GENEVA — Fighting in Iraq is "wreaking havoc" on the country's children, nearly doubling malnutrition rates since the start of the war and all but preventing relief groups from working in the country, the U.N. children's' agency said Tuesday.

In a sign of the difficulties faced by humanitarian efforts, the first independent aid convoy to enter the Iraqi city of Fallujah after two weeks of fighting had to turn back before delivering any aid because of security fears, the international Red Cross said.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=319879

I notice you are searching far and wide for bad news in iraq and conviently ignoring a thread I posted showing how we are crushing the insurgency. your a great american

Huh? This isn't good news, coming out from Iraq, Trav. Deal with it. Stop switching the topic. Iraqis are dying from malnutrition and you are sitting there not caring. Good job, Trav.

they were dying of malnutrion under saddam too, thanks to the UN and the oil for food scam. if you could muster even a fraction of the anger you have a t bush towards the corrupt UN and Saddam you wouldnt be such a twisted individual

Originally posted by Travh20
they were dying of malnutrion under saddam too, thanks to the UN and the oil for food scam. if you could muster even a fraction of the anger you have a t bush towards the corrupt UN and Saddam you wouldnt be such a twisted individual
And now it’s worse, so…how are we “improving” their lifestyle?

One day I am going to see O.D. make a positive post. :)

Originally posted by Overdose
Fighting in Iraq is "wreaking havoc" on the country's children, nearly doubling malnutrition rates since the start of the war...

Well, yeah Overdose.

But we're a brangin' 'em some o that good old 'Muuurican style dee-mock-ra-cee, doncha know?

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/freenow1.jpg

Originally posted by Overdose
And now it’s worse, so…how are we “improving” their lifestyle?
------------------------

By giving them the opportunity for a new beginning. What they do with it will be up to them eventually. Time will tell what Phoenix arises from the ashes.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
By giving them the opportunity for a new beginning. What they do with it will be up to them eventually. Time will tell what Phoenix arises from the ashes.

*rolls eyes*

A new beginning in a world of chaos and hell! Yes, good job America!

why dont you two idiots just say you wish saddam was back in charge of iraq and that the status quo was better and be done with it already. you have all but sadi it out right so just stop dicking off and say it. let me ask you direcvtly now:\

free thinker & overdose, was iraq beter off under saddam then it is now? yes or no. no bullshit, yes or no.

Originally posted by Travh20
free thinker & overdose, was iraq beter off under saddam then it is now? yes or no. no bullshit, yes or no.
No bullshit? This isn’t a simple answer. We live in a complex world Trav, but that’s something I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

I’d say in some ways, yes. And in some ways, no.

We have brought terrorism to Iraq. We have ruined hospitals, and given them shortages of supplies. More Iraqi children are dying of starvation. The Uranium poisoning from our bombs is killing their babies.

Although, Saddam isn’t in power. He did slaughter his civilians (at the consent of our Government). He did have harsh and un-fair laws. He was an evil dictator.

Although, this isn’t a war on dictators. So, even if they are “better off” it really doesn’t matter. Because we should be fighting terrorism.

you just cvant give a straight answer can you? here let me show you how its done:

Iraq and the world are better off without saddam hussien in control of Iraq.

seehow easy that is? you seriously have issues man. you are about a year behind the power curve as it is, and falling fast. the war on the dictator has been over for a year and we are fighting the terrorists and beating their ass, as noted in the zarqaawi post I made yesterday that you refuse to look at. you are a lost cause. oh ya, I really enjoy how you cant say sadam was bad without blaming us for it. you are a grewat american, asshole

Originally posted by Travh20
Iraq and the world are better off without saddam hussien in control of Iraq.
seehow easy that is? you seriously have issues man. you are about a year behind the power curve as it is, and falling fast.

A 21 Year high in terrorism. Yes, the world is “better”. We could be focusing on terrorism more heavily if we were not in Iraq.

Iraqis are dying of starvation and Uranium poisoning. Their houses are destroyed. Over 100,000 of them are dead. The hospitals and other things are not up to standard condition. The Iraqi lifestyle has gotten progressively worse since we have invaded.

Originally posted by Travh20
the war on the dictator has been over for a year and we are fighting the terrorists and beating their ass, as noted in the zarqaawi post I made yesterday that you refuse to look at. you are a lost cause.
Firstly, of course we are beating the terrorists in Iraq. We are the United States (IE: strongest military in the world) But, does that mean we could be fighting terrorism more progressively elsewhere? Does that mean Iraq was the number 1 place to go, to fight terrorism? Honestly, get over yourself. Our military could be better used elsewhere.

Originally posted by Travh20
oh ya, I really enjoy how you cant say sadam was bad without blaming us for it. you are a grewat american, asshole
When Saddam was slaughtering the Kurds, we were supplying him with weapons. Sorry, the truth sometimes hurts.

And I am a great American. I can admit the faults in our country. Blind allegiance to a country, equals nationalism, which equals to what the Nazis were like.

have a good life loser

Originally posted by Travh20
have a good life loser

Great reply to my post, Trav. You sure proved me wrong! Good job!

I dont have to prov you wrong. your sad sack defeatist responses will prove themselves wrong in time.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont have to prov you wrong. your sad sack defeatist responses will prove themselves wrong in time.

