VeeshanVault

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 6:41 pm**

Monday, March 17, 2003

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com

Haha. I still get a kick out of that guy.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 6:43 pm**

Oh yeah, #5 is an especially pointed fact.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 6:46 pm**

Same ole same ole, I get that info from VV. Wasn't too funny either

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 7:06 pm**

Michael Moore is a liberal francophilic asslicker. Welcome to the Axis of Evil. I suggest deploying tactical nukes

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 7:10 pm**

This guy is an idiot... 99% of the people I know, from all education and socioeconomic levels are in favor of removing Saddam and will support a war to get it. A number of those individuals were in the first Gulf War and some are heading that way right now.

While I did vote for Bush I consider myself a liberal - Gore was NOT what our Country needed. Being a liberal though I know how most think... which makes them, in a technical sense of the word, not a liberal. Most liberals are all about freedom, freedom to do this, that and say whatever they like and no one can stop them. What? responsibility? Setting an example? Fuck that, are you repressing me?

The fact is that if you are as truly liberal as many of you on this board want to make others think you are then you every backwards-ass, dumbass, fucktard thought has value as well. If you are truly liberal and value your freespeech then everyone who disagrees with you has the right to the EXACT same standard. Problem is most people I know who consider themselves liberals live by the motto: "You can have your own opnion... but it's wrong" which of course then it wouldn't be an opinion.

I know, I know... I do have to admit that as a liberal I tend to feel this way a lot as well. But we have to hold oursleves open to other opinions. IMHO we also should put a little more faith in our Government. They are NOT perfect and if they are lying about all this, we will vote them out next time around. But right now they and our troops need our support, not our protest.

Just my opnion, I could be wrong...
Marb

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 8:17 pm**

Marbus wrote:Problem is most people I know who consider themselves liberals live by the motto: "You can have your own opnion... but it's wrong" which of course then it wouldn't be an opinion.

Most people, regardless of political affiliation, seem to live by that motto. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. Have you even been reading this thread, or any of the other threads about the war? For every liberal that refuses to change their opinion about the war, you'll find a conservative doing the same thing.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 8:41 pm**

no no.. conservatives and forward thinking intelligencia, liberals are reactionary hippies. They're also poor and stupid. Also, all liberals oppose war because they hate the US and love Saddam Hussein and if they weren't so lazy and stupid they would go live in Iraq. It's a wonder how a group of people like the dirty liberals could be so amazingly stupid yet still control the media like iron fisted tyrants; opposed to freedom and the first amendment. I am a totally rational person and I think this.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 8:50 pm**

Marbus wrote:I know, I know... I do have to admit that as a liberal I tend to feel this way a lot as well. But we have to hold oursleves open to other opinions. IMHO we also should put a little more faith in our Government. They are NOT perfect and if they are lying about all this, we will vote them out next time around. But right now they and our troops need our support, not our protest.

Just my opnion, I could be wrong...
Marb

Voting Dumbya out of office in 2004 is not going to bring back any of the people he kills tomorrow.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 9:28 pm**

sleestakk wrote:So the hypocrisy continues. We claim to be the "righteous" removing a dictator with WMD while we ourselves have more control over our citizenship and more WMD than any other country on the planet (at any time in history). American's choose to ignore this at their own peril because they mostly enjoy a better quality of life (in their own arrogant opinions over others).

First off, WTF are you talking about? More control over our citizenship?? In Iraq if you voice opposition you get your tongue cut out or you disappear. In N. Korea if you have the radio dial on anything other than the official government radio station you are sent to a political prisoner camp that very much resembles the concentration camps of WW2. And comparing us having WMDs to a power hungry genocidal dictator having them is beyond ridiculous.

Sleestakk when was the last time one of your liberties was violated? I'm sick and tired of people saying "OMG LOOK THE SHOE BOMBER GUY IS IN JAIL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS". He's tied to Al Qaeda and as far as I'm concerned should not be treated as a US citizen. Things like the patriot act are needed in this new age. A terrorist taking your life is a far greater violation of your freedoms in my mind than the FBI wiretapping your phone without permission.

sleestakk wrote:American's do fight against our own government, I myself have marched in protests. And I will tell you this, the media does NOT reflect the events that transpire.

