[b:34d8581d72]Pandora's Arsenal [/b:34d8581d72]
September 27, 2002
By Maureen Farrell

If President Bush hadn't been required by law to submit his strategic statement to Congress, he might have continued to play "I've got a secret." But the National Military Strategy for the United States of America, released last Friday, finally made it official: the U.S. wants to control the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/09/27_arsenal.html

I disagree. Personally I would be a good Idea to kick out Sadam. I do not want to get rid of him so oil will be cheap. I want to do it because he may have a Nuclear weapon soon, and it could end up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. I do not understand how anybody could be against giving the Iraqi People freedom from this awful man (who has killed more of his own people than our mission in Iraq ever will). This article was posted on DU, so I expected it to be opinion bassed filled with falsehoods, which it was. IE: President Bush was not required by law to submit his strategic statement to Congress. There is no doubt in my mind that a link between Iraq and Osama exists.

I want Bush out because he is a threat to the middle east killing thousands upon thousands of men children and womyn who pose no threat. He still continues to be a threat to these people and it makes me sick.

[quote:062c5adddf]he may have a Nuclear weapon soon, and it could end up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans[/quote:062c5adddf]

blah :roll: if Sadam would get a nuke he would do the same thing he did before- absolutely nothing. Instead of attacking US he might as well lounch the bomb 90 degrees in the air waiting for it to retunrn.

[quote:bd4e2a1438="infidel_Joe"]
blah :roll: if Sadam would get a nuke he would do the same thing he did before- absolutely nothing. Instead of attacking US he might as well lounch the bomb 90 degrees in the air waiting for it to retunrn.[/quote:bd4e2a1438]

Granted if he got an ICBM he would not be able to fire it. but nuclear bombs nowadays come in briefcases. All is he would have to do is hire someone to get the bomb to America. Do we really trust him to do nothing with nuclear weapons?

[quote:63cfe6820c="ConfusedYouth"]I want Bush out because he is a threat to the middle east killing thousands upon thousands of men children and womyn who pose no threat. He still continues to be a threat to these people and it makes me sick.[/quote:63cfe6820c]

If we go into Iraq, there will be Civilian causualties, there is talk that sadam might use his people as a "human shield"of sorts. but should a person that does something like this be running a country. I don't think the civilian casualties will be as large as you say. The causualties in Afgahnistan were about 700 people, I think Iraq will be about the same. George Bush wants to free these people. If you talked about Sadam in Iraq like you talk about Bush on this messageboard, you would be in trouble. It is right to complain about the president, but in Iraq they don't have that right. So I don't understand why you side with Sadam.

Thats 700 to many and just because from Iraq or Afganistan makes it okay if they die but as soon as a American civilian is dead we go crazy. It's stupid.

[quote:82c62b8f5f="ConfusedYouth"]Thats 700 to many and just because from Iraq or Afganistan makes it okay if they die but as soon as a American civilian is dead we go crazy. It's stupid.[/quote:82c62b8f5f]

I agree 700 civilian casualties is way too many. I hate to say it because I am going to come off as an ass, but I would rather have 700 dead Iraqis than 100,000 dead Americans.

In the past 12 years of the United States raging war with Iraq we have killed several thousand Iraqi people and this does not include the after affects they have felt by us bombing water treatment centers and stuff long those lines. We have terrorized the people of Iraq for 12 years and yet we say they pose a threat to us.

You are an ass and this is why I think nations suck. Nations do nothing but seperate and you have shown a great example. You would rather Iraqi people die than Americans but last time I checked we both had feelings, family, and we are ALL HUMAN FER CHRIST SAKES!

Just say no to nations because they do nothing but seperate!

[quote:5df5ab6815="ConfusedYouth"]In the past 12 years of the United States raging war with Iraq we have killed several thousand Iraqi people and this does not include the after affects they have felt by us bombing water treatment centers and stuff long those lines. We have terrorized the people of Iraq for 12 years and yet we say they pose a threat to us.

