War Protestors: Anti-American or Patriotic?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What does that have to do with anything Tass?

And more.......Ya gotta take them all out, or none of them. Its just that simple.

[Giancarlo]

And more.......Ya gotta take them all out, or none of them. Its just that simple.

Wrong.

[DinoDoc]

I saw what you said Tass. It didn't answer the question though.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


Wrong.

GREAT arguement Fez!!! Your best yet!

In other words: Killing off Iraq won't stop any of the others. So ya gotta take them all out or taking Iraq out suddenly becomes pointless (considering that out of them, Iraq probably is at the very bottom of the list).

North Korea should be high on the list. It's ACTIVELY PERSUING WoMD and its admitted it. The US could go to war and it would have a great cause of war.

It claims it has evidence against Iraq but "it can't be shown". That's just a lame excuse, we both know it.

Right now I'd say your biggest threat is North Korea. Iraq really poses no threat to the US at all.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I saw what you said Tass. It didn't answer the question though.

Please, dont act stupid......This thread has turned into a war discussion so I am simply participating.

[Giancarlo]

Yes, but that should be handled later. Iraq is on the top of the list. Sorry pal, you have the idea but your logic is all out of order.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
This thread has turned into a war discussion so I am simply participating.

I fully realize that. I'm just trying to get you to make relevent points.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
Yes, but that should be handled later. Iraq is on the top of the list. Sorry pal, you have the idea but your logic is all out of order.

And by the time were done with Iraq, will North Korea reach its goal of having WoMD? Or will we even go after North Korea at all?

And what makes you think were going to go after Saudi Arabia? They give us plenty of oil And they've been our "allies" for quite a while now.....

Hah! Even if you tried, going after China could and would be QUITE difficult.....

France.......well, that would be pretty easy

Plus, do you really think the US can take out ALL these countries, installa democratic regieme, spend the money to rebuild them, and then go onto the next?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I fully realize that. I'm just trying to get you to make relevent points.

If at all possible.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Fez
If at all possible.

There are valid reasons to be against or even wary of war Fez. But the stupid all or none rhetoric isn't one of them.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


If at all possible.

Oh please......

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


And by the time were done with Iraq, will North Korea reach its goal of having WoMD? Or will we even go after North Korea at all?

Well North Korea has proven itself it can talk. But there must be political progress or military action should take place. Anyways, North Korea can't go on spending 60% of its GDP on the military too much longer.

And what makes you think were going to go after Saudi Arabia? They give us plenty of oil And they've been our "allies" for quite a while now.....

The US isn't. But that isn't the point and I don't know why you brought that up. Saudi Arabia will have to change.

Hah! Even if you tried, going after China could and would be QUITE difficult.....

China isn't going to last for another twenty years. It will turn back into a republic.

France.......well, that would be pretty easy

Just deploy one soldier and the entire French army will surrender.

Plus, do you really think the US can take out ALL these countries, installa democratic regieme, spend the money to rebuild them, and then go onto the next?

The US isn't. There are political options for some of these regimes. Iraq just isn't one of them. Therefore Iraq must be taken out by war.

Also, can you bring up something halfy relevant? Your posts don't make any sense to what is being discussed.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


Well North Korea has proven itself it can talk.

Yep! They're sure talking to the US quite loudly....reactivating and buildling new plants, persuing nuclear weapons openly, shipping missiles to god knows where.....

Anyways, North Korea can't go on spending 60% of its GDP on the military too much longer.

Then China will help it in order to preserve North Korea. It's in Chinas best interest (both population wise and considering that the South may decide to invade if Pyongyang collapses)

But that isn't the point and I don't know why you brought that up.

Possibly because your entire case for going against Iraq is because (or at least part of your case) it "supports terrorism". It's obvious that some US allies also support terrorism AGAINST the US and therefore your arguement begins to fall apart right about there

Saudi Arabia will have to change.

And what will change it?

China isn't going to last for another twenty years. It will turn back into a republic.

Got any REASONING to back that up?