A. There have been pro war rallies of 3000 people in San Antonio, then that same night 100 people picketing chanting anti war slogans- who do you think made it in the morning paper? The anti war people.

B. The reason why the American people do not take your protests seriously can be demonstrated just by reading the crap that you have written. It's filled with illogical, untrue propoganda that makes no sense whatsoever. If protestors ever want to be taken seriously they need to get a grip and come back into reality.

sleestakk wrote:I am against this war. I was against the first gulf war. I have family poised to fight (and possibly die) because some fat rich politician or businessman can make a buck on the promise of making us safer. All American's that blindly support this war have taken us into the next step of the further erosion and destruction of our civil liberties and deceny, kept sleeping in the dream of American Might makes Right. WAKE UP.

Fat rich politicians and business are pushing for a war on Iraq to make a buch on promise of making us safer? And after Iraq Bush is going to erote and destroy our civil liberties and decency? And we are all thinking that American Might makes Right? I'm sorry I had to type some of that out...maybe if you re read it you'll actually see how stupid that sounds.

While you cry about us having this catapostrophe put on us by Bush of being able to have suspected terrorists wiretapped w/o a warrant, people in Iraq are being SLAUGHTERED for the slightest transgression.

Look at this:

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

What if the Iraqi people could see you on these marches (marches you probably consider part of a brave crusade against your opressors)? What if as an Iraqi was being fed into a plastic cutting machine feet first they saw you marching with a no blood for oil sign?

Go ahead and march on and think you have some kind of moral high ground over the average US loving naive grunt- but realize that it's all in your mind, and the country will never be ran by appeasers, nor will it ever give in or listen to a bunch of people so consumed with their hatred of the US that they can't see how great this country is.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 9:42 pm**

Brotha wrote:It's a HUNCH? I don't get it...I'm basing my decision on hard on evidence of what Iraq has and is still currently trying to hide from inspectors and you're basing it (I assume you're with Miir here) on...what? How from that am I ignorant? Besides the evidence already offered, which is more than enough for any reasonable person, Saddam will use chemical weapons soon on the Kurds and/or our troops, then when we liberate the people of Iraq we will find tons more.

It's clear that Iraq has WMDs and is in violation of the ceasefire agreement. If you're trying to debate whether Iraq is a threat to the US than that certainly is debatable, but the first part isn't.

Show me the hard proof. Post it here on this board. Put it before us. It will get shot down by numerous people here as insubstantial. Common VV'ers can tear holes in Bush's arguments, imagine how lawmakers must feel. Most foreign governments consider Bush a joke, a circus sideshow, and rightly so. I remember that show, 'That's my Bush', it wasn't a terribly funny show, but I remember wondering why they played Bush down so much. He was almost more sane than in real life.

So please, show me how it's clear. Powell couldn't convince the U.N., but I'm sure you can convince us. I've gots da faith!.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 9:45 pm**

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:once again I will state this: The majority of Americans back a policy. If you are in the minority and do not like it, you can leave any time you want. There are 190 other countries on this planet and you have the freedom to try any of them out that you want.

It is backwards thinking peacenik crybabies like you that are an afront to what this country stands for and was built from. We are not a British colony today because people were not afraid to fight against injustice and tyrannical dictators. The U.S. is a country today because it has fought for freedom and has fought for others so they could have freedom as well.

You should flee the country and head to Canada like you fled from Veeshan. I am sure we can take up a collection for a one way plane ticket to the country of your choice if you will not come back.

By your notion, Bush really shouldn't be president then. I know, stop the eyerolling, but Gore clearly won the popular vote, he just got screwed by the backwards electoral colleges system. So, the majority of the people wanted it one way, but it went the other way. GOtta love that freedom... tastes like chicken!

And you can keep Sleestakk, not even Canada wants him.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 10:33 pm**

The real hypocrisy in this situation is a guy who went AWOL for National Guard service while his fellow soldiers were dying in Vietnam is sending a new generation into combat.

Posted: **March 18, 2003, 10:45 pm**

Dregor: The electoral college exists to protect us from big city liberals like you.

