Photos from Iraq

[Kent]

First I wanna stress that I want a response to my post above this, but also...

Neon_duke, you are right.
And on top of that...
I think the economy concept is a misconception to begin with.

I believe it is possible that Americans wrongfully think of wars as economy boosters thanks to the amazing efforts made after ww2 to get American soldiers educated and trained for re-entering the industrial and buisness worlds of a peace time society.

Guess that thoughts a little to the side of the topic, but still...

My post above... What do you have to say about that rallyboy?

btw, also take the time to respond to neon_duke while your at it.

Later.

Edit: since this is a new page...

Originally posted by RallyF1
only time will tell, we can go rambling about the war in iraq, but the truth is it was unjestified and it was a means to revive the american economy and only the american economy, becase war have always menta prosperity to any kind of economy, except in the case of vietnam and now this. the whole thing is just back firing all around the world and it's only we the americans who don't care about what happens in that war.

the truth is it was unjestified

No, actually, that is just your opinion. This war is and was Justified on several levels.

Several levels: (just a few I can think of)
1.Violation of U.N. resolutions (17 to be exact), which had severe & stated repercussions.
2. Known ties to and monetary support for suicide bombers/ terrorist as well as suspected ties to Al Queda with regards harbouring individual terrorist as well as groups in the form of training camps.
3. Crimes against humanity in the form of documented Mass Genocide during both the iran/ iraq war as well as in his own country as a means to suppress rebelion. (rebelion being the open expression of the very views people like K_speed and you are demonstrating)
4. Environmental Crimes as seen in Saddam's burning of oil reservoirs across Iraq and the mass dumping of existing oil supplies. None the less, the destruction of the fertile cresant.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/environment.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler032103.asp
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-05-23/s_4588.asp
(sorry, I just don't feel like providing links for all of the obvious ones. )

Keep in mind that Saddam also violated the terms of the first gulf war's cease-fire.

Saddam should have been removed from power long, long ago.

You:

Long live the coalition:

Later.

edit: and for the sake of your response to neon_duke...

Originally posted by neon_duke
Go actually learn something about history. Wars are the single easiest way to ruin your economy and bankrupt your country. WWII was a real exception, and there was evidence that the US economy was on its way to recovery anyway, without the artificial boost it got from cranking up our industrial power for involvement.

 

[Carl.]

If the goal of this war was to bring peace and stability to this part of the world, I just don't understand the way we intend to do so from where we are... What happened since we invaded Iraq? We defeated Saddam's army, secured the oil pipelines and infrastructure, left the majority of Iraq's population without any kind if protection or order, and whole cities have turned as wild as the far west. They feel the only people the army are protecting there is themselves from extremist groups, and a lot turned to religious groups seeking protection and an authority they would trust to reinstate order to this mess. Not mentioning mishaps like the army destroying two civilian cars that were on the road later than the curfew time, which they didn't kwew about.

Obviously you'll tell me that **** happens in a war like this, and that it's inevitable. But just imagine the coverage of these events by the media in the middle east. The longer this will last, more and more Muslims will support the anti-american and anti-occidental movements there. We are just giving them more arguments to fight back, just the way terrorists gave us strong arguments to get there.

I just don't see why we had to rush to invade them, and this outside UN and NATO. Was Saddam such an immediate threat to the world? His army was left in a pathetic state and how the hell could they have a hypothetical significant WMD program while being thoroughly investigated about it?? Oh... I forgot about the no-flight zone (I think you're right about it Talentless) now that's something compared to N.Korea admitting they have a nuclear weapon program running. Which leaves me with one valid point: financing terrorists in Palestine...

You say that we liberated them from a dictator who's responsible for genocides... could you tell me in what circumstances some of theses genocides happened? No? Remember our great idea during desert storm to encourage some of Iraq ethnic groups to a revolution against their government? I do. Remember what we did after Saddam retreated from Kuwait? We let them deal with the asshole themselves, knowing very well what would happen to them. They were collateral damage for the fact we didn't want a religious group to take over Iraq and become Iran #2

Now we want them to believe we are their saviors. We left one of the worst dictator in history in power of the country, knowing what would be likely to happen, then choked the entire country with economical sanctions... go check the stats about casualties due to these sanctions. Yes, Saddam is the first to blame for what happened, but tell me how can we ask them to see us as saviors and to trust our actions?

Back to Palestine... Were not able to solve what's happening to Israel? Let's spread the issue instead of solving it... Just imagine that we could have done with the energy and effort we invested in invading Iraq. Do you define Israel as a country that has been in a "Fair Democraty" for the last 50 years? Are you saying that we don't hold a great responsibility in this??

I hate terrorists. They are a shame to humanity and they entirely ruin the point they are trying to make with their actions. But we are playing the same game in many ways, but most of us just don't want to see it.

 

[Carl.]

Forgot to address some points...

Environmental Crimes... Are you kidding me? There's a long list of countries to invade then...