You are an ass and this is why I think nations suck. Nations do nothing but seperate and you have shown a great example. You would rather Iraqi people die than Americans but last time I checked we both had feelings, family, and we are ALL HUMAN FER CHRIST SAKES!

Just say no to nations because they do nothing but seperate![/quote:5df5ab6815]

We have killed Iraqi people? show me some facts or shut up. You blame america for everything and you are definately confused. You would rather 100,000 people die than 700 people? no matter what nationality. No you would rather have 100,000 evil americans die than 700 Iraqi's. what about sadam building palaces instead of caring for his people? But no don't blame him. You know when I call myself and ass it is one thing, but when another board member does it it is entirely different. Especially a punk kid from North Carolina who is probally not even old enough to vote. Why do I think this? Because if you actually had a clue, you would not think the way you do. being anti-everything is really standing up for nothing...

I never said I'd rather have 100,000 people die over 700 what I was saying is everyone makes a big deal when an American dies in war but you never seem to care to much when a civilian child in Iraq dies because of US terrorism. What is the difference besides nationality last time I checked we were all human.

In fact Saddam is a highly respected leader in Iraq so the people dont seem to have much of a problem with him. I'm sure if they did we would have seen a revolution by now.

I'm not anti-everything and how would you know considering you hardly know me. And yes I'm old enough to vote are you? You seem to have a big fucking problem with the fact I'm pro-peace or I'm willing to stand against corporate greed or other things that hurt people in this world but you know what fuck you go live your sorry prefab life and I will live mine questioning the answers that authority gives us.

[quote:6a28e6e217="ConfusedYouth"]I never said I'd rather have 100,000 people die over 700 what I was saying is everyone makes a big deal when an American dies in war but you never seem to care to much when a civilian child in Iraq dies because of US terrorism. What is the difference besides nationality last time I checked we were all human.

In fact Saddam is a highly respected leader in Iraq so the people dont seem to have much of a problem with him. I'm sure if they did we would have seen a revolution by now.

I'm not anti-everything and how would you know considering you hardly know me. And yes I'm old enough to vote are you? You seem to have a big fucking problem with the fact I'm pro-peace or I'm willing to stand against corporate greed or other things that hurt people in this world but you know what fuck you go live your sorry prefab life and I will live mine questioning the answers that authority gives us.[/quote:6a28e6e217]

I am 25, a US Navy vet I work two Jobs and am a full time college student. so now you know a little about me. How can we have peace if dictators like Sadam still exist in the world? The Iraqi people are scared of sadam and thats why they don't speak out. Npobody likes corporate greed but to say all corporations are evil, Is making assumptions. there are plenty of non evil companies out there. My life is not prefabricated it is what I choose, anyone in America can be whatever they want if they are willing to work for it.

BTW: Q. What did I say in the first line of My reply?
A. 700 civilian casualties is way to many

[quote:2ea06284b0="SB54"]I disagree. Personally I would be a good Idea to kick out Sadam. I do not want to get rid of him so oil will be cheap. I want to do it because he may have a Nuclear weapon soon, and it could end up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. I do not understand how anybody could be against giving the Iraqi People freedom from this awful man (who has killed more of his own people than our mission in Iraq ever will). This article was posted on DU, so I expected it to be opinion bassed filled with falsehoods, which it was. IE: President Bush was not required by law to submit his strategic statement to Congress. There is no doubt in my mind that a link between Iraq and Osama exists.[/quote:2ea06284b0]

Actually, even Republican senators have come forward and said that at this point Sadam is at least five yrs away from being able to create and use nuclear weapons -- so why the rush? Why are we suddenly in a panic to attack? Perhaps, because election time is coming and sadly nothing brings our nation together like war?

I can not support invading Iraq until the Bush administration is honest about why they feel Sadam is a threat and explain publically what they plan to do now and what they plan to do once he is de-throned.

I disagree that the article was full of falsehoods. It was full of bias, which is why I posted it in the political folder and not the news folder.