Ummmm, if you can't prove me wrong....then I guess your "hopeful" future for Iraq isn't that much of a reality.

your right, we lost already, there is no hope without france. is that better?

Originally posted by Travh20
your right, we lost already, there is no hope without france. is that better?
Ummmm, so far, from the looks of everything, it looks like it will take a miracle to make Iraq a successful Democracy (not that it matters, this is a war on terrorism)

Oh, and as for France...ummm...is that all the Republicans talk about? France? And....ummm Freedom Fries?

there you have it, we lost, bush is a failure, by the way, anyone want to come help us out john kerry?

Originally posted by Travh20
there you have it, we lost, bush is a failure, by the way, anyone want to come help us out john kerry?

Good job Trav! :)

*rolls eyes*

check it out (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8698)

Check what out? That we are defeating the terrorists that are in Iraq? Wow, that’s expected. We are the strongest nation on the earth. Of course we are “beating them on the grounds”

Does that mean they aren’t recruiting because of how we have run this war? Does that mean they aren’t re-grouping elsewhere around the world…..since we are focused in Iraq 100%? Give me a damn break.

we are not focused on iraq 100%. get a clue General Patton. ever heard of a special forces team? delta force? the CIA? yes, we have the majority of our conventional force commited in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you dont want to use our conventional forces in Iran and pakistan and syria and saudi arabia do you? that might upset the arab world.

Be'lal has to weigh in on this.

Yes, there was a war in Iraq, and yes there is no doubt that some Iraqi children are suffering malnutrition. The question I have to ask is what were conditions like in Japan at the end of the second world war? Keep in mind that two cities had atomic bombs dropped on them. So, in addition to homelessness and malnutrition, quite a few suffered radiation poisoning.

It's hard to get an accurate reading on how Iraq is going when we look at it on a day to day basis.

Also, Travh is right. Singling out the worst incidences and posting them is somewhat counterproductive. I wish I had copied that article from life magazine that was published in late 1945 or early 1946. It was an article on how America was "losing the peace" in Europe. How our allies were disapointed about America, how Nazi guerillas keep on attacking, etc, etc. It's quite similar to the postings of certain individuals that I'll not name. I don't have to.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Yes, there was a war in Iraq, and yes there is no doubt that some Iraqi children are suffering malnutrition. The question I have to ask is what were conditions like in Japan at the end of the second world war? Keep in mind that two cities had atomic bombs dropped on them. So, in addition to homelessness and malnutrition, quite a few suffered radiation poisoning.
And what technological changes have been made since then? We have already found a way to cause harm, and not leave toxins after. Yet, Bush for some reason, hasn’t used them.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Also, Travh is right. Singling out the worst incidences and posting them is somewhat counterproductive.
Really? So, thinking Iraq is all good and cheery is productive? Actually, posting the negatives allows people to look at what we need to improve on in our war. And how we need to make it a more effective war.

whoever said it was all cheery and well? lets be honest, you do make it a point to show how bad we are failing in iraq, and its all because you hate bush. you have NEVER once said anything positive about it, ever. do you really believe there is nothing positive at all going on there? what do you think daily life for a US soldier in Iraq is like?

Originally posted by Travh20
whoever said it was all cheery and well? lets be honest, you do make it a point to show how bad we are failing in iraq, and its all because you hate bush. you have NEVER once said anything positive about it, ever. do you really believe there is nothing positive at all going on there? what do you think daily life for a US soldier in Iraq is like?
No, I don’t make it a point to show the negative. It just so happens, that about the only news coming out of Iraq, is negative news. Also, it’s not-so much Bush I dislike, it’s the Republicans that blindly follow him.

Also, the only thing positive is that Saddam is out of power. Are their living conditions better? No. Are they in more chaos? Yes. So until the Iraqis have a live-able lifestyle, I won’t see what is so special about removing Saddam.

But again, giving them a Democracy shouldn’t even be a reason for this war.

This whole "War on Terror" thing Bush has done is a gamble. It isn't, and it won't, be easy. This isn't Ronald Reagan's attack on Lybia to convince Qadafi to stop exporting terrorism. Nor is it Bush Sr.'s merely freeing Kuwait from Saddam, but leaving Hussein in Power to grow and be a threat again. This certainly isn't Clinton's anti-terrorism rhetoric and the bombing of a few terrorist bases in Iraq (odd place for terrorist bases to be) with cruise missles. The move Bush has made is to change the course of history in the entire Middle East and, perhaps, the world.

It's been done under very, very heavy protest from individuals, "peace" groups and foreign powers. Some of the most powerful leaders of terrorist within and outside of Iraq have put all their weight into destroying the ideals of democracy trying to fledge in Iraq.

It is an extremely heavy, ugly burden. It's tough on the Iraqi's and it's very hard on the troops, who will pay dearly trying to expand freedom.

What the question boils down to is this. What else can we do? Do we turn a blind eye and let tyrants like Saddam murder tens of thousands of his own people? Do we, in the West merely say Saddam isn't an "imminent threat" and let him do as he pleases? Should we have tried to make peace with this man as the French, Germans, Russians and the U.N. did? Should we buy oil from a man like Saddam while he sets up hell on earth in his country?