Genocides in Iran... Are you also kidding?? We couldn't care less about these, Saddam was our "friend" for fighting Iran before he got cocky and decided to invade Kuwait...

 

[milefile]

we are playing the same game in many ways, but most of us just don't want to see it.

I see it. And i think we are doing the right thing. What is your alternative?

 

[Kent]

So wait jpmontoya,

Are you saying that because all of these things happend, we are to just stand back and continue to let them happen?

And if you want the circumstances to the genocide, look it up yourself. It's no secret about what was done, just because I don't explain it to you doesn't mean I have no clue what happend.

You know,
The name of this thread is photos from Iraq, that means Iraq before saddam, during saddam, and after saddam... maybe you should look into it with an open and kind heart to find out that Saddam was the worst thing to ever happen to Iraq.

And finally, let me tell you...
If you think I don't want to sanction, or criminally prosecute the people all around the world who are committing the same crimes that saddam was, then you are a fool.

Justice should be applied to everyone equally, but that doesn't mean that if 1 person gets away with something another person should also be allowed to get away with the same act.

What your post came down to was the idea that since other places and other people in the world have done what saddam did, then saddam should have been left alone.

I disagree.
Saddam should be subject to justice regardless of what other people are doing.

You are trying to act like the use of WMDs on Iraqi's people was the fault of anyone but Saddam and that is a sad exscue for trying to pass the blame.

btw, I have got to ask, do you really think terrorist will ever stop fighting us?
You say that we are giving them a reason, as if they wouldn't fight if they didn't have that reason.
I say you are mistaken if you think they will ever stop.

Just ask Bill Clinton. You know as well as I know that there were several unjustified attacks on the US throughout his administration. Do you think William J would say that the terrorist will stop if we leave them alone?

Anyway, I still appluade you for sticking up for that damn fool that posted what we have all been discussing.

However, you never actually refutted the points in support of going to war, all you did was say that other people had been doing the same things and for that reason, the reasons for war were not justified... and like I said before, just cause one person got away with something does not mean that everyone will be permitted to get away with the same actions.

Just when do we hold Saddam responsible for the crimes he committed?

And just like milefile said... what is you alternative?
I see you trying to justify saddams actions, but I don't see you trying to fix the problem.
(btw, it is attempting to justify saddam's actions when you try to invalidate the legitimate reasons for war that I listed)

1.Violation of U.N. resolutions (17 to be exact), which had severe & stated repercussions.
2. Known ties to and monetary support for suicide bombers/ terrorist as well as suspected ties to Al Queda with regards harbouring individual terrorist as well as groups in the form of training camps.
3. Crimes against humanity in the form of documented Mass Genocide during both the iran/ iraq war as well as in his own country as a means to suppress rebelion. (rebelion being the open expression of the very views people like K_speed and you are demonstrating)
4. Environmental Crimes as seen in Saddam's burning of oil reservoirs across Iraq and the mass dumping of existing oil supplies. None the less, the destruction of the fertile cresant.

Also, what in the world do "our responsibilities" in the Palestine issue have to do with the fact that Saddam gave finacial support to terrorist in Palestine?

Sure, if we have something to do with that problem we may be involved, but that still have no bearing on what Saddam was doing to further the terrorist violence.

Btw, it was not the united states that established Palestine and therefore, the United States should not bear the burden of guilt related to the mess surrounding palestine.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by milefile
I see it. And i think we are doing the right thing. What is your alternative?

Some ideas...

- Solve the mess Israel has become to calm things down (Not that I have the solution, but we have to find one...), to gain some trust back.

- Instead of finding some excuses for some of the things we messed up, admit our errors (not only US, but UN for Desert Storm) and find a way to repay it. (which you believe will be done by the fact that we removed Saddam from there and I really do hope you're right, but we have to be extremely careful in the way we're doing it, and the way it's going on right now it just looks very bad. Let's hope time will solve this, because if it doesn't, we may live through one of the most vicious world war during the course of our lives, and not one of us here wants this)

- Only take military actions on the behalf of UN. I agree that's far from simplicity. I understand how American can be pissed at France right now... still, I don't see how not going to war was such a great option economically speaking from the French. Now, instead of having a part of the pie, they have nothing... there must have been other reasons beside having a stake in Iraq oil? Other countries (like Canada) were against the war but didn't have any significant economical interests in Iraq. Maybe they were afraid it would do anything but stabilize middle east too...

 

[Carl.]

GoKents, I think you just missed my point. As I previously said Saddam is one the worst asshole dictator in the last decades. He should have been taken out of power in the Gulf War, but we didn't, for our own political interests.

I don't think we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, just that this doesn't help much. Solving issues at the source of terrorism instead of feeding it. Giving arguments to muslims throughout the world to fight them back, instead of giving terrorists excuses to recruit other members.

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
Some ideas...