Plus, thats just like me saying "Well Iraq won't last for another twenty years. It'll become a republic soon, lets just wait.....".

Just deploy one soldier and the entire French army will surrender.

Yep. So thats another reason to go after France first, is because it'll be quite easy to overtake the country.

The US isn't.

Yeah, Afghanistan showed the US isn't quite into nation buildling.............

There are political options for some of these regimes.

Some, but not all. What are you going to do about North Korea? Talks haven't been quite successful yet And I highly doubt China will be changing its ways. Saudi Arabia won't be doing too much either.

Iraq just isn't one of them. Therefore Iraq must be taken out by war.

But the issue is being resolved using diplomatic means. There is no proof that iraq HASNT complied with the resolution, theres no proof Iraq ISNT going to comply with the resolution....It's following exactly what the US has been saying it wants for quite a while now.

North Korea on the other hand.......

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000




Yep! They're sure talking to the US quite loudly....reactivating and buildling new plants, persuing nuclear weapons openly, shipping missiles to god knows where.....

Let them collapse on themselves.

Then China will help it in order to preserve North Korea. It's in Chinas best interest (both population wise and considering that the South may decide to invade if Pyongyang collapses)

China may actually want the South to invade. The North has been causing problems.

Possibly because your entire case for going against Iraq is because (or at least part of your case) it "supports terrorism". It's obvious that some US allies also support terrorism AGAINST the US and therefore your arguement begins to fall apart right about there

Nope my case is supported by the publication of a October 2002 Central Intelligence Agency Report. Highlighting what Iraq has and what Iraq didn't account for in the early 90s. Gee what happened to those 600 or so chemical weapon filled rockets? Or something like that. I suggest you check it out.

And what will change it?

Internal dissent. Same stuff Iran has been getting. Reformists are becoming a new force in Iran challanging the Mullahs.

Got any REASONING to back that up?

Plus, thats just like me saying "Well Iraq won't last for another twenty years. It'll become a republic soon, lets just wait.....".

Well you are foolish.

Yep. So thats another reason to go after France first, is because it'll be quite easy to overtake the country.

I hate France but France is irrelevant.

Yeah, Afghanistan showed the US isn't quite into nation buildling.............

You don't know a frigging thing you are talking about. Get a clue.

Some, but not all. What are you going to do about North Korea? Talks haven't been quite successful yet And I highly doubt China will be changing its ways. Saudi Arabia won't be doing too much either.

Well North Korea can't go on spending 60% of its economy on the military. You keep ignoring that point. So it will collapse. China has been changing its way in the past thirty years pal. Open your eyes.

But the issue is being resolved using diplomatic means. There is no proof that iraq HASNT complied with the resolution, theres no proof Iraq ISNT going to comply with the resolution....

Yes there is proof. Iraq submitted a bullshit weapons report. Also the inspections are the dumbest political thing I ever seen. How the heck can a group of what... 100 or 200 people cover a nation like Iraq? How about all the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons Iraq hasn't accounted for last time? What happened to those? Your logic is all shot up. Get a clue.

It's following exactly what the US has been saying it wants for quite a while now.

No it hasn't.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


Let them collapse on themselves.

China will help because they dont want their communist ally to collapse. Immigration, and sharing a border with South Korea isn't the best thing ever...

China may actually want the South to invade. The North has been causing problems.

Again, there would be a flood of peopel going into China. China does not want this and is trying to preserve North Korea so it can keep its people to itself.

Nope my case is supported by the publication of a October 2002 Central Intelligence Agency Report. Highlighting what Iraq has and what Iraq didn't account for in the early 90s. Gee what happened to those 600 or so chemical weapon filled rockets? Or something like that. I suggest you check it out.

Wasn't it the CIA that also said something along the lines of "If you attack Iraq, chances of terrorism will incease"?

Hmm.....

Internal dissent. Same stuff Iran has been getting. Reformists are becoming a new force in Iran challanging the Mullahs.