Do we buy comfort at the price of others?

9/11 has shown that, in spite of the fact we have left Radical Islamists alone, they are not going to leave us alone. What should we have done?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It's been done under very, very heavy protest from individuals, "peace" groups and foreign powers. Some of the most powerful leaders of terrorist within and outside of Iraq have put all their weight into destroying the ideals of democracy trying to fledge in Iraq.
Personally, I believe the main terrorists have fled the surrounding areas of Iraq and left to re-group and perhaps become even stronger elsewhere. Since Iraq wasn’t the most “terrorism” prevalent place to begin with, and also, since most of the terrorist bases were elsewhere around the world, I highly doubt we are making any serious impacts on them.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
What the question boils down to is this. What else can we do? Do we turn a blind eye and let tyrants like Saddam murder tens of thousands of his own people? Do we, in the West merely say Saddam isn't an "imminent threat" and let him do as he pleases? Should we have tried to make peace with this man as the French, Germans, Russians and the U.N. did? Should we buy oil from a man like Saddam while he sets up hell on earth in his country?
We’ve killed over 100,000…now what does that say about us? Not to mention, just because Saddam was “bad” doesn’t give us any more validation to invade his country. Throughout the 80’s he slaughtered his own people, at the consent of America. We were funding him with money and weapons when he was killing the Kurds. If we didn’t care then, we shouldn’t care now.

Also, there are many dictators in the Middle East or “bad leaders” Take the Saudi Family. They kill and slaughter their people. Throughout the entire Middle East acts like this occur. Yet, we didn’t advance against them.

We should have gone where terrorism was the largest. We should have gone after the Islamic Radicals that we are protecting the Saudi family from. We should have gone after Iran and their weapons programs and them harboring terrorists. There were many more things we should have done before we moved onto or even considered Iraq

so you are completly incapable of understanding what a free and democtatic Iraq would mean for th war on terror? short sighted doesnt even begin to describe you. try looking at the big picture overdose. the satus quo wasnt getitng it done, and the status quo is what you want. maybe a missle strike here, a missle strike there, but anything major that will make a big difference you dont want any part of.

Originally posted by Travh20
so you are completly incapable of understanding what a free and democtatic Iraq would mean for th war on terror? short sighted doesnt even begin to describe you. try looking at the big picture overdose. the satus quo wasnt getitng it done, and the status quo is what you want. maybe a missle strike here, a missle strike there, but anything major that will make a big difference you dont want any part of.
A Democracy will only last, when the people want one. Thus far, the Iraqis are split on what they actually “want”. But isn’t it ironic, that we are forcing them into a Democracy? I mean, isn’t a Democracy all about choosing, and being able to run the Government how the people want to?

if you think they want a dictator crushing them under his iron fist your an idiot. freedom is the natural state of man, not oppression. the only one who wants it different is you, who wants the old status quo because your mad the president didnt do what you and your precious party wanted him to do. the iraqis will be free, no matter what you and the al qeada terrorists have to say about it. luckily there are people running this show who dont see a little resistance as a complete failure as you seem to. there are people in this world who dont want an iraqi democracy. the baath party loyalists, the al qeada fighters, and you.

Originally posted by Travh20
if you think they want a dictator crushing them under his iron fist your an idiot.
When did I say they wanted an evil dictator? It’s funny how you always seem to put words in my mouth, Trav.

Originally posted by Travh20
freedom is the natural state of man, not oppression.
It is? Because honestly, it’s easy to assume this (being an American who has lived in freedom his entire life) but the reason many Muslims hate the West is because of our “freedom” Many Islamic Radicals and Iraqis would disagree with you.

Until they themselves want a Democracy, it will not be able to last.

Originally posted by Travh20
the only one who wants it different is you, who wants the old status quo because your mad the president didnt do what you and your precious party wanted him to do.
Actually he has abandoned the very ideals of this “war on terrorism”…Trav. Terrorism was hardly prevalent in Iraq, so why did we go there? The only reason your party still believes Bush is “fighting terrorism” is because he has brainwashed you. And the neo-cons have used their propaganda to convince you we are actually “winning the war on terror”

Originally posted by Travh20
the iraqis will be free, no matter what you and the al qeada terrorists have to say about it. luckily there are people running this show who dont see a little resistance as a complete failure as you seem to. there are people in this world who dont want an iraqi democracy. the baath party loyalists, the al qeada fighters, and you.
It’s nice that you love to compare the terrorists to me Trav, but it only shows your extremism. It only shows how little your brain can comprehend.

When have I said I don’t want the Iraqis to be free? All I’ve said is that from the looks of it now and the way Bush has run this war, it looks highly unlikely we will be able to achieve Democracy in Iraq.

Also, why do Republicans think giving them a Democracy will all of a sudden eliminate terrorists in the Middle East? If anything, it will only aggravate the terrorists, and make them dislike and hate us even more.

ya, the radicals dont want freedom, and many iraqis, like the baathist loyalists. great point, finally we agree on something. Its really to bad that you see all of iraq not wanting a democracy because of a few phsycos yet cant bring yourself to see that the vast majority of them are peaceful and want to be free.


and why do you want to keep the dictators in power? why do you think leaving saddam in power would make us safer?