- Solve the mess Israel has become to calm things down (Not that I have it, but we have to find one...), to gain some trust back.

- Instead of finding some excuses for some of the things we messed up, admit our errors (not only US, but UN for Desert Storm) and find a way to repay it. (which you believe will be done by the fact that we removed Saddam from there and I really do hope you're right, but we have to be extremely careful in the way we're doing it, and the way it's going on right now it just looks very bad. Let's hope time will solve this, because if it doesn't, we may live through one of the most vicious world war during the course of our lives, and not one of us here wants this)

- Only take military actions on the behalf of UN. I agree that's far from simplicity. I understand how American can be pissed at France right now... still, I don't see how not going to war was such a great option economically speaking from the French. Now, instead of having a part of the pie, they have nothing... there must have been other reasons beside having a stake in Iraq oil? Other countries (like Canada) were against the war but didn't have any significant economical interests in Iraq. Maybe they were afraid it would do anything but stabilize middle east too...

This is the biggest wad of crap I have seen yet, because it looks so close to reasonable.

First off, Saddam invaded another country and used military force to do a hostile take-over of everything in Kuwait.
That is an international crime. (being that it was an unwarranted invasion and occupation, with no intention of leaving or restoring the native powers in government)

Second, only taking action when the UN takes action means allowing more crime to occur and preventing less genocide than ever before.

We tried that before and you know what it got us...?
Rowanda buddy, rowanda.
With the way you are talking, you would think that the UN never allowed 30,000 rowandans to be slaughtered by machette. (not to mention the 800,000 total count of victims to be murdered.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/

btw, where is your outrage with the clinton administration for not preventing this sort of genocide?

It sits badly with me that on one hand I have you talking about stopping violence and at the same time bashing Bush, yet on the other hand I have you ignoring these sorts of events and saying "do what the UN does."

As Americans we need to think about what is best for America and in my opinion, standing up for the freedoms of all people in the world is part of what being America is all about.

btw, we didn't remove saddam during the first gulf war because we actually wanted to believe he would adhere the terms of his cease fire and maybe even clean up his act...

Does that mean that once he showed he could not uphold those terms we should just leave him be?

Also, "at the source" would be almost every country in the middle east, so for now, I think having the foreign terrorist fighters come to Iraq is a better plan than invading and destroying the governments of every moderate muslim coutry that just happens to also support the fundamentalist mulsim community.

Fact is... at the source would mean invading Saudi Arabia...
would you rather have the extremist from S.A. come to Iraq and fight or come to America and fight (9/11) or stay at home in s.a. until we brought the fight to them?

You gotta make a choice cause if you don't, they will bring the fight to your front door, Or well, atleast the front door of any number of innocent victims.

btw, I still don't see how anything you said invalidated the reasons I gave for war.

 

[Carl.]

Do you take the time to actually read my posts before answering and calling it a wad of crap??

First off, Saddam invaded another country and used military force to do a hostile take-over of everything in Kuwait.

Really? What's your point? I just said that we should've removed Saddam 14 years ago.


RWANDA: I already stated that I was pissed that any occidental country didn't pressure (seriously) the UN to act on Rwanda. And I already stated that before in this thread. That was my point to say that the primary goal of this war wasn't to save the Iraqi from genocides.

It sits badly with me that on one hand I have you talking about stopping violence and at the same time bashing Bush, yet on the other hand I have you ignoring these sorts of events and saying "do what the UN does."

Sorry that your patriotic mind see this as a senseless attack toward your president. I "bashed" at Saddam, US, The UN, and terrorism. But you just seem to be sensitive when I actually criticize action of your government, which I can understand since a lot of people are against it for the sake of it, but that's not a reason to close you eyes on all opinions that don't go in the same direction as US politics.

btw, we didn't remove saddam during the first gulf war because we actually wanted to believe he would adhere the terms of his cease fire and maybe even clean up his act...

Yes, like we didn't knew(* TALKING ABOUT ALL THE COALITION COUNTRIES HERE, NOT ONLY THE US *) there would be severe punisment for Iraqi people that we encouraged in trying to destitute him. But now we care.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by GoKents
Fact is... at the source would mean invading Saudi Arabia...

No, what I meant by "at the source" is SOLVING ISRAEL'S CONFLICT.

 

[Kent]

Well first off... I haven't seen you bashing the UN, The EU, the Clinton Administration or anything else besides George Bush's Administration.

Second, do you really think Israel/ Palestine is the heart of the problem in Islam?

I'm sorry to be the one who tells you this, but the fundamentalist mulisms are not fighting for palestine, they are fighting to change the world.
They are fighting in a jihad, not a political action.

They want the westren world to be destroyed, nothing less.

Solving the problems in Palestine will only change the topic, it will not stop the violence.

Finally, the problems of Palestine are not why Saddam acted in the horrible fashion that he did.

So when addressing the reasons justifying a war in Iraq, or when addressing why the extremist wish Americans to die, we need to not use the Palestine exscue.