And china will surpress them using its very large military. You need to remember that internal dissent does not automatically equal a revolution. The chances of a "democratic" revolution in China are actually quite low.

Although I do hope I'm wrong, of course

Well you are foolish.

That's not a very logical arguement, Fez. "You are foolish" offers no proof of that arguement nor the one before it, and therefore I can't debate it until you begin using some logic.

You don't know a frigging thing you are talking about. Get a clue.

Yet another illogical arguement. Why can't you just counter it using any form of logic at all? If I don't know what Im talking about and you do, then counter it.

Well North Korea can't go on spending 60% of its economy on the military. You keep ignoring that point. So it will collapse. China has been changing its way in the past thirty years pal. Open your eyes.

So? Do you really think China will simply let its North Korean ally simply collapse because it has a bad economy and let millions of people cross the border INTO china?

Even if it wanted to theres still that problem of people just flooding that border.....

Yes there is proof. Iraq submitted a bullshit weapons report.

And how is it "bullshit"? Because you don't like it?

How the heck can a group of what... 100 or 200 people cover a nation like Iraq?

Have you ever heard "innocent until proven guilty"? I will admit that it does seem quite impropable they'll catch EVERYTHING in their small little probe, but until the United States can actually offer EVIDENCE that Iraq possess these weapons.....

How about all the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons Iraq hasn't accounted for last time? What happened to those?

I dunno....They could've sold them, hidden them, they couldv'e been destroyed by Saddam or by the United States....

However again, thats not evidence of a thing other than they're missing. Iraq may not even have them. Who knows.....they could've given them to Pakistan who gave them to NORTH KOREA!

But again that does not mean their guilt. Innocent until proven guilty....

No it hasn't.

What hasn't it done?

[axi]

Israel or South Africa will not be first users of WMD. Iraq could well be. Therefore Iraq's need taking off them.

If Israel gets on a conventional war with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and other Arab nations, and starts losing it badly, they'll be sure to launch their nukes.

Nukes are a taboo only for people with at least a bit of sanity, i.e. ordinary people. States and militaries do not posess that mental sanity, hence they do not have the taboo.

[Saint Marcus]

I hate France but France is irrelevant.

well yeah, but they're better than Spain at least. The only reason we asked Spain in our union, is so our citizens can enjoy the beaches there without having to pass border checkpoints.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
How do you figure?

It was not figuring, it was observing. Yhe prepondering mjority of the sentiments expressed among thoses I observed (when the camera was absent) were things like "Let the yellow bastards kill each other", All the GD Gooks over there aren't worth one american", "who cares about the Gooks". It did not take a mind reader to discern their rationale for opposing the war.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MikeH
They are too late. The US was the first user.

Imperial Germany was the first user of WMD; a large scale gas attack.

[SlowwHand]

Sounds like just another way of saying they were scared. I have a different perspective.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sounds like just another way of saying they were scared. I have a different perspective.

I had two perspectives of them, including the calculated act they put on when news arrived. Both protests I osevered were mostly racists and liars. But as i started with here, I did not weiw they as a respresentative group or arch type, and any such movement will have multiple motivations.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


China will help because they dont want their communist ally to collapse. Immigration, and sharing a border with South Korea isn't the best thing ever...

China has already had a bunch of problems with North Korea already.

Again, there would be a flood of peopel going into China. China does not want this and is trying to preserve North Korea so it can keep its people to itself.

I actually think most fleeing North Koreans will travel to the South, not to China.

Wasn't it the CIA that also said something along the lines of "If you attack Iraq, chances of terrorism will incease"?

And if you don't they will the chances would be double that.

And china will surpress them using its very large military. You need to remember that internal dissent does not automatically equal a revolution. The chances of a "democratic" revolution in China are actually quite low.

The chances of a democratic revolution in China are low? 1989. Man are you ignorant or what? Get a clue? You wanna know why I said 1989? Because there was a failed revolution then. The Chinese Government had its army run people over with tanks.

That's not a very logical arguement, Fez. "You are foolish" offers no proof of that arguement nor the one before it, and therefore I can't debate it until you begin using some logic.