Forthe: I imagine that his drill sgt. realized very quickly that Dubya was too clumsy to be given an automatic weapon.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 1:00 am**

OK: report on Iraqi Disarming:

"With this note, I have the honour to forward to you two reports drawn up by the Special Commission: one on the current state of affairs with respect to the disarmament of Iraq's proscribed weapons; the other on ongoing monitoring and verification in Iraq. It is thought that these materials may be useful to members of the Council."

SOME MORE:
"1. The present report is intended to address those disarmament issues under relevant Security Council resolutions for which the Special Commission is responsible. It comprises four main parts:

record and methodology;

priority issues in disarmament;

three annexes providing the status of verification of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes; and

an annex on actions by Iraq to obstruct disarmament; " .
AND
"4. From the inception of the relevant work, in 1991, Iraq's compliance has been limited. Iraq acknowledges that, in that year, it decided to limit its disclosures for the purpose of retaining substantial prohibited weapons and capabilities.

5. Actions by Iraq in three main respects have had a significant negative impact upon the Commission’s disarmament work:

Iraq’s disclosure statements have never been complete;

contrary to the requirement that destruction be conducted under international supervision, Iraq undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons and items;

it also pursued a practice of concealment of proscribed items, including weapons, and a cover up of its activities in contravention of Council resolutions."

OHH
"26. Analysis at the laboratories designated by the Commission has detected the presence of degradation products of nerve agents, in particular VX, on a number of warhead remnants which had been excavated at the sites of the unilateral destruction. The October 1998 meeting of international experts convened by the Commission concluded that "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq’s declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with any chemical warfare agents. The findings by all three laboratories of chemicals known to be degradation products of decontamination compounds also do not support Iraq’s declarations that those warhead containers had only been in contact with alcohols." Clarification by Iraq of these issues as recommended by the meeting would allow the Commission to make a determination whether or not the current assessment of the quantity of special warheads identified amongst the remnants excavated, accounts for all special warheads declared to have been produced by Iraq and provides for the verification of their unilateral destruction."

Read it at United Nations Special Commision web site at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); "

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq :O
link:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

Resolution 687:
http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/un ... n-687.html

Resolution 1441 in review:
http://usainreview.com/1_16_Resolution.htm

BTW I am pissed off at a Bush..At Bush Senior he should of finished this job way back.....Ive been for removing this Idiot in Iraq since he invaded Kuwait.

BTW some in the national guard are some of the first to see war..

BTW I went to a pro-american rally of 10,000 in Houston...ALL I hard on the news was a rally by Code Pink of about 500-2000 people.

BTW electorial College is a form of checks and balances of states and federal gov't and the people..US is a Republic.

BTW before I have to hear about Palestine and Israel for the 10000th time when this topic isnt about that. Ill just say my answer to what Im gonna hear anyways....I always thought Israel should follow resolutions, but they never were at war with the international community or US, so it is a differnt situation..They were also attacked first.... Anyways....Palestanians are being used by both sides and its sick....And the worse thing is the suicide bombers blowing up and targeting women and children, non-military...... Just somthing to think about GWB will prob. be the first president to get a Palestine state for the Palestinian people even though Hamas and IJ are targeting the US now too....in 2005 unless because these terrorist organizations there will be a Palestine.

Look I know you Ultra-Idiots aren't even gonna really read this and just rant on emotion to parts you disagree with..point out little mistakes and make that your idiotic argument. I understand I am and many people like me in the U.S.A. are the enemy to you---not Saddam not Bin Laden. Just like to say bring it on you wimpy punkass, little whiney a** b******. You guys are the most worthless f***s who think your so Elite, but your just blind to reality and live in your little Utopian world. Utopia was dead has been dead and always will be dead.

Get your heads out of your asses

, read and think logically for yourself. Dont just be against somethin just to be against it. And stop hampering with My freedoms, that you guys or people like you or actually that just control you, keep taking away.

Whats The real hypocrisy in this situation is that France and the anti-war protestors caused this war by Emboldening Saddam....The only chance inspections had to work was full pressure on a united front...not fighting each other.

Have a nice day

I hope I pushed some buttons like were gonna do with Iraq

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 1:17 am**

Show me the hard proof. Post it here on this board. Put it before us. It will get shot down by numerous people here as insubstantial. Common VV'ers can tear holes in Bush's arguments, imagine how lawmakers must feel.