Originally posted by Travh20
Its really to bad that you see all of iraq not wanting a democracy because of a few phsycos yet cant bring yourself to see that the vast majority of them are peaceful and want to be free.
I didn't say all of Iraq didn't want a Democracy. I said Islamic Radicals and about half of the Iraqis don’t want it. If they truly did want it, they would have been fighting for it, a long time ago.

Originally posted by Travh20
and why do you want to keep the dictators in power? why do you think leaving saddam in power would make us safer?
I don’t want the dictators to stay in power, Trav. But there is a simple matter called order of priorities. Saddam wasn’t at the top of the list, in terms of making us “safer” Yes, getting rid of Saddam should have made us safer, but the way Bush has run this war, we are less safe. Also, we should have gone after more harmful areas before moving onto Saddam.

Originally posted by Overdose
I didn't say all of Iraq didn't want a Democracy. I said Islamic Radicals and about half of the Iraqis don’t want it. If they truly did want it, they would have been fighting for it, a long time ago.


oh so now you take into consideration what islamic radicals want? y ou wont even do that for christian "radicals" in this country. as far as why they didnt fight for it, go look up how life in saddams iraq was, and tell me how the hell they could have organized a revolt. they couldnt trust their own brothers for fear of them being an agent of saddam who would turn them in. and you dont want to know what happened to poele who were caught plotting agaisnt saddam or even thought to be plotting agaisnt him. I will tell you there is a wood chipper involved. and I can guarentee you if you asked the iraqis if they wanted to be free half of them wouldnt say no. you act as if they are not humam, or so different from you and me they actually dont want freedom for some reason. you only answer is that the didnt fight for it. why didnt the concentration camp victims fight to get out? did they want to be there overdose? thats what you are saying. the didnt fight to get out of there so they must have wanted to be there. you dont take into consideration the situation the are in. its as if you think they are fighting for the right to wear jeans to school or something.


Originally posted by Overdose
I don’t want the dictators to stay in power, Trav. But there is a simple matter called order of priorities. Saddam wasn’t at the top of the list, in terms of making us “safer” Yes, getting rid of Saddam should have made us safer, but the way Bush has run this war, we are less safe. Also, we should have gone after more harmful areas before moving onto Saddam.

you ever heard the phrase beating a dead horse? shoulda woulda coulda, you better catch up to reality man. we are in iraq now fighting al qeada. you might as wel just go on and on about how we could have stopped 9-11 for as much sense as saying weshould have doen something else matters at this point. and just for curiosity, i will ask you again, but I will give you all the parameters so you can actually answer:

say we didnt go into iraq, who was more dangerous and why? what proof do you have? what woudl you have done about it? please, for the love of all that is good, gve us an answer or shut yer damn pie hole already. stop saying "we are in iraq so theres nothing we can do, duh"

Originally posted by Travh20
oh so now you take into consideration what islamic radicals want? y ou wont even do that for christian "radicals" in this country.
No, I want what will make our country safer, and aggravating the terrorists by putting a Democracy in Iraq isn't the best way to ensure our safety.

Originally posted by Travh20
as far as why they didnt fight for it, go look up how life in saddams iraq was, and tell me how the hell they could have organized a revolt.
Yes, it would have lead to a lot of bloodshed, what revolt doesn't?

Originally posted by Travh20
and you dont want to know what happened to poele who were caught plotting agaisnt saddam or even thought to be plotting agaisnt him. I will tell you there is a wood chipper involved. and I can guarentee you if you asked the iraqis if they wanted to be free half of them wouldnt say no. you act as if they are not humam, or so different from you and me they actually dont want freedom for some reason. you only answer is that the didnt fight for it. why didnt the concentration camp victims fight to get out? did they want to be there overdose? thats what you are saying. the didnt fight to get out of there so they must have wanted to be there. you dont take into consideration the situation the are in. its as if you think they are fighting for the right to wear jeans to school or something.
First, why is it our job to ensure the freedoms of the entire world? Isn't it our job to ensure the safety of our own people? Why are we all of a sudden the “world police”? Why do we have to fight for the Iraqis freedoms? Honestly, get a hold of yourself. This is a war on terrorism, Trav, not giving people this Democracy. You say we are giving them this Democracy, yet, we don't even have enough troops to give them one. What does that say? It says that no one even cared to give them a Democracy, but since that's the only reason the conservatives have left, they will use it until they are blue in the face. I don't buy it. We aren't running this war correctly, and the Iraqis are suffering greatly because of the way the Bush Administration is running this war.

Don't tell me we need to give them a Democracy, when Osama Bin Laden is running free. This was not the time or place to be giving them a Democracy Trav. Maybe a few years from now, when terrorism was under control. But after 9/11, we should have gone where terrorism was most prevalent, and that was not in Iraq. Period.

Originally posted by Travh20
say we didnt go into iraq, who was more dangerous and why? what proof do you have? what woudl you have done about it? please, for the love of all that is good, gve us an answer or shut yer damn pie hole already. stop saying "we are in iraq so theres nothing we can do, duh"
This has already been answered. You're beginning to become stupider by the minute.