Shut up, already. You don't have a single clue about what you are talking about.

Yet another illogical arguement. Why can't you just counter it using any form of logic at all? If I don't know what Im talking about and you do, then counter it.

You talking is itself illogical. You possess little intelligence to argue in this area.

So? Do you really think China will simply let its North Korean ally simply collapse because it has a bad economy and let millions of people cross the border INTO china?

Again, that carries no basis. Most fleeing North Koreans would flee to South Korea because of exactly similar language and population demographics. And many in the North have long lost families in the South.

Even if it wanted to theres still that problem of people just flooding that border.....

I think South Korea has more to worry about on that case.

And how is it "bullshit"? Because you don't like it?

I take Colin Powell's word for it. There is something certainly wrong with Iraq's report. To be direct it is all a lie. And people like you will believe it. Delusional I say.

Have you ever heard "innocent until proven guilty"? I will admit that it does seem quite impropable they'll catch EVERYTHING in their small little probe, but until the United States can actually offer EVIDENCE that Iraq possess these weapons.....

The US has evidence. But to maintain national security and safety of field agents, they cannot show it. Your ignorance will say otherwise, but that is a wrong statement to make. They cannot show it because people at the field will get killed.

I dunno....They could've sold them, hidden them, they couldv'e been destroyed by Saddam or by the United States....

There hidden. No they haven't been destroyed. By the way they was chemical weapons testing up around 1993 after the Gulf War.

However again, thats not evidence of a thing other than they're missing. Iraq may not even have them. Who knows.....they could've given them to Pakistan who gave them to NORTH KOREA!

You don't have any way of proving my statement otherwise. Actually the proof is on my side. And there is evidence things are missing.

But again that does not mean their guilt. Innocent until proven guilty....

Bull! Stop with this innocent until proven guilty nonsense. They already have been proven guilty, nimwit.

What hasn't it done?

Iraq has failed to provide an accurate list of what it has.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


China has already had a bunch of problems with North Korea already.

Not enough problems to warrent a termination of their little alliance.

I actually think most fleeing North Koreans will travel to the South, not to China.

Then why don't they right now? Most of them try to flee TO China.

And if you don't they will the chances would be double that.

Ok Fez, since your mind cant seem to comprehend this: The CIA warned *AGAINST* an attack saying that the chances of a retaliatory strike by any islamist group go up DURASTICALLY.

They didn't say "But if you dont attack chances will be double" because its not true. Whether you like it or not, the facts are the facts.

The chances of a democratic revolution in China are low? 1989. Man are you ignorant or what? Get a clue? You wanna know why I said 1989? Because there was a failed revolution then. The Chinese Government had its army run people over with tanks.

Fez, get a clue: That was more of a demonstration than a "revolution" considering they really didn't do much to overthrow the government, now did they?

Also note that China quite easily squandered the "revolution" (in your words fez, not mine)

Shut up, already. You don't have a single clue about what you are talking about.

Is that all you can do fez? "Shut up shut up shut up shut up"

Having trouble accepting the truth, you arent giving a logical arguement AT ALL?

You talking is itself illogical. You possess little intelligence to argue in this area.

Who hoo fez, yet ANOTHER stupid arguement. If I'm so illogical and unintelligent, THEN QUICKLY SQUASH ME AND GET IT OVER WITH. Don't just sit there with your fingers in your ears yelling "Shut up."

Again, that carries no basis. Most fleeing North Koreans would flee to South Korea because of exactly similar language and population demographics. And many in the North have long lost families in the South.

MANY flee to China, not South Korea. Consider this: Up until now, fleeing to South Korea was MORE dangerous than trying to go into China.

If China was so eager to get rid of its alliance with N. Korea, then WHY DOESNT IT? Why does China still strongly support North Korea? Hmm?

I take Colin Powell's word for it. There is something certainly wrong with Iraq's report.

The Bush Administration is right because the Bush Administration says so? Thats called a "begging the question" fallacy....But there are many fallacies you commit.

