Iraq

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsBin Ladin's stated strategy was to mire the US in a bunch of expensive, demoralizing conflicts in order to weaken America.

Either way, the spread of repressive theocracy would be unchecked.

looks like he got his wish....uhhh Iraq was not a theocracy but it is heading that way now...Iraq was as threatening as a hang nail to America.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsPeople who look to entertainers for poltical guidance are like people who look to fortune tellers for investment advice.

WTF??? who would you be referring to?? nice republican talking point...get that one from Karl "Goebbels" did ya??

"Closer To The Heart" makes a nice, warm, fuzzy-pink fantasy. Not much use in defending against people who consider anyone who disagress with them to be infidels who deserve to die violently.

it is a friggin' video of musicians ...period.
who attacked the US? Iraq? NO!! we should have gone after Bin Laden full bore and what country would have stopped us??

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpWTF??? who would you be referring to?? nice republican talking point...get that one from Karl "Goebbels" did ya??[/IMG]

I don't like Mr. [u]Rove[/u]; his fear of what socialism is doing to Western civilization tends to push him over the edge. But I prefer him to a loony lefty who seriously suggests that we should all use only >one square of toilet paper< "per sitting". :p

Rove is more of threat but the one square thing is just stupid.

and another thing Ampeg kicks ass :p

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpand another thing Ampeg kicks ass :p

Shhh!! (Everyone will want one.) ;)

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovWMDs: There were there. They are still there now. Chemical shells have even been mixed in with regular high explosives in IEDs and have been used against US and British troops.

Why you haven't heard about this? Ask a CNN or BBC news producer sometime. There's a lot of very relevant information about this war that is readily available to anybody who wants to view it which simply isn't being communicated to the public.

C'mon Rask. I heard they were starting to use chlorine bombs and while chemical weaponry is no small matter I don't think they qualify as what we were supposedly going in there for.

I want scuds with sarin and mustard gas. That's what they made it sound like.

Originally Posted by: magicninja... I want scuds with sarin and mustard gas. That's what they made it sound like.

Unless you believe that Saddam and 'Chemical Ali' depleted their entire stock of gas during the attacks on the Kurds in northern Iraq, you have to wonder where the rest of it is.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsUnless you believe that Saddam and 'Chemical Ali' depleted their entire stock of gas during the attacks on the Kurds in northern Iraq, you have to wonder where the rest of it is.

I have to wonder why he didn't use it the first time they were attacked or this last time.

Sad, very sad.

These days just don't know what to believe. I rarely watch CNN or wateva anymore.

It's all being controlled by, I dont know.

this world is really ****ed up.

Let's all create peace with music :cool:

Why dont we all rock on with our lives

Rock 'n' Roll people :cool:

ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpwho is a bigger "pussy"....one who opposes an unnecessary war or one who is gung ho about it but does not sign up??

They leave that all to the poor (BlackSabbath / War Pigs)You said Pussy HEHEHEHEEEEE!

How gruesome would the ensuing civil war be if America pulled out abruptly? If we stay, how many more years would it take to impose a "democratic" and sustainable government there? 5, 10, 20 more years?

Do you think Bush is trying to maintain the status quo as much as possible so that on Jan. 20, 2009 he can pass his mess off to the next guy?

Originally Posted by: LeedoggHow gruesome would the ensuing civil war be if America pulled out abruptly? If we stay, how many more years would it take to impose a "democratic" and sustainable government there? 5, 10, 20 more years?

Do you think Bush is trying to maintain the status quo as much as possible so that on Jan. 20, 2009 he can pass his mess off to the next guy?

Well, that's the problem. We can't leave and we can't stay with the current mentality. It's either all or nothing at this point. It pains me to say this but I think we're in this one for at least the next 5 to 10 years. And even then, who knows?

Originally Posted by: magicninja

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovWMDs: There were there. They are still there now. Chemical shells have even been mixed in with regular high explosives in IEDs and have been used against US and British troops.

Why you haven't heard about this? Ask a CNN or BBC news producer sometime. There's a lot of very relevant information about this war that is readily available to anybody who wants to view it which simply isn't being communicated to the public.