We should have forcefully gone after the Islamic Radicals in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Royal family who helped 11 hijackers on 9/11. We should have put huge pressure on Iran. We should have forcefully taken care of the terrorism in Pakistan. And FINISHED the job in Afgan.

shut the fuck up with your narrow minded force fed bullshit moron.

Originally posted by Travh20
shut the fuck up with your narrow minded force fed bullshit moron.

What an intelligent, thought out, reply to my response…Trav. Typical, typical Trav.

if your looking for an apology forget it. I have had it with you and dop and echo talking out of both sides of your mouth about the war and the troops. you think its a mistake, you tyhink we cant win, you dont even want to try. post your crap to someone else overdose.

Originally posted by Travh20
post your crap to someone else overdose.
This is a public forum. I think I'll post what I want on here. If you can't debate the issues, step down, Trav. If you can't defend your points, step down, Trav.

no one can defend their points agaisnt micheal Moores, I mean your indestructable points overdose. the way you say we should have done it better, man, thats powerful.

Originally posted by Travh20
no one can defend their points agaisnt micheal Moores, I mean your indestructable points overdose. the way you say we should have done it better, man, thats powerful.

I've admitted that Moore is not always correct.

But again, if you can't debate the issues, shut up. You are avoiding the topics, because you have no more defense. Keep avoiding the topic....Trav, because that's all you have left.

avoiding the topics? I have been trying to get a straight answer out of you!

Originally posted by Overdose
This is a public forum. I think I'll post what I want on here. If you can't debate the issues, step down, Trav.

Just a minor point here - it's a moderated forum owned by a private person. You post what you want here at their whim. :)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Just a minor point here - it's a moderated forum owned by a private person. You post what you want here at their whim. :)
Wow, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Glad you took an interest in the debate we were having! Firstly, I know this. Secondly, what I've been posting is allowed, which is what I was trying to convey to Trav.

So him telling me to "take my shit elsewhere" is a meaningless point, because I can post what I've been posting here, because it hasn't broken any rules.

Originally posted by Travh20
avoiding the topics? I have been trying to get a straight answer out of you!

Bullshit. I've been debating the issues, and I've been replying to you. I've given you the answers; I suggest you learn to read better. You have nothing more to debate...because you have nothing more to say against my beliefs.

I gave you a large rebuttal (conveying my points, and staying on topic) and you just simply said,

shut the fuck up with your narrow minded force fed bullshit moron.

So, you were the one that left the debate, you were the one that got off topic and started insulting people. Go back to school and learn to read.

you put a lot of words on the screen that didnt mean anthing overdose. regurgitated democrat talking points. how many times can you say we should have done something differnet without an specifics? you listed off some countries, but didnt say what to do about it, or even how your so sure they were more of a threat then saddam. you have really said nothing much at all overdose.

Originally posted by Travh20
you put a lot of words on the screen that didnt mean anthing overdose. regurgitated democrat talking points. how many times can you say we should have done something differnet without an specifics?
Wrong. They are points you haven’t debated or proven me wrong on. Until you can, I’ll repeat them over and over. Sadly, you have no way of disproving the points I’m making. Debate the issues or step down. From the looks of it, you are still avoiding the issues. How typical.

Originally posted by Travh20
you listed off some countries, but didnt say what to do about it, or even how your so sure they were more of a threat then saddam. you have really said nothing much at all overdose.
Yes, you need to go back to school and learn to read.

We should have forcefully gone after the Islamic Radicals in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Royal family who helped 11 hijackers on 9/11. We should have put huge pressure on Iran. We should have forcefully taken care of the terrorism in Pakistan. And FINISHED the job in Afghanistan.

Ummmm, a little more then what you say I did.

OD, do you ever get tired of being an arrogant elitist?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
OD, do you ever get tired of being an arrogant elitist?
Not really. Care to debate? Or are you just going to attack the poster and ignore the real issues at hand.

I'm not even involved in this debate and OD is accusing me of ignoring the "real issues." At least he admits he's an arrogant elitist.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I'm not even involved in this debate and OD is accusing me of ignoring the "real issues."
When you post off-topic in a thread, you are ignoring the real issues of that specific thread, Dave.

I was replying to your arrogant elitist postings within this thread. That's no more off topic than when you critique people's spelling.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I was replying to your arrogant elitist postings within this thread. That's no more off topic than when you critique people's spelling.
Actually, I only critique people’s spelling when they insult me.

And how was I an arrogant elitist? If Trav has nothing more to post against my opinions, and just calls me a “moron”…then I guess my beliefs are fairly backed up because he has no more reasons to discredit them.

I suggest you debate, and stop with this little game you want to create, Dave.

And how was I an arrogant elitist?

Do I really have to explain it to you? I mean, you already admitted that you were an arrogant elitist.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Do I really have to explain it to you? I mean, you already admitted that you were an arrogant elitist.
I am. Now, will you please debate the issues? Or are you just going to keep this little game going?