BTW, since you stated that there is no doubt in your mind that the link exists, please explain to me why you think this. Apparently, you know something that even conservative political analysts do not.

[quote:eeac88eb6d="J_Lively"][quote:eeac88eb6d="SB54"]I disagree. Personally I would be a good Idea to kick out Sadam. I do not want to get rid of him so oil will be cheap. I want to do it because he may have a Nuclear weapon soon, and it could end up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. I do not understand how anybody could be against giving the Iraqi People freedom from this awful man (who has killed more of his own people than our mission in Iraq ever will). This article was posted on DU, so I expected it to be opinion bassed filled with falsehoods, which it was. IE: President Bush was not required by law to submit his strategic statement to Congress. There is no doubt in my mind that a link between Iraq and Osama exists.[/quote:eeac88eb6d]

Actually, even Republican senators have come forward and said that at this point Sadam is at least five yrs away from being able to create and use nuclear weapons -- so why the rush? Why are we suddenly in a panic to attack? Perhaps, because election time is coming and sadly nothing brings our nation together like war?

I can not support invading Iraq until the Bush administration is honest about why they feel Sadam is a threat and explain publically what they plan to do now and what they plan to do once he is de-throned.

I disagree that the article was full of falsehoods. It was full of bias, which is why I posted it in the political folder and not the news folder.

BTW, since you stated that there is no doubt in your mind that the link exists, please explain to me why you think this. Apparently, you know something that even conservative political analysts do not.[/quote:eeac88eb6d]

I Know you want something I can substantiate to back it up but I just know after being in the Navy that goverment officials recieve information that they do not share with the public. The most Bush will say is that the link exists and he will prove it. I believe him, I don't know why. but if it is going to be five years maybe we should wait, but i don't want to be hearing about this five years from now. One falsehood i found was that bush had to legally go to the congress, and from what I understand he did not have too because of a resolution signed by congress on sept 12, 2001. He did anyways, so it leads me to think he wants to avoid war.

That only applies to Afganistan and no other country so by law he must go to congress.

Bush has to get the approval of the Congress, but before all he has to convince other UN security council members. Which is far from being done : only UK (I'd better write : only Tony Blair) supports him.
Of course the USA have the military power to make war without allies. But if they don't get international approval, any further action against terrorism would become nearly impossible for them. That's why Bush should be more convincing about the supposed evidence of links between Iraq and Al Quaeda. And obviously he hasn't more than the very thin report already shown by Blair.

[quote:7012ceaf74="SB54"]I Know you want something I can substantiate to back it up but I just know after being in the Navy that goverment officials recieve information that they do not share with the public. The most Bush will say is that the link exists and he will prove it. I believe him, I don't know why. but if it is going to be five years maybe we should wait, but i don't want to be hearing about this five years from now. One falsehood i found was that bush had to legally go to the congress, and from what I understand he did not have too because of a resolution signed by congress on sept 12, 2001. He did anyways, so it leads me to think he wants to avoid war.[/quote:7012ceaf74]

Well, according to the news he had to legally go before congress.

Another problem I have with this whole thing is that my leaders, whether elected or appointed, are there to serve me (by "me" I mean the majority of people in this country). It seems that the Bush administration doesn't care that poll after poll confirms that the American public does not want to invade Iraq. Only one country, Britian, is even backing him. It just seems that he and his administration are determined to go to war no matter what anyone thinks or wants. This leads me to question even further, WHY?

[quote:9a8fdf79fb="J_Lively"]Only one country, Britian, is even backing him.[/quote:9a8fdf79fb]
It's only Tony Blair over here backing him, not the entire country.

[quote:9f32459f86="Mayhem"]It's only Tony Blair over here backing him, not the entire country.[/quote:9f32459f86]

Good point.

[quote:a5567b099f="J_Lively"]

Well, according to the news he had to legally go before congress.