Here's basically what I posted in another thread. I don't pretend to know every bit of evidence that Powell/the US/whoever have said and I obviously don't have any kinds of intelligence briefings over stuff, but here're things I know:

In 98 we know what they had- it's still unaccounted for. Blix and others have said that Iraq is similar to Germany in the WW2 time period in that they catalog everything. Their current story is that in 1991 they dumped all the chemical/bio materials into a big hole in the middle of the desert. If Iraq really had done this they would have numerous scientists begging to line up and tell the tale, along with pages of actual paperwork (not this smoke trail, inconclusive crap they've given Blix).

Iraq for 8? years of inspections hassling, intimidating, and trying to decieve the inspectors at every turn, then they suddenly decide to destroy all of their weapons- JOKE'S ON US NOW!

They're not even claiming to have destroyed the stuff we know they had in 98, they're still living in the fantasy land of never having them in the first place.

Iraqi scientists are still being threatened by Saddam and being bugged (bugged as in wires on them during interviews, or bugs in the hotel rooms that they're taking place in...none of which have been outside the country like 1441 allows and inspectors would like). Including killing his "missle chief" (see this)-Why?

Colin Powell's presentation- all fabricated?

Colin Powell and all of the US government- all liars?

Iraqi defectors, both scientists and people from the military who have seen first hand the concealment and storage of WMDs- all liars?

Saddam threatening to gas the Kurds the second a US bomb lands- an idle threat?

Republican guardsmen given injections against types of bio/chem weapons, and being issued protective suits- a precautionary measure incase the US decides to use these weapons against Iraq?

Really...with so much evidence (I know there's some I forgot), there's no doubt that Iraq does have WMDs. In my mind a smoking gun was presented long ago. The people that are STILL asking for a smoking gun would just say "oh look, inspections are working!" if something was found that in their mind constituted a smoking gun. Therefore, all a smoking gun would do is show that Iraq is not fully cooperating- which we already know.

I either want to hear your theory on how all of this is untrue or still doesn't in anyway show that Iraq doesn't have WMDs, or for you to admit that you were wrong.

Really, this is all moot. Within a day or two we will be dropping bombs and invading Iraq. Within weeks or days after that we will have found tons and tons of chemical/bio weapons, or Iraq will have used them on us and/or the Kurds.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 2:14 am**

masteen wrote:Dregor: The electoral college exists to protect us from big city liberals like you.

you mean the majority of voters?

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 2:49 am**

The general public has been split the same way for the last thirty years. 20% conservative, 20% liberal, 60% independent/indifferent.

But then, if you, like, lived int his country you might have some fucking clue what you were talking about.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 2:58 am**

haha I understand more about US politics than you could ever squeeze into that dried up sponge in your skull.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:06 am**

Not gonna quote all this. Yes, it is moot. But it's also a matter of killing many innocent people without solid proof. Are those arguments convincing? Yes, in a hazy kind of way. There's some logic in them, but not enough solid evidence to go dropping bombs on civilians. It's not that I think Saddam's a swell guy, that the Iraqi people are living in a paradise, or that Bush is an idiot... wait, forget that third one

When it comes to war, there are processes you should take if you want it to be a war that is supported by the world. A lot of pro-war people here will say that those processes are excuses for the weak liberals to stall calling in the marines, but the majority of the civilized world disagrees with you.

What if they did in fact destroy all their gases, etc? I know, even I think it's unlikely, but what if. What if you go in their guns blazing, many casualties on both sides, and there's nothing. Sure, there will be Saddam's attrocities he's committed on the Iraqi people, but your own armed forces just committed their own brand of atrocity on the Iraqi people. And even if they do have the gases, is a war like this the best answer? If it were convincingly proven, if proper diplomatic measures had been taken, if competency had prevailed at the White House, Saddam would have the weight of the entire world on him instead of a divided world whose political infrastructure is in jeopardy, and likely will cause lasting damage in terms of foreign relations.