C'mon Rask. I heard they were starting to use chlorine bombs and while chemical weaponry is no small matter I don't think they qualify as what we were supposedly going in there for.

I want scuds with sarin and mustard gas. That's what they made it sound like.

I never said "chlorine bombs," I said "chemical shells." That means a large caliber projectile filled with chemical casualty agents, not "some nasty industrial cleaner or something in a plastic jug sitting on top of the explosive part of the IED."

We've found hundreds of honest to goodness chemical munitions ranging from bombs to artillery shells in Iraq. Over the years, Saddam and his chronies squirreled God-knows-how-many of these things away into assorted buried caches all over the country.

This is documented information which was in the news for something like a nanosecond about a year ago.

We've found a bunch of those munitions but the truth is that we're not the only ones looking. Worse yet, Saddam's intelligence services (as well as some of his demolitions experts) folded into Al Queda in Iraq almost immediately after the invasion started, so there's a few cats in the insurgency who don't have to look because they already know where to find these things.


People, the MSM lies to you by omission every single day.

Ok I can believe that, but why keep it a secret and let public support for the war dwindle. Why wouldn't Bush wanna at least save face by "leaking" something like that to the news. Surely not all media outlets are anti-Bush.

Originally Posted by: LeedoggHow gruesome would the ensuing civil war be if America pulled out abruptly? If we stay, how many more years would it take to impose a "democratic" and sustainable government there? 5, 10, 20 more years?

Do you think Bush is trying to maintain the status quo as much as possible so that on Jan. 20, 2009 he can pass his mess off to the next guy?

While I love democracy and believe it the best form of government currently available, I don't think it is America's job to go forcing it on everyone. Nobody came over here and forced it on us. The founding fathers up and decided to do it themselves. I think that's the way it has to be. By the people for the people. It might not be as easy today as it was 230 years ago but if the masses truly want power for themselves they can have it. I think we can broadcast why democracy has treated us so well over the last few centuries and let the people decide for themselves if democracy is worth losing thier lives. We say it all the time. "Alot of people have died for our freedom" and it's true. What are these countries we're liberating gonna say? "Alot of Americans died for our freedom?" Where's the honor in that?

Originally Posted by: magicninjaOk I can believe that, but why keep it a secret and let public support for the war dwindle. Why wouldn't Bush wanna at least save face by "leaking" something like that to the news. Surely not all media outlets are anti-Bush.[/quote]
He can't leak something which is public knowledge. We're talking an issue which was raised publicly in Congress to rebut Democrats who were saying that there were never WMDs in Iraq; it did make it into the news but only for about a day or two.

I think the answer lies in part of the opening chapter to "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. He was talking about news reporting on the environment of course, but essentially the point he was getting at and fairly solidly proved was that bad news sells better than good news. It gets better ratings.


And truthfully... at this point, who really believes ANYTHING that comes out of Bush's mouth? Most of the world's population wants him to be wrong and will justify that desire any way they can.



[QUOTE=magicninja]While I love democracy and believe it the best form of government currently available, I don't think it is America's job to go forcing it on everyone. Nobody came over here and forced it on us. The founding fathers up and decided to do it themselves. I think that's the way it has to be. By the people for the people. It might not be as easy today as it was 230 years ago but if the masses truly want power for themselves they can have it. I think we can broadcast why democracy has treated us so well over the last few centuries and let the people decide for themselves if democracy is worth losing thier lives. We say it all the time. "Alot of people have died for our freedom" and it's true. What are these countries we're liberating gonna say? "Alot of Americans died for our freedom?" Where's the honor in that?

The last time Iraq had a national election, there was like a 70 or 80% turn out of their electorate in spite of Al Queda making credible PROMISES that it was going to attack voters and polling stations... 45% is high for the United States where voting is not only safe, but an easy way to get out of work.

It seems to me that Iraqis value and desire their Democracy FAR more than we do. However, a tiny percentage of the population (generally representing foreign and not Iraqi interests) feels justified in usurping the Democratic process by incredibly violent means.


What kinds of cowards are we if we're to allow a violent minority to decide for a substantial majority which honestly desires a representative government?