But for real...

Saying that you wanted saddam removed 14 years ago, and then oppossing that action today is a serious inconsistancy.

Which is it, did you want Saddam in power or out of power?

 

[RallyF1]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Go actually learn something about history. Wars are the single easiest way to ruin your economy and bankrupt your country. WWII was a real exception, and there was evidence that the US economy was on its way to recovery anyway, without the artificial boost it got from cranking up our industrial power for involvement.

i bid to disagree my friend, and i think you should look into history. war is a money generator. you ask why, then please let me tell you:
aero sapce companies who Manufacture planes produce more meaning that more goverment money is given to these companies, consequently the hiring of more workers.

companies who Manufacture missiles and Artillery produce more and the same thing goes.

the oil industry sells more oil products to the goverment, biggest example Halliburton.

and after all is said and done, we go ahead and lend money to the defeated contries with high interest, half of europe still owes us a lot of money since WWI yes I and WWII.

read more you learn more.

and there is one more thing that is a kind of taboo, but killing people in war and getting killed creates more job oportunities for the living people.

and regarding resolution not being fulfilled by Iraq, the world is fulled with these kinds of resolutions that are not being fulfilled. are we expected to go around policing the world. look into north korea and theire nuclear program. and let's go too far, our beloved alie israel they have so much resolutions unfulfilled it would fill a dictionary.

as for crimes against humanity, what do you think about guatimala and other south american contries that had massacres and civil wars by groups that where supported by the U.S. even the genicides that happened in WWII and the U.S. knew about and did not act untill it was a little bit too late. and by the way these genocides by saddam wheredone using american weapons given to saddam by the U.S. to kill iranians, and the ironic thing is that the weapons where chemical and biological.

Environmental Crimes well o one tops us, exxon, and a load of other disasters done by cooperate america even against american land and citizens/

please guys get the facts straight before bluring nonsense facts. i am not saying that what goes on in that part of the worl is right but do not forget:
WE ARE NO ANGELS

and that's it i am not going to respond to any of these topics, i will not change your mind and you are not going to change mine. but the facts are out there seek them my little ones maybe you will learn the truth

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by RallyF1
i bid to disagree my friend, and i think you should look into history. war is a money generator. you ask why, then please let me tell you:
aero sapce companies who Manufacture planes produce more meaning that more goverment money is given to these companies, consequently the hiring of more workers.

companies who Manufacture missiles and Artillery produce more and the same thing goes.

the oil industry sells more oil products to the goverment, biggest example Halliburton.

and after all is said and done, we go ahead and lend money to the defeated contries with high interest, half of europe still owes us a lot of money since WWI yes I and WWII.

read more you learn more.

and there is one more thing that is a kind of taboo, but killing people in war and getting killed creates more job oportunities for the living people.

and regarding resolution not being fulfilled by Iraq, the world is fulled with these kinds of resolutions that are not being fulfilled. are we expected to go around policing the world. look into north korea and theire nuclear program. and let's go too far, our beloved alie israel they have so much resolutions unfulfilled it would fill a dictionary.

as for crimes against humanity, what do you think about guatimala and other south american contries that had massacres and civil wars by groups that where supported by the U.S. even the genicides that happened in WWII and the U.S. knew about and did not act untill it was a little bit too late. and by the way these genocides by saddam wheredone using american weapons given to saddam by the U.S. to kill iranians, and the ironic thing is that the weapons where chemical and biological.

Environmental Crimes well o one tops us, exxon, and a load of other disasters done by cooperate america even against american land and citizens/

please guys get the facts straight before bluring nonsense facts. i am not saying that what goes on in that part of the worl is right but do not forget:
WE ARE NO ANGELS

and that's it i am not going to respond to any of these topics, i will not change your mind and you are not going to change mine. but the facts are out there seek them my little ones maybe you will learn the truth

Just plain sad.

First off, the generation of money by war in your analysis is a linear chain of events that is only hypothetical, not actual.

Supporting this theory of yours will be incredibly hard to do, but if you wish to elaborate with factual evidence, I will be happy to hear you out.

Second,
Killing creates jobs for the living.
Sure, but no one goes to war with that in mind, and no one consciously creates wars to kill off existing work forces to allow new workers to obtain jobs... so yeah, that was kind of a rediculus statement. (killing to open up new positions for employment. )

Third,
Resolutions... should we just ignore resolutions since other people seem to do the same?
Furthermore, the North Koreans did indeed violate resolutions created by the Clinton administration, once again though, what does that have to do with Iraq?
Are you implying once again that because someone else can get away with something, that everyone should be permitted to do the same?

Fourth,
Genocide in south and central America... First point out to me the exact groups of American supported soldiers who committed the mass genocide, then we might be able to bring this up once again.
(although I do know that genocide occurs all over)

But what is the point of your question?
Do you really think I am a hypocrite who would allow genocide in central America and then oppose genocide in Iraq?