Canada held firm on it's stance of non-assistance with the American war, and it's one of those rare times I'm actually proud of my government. If the U.N. had backed this, I would have backed it too. Why? The United Nations is the governing body the free nations of the world agreed upon to be a legislative and policing force for the world. Giving it the middle finger and going to war anyways is telling the rest of the world it doesn't mean anything to you. Now maybe you like that, I'm sure some of the real extremists on this board would. America or bust! I personally don't like the idea of a world without something like the U.N.

Those are my personal feelings, laid right out. I stand by my feelings, and I feel they outweigh the cost of going to war. As we both stated, this is moot. Anyone deadset for war will stay that way, and most deadset against war won't be changing either. It's inevitable. It's going to start any day. I just hope that years from now you'll still feel that the lives of your fellow countrymen and women were worth sacrificing for it.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:11 am**

masteen wrote:Dregor: The electoral college exists to protect us from big city liberals like you.

I'm not from a big city. In fact, hehe, I tend to vote for the Progressive Conservative party up here, not the Liberal party, whom I feel are generally a bunch of tottering buffoons. And who needs protecting from who? The majority who got screwed because their vote just wasn't worth enough? The Canadian election process baffles me just about as much as the American one, don't worry. We don't vote for our Prime Minister, we just vote for regional ministers, and the party that gets the most seats in the house is the big W, with the head of their party being made Prime Minister. I'd like to see some reforms up here too.

Wow, look at that. An intelligent counter-argument. Getting out the Crayola crayons and some paper Masteen, take some notes!

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:11 am**

kyoukan type-R wrote:haha I understand more about US politics than you could ever squeeze into that dried up sponge in your skull.

Just because he's made of foam doesn't mean you need to be so mean! Mupper h8er!

Sup Kyou

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:19 am**

Not gonna go down this road with you again, Kyou.

Dispute the point or STFU. Your fourth-grade name calling does not impress.

"The majority of voters" statement is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:29 am**

You're right, 50.16 million people didn't vote for Al Gore as opposed to 49.82 million people voting for GWB. Of course, then there's the theory that third parties screwed it up the most (Green and Reform). So if we were to put Nader's votes in the Gore camp (Green and Democrats both being Liberal), and Buchanan's votes in the Bush camp, Gore would have wound up with 296 electoral college votes, as opposed to Bush's 242. That's less electoral votes than he actually got (271, barely a majority) because Gore would have been awarded Florida and New Hampshire.

The moral of this story: Third parties don't work! You're throwing your vote away!

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:43 am**

Shut the fuck up you blind monkey

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 3:47 am**

Maybe dubbya might be a nub?

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 4:28 am**

Until China quits eye-balling Taiwan, we can't get rid of our nukes. Mutual deterrance and all that...

So...China is going to be the next "Liberty" or "Nation Building" target, since China is pretty agressive about the issues. Let China and Taiwn find a way to reunite, instead of instilling more third party hostility and more division around the world, ok?

Drakoslay

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 4:47 am**

Raistin [FoH] wrote:Shut the fuck up you blind monkey

Ohhhkay..

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 5:02 am**

Sylvos wrote:You can explain your side of the matter but launching personal attacks on the person in question because they disagree with you is just plain stupid... Once you launch a personal attack - You lose

This isn't Harvard Law School, nor is it a real debate. You can't honestly come here and say that what we say doesn't matter then follow it up by saying that we shouldn't say certain things. Not only is that self-contradictory and illogical, but it is incongruent with the atmosphere of VV. Personal attacks are the best way to encounter your opponent on VV, not only because it is all inconsequential (there are no winners and losers as your post suggests), but also because it is entertaining.

Brotha wrote:I'm basing my decision on hard on evidence

ROFL. Do you base all your decisions on hard-on evidence? It is evident that you don't understand the meaning of evidence. You are dumb, your posts are extremely repetative and boring, and your existence is an insult to our species, the world, science, nature, evolution, philosophy, and God.

No matter what any of us think or say, there is one truth, one fact that we can all agree on:

This war will be the first time the United States of America has ever invaded another country pre-emptively.

The implications of this are profound, mind-boggling, and frightening. All of you who profess to know so much about history please give me one example, just one example, on any country or empire in the history of the world that started a war to achieve peace. The reason you will not be able to is simple, there is no such thing. Waging war to achieve peace is a fallacy, because peace is exactly what you have when you are not waging war.

