been my main hope ever since Sept. 11 2001. We've already seen a lot of people die in Afghanistan because of stray bombs and accidents.

I am not the type of person who is against war for any reason. I think a war is justified if a) you have gone down every diplomatic path to negotiate peace, and failed, and b) there is no doubt that innocent civilians are going to die if you DON'T act. I don't believe this is the case right now. Hans Blix asked for the inspectors to be given more time. If there is any person in the world right now who knows what the threat from Saddam is, it's Blix. I think he deserves to be taken seriously.

I think we can both agree that Blix is under immense pressure from people on both sides of the issue about Iraq. I also believe that as a rational person he also has his own views on what should happen in Iraq. I think he holds the view of France for the most part. He doesn't want to say anything that will trigger war. France doesn't want any new security council resolution that will have automatic triggers for war. In Blix's latest report, he didn't talk about how inspectors had recently discovered an Iraqi drone plane not listed in the 11,000 page arms report. He also did not say, but was in his report, that

"there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed."

this is a quote from a news website. This was written by Blix himself. This is obviously important from the US and British standpoint because it helps make the case that Hussein has never attempted to disarm. Baghdad is listed at the bottom of the list of best cities to live in world wide. Civilians are dying there. No dictator is going to keep records of this. You might say that this is because of sanctions, but Saddam agreed to the sanctions to avoid being ousted in 1991, and there are numerous reports chronicalling Hussein's use of Oil for Food money to build many palaces for himself in that period. I DO NOT WANT WAR. But I believe along with many other people and nations that Hussein needs to go.

03/08/2003 12:43:24 PM · #123

Originally posted by Froober:

LOL...your rhetoric is incredible. I wonder who would be guilty of deciding fates here...could it be Saddam? Afterall, he chose not to comply with the UN resolutions.

It's not rhetoric! I honestly don't believe in killing innocent people for an unjust war. This is a value inherent to my belief system. It's not rhetoric.

You can fall back to saying that Saddam is to blame all you want, but if so many people the world over don't agree with you, surely there is some uncertainty? That's not about "flying with the flock". If 9 people out of 10 tell me that I'm doing something seriously wrong, I do tend to question my own actions, as non-conformist as I am.

03/08/2003 12:49:02 PM · #124

Originally posted by Geocide:

this is really getting funny.

1. You say go after Bin Laden then Iraq? What difference does it make who we go after since you said yourself there's no connection.

2. Imagine Non-NRA people saying no one should have guns. You are trying to rewrite the constitution.

3. Canada can't stop criminals from obtaining guns.

4. Of course I would support my son, you know my position.