What kind of fool would believe such a thing? I oppose genocide everywhere by anyone.

Finally, once again, what does the genocide of other places have to do with Iraq?

Fifth,
Environmental crime and the exxon valdez. (I assume that is what you were reffering too...
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/environment.htm
http://www.austinreview.com/articles/2003_04/enviro.htm

Shut it!

Saddam: 11 million barrels of crude oil dumped directly and on purpose into the gulf off the coast of Kuwait.
Entire Exxon Valdez spill: 200,000 barrells accidentally spilled.
I believe that means saddam dumped over 50 times the amount of oil as the valdez.

Now, maybe you should start learning your **** before telling everyone else they are wrong.
Then maybe you could also try supporting your statements.

After that, maybe, just maybe, someone will take you serious.

btw, no one will every take you serious for as long as you type with the grammatical prowess of a fifth grader.

Also, remember, just because no one is an angel does not mean we should allow the horror of Saddam to be excused.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by RallyF1
i bid to disagree my friend, and i think you should look into history. war is a money generator. you ask why, then please let me tell you:
aero sapce companies who Manufacture planes produce more meaning that more goverment money is given to these companies, consequently the hiring of more workers.

companies who Manufacture missiles and Artillery produce more and the same thing goes.

read more you learn more.

Oh, puh-leeeeeeeze. Do you really think this? "read more you learn more" indeed - so try it some time.

Understand: every dime spent on the military is a complete and total loss for the economy: military personnel create no wealth. Military equipment generates no revenue. Military bases manufacture nothing. All the money used to pay and buy and build the military must be taken, in the form of taxes, from other people and businesses that do generate wealth.

Yes, some of that money returns to the economy in the form of slaries and sales... but nothing like what gets flushed down the crapper by the cost of maintaining and using a military force.

Military hardware has a high obsolescence rate, even if it survives being used for its intended purpose. What do you suppose the Kelly's Blue Book value is on a HMMV that's hit a land mine or taken fire from and AK-47?

 

[ceiling_fan]

i totally agree neon, good point

 

[RallyF1]

UUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH
whatever, i'm here for cars and drifting. i Graciously withdraw from this fruitless debate. see you in the GT3 Forum

 

[Solid Fro]

Good.

Looks like these britches are too big for you.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
you're just another rabid anti-American

hold on a sec,

why is this guy anti-american?...what you mean is he is not pro american, but that doesnt mean he is anti...

i am certainly not pro american, you have a blethering idiot as a representative of your people, how any one can support that administration is totally beyond me...

i am not anti american, but what if i was? is that so bad?

america seems to be anti europe, anti islam and anti muslim but thats okay (apparently)

no, i am not anti american but i am in no way a supporter of the nation...there is more to it that black and white, non compliance does not mean anti...that rhetoric is as insulting as it is boring and predictable.

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
hold on a sec,

why is this guy anti-american?...what you mean is he is not pro american, but that doesnt mean he is anti...

i am certainly not pro american, you have a blethering idiot as a representative of your people, how any one can support that administration is totally beyond me...

i am not anti american, but what if i was? is that so bad?

america seems to be anti europe, anti islam and anti muslim but thats okay (apparently)

no, i am not anti american but i am in no way a supporter of the nation...there is more to it that black and white, non compliance does not mean anti...that rhetoric is as insulting as it is boring and predictable.

I will tell you what is insulting and predictable...

Post like your's.

Calling my president an idiot, while you're making grammatical errors left and right, then going on to not give a single reason for you statements is far more idiotic than anything I have seen Bush do.

Plus, if Bush is the idiot in this case, how come you're the one saying anit-islam & anti-muslim?

Same thing fool.

btw, if you are sticking up for that idiot rallyf1, you may want to read all the post that have occurred... he was wrong on just about everything he said. Literally.

And we stuck to our guns and provided support for our statements, unlike what you have done.

Bush is not a "blethering idiot", and if you are going to make statements like that you should back them up somehow.

However, instead of doing any of that, you filled the roll of the foolish anti-american. Not because you are anti-american, or non-pro-american, but because you got in here and posted nothing more than unsupported insults and then ran off without making a single statement with any validity.

Indeed, if anyone is the blithering idiot, it is you my WRS friend.

I sure hope you can manage to keep your post like this to a minimum... I would hate to have any animosity towards you... you have contributed to the WRS and make for a plesant pressence in that forum.
Too bad you had to say some dumb **** about my president.

btw, Rallyf1 was indeed in a situation that was too much for him to handle if he came back with the "I'm here for cars and drifting" response when confronted by multiple post that refutted his post with support.

Looks like K_speed and Rallyf1 should get together and burn a flag or something... maybe at that kind of demonstration they wouln't run into any one with the sense to contradict what they are saying.
Lord knows that the flag burning crowd would like to here that stuff regardless of how false and insulting it may be for the real world.