I think overdose needs to learn what an opinion is. He seems to get the "issues" and his "opinions" mixed up. of course when your an arrogant punk like him you probably learn that your opinions are the only ones that matter.

anyway, I am intrigued by his opinion that we should have forcibly gone into Saudi Arabia. Not that I disagree with that, but I seem to remember a lot of outrage about upsetting the Arab street by going into Iraq. well, Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Islam, and if you think there are a lot of "holy cities" in Iraq, you aint seen nothing till you get into Saudi Arabia. In fact, i seem to remember a big reason Bin laden started hating us was because there were "infidels" in the holy land during and after the Gulf War. If you think there is a lot of resistance now, wait until the infidel army starts going house to house in Mecca searching for insurgents. IF you were worried about a holy war in Iraq, we would really have one is Saudi Arabia. hell, even American Muslims would probably start an insurgency here in the US. What it all boils down to overdose is this: you think you know what your talking about but you don't. a lot of men a lot smarter then us have already gone over this. you may not agree with them, but they do have a lot more information then us and I will take their word over some 15 year old know it all from Portland who would probably be 100% behind this war if the democratic party said it was the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Travh20
I think overdose needs to learn what an opinion is. He seems to get the "issues" and his "opinions" mixed up. of course when your an arrogant punk like him you probably learn that your opinions are the only ones that matter.
Well, you sure have me figured out.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am intrigued by his opinion that we should have forcibly gone into Saudi Arabia. Not that I disagree with that, but I seem to remember a lot of outrage about upsetting the Arab street by going into Iraq. well, Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Islam, and if you think there are a lot of "holy cities" in Iraq, you aint seen nothing till you get into Saudi Arabia.
Really? After the Gulf War we already put in place a Military Base in Saudi Arabia, which is what created such Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. So yes, I don't think I would support going into Saudi Arabia, but I would support stopping trade with the Saudis, and forcing them to stop their connection with terrorism. You see, the people of those lands hate the Saudi Royal Family. Although, we protect them...and we have even put in stall a base in their lands. We should get rid of that base and our support to them.

Originally posted by Travh20
In fact, i seem to remember a big reason Bin laden started hating us was because there were "infidels" in the holy land during and after the Gulf War. If you think there is a lot of resistance now, wait until the infidel army starts going house to house in Mecca searching for insurgents. IF you were worried about a holy war in Iraq, we would really have one is Saudi Arabia. hell, even American Muslims would probably start an insurgency here in the US.
Which is why I wouldn't support going into Saudi Arabia. I guess I didn't clarify my position. If we stopped our support to the Saudi Royal family, they would be in a world of hell. Which would force them to comply with us, and that would thus help our cause against terrorism since they would stop the funding. That is what I would be in support of, Trav.

Originally posted by Travh20
What it all boils down to overdose is this: you think you know what your talking about but you don't. a lot of men a lot smarter then us have already gone over this. you may not agree with them, but they do have a lot more information then us and I will take their word over some 15 year old know it all from Portland who would probably be 100% behind this war if the democratic party said it was the right thing to do.
bla. bla. bla. bla. You want to know what I would have honestly done after 9/11? I would have gone into Afgan. and made sure we got rid of all the terrorism that country had. Next, I would have put pressure on the Saudi Government (not attack them, sorry for the confusion Trav). Then I would have put pressure on Iran and Pakistan. I wouldn't have launched war, I would have dealt with those Governments before making a decision to launch war.

As for if a Democrat had been in office, I wouldn't have been in support of it. Iraq/Saddam had slim ties to terrorism, and no WMD's. No reason to attack Iraq, Trav.

Doesnt the Saudi royals and rich businessmen account for like 8% of the entire American Economy? and isnt Bush kinda freindly with them etc, so its not going to happen really. Actually isnt that the whole reason that choose Iraq to bomb instead of the actual threat in the first place as well?

OVERDOSE: "Which is why I wouldn't support going into Saudi Arabia. I guess I didn't clarify my position. If we stopped our support to the Saudi Royal family, they would be in a world of hell. Which would force them to comply with us, and that would thus help our cause against terrorism since they would stop the funding. That is what I would be in support of, Trav. "

overdose, you have completly changed your position on saudi arabia. it went from going in and getting the terrorists by force to we should stop trade with them and stop supportign the royal family. when you stop flip flopping come on back, until then go read up on your democrat talking points a little more. its obvious you are just talking to hear yourself talk.

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose, you have completly changed your position on saudi arabia. it went from going in and getting the terrorists by force to we should stop trade with them and stop supportign the royal family. when you stop flip flopping come on back, until then go read up on your democrat talking points a little more. its obvious you are just talking to hear yourself talk.
Wrong. I re-thought my position on Saudi Arabia. I didn't completely change, I still wanted to be pro-active about the Saudis. I just realized (as you correctly pointed out) that we shouldn't attack them.

I gave you what I wanted to do about Saudi Arabia. Now you have your answer. But of course, that isn't good enough.

Sorry, they aren't Democrat talking points, they are reality. You refuse to debate the fact that we are making Iraq hell, that we haven't improved their lives. That Saddam wasn't a threat, and that we should have gone after more harmful threats before Saddam. You ignore all of that, and nit-pick my words like with this Saudi Arabia business.

Also, if that's your little girl in your icon, she's so cute! :)

knit pick your words? is that what you call a complete flip flop now? no wonder you were such a kerry man

Originally posted by Travh20
knit pick your words? is that what you call a complete flip flop now? no wonder you were such a kerry man

It wasn’t a flip-flop. I first said I wanted to use military force against Saudi Arabia…then after you posted, I re-thought and understood that attacking Saudi Arabia would do more harm then good. So, I explained to you (up above) what I would have done. Which is to not use military force, but use other methods.