I leave you with this:

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America wrote: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 5:15 am**

I know the meaning of evidence and it really hurts my feewings that you dont' like my posts Xyun. Take a page out of Miir's playbook and post the definition of evidence for me, then make a flame that doesn't at all address anything that I've said and accomplishes nothing other than clearly demonstrating your inability to substantiate or defend the idiotic views you hold so dearly. Well you've already done the second part, but I'd still like to see the definition.

And enforcing a cease fire agreement does not equal a pre emptive strike, try again!

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 5:31 am**

When I say we can all agree, I meant all of us that use our brain. Even Dubya calls this a pre-emptive strike. Are you that dense??

Pre-emptive Strike Strategy

I could spend time defending my views or I could spend time making fun of how utterly fucking stupid you are. I choose the latter.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 10:46 am**

Dregor Thule wrote: There's some logic in them, but not enough solid evidence to go dropping bombs on civilians.

I know you are not as ignorant as your posts. If you believe that the U.S. or U.K. have intentions of dropping bombs on civilians intentionally, you are a moron. The U.S. has spent billions developing weapons that are more precise just so they can prevent civilian deaths in military operations. The new generation of bombs the U.S. will be using are satellite guided. Smoke, fog, darkness, etc. will have no effect on their guidance. If civilians die, it is going to be from a malfunction or from Saddam putting them into a military target so that he can claim civilian casualties and garner support against the war.

And as for your majority of voters....a huge reason that voting turnout is at an all time low is the electoral college. The people know that in most cases that there vote does not matter for shit. They pretty much know ahead of time in most states who is going to carry it. If you live in an area that is vastly Democrat or Republican and your beliefs lie with the opposite party, what is the point of wasting time to vote? If they actually held popular vote elections, you might see things turn out differently. Until that time, the politicians don't give a rats ass about the popular vote and concentrate on winning areas that will give them more electoral college votes. It is nothing more than a game where they adapt to the rules.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 10:51 am**

"Voting Dumbya out of office in 2004 is not going to bring back any of the people he kills tomorrow"

And Killing Saddam will save even more then that.

Posted: **March 19, 2003, 11:18 am**

make a flame that doesn't at all address anything that I've said

You never make any points that are worth addressing.

You're like a little kid with your fingers in your ears screaming *IM NOT LISTENING*

You are funny in that you completely ignore anything resembling logic or evidence in your posts... You're kinda like Midnyte and Fallans retarded little sidekick that's only there for comic relief...

Posted: **March 20, 2003, 8:27 pm**

I really hate bumping dying posts but...

How are they not worth addressing Miir? I say I don't think Bush is being arrogant, I give an example. You in turn give the definition of arrogant- which does nothing but prove your l33t copy/paste skills.

I lay out evidence substantiating my belief that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction- then YOU'RE like the little kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "IM NOT LISTENING!" The evidence (and yes it is evidence) is right there for any reasonable person to see. And I know, it's really fucking gay to use a flame that someone else used but it really does perfectly describe how you and others have held onto the belief that Iraq does not have WMDs when all the evidence points otherwise.

If you have a valid point let me know, because I haven't seen one yet in any of the posts you've made. I see you arguing semantics with people and blindly name calling them while never making a convincing arguement of your own.

Whether you like it or not, these actions will save lives and free the Iraqi people. Iraq does have WMDs and we will find huge caches of them, making the world a safer place in the process. When this happens I'm sure you'll find some other gripe. Some people are already doing this (see the cost of war, since when do we put a price tag on freedom, a price tag on human life?).

And to clarify on what you said in an earlier post Xyun...

While technically this is being labled as a pre emptive strike, this most certainly is not a war of aggression or imperialism on our part. If someone has WMDs, is trying to aquire larger and more dangerous ones, has terrorist connections, has invaded and attacked other countries, and is currently blatantly defying a ceasefire argreement, I think us bringing war to them to destroy that threat will make a greater peace rather than letting them continue to build up their army, get greater WMDs, and allowing the threat to always sit there in the back of our minds, always growing. We are not cause of this war that is coming, terrorists and Saddam Hussein are. Waging war to achieve peace is not a fallacy, what do you think has brought us into this relatively secure and peaceful world we have today? Should we have allowed Hitler to run rampant all over Europe? Allowed Milosevich to commit genocide? It has been shown time and time again that if you appease and let power hungry dictators have their way, nothing but bad things will happen. We are finally taking action before a dictator can resume his conquests, can kill even more innocent people. If you disagree with our current course of action that's your choice- but realize that history and logic are not on your side.