 

[TurboSmoke]

hey Kents...i am not sticking up for anyone, i am not reponsible for what people post on here....all i am saying is that the anti-american insult is banded about as a substitute for looking at the real reason why people dont support the US.

it seems to me if you dont support Bush then you are anti-american...what about all the people that will vote him out of office this year, are they anti-american?

dont get me confused with someone i am not, if you want me to support my claims that Bush is a blethering idiot then i could trawl the internet to find millions of examples...i am sure they are not hard to find...i was referring to his speech on Iraq the other day...he fumbled and stuttered and could hardly complete a coherent sentence...if you want proof, watch the videotape....i am sure someone taped it...

you are not to be offended by my piece, its not designed that way...just look at the wider picture instead of branding everyone anti american...thats all...

no offence to anyone in the WRS or anyone on these forums...

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke

if you want me to support my claims that Bush is a blethering idiot then i could trawl the internet to find millions of examples...i am sure they are not hard to find...i was referring to his speech on Iraq the other day...he fumbled and stuttered and could hardly complete a coherent sentence...if you want proof, watch the videotape....i am sure someone taped it...

So, he's not a public speaker. Big deal. Are you?

I stumble and stutter talking about a $500,000 building design in front of a church committee made up of old ladies and golfers. Would you say I'm a "blethering" idiot? I can write circles around just about anybody I've ever come up against - want me to show you?

I'm just a mediocre public speaker. I can't imagine how I'd sound, talking about a $5 billion dollar war infront of a hundred people I knew were mostly hostile to me. And I don't even have a Texas accent that people love to misinterpret on purpose, because it makes him look like a bigger dolt.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a huge Bush fan. But he's no idiot by any means, and he's got more stiffness in his backbone than Slick Willie Clinton did in his trousers.

 

[TurboSmoke]

yes, i realise he is nervous and it was also broadcast live across the world with possibly a billion or so people being able to watch it live or repeated at some point...

still, with that in mind isnt it even more of a reason why he should look strong and confident and unshaken...

i am not a great public speaker either, being best man at my bro's wedding i had a couple of hundred people to speak to and try and be witty and funny...its not easy...but all he needed to do was look serious and read from a script...

ahh who cares....i only came on this thread to make the distinction between being anti american and being neutral..

 

[RallyF1]

i am in no way running away from this conversation, but the thing is got sick of it. i will never be able to convince you of my point of view. i have seen posts like these that have turned out to be ugly and people got booted out of this forum, because theire ideas where too radical for moderators to handle, just like the case of the U.S. against the world" i don't like you then i will boot you out of existence.
and regarding bush, i did not say he is dumb only, he is a dumb SOB. i voted for that stupid moron. but come on he said africa is a country, let's role, we will smoke them out, do you think this is the way to talk when you are the president of a super power for the time being in the world. give me a break.........................
the only reason i am weasling out of this because i hate typing on the keyboard seriousley.

forget anti-american and anti-whatever you wanna call it. the truth hurts and we as americans hate to accept it. i have no idea what to say more. and please moderators don't block me from coming to this forum, i kinda like it here, except for the extremesit moderartors that are here

 

[Kent]

Well... Hmmm...

I think the biggest issue in these posts is Anti-Americanism.
That seems to be what you are most concerned with, so first let me get all the other points out of the way.

First would be rallyf1.
You (turbo), came onto this thread with an attitude of defense for rallyf1 after he came into the thread with a heavy anti-american message. (when you suggest the entire american government and majority of people are willing to participate in the "illegal war of Bush" you are in fact saying that America is a nation that is in the wrong and doing an immoral action.)

Rallyf1 insulted both neon_duke and I, as well as the American nation by suggesting that America was driven by oil and was taking action in Iraq to only further our own economy.

We shot down everything he had to say and then provided our own support on various issues that showed what he said was entirely wrong.

At this point, he retreated and gave up.
(Originally posted by Rallyf1)

UUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH
whatever, i'm here for cars and drifting. i Graciously withdraw from this fruitless debate. see you in the GT3 Forum

This was pretty much acknowledging that he could not argue with the facts provided.

However, right at that point, you stepped in.

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
hold on a sec,

why is this guy anti-american?...what you mean is he is not pro american, but that doesnt mean he is anti...

i am certainly not pro american, you have a blethering idiot as a representative of your people, how any one can support that administration is totally beyond me...

i am not anti american, but what if i was? is that so bad?

america seems to be anti europe, anti islam and anti muslim but thats okay (apparently)

no, i am not anti american but i am in no way a supporter of the nation...there is more to it that black and white, non compliance does not mean anti...that rhetoric is as insulting as it is boring and predictable.

Upon your arrival, your first comments are "you have a blethering idiot as a representative of your people, how any one can support that administration is totally beyond me..."

This is an insult to me because I like Bush, I voted for Bush, and I have legitimate reasons for my decisions.