It’s still using force, just not military force. It would only have been a flip flop if I had said, “we shouldn’t use any force”…but I’m for other force, just not military action. There is other ways to solve problems, Trav.

It’s okay, I know it was hard for your brain to process.

But again, you are diverting the attention away from the topic of this thread. The Iraqis lives are hell right now. Good job America, I’m proud of you.

LOL, OK, so now your calling political pressure 'force"? admit it, you didnt think about the ramifications of it before you said it. this is a constant thing with you ovedose. you insist you are right and say how wrong others are, and smart off to people about how stupid they are for not buying into your half baked ideas, then turn around and change your mind one day and expect us to think of it as some sort of badge of honor. its a flip flop man, plain and simple. There is nothing honorabel about insisting you are right about something, and degrading those who disagree with you, then changing your mind and expecting some sor t of medal for being open minded. Oh, and great job getting that jab in at america at the end. man your pathetic. perhaps you should just say they were better off under sadam now and get it over with, then at least we can have an honest debate. as of now we dont know when your going to complelty change your mind again.

Okay, Trav, I flip flopped. Bite me.

I flip flopped on the Saudi Arabia issue, which isn't even what we are debating. We are debating how other threats were more of an issue. We are debating how the Iraqis lives are worse then they were when Saddam was in power. How we aren't really doing them any good. If you think Saddam was so bad, why are we making their lives worse? Answer me that.

Plus, the fact is, if Bush cared so much about attacking and keeping us safe, he would have gone after the biggest threats. That wasn't Iraq. Would I have been in support of the other area he choose? Maybe or maybe not. Depending on how he dealt with the situation.

But, the only part you are going to reply to is the “flip flop” part, because the other issues like the Iraqis lives, is of no issue or concern to you. But go ahead, and divert attention away from the main issues.

LOL, keep flopping, it is quite amusing

I knew it. You would avoid the main topics. Now that is very amusing.

what are the main topics overdose? ask me some direct questions and you will get direct answers.

Look up a few posts, idiot.

We are debating how the Iraqis lives are worse then they were when Saddam was in power. How we aren't really doing them any good. If you think Saddam was so bad, why are we making their lives worse? Answer me that.

Wow, I asked a question.

many iraqis lives are better, many are worse. you cant say they are all worse off. Blaming only the US though and not the insurgents is not right. How many delibrate terrorist car bombs in crowds of iraqis are you going to ignore to point out american mistakes?

Originally posted by Travh20
many iraqis lives are better, many are worse. you cant say they are all worse off.
No, I can’t say all but I can say double

Hey Trav:

Warmongers always focus on the question "Is the world better off without Sadaam? Yes or No?"

Yes the world is better off without Sadaam.

Here's the real question:

"What fucking right does the US have to topple soverign nations in pursuit of Democracy?"

The answer to that question reveals wether you are truly for freedom or if you believe America has the right to instate Totalitarian "Democratic" world rule.

The real issue has always been resources. America gotta eat. I am all for the continued life of luxury we enjoy. I can even get behind fighting wars of aggression to maintain it. I can't talk this dumb shit about WMDs to try to cover up, though.

what right do we have? go look up Un resolution 1441

C'mon, man.

Let's have some real talk.

Apparently you believe in the state of nature; the rule of tooth and claw. People have to die for these ends. I just want you guys to come out and say it instead of resolving and politicking.

say what?

You believe that 100,000 lives is a small price to pay for our American lifestyle, right?

100,000? try over a million Americans who have died in wars who have bought us this lifestyle with their blood

Originally posted by Travh20
100,000? try over a million Americans who have died in wars who have bought us this lifestyle with their blood
Yes, and WE fought for this lifestyle. We didn't have others fight FOR us.

The fact is, we cannot FORCE other countires to be just like us. We are not the Kings of the world.

Originally posted by Travh20
100,000? try over a million Americans who have died in wars who have bought us this lifestyle with their blood

Avoiding the question eh?

Once again, point blank:

YES or NO...

Do you think it's okay to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians to ensure America's standard of living?

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, and WE fought for this lifestyle. We didn't have others fight FOR us.

The fact is, we cannot FORCE other countires to be just like us. We are not the Kings of the world.

I am going to ask you this one more time in regard to your "they dindt fight for it so they dont want it" statements:

did the fact that the jews, who outnumbered their nazi captors by hundreds to 1 in the concentration camps, want to be there because they didnt fight to get out of there? that is the same thing you are saying about the iraqis overdose. exactly the same thing. they didnt fight saddam so they must have wanted to be under hs iron fist. your opinion of the human spirit is indeed very low.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Avoiding the question eh?

Once again, point blank:

YES or NO...

Do you think it's okay to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians to ensure America's standard of living?

no.

Originally posted by Travh20
did the fact that the jews, who outnumbered their nazi captors by hundreds to 1 in the concentration camps, want to be there because they didnt fight to get out of there? that is the same thing you are saying about the iraqis overdose. exactly the same thing. they didnt fight saddam so they must have wanted to be under hs iron fist. your opinion of the human spirit is indeed very low.
How do you know the Iraqis wanted a Democracy? And, was it the time to be giving them one when we should be focusing 100% on terrorism?