The implications of this ARE certainly profound, mind-boggling, and frightening. We may actually be learning from history and our past mistakes.

Posted: **March 20, 2003, 10:34 pm**

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote: There's some logic in them, but not enough solid evidence to go dropping bombs on civilians.

I know you are not as ignorant as your posts. If you believe that the U.S. or U.K. have intentions of dropping bombs on civilians intentionally, you are a moron. The U.S. has spent billions developing weapons that are more precise just so they can prevent civilian deaths in military operations. The new generation of bombs the U.S. will be using are satellite guided. Smoke, fog, darkness, etc. will have no effect on their guidance. If civilians die, it is going to be from a malfunction or from Saddam putting them into a military target so that he can claim civilian casualties and garner support against the war.

And it is likely that he will put civilians with soldiers.
That won't stop our military from annihilating women and children, will it?
Then regardless of weither or not Saddam put them in harms way (against their will most likely) we will still pull the trigger.
That means in MY book:
Saddam willing to sacrifice innocent Iraqis
U.S.A. willing to scarifice innocent Iraqis
Saddam is evil
U.S.A is evil w/ the bonus of being a hypocrate.

If you CONSERVATIVES have a problem with free thought and ideas as evidenced by this:

once again I will state this: The majority of Americans back a policy. If you are in the minority and do not like it, you can leave any time you want. There are 190 other countries on this planet and you have the freedom to try any of them out that you want.

then I suggest YOU get the fuck out of the United States of go to a place where your virtues of ignorance will be appreciated by the masses.

God, ever since some people started to say something along those lines...
/shudder
Anywho, the majority of people do feel that we should allow the U.N. months if need be to determine the status of Saddam's WoMD and chemical/biological agents. Proff is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan21.html

And lastly, here are 10 reason we should not attack Iraq for you:

1. War with Iraq won't make us safer.
A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment and may stimulate more attacks by extremists.

2. There is no imminent threat.
There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Iraq has little means to deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle East, let alone the U.S.

3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further encourage other nations to do the same.

4. Our allies don't support us in this war.
U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security.

5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians.

6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war ends.

7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in order to pay for the "war on terror."
Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq.

8. Things may not be better after a war.
We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the Iraqi people or be any friendlier to the U.S. than the current one. The Taliban were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our enemy after a few years?

9. There are other options.
The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your community.

Do you like Apples?

Posted: **March 21, 2003, 3:40 am**

Yes, by all means let's have another decade of inspections that accomplish nothing but keeping inspectors in jobs.

Acies, you cannot in any logical way lay the death of civilians on the doorstep of the US when Saddam has purposely placed both them and his command centers to INSURE innocents are killed.

I wish it hadn't come to this. Bottom line, Hussien had over a decade to work to make sure this never happened. He did not. He has not. He will not.

I hope this is over quickly.

Posted: **March 21, 2003, 11:51 pm**

Fallanthas wrote: Acies, you cannot in any logical way lay the death of civilians on the doorstep of the US when Saddam has purposely placed both them and his command centers to INSURE innocents are killed.

Bullshit I can't.
I just did, here watch it again, in slow motion:

I-t-t-a-k-e-s-t-w-o-t-o-t-a-n-g-o.

Lets rewind and watch that again.

o-g-n-a-t-o-t-o-w-t-s-e-k-a-t-t-I...I-t-t-a-k-e-s-t-w-o-t-o-t-a-n-g-o.

Long and short, Saddam in no innocent soul, but our hands are no cleaner.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 12:19 am**

So if I push a kid on a bike out in front of your car as you drive down main street, that makes you a kid killer?

Think about it and stop knee-jerking.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 1:50 am**

it makes it very difficult to debate when the people you are debating with refute all facts by saying that nothing is true because it disagrees with their assessments. I have stopped trying to argue with you because you refuse to acknowledge facts. Truly ridiculous(I stopped reading after the first page).