Following your insults, you went on to make a fool of yourself in my eyes by suggesting America is a nation that dislikes everyone else in the world, while at the same time, showing your own lack of understanding on the very issues at hand.
"america seems to be anti europe, anti islam and anti muslim but thats okay (apparently)"

Now then, to address the final and most prominant theme in your postings... Anti-Americanism.

At the time, you seem to be convinced that simply disliking Bush equals being anti-american, but you are wrong about that.

I garuntee that every "pro-Bush" person in this discussion has some sort of gripe about a decision, policy or stance that Bush has taken.

However, all of us "pro-Bushers" are united with the idea that a group of militant, extremist, fundamentalist muslims are trying to destroy "western society" and that Bush is the only man in politics who we see openly fighting these people with the force that has been missing for almost the entire time this issue has been knocking on America's door.

This is not a matter of liking Bush, this is a matter of uniting against terrorism and evil.

Saddam was and still is evil. At the moment he still hasn't paid his debt to the world or society, however, George Bush was the leader that was willing to put his foot down.

The world followed through with an open and direct ultimatum for Saddam, led by George Bush... However, when it was time to lay the cards on the table, Saddam consistantly avoided responsibility, the UN decided to allow that to continue, and George Bush was one of the few in the world that would follow through with the ultimatum.

Over and over again in this thread we have discussed the reasons for a war in Iraq, many of which have not been contested without compramising the ethics of the contester. (allowing one to get away with crime should not be permitted because others have succeded in acomplishing said crimes.)

So in this thread, we have addressed the war efforts, and in the process people who opposse George Bush have oppossed the war effort simply to spite Bush... Yet in the process of that, they have shown total and complete contempt for all the Americans who believe in this president and this countries goals.

That means that instead of people arguing against a war or a president, they are actually arguing against the beliefs and goals of a large population of people.

Then take into account the facts about the worlds state of terrorism and you have a situation where America is rightfully taking action, and in that, taking serious and wrongful insult from certain political spectrums in the world. (not to mention certain religious groups)

Now let me get back to the post that followed my response to your initial post... you posted this...

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
hey Kents...i am not sticking up for anyone, i am not reponsible for what people post on here....all i am saying is that the anti-american insult is banded about as a substitute for looking at the real reason why people dont support the US.

it seems to me if you dont support Bush then you are anti-american...what about all the people that will vote him out of office this year, are they anti-american?

dont get me confused with someone i am not, if you want me to support my claims that Bush is a blethering idiot then i could trawl the internet to find millions of examples...i am sure they are not hard to find...i was referring to his speech on Iraq the other day...he fumbled and stuttered and could hardly complete a coherent sentence...if you want proof, watch the videotape....i am sure someone taped it...

you are not to be offended by my piece, its not designed that way...just look at the wider picture instead of branding everyone anti american...thats all...

no offence to anyone in the WRS or anyone on these forums...

Now for starters, I have already outlined why you were taken as being on the defensive side of Rallyf1's statements...

you did infact come into the discussion and say "why is this guy anti-american?...what you mean is he is not pro american, but that doesnt mean he is anti..."
&
"how any one can support that administration is totally beyond me" followed by "no, i am not anti american but i am in no way a supporter of the nation..."

In this set of statements, you provide defensive support for the openly insulting remarks of rallyf1, followed by a statement that says "I do not in any way support America"... Keep in mind that all the while, these are remarks made during a discussion about the morals, ethics, values, justification of, and intelligence of the United states.

Now I am sure you realize this, but when any force acts, the force it acts upon can either react accordingly (go with it), or oppose it (since both remaining still in stance or actively working against the force, are in fact resisting/ oppossing the acting force.)

Then you said... "all i am saying is that the anti-american insult is banded about as a substitute for looking at the real reason why people dont support the US."

However, that is not at all the case... I have already outlined why rallyf1's comments were indeed "anti-american" and as for the real reason why everyone does not support the US... I believe that is yet to be discussed in this thread.

I have just now also established why "it just seems to you" wrongly that, "it seems to me if you dont support Bush then you are anti-american...what about all the people that will vote him out of office this year, are they anti-american?"

Do I need to go over it again about why the comments made by rallyf1 were in fact anti-american? (just in case)
"People arguing against a war or a president, are actually arguing against the beliefs and goals of a large population of people."
(we did elect him, regardless of what you may think about the electoral college system and Gore's "at any cost" campaign.) ("At Any Cost" is a book some of you may like. )

dont get me confused with someone i am not, if you want me to support my claims that Bush is a blethering idiot then i could trawl the internet to find millions of examples...i am sure they are not hard to find...i was referring to his speech on Iraq the other day...he fumbled and stuttered and could hardly complete a coherent sentence...if you want proof, watch the videotape....i am sure someone taped it...

Well, you must understand that with the reasons and logic I have laid out above, I was not confused at all, but I did indeed have the message clearly. (whether you intended such a radical message or not, your message was recieved.)