Another problem I have with this whole thing is that my leaders, whether elected or appointed, are there to serve me (by "me" I mean the majority of people in this country). It seems that the Bush administration doesn't care that poll after poll confirms that the American public does not want to invade Iraq. Only one country, Britian, is even backing him. It just seems that he and his administration are determined to go to war no matter what anyone thinks or wants. This leads me to question even further, WHY?[/quote:a5567b099f]

Thats BS and you know it. Most Americans favor action in Iraq. We have given Iraq chance, after chance. Bush had said he wants to avoid war, but how can we trust Iraq? His military is shooting at our planes RIGHT NOW. You know if Gore was president, the democrates would favor a war in Iraq. Just look at their statements from 1998.

BTW: Here is a washington post/Abc News poll that says most americans favor action in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081202.htm

[quote:70f636dd53="SB54"]Thats BS and you know it. Most Americans favor action in Iraq. We have given Iraq chance, after chance. Bush had said he wants to avoid war, but how can we trust Iraq? His military is shooting at our planes RIGHT NOW. You know if Gore was president, the democrates would favor a war in Iraq. Just look at their statements from 1998.

BTW: Here is a washington post/Abc News poll that says most americans favor action in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081202.htm[/quote:70f636dd53]

Where are you hearing that most Americans favor action in Iraq. The latest Gallup poll published on Friday said that more Americans were concerned with economy than with problems with Iraq and that matters of the economy is where they felt Bush should be working.

If Gore was president I would feel the same, but I think Gore would at least offer reasons why invasion was neccesary -- and honestly, we probably wouldn't be talking about war with Iraq right now at all (swoon).

Your link is news to me. Those numbers are much, much higher than any I've read. But, remember ABC is owned by GE. War is good for GE because they provide much of the equipment and parts used during war time. They've been accused of using ABC to push war before.

Polls on CNN, BBC, and in the New York Times have never shown the majority condoning war/invasion.

[quote:77be0b10db]Thats BS and you know it. Most Americans favor action in Iraq. We have given Iraq chance, after chance. Bush had said he wants to avoid war, but how can we trust Iraq?[/quote:77be0b10db]

You have given Iraq chance to do what? All it has done is attacked American military witch was attacking Iraq. US was fine with Iraq's tyrany when it was fighting Iran (Presiden Bush even gave Sadam biological weapons) but when Iraq attack Saudi Arabia we hear how Sadam suddenly turned into a violent dictator. So when you ask how can we trust Iraq? The same way US has trusted it for years prior to Bush jr's "war on terrorism" as a way to get a second term and get the attention of America's internal affairs that cannot be solved with involvment of military.

[quote:34eb2fa2cb="J_Lively"][quote:34eb2fa2cb="SB54"]Thats BS and you know it. Most Americans favor action in Iraq. We have given Iraq chance, after chance. Bush had said he wants to avoid war, but how can we trust Iraq? His military is shooting at our planes RIGHT NOW. You know if Gore was president, the democrates would favor a war in Iraq. Just look at their statements from 1998.

BTW: Here is a washington post/Abc News poll that says most americans favor action in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081202.htm[/quote:34eb2fa2cb]

Where are you hearing that most Americans favor action in Iraq. The latest Gallup poll published on Friday said that more Americans were concerned with economy than with problems with Iraq and that matters of the economy is where they felt Bush should be working.

If Gore was president I would feel the same, but I think Gore would at least offer reasons why invasion was neccesary -- and honestly, we probably wouldn't be talking about war with Iraq right now at all (swoon).

Your link is news to me. Those numbers are much, much higher than any I've read. But, remember ABC is owned by GE. War is good for GE because they provide much of the equipment and parts used during war time. They've been accused of using ABC to push war before.

Polls on CNN, BBC, and in the New York Times have never shown the majority condoning war/invasion.[/quote:34eb2fa2cb]

Funny how I quoted a poll, and you did not, yet I have to prove my polls validity. I think you want the majority of the public to agree with you but that is not the case. Since you consider Gallup a credible institution (On a side note it's funny how the liberal leaders are claiming a post war recession, yet you are claiming that a private company would benefit from the war. Estimate state that the war will only take twelve days, I don't see much benifit from a twelve day war), here is an article that shows americas favor the war in iraq with congress support and the alies support:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020924.asp


Granted only 37% favor going alone, so I am in the minority there, but in general Americans favor war in Iraq. Just because they care about the Economy more does not mean that they do not favor a war in Iraq.