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 3:37 am**

Fallanthas wrote:So if I push a kid on a bike out in front of your car as you drive down main street, that makes you a kid killer?

Think about it and stop knee-jerking.

Nono bro, here:

The Truck driver wants to kill you, you push a little kid on the ground in front of him to get him to brake.
He says "Screw you and the kid" and runs you both over.

That is a more likely application of scenarios

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 3:51 am**

Acies why do you feel the need to try to rationalize or excuse Saddam Hussein's behavior?

Can't you say using someone as a human shield is the pinnacle of cowardice and the person responsible for this (responsible for all of this really) is Saddam Hussein?

A more apt analogy would be: I've murdered several people, the police are coming to my home to get me. I put a 10 year old girl in front of my window as I shoot down cops from that room. The police, however unwilling, are forced to shoot me to take down the threat. Do you think the police would be responsible for that little girl's death?

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 9:41 am**

Brotha wrote:Acies why do you feel the need to try to rationalize or excuse Saddam Hussein's behavior?

Really, Just to play devils advocate. I enjoy the challenge.

Here is my personal belief on this matter:
I do think the US fucked up going against the UN
I do think our government was just as bad as Iraqs prior to this war
I do think we are a lot better at covert ops and keeping our sins quiet.
No I am not going to excuse Saddam for anything.
Yes, I dislike Bush mainly due to the controversy of his election, but also because he thinks he has the right to judge Iraq when our morals can be shaky at best. (Do not believe me? Look up who supplied both Germany and England with weapons in the before we became involved in World war 2. Air America Op? I assume you know something about that? No, we do not assassinate people, nono.)
I devate.
Again, Brotha, my point:
Saddam deserves what he has coming to him.
However, it is very hypocritical for our nation to judge considering our past.
Not that we have not done good.
Not that we have not done bad either.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 12:34 pm**

brotha wrote:...see the cost of war, since when do we put a price tag on freedom, a price tag on human life?

When it is my fooken' money.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 6:00 pm**

Not that it matters, but....

It was already established the US had the right to attack IRAQ without further resolutions, the US just tried it for diplomacy. Sure the anti-war crowd is saying we cant, but the reality is, they were hoping we wouldnt.

As for understanding each others countries politics, less than .1 percent of the people here really understand the full breadth of politics. Sure, say you do, but honestly you do not. You complication of politics this day disgusts me, but it won't change it.

All these countries and people are ok with Iraqi's being killed by the scores by their government, and sit around and do nothing about it. I'm glad somebody took a stand beyond that. I dont agree 100% with the war, but I'm glad somebody took a stand beyond complacency.

'I do think our government was just as bad as Iraqs prior to this war '

Heh, one day, come out of your shell. Not to say the US doesnt do questionable things, but Saddam kills 1000's of his own people, 290,000 people missing since he took over and the US gets bitched at for possibly torturing 1 person. Get off your damn high-horse.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 10:43 pm**

Yes, we all know Saddam spends a huge chunk of his annual budget helping other coutnries out with finacial aid.

And of course women are tortured and ignored in the US, along with countless other violations of basic human rights.

Puhleeze. Acies, if you don't learn to balance positive with negative, you are in for a long, bitter life.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 10:49 pm**

Take a close look at the US history in south america Fallanthas, then we can talk about violating human rights.

That and the american goverment supporting saddam hussein with funds and weaponry during the iran/iraq was ( And yes during 1988, in wich when the american goverment turned a blind eye on the gassing over several thousand kurd in the north of iraq ) ( And yes the CIA also funded the Mullah regime in iran led by Ayatollah Khomeni during the Iran/iraq war )

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 10:54 pm**

Grats you reading comprehension, dumbass.

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 11:00 pm**

So torturing and killing abroad is diffrent in what way to killing and torturing in the homeland?

Posted: **March 22, 2003, 11:31 pm**

I swear some peopel should never have graduated fourth grade.

Read what I just wrote to Acies. They apply it to your post immedaitely after.

Christ on a crutch.

Posted: **March 23, 2003, 12:52 am**

Yeah, some peopel definitly needs the typeeng skeels aquired past the fourth grade.

VeeshanVault

Hypocrisy

for the blind