The US has evidence. But to maintain national security and safety of field agents, they cannot show it.

Fez, thats stupid and we BOTH know it. Why can't they show ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE AT ALL? MAYBE THE LOCATION OF SUCH A SITE?

Just giving a location to the inspectors for a "surprise" visit would DEFINATELY NOT kill agents.

Fez, NOBODY will believe the US if it keeps this up...You can't just tell the world "Just trustus." ESPECIALLY when you've shown youreslf untrustworthy.

Your ignorance will say otherwise, but that is a wrong statement to make. They cannot show it because people at the field will get killed.

Again Fez, just giving the inspectors a LOCATION will not kill Field Agents. Your just following your shepard which is why you can't construct a strong arguement against showing the evidence.

There hidden. No they haven't been destroyed.

How do you know?

By the way they was chemical weapons testing up around 1993 after the Gulf War.

Source?

You don't have any way of proving my statement otherwise. Actually the proof is on my side. And there is evidence things are missing.

Thigns may be missing, but theres not evidence as to WHY their missing.

Bull! Stop with this innocent until proven guilty nonsense. They already have been proven guilty, nimwit.

Fez, EVIDENCE consitutes something that disproves or proves a theory. However, just HAVING the evidence doesnt make it evidence. YOU MUST SHOW IT.

In a murder case, lets say there was a note that was written to the police saying "I'm going to kill Martha on January 23rd at 12:00AM.". If the evidence is never presented, then it will not weigh on the juries mind. SAME CASE HERE: YOU CANT JUST HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND NOT SHOW IT BECAUSE THEN ITS NOT EVIDENCE.

Iraq has failed to provide an accurate list of what it has.

Fez, why dont you prove to me you aren't carrying nuclear weapons in whereever YOU live? Oh thats right, you CANT.......Because you can't prove that your innocent. It's IMPOSSIBLE. If you say "I dont have any nimwit" I can call you a nimwit and say your hiding it. If you turn whever you live upside down I can say your hiding it somewhere else.

So how can you prove Iraq has WoMD when you claim you have evidence BUT WILL NOT SHOW IT (Therefore basically telling everyone you dont have the evidence) and you basically can't prove a negative?

[Berzerker]

Boddington -

Israel or South Africa will not be first users of WMD. Iraq could well be. Therefore Iraq's need taking off them.

If that were true, Iraq would have used them in the Gulf War - they didn't. Why? Because Saddam was led to believe we wouldn't invade Iraq to remove him from existence, the UN mandate was to remove Iraq from Kuwait only. If we invade now to remove him, he won't have any reason to hold back. He's evil, but not insane...he knows there are limits if he wants to stay in power, and the only times he has used WMD in the past was in wars the USA endorsed or condoned. But we didn't see these ******* neo"conservatives" complaining about his WMD during Iraq's war with Iran and they were amazingly silent when he allegedly used them on the Kurds. But now all we hear from these frauds is about Saddam's use of WMD during the war with Iran.

[Giancarlo]

Tass, I don´t have time to respond to all of the irrelevant points as I have been doing. There is common quote I bring up: Less talk, more substance. Give me something I can actually work with. Right now you are providing me with scattered arguments, that have no evidence and weak foundations.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
Tass, I don´t have time to respond to all of the irrelevant points as I have been doing. There is common quote I bring up: Less talk, more substance. Give me something I can actually work with. Right now you are providing me with scattered arguments, that have no evidence and weak foundations.

In other words, you want to end the debate, and thats fine by me.

[orange]

this was a good show and I watched it. The hollywood celebs were nothing but patriotic, they voiced their concerns, they said what they wanted to say, they agreed that they're opinion is not more important than anyone elses, and that they only get air time because they are celebs, but intend to use that to speak their minds...yet alls they got was criticism and a lack of respect

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
yet alls they got was criticism and a lack of respect

Babs deserves it.

[orange]

i found nothing wrong with what she was saying

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
i found nothing wrong with what she was saying

She still deserves derision.