Most of the people are not ivolved in politics and dont know (or care to know) the whole picture; they will listen to anything the goverment tells them. So I do not see how their support means that Iraq is a legitimate target. Atleast their desire for interntional support means that they are not complete idiots.

[quote:0ad51c342b="infidel_Joe"]Most of the people are not ivolved in politics and dont know (or care to know) the whole picture; they will listen to anything the goverment tells them. So I do not see how their support means that Iraq is a legitimate target. Atleast their desire for interntional support means that they are not complete idiots.[/quote:0ad51c342b]


If they agree with you they are not complete idiots? Political affiliation has nothing to do with Inteligence. I think the some american people are pretty dumb, how do you think demcrates get elected? J/K

Who does the president work for? the people, no matter how Nieve they are. He does not only work for the poor "misguided" souls that were educated at a liberal university.

[quote:90a038592a]If they agree with you they are not complete idiots? [/quote:90a038592a]

yes

just joking. What i meant by my post is that most people (i think) don't want the conflict; bush told them that they want iraq to get attacked, and need it for their safety. i did not oppose the war in afganistan because everyone knew taliban govt. was harboring and supporting terrorists. if bush could prove the same for iraq...


[quote:90a038592a]Political affiliation has nothing to do with Inteligence.[/quote:90a038592a]

i think it often does

[quote:3bb62e30aa="SB54"]Funny how I quoted a poll, and you did not, yet I have to prove my polls validity. I think you want the majority of the public to agree with you but that is not the case. Since you consider Gallup a credible institution (On a side note it's funny how the liberal leaders are claiming a post war recession, yet you are claiming that a private company would benefit from the war. Estimate state that the war will only take twelve days, I don't see much benifit from a twelve day war), here is an article that shows americas favor the war in iraq with congress support and the alies support:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020924.asp[/quote:3bb62e30aa]

I never said that you had to prove the validity of anything. I also do not care if the public agrees with me or not. I do not question my beliefs based on the reactions of others.

I told you at the beginning of this debate that the information I need before I can support an invasion of Iraq is factual evidence directly linking Sadam with terrorism and I want to know what our gov. plans to do once/if Sadam is de-throned. It's rather simple really, and I would feel the same if a Democrat was pres.

[quote:3bb62e30aa="SB54"]Granted only 37% favor going alone, so I am in the minority there, but in general Americans favor war in Iraq. Just because they care about the Economy more does not mean that they do not favor a war in Iraq.[/quote:3bb62e30aa]

This link, which I feel is more of a fair source, is a lot different from the drastic numbers shown in your other link. These stats do not surprise me so much.

Further more, do you not think it's important to look closely at your sources? I pointed out the link between GE and ABC. Does it not strike you how different the gallup polls' results are compared to the polls in The Post?

Actually GE would be one of the few businesses to benefit from a war.

[quote:2a54cffe91="SB54"]Who does the president work for? the people, no matter how Nieve they are. He does not only work for the poor "misguided" souls that were educated at a liberal university.[/quote:2a54cffe91]

This goes back to my criticism of Bush using labels like "axis of evil" and calling Sadam "evil." He uses these words to try to make the majority of people support him. He wants us to think that Sadam is an animal, less than we are, and very, very bad. He makes silly comments about Sadam trying to kill his dad, in an attempt to raise sympathy. He makes speeches listing not current wrong doings, but things that happened back in the 80's and 90's, but when he or Rumsfeld are questioned about those years when US supported and used Sadam, they are both quick to say that old information isn't relevant now.

It is rhetoric and propaganda. It worries me greatly that you and people like you trust anyone, president or not, enough to support him without evidence. Are we really that sheep-like?