Originally posted by Overdose
How do you know the Iraqis wanted a Democracy? And, was it the time to be giving them one when we should be focusing 100% on terrorism?

answer the question, for the 4th time, did the hjews want to be int the concentration camps? they didnt fight their way out, even though they outnumbered their nazi captors 1000 to 1, so according to your argument, they wanted to be there. now answer the question, did they want to be there?

Originally posted by Travh20
answer the question, for the 4th time, did the hjews want to be int the concentration camps? they didnt fight their way out, even though they outnumbered their nazi captors 1000 to 1, so according to your argument, they wanted to be there. now answer the question, did they want to be there?
Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? Of course they didn’t want to be in the camps. And of course the Iraqis didn’t want to be under the rule of Saddam. I’ve never denied this, Trav. Stop putting words in my mouth.

But, it’s not our responsibility to give them a Democracy when we were just attacked on 9/11. It’s not our job to fight for a Democracy, when we were just attacked for having one. We need to defend our Democracy, not create others (which will piss off our enemies even more) And the best way to defend our Democracy would be to fight every terrorist in Afghanistan, and finish the job there before moving onto any other situation.

Originally posted by Travh20
no.

I stand corrected.

od,

Sorry but i have been reading over a lot of your posts and it seems that you have all but agreed with me in almost everyway on this arguement with what i was saying on my first post.

America is not helping anyone, Yes you have the best army becuase you have the best tech and greatest population but like i said there are all thick, Hence the fight in iraq when there are terroists everywhere!!!

Anyway, Thanx you have made me feel better now as i know i am right you just dont like the fact that a non american is saying america is crap!! At least you are honest!!

Originally posted by Overdose
Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? Of course they didn’t want to be in the camps. And of course the Iraqis didn’t want to be under the rule of Saddam. I’ve never denied this, Trav. Stop putting words in my mouth.

But, it’s not our responsibility to give them a Democracy when we were just attacked on 9/11. It’s not our job to fight for a Democracy, when we were just attacked for having one. We need to defend our Democracy, not create others (which will piss off our enemies even more) And the best way to defend our Democracy would be to fight every terrorist in Afghanistan, and finish the job there before moving onto any other situation.


can you honestly see no benefit from a democratic iraq inahbiting theheart of the middle east? are you complelty void of any long range strategic thinking? we cant end terrorism just by killing terrorists, we have to take away their sources. a free iraq is the first step. I dont want to get into all the details because it would be a waste of time with you. all you woudl say id "we are fighting terrorism not starting democracies" just take a littel time to think about what a free iraq would do to the middle east. please look past your extreme partisanship and try to see 50 years into the future. its not only about us. of course i dont see why I would think a self involved pop kid like you would be able to comprehend that.

Having a "Democratic Iraq" is something like having a puppet regime set up in the midst of the evil Muslims.

call it what you will, the terrorists and middle eastern despots dont want it, so there must be something good in it for everyone else

can you honestly see no benefit from a democratic iraq inahbiting theheart of the middle east?

From the looks of it, we won't be able to give them one. Also, it will only piss of the terrorists more...we are putting a Western Democracy in THEIR religious land. Yeah, no, I highly doubt they are happy about it.

I don't disagree with the actual methods. I can't get behind the doublespeak. I prefer to just be clear.

We take over Iraq, set up a puppet government and either the rest of the Middle East falls in line or they are next, right?

Originally posted by Overdose
can you honestly see no benefit from a democratic iraq inahbiting theheart of the middle east?

From the looks of it, we won't be able to give them one. Also, it will only piss of the terrorists more...we are putting a Western Democracy in THEIR religious land. Yeah, no, I highly doubt they are happy about it.

your right, we better do whatever it takes to make the terrorists happy

Originally posted by Travh20
your right, we better do whatever it takes to make the terrorists happy
Trav you are so simple minded. We are only doing what is best to ensure our security and safety. If we fight the terrorists intelligently, we can win. By putting a Democracy in the Middle East where terrorism is prevalent, is not an ethical way to fight or destroy terrorism. All it will do is create and produce even more terrorists.

ya, in any fight for your very life ethics should be first and foremost in your mind. We know the terrorists are very concerned with ethics. Again, you demonstrate your complete cluelessness of what exactly is going on in the war on terror. this isn't a high school ethics debate, its a freaking war where we kill or get killed. if some A hole knows where a bomb is and wont tell us we get the info any way we can. If some A hole dictator misjudges our sincerity to carry through on our threats and decides to ignore us we take his ass out. all this PC crap you advocate is what got us to where we are in the first place. your so stuck in the September 10th mindset its sad.

Wrong. I want to actually fight terrorism, in the areas that had the most terrorism. That wasn't Iraq, sorry Trav. I want to fight countries that are of a threat to us, Iraq wasn't. Saddam has no weapons. Sorry, but we had no reason to invade Iraq.

who do you want to invade? and how certain are you they have what you think they do?

Originally posted by Travh20
who do you want to invade? and how certain are you they have what you think they do?
1. Already told you what I would do.

2. We have more proof now in terms of who is in terrorist ties, then before we invaded Iraq.