As for the tape... no, I don't buy that. You should have, and most likely would have, reffered to that tape in your original insult, if you had really been refferring to Bush being an "idiot" just because of that speech. (I still believe it was a generalized statement.)

I watched that speech and was not nearly as un-impressed as members like danoff, who put forth his legit criticisms without using "idiotic" insults. I was actually quite suprised by the audacity of the reporters in the press conference and felt that Bush merely had a hard time addressing the consistant hounding for an admission of guilt that should not be given in the first place.

And for the idea that you could find net sources saying Bush is dumb, I have no doubt you could do that... do you think I am dumb enough to think you couldn't find an anti-Bush site somewhere on the net and link it to me?

What I mean by that is, take an example of something George Bush has openly done and demonstrate to me how it shows his lacking intelligence... you see, Bush did graduate from college, and contray to what you may believe, it is possible to buy your way into a college, but it is not possible to buy your way through college. (just ask ted kennedy (Kerry's great friend), who was expelled from ... Harvard... when he was caught cheating to make the grade.)

And now...

you are not to be offended by my piece, its not designed that way...just look at the wider picture instead of branding everyone anti american...thats all...

Let me explain to you this... I am the one who decides what is offending regardless of your intentions. (the road to hell is paved with good intentions.)

Also allow me to point out that I did not label "everyone" anti-American, only Rallyf1 and K_speed. (who have both repeatedly insulted my views, the views of my country's leader, the views of several other Americans in this thread, as well as the views of a majority of people in America. ) (And of course, don't forget about the insults to our actual practice of those views... a.k.a. ethics.)

Now finally, I want to say that you don't have to worry about any ties between this and the WRS. I am profession in that arena and my ethics do not permit me to hold my constitution sacred while not allowing you a freedom of speech.

Lastly, I'm out... I've been typing and working on this for a while, so it's time for a break and a few laps.

Checking back a little later,
-kent.

Btw, In this world it comes down to us and them. The free minded and free willed vs the terrorist.

Also rallyf1, what truth are you talking about... the truth that was completely refutted by Neon_duke and myself through a series of legitimate and supported post?

 

[Dave A]

I'm an on the fence guy, the reasons given for the war in Iraq did include things like the WMD which arn't there, and that makes the war illegal I think (if any of this has been covered I haven't read the whole thread or been watching it at all) but at the same time Saddam was an evil dictatorhowever I hold to my view that one country shouldn't decide how another country is run, they should only ever attack or defend against that country if they are threatend. Iraq never made a threat, and didn't have weapons to carry out thoes so called potential attacks. This is just my personal opinion, I'm not a fan of Bush, but show me a politician I am a fan of and it would take you a lifetime. As I said though, I'm not on either side, the Iraqi's arn't exactley in the right when they shoot Italian hostages and blow up Iraqi police officers. These are my two cents an I full respect anyones opinion on these matters unless they decide they are right and everyone else is retarded or stupid ect, as for anti-Americanism, theres no need for it, I wouldn't want Americans saying my country is a load of ****e along with all it's policies and everyone who supports them and I would expect the Americans feal the same way.

Oh and Bush's poor public speacking funny as it is doesn't mean he's incompetent, he has a better paid job than all of us doesn't he, but thats not saying that I'm a fan of his or that he is decent or indecent either.

 

[TurboSmoke]

good post kents,

i cannot reply to all of it since i only have 5 mins...

i understand your support for your president, you voted him in so you have to live with that til the bitter end, that shows intergrity, i admire that...pity others on here who voted for him suddenly stab him in the back..

i didnt do a search for Bushism etc, would you respect me any more if i had handed you a list? no, and i knew that.

please dont affiliate me with any one on here...i admit i made a bad choice defending that guy, i just saw the anti stance getting prepared one to many times and i just had to say something...i speak for myself when i make a post and not on the behalf of others...when the post was originally made i knew it would end up like this, like so many others, people taking sides and a war of words developing and thats why i steered clear, i didnt even read the thread till yesterday...

but i wonder this, i dont ask this in a confrontational manner purely because i am exasperated when trying to voice an opposition but here goes...

i know its up to me to find an arguement but when can a guy actually come out and say that they disagree about a certain US governmental international policy and the american members on here will take it seriously? i.e. they will enter into a rational discussion and look at it without bias for the purposes of debate and not pull the anti american get-out-of-jail-free card?

bye for now..

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
good post kents,

i cannot reply to all of it since i only have 5 mins...

i understand your support for your president, you voted him in so you have to live with that til the bitter end, that shows intergrity, i admire that...pity others on here who voted for him suddenly stab him in the back..

i didnt do a search for Bushism etc, would you respect me any more if i had handed you a list? no, and i knew that.

please dont affiliate me with any one on here...i admit i made a bad choice defending that guy, i just saw the anti stance getting prepared one to many times and i just had to say something...i speak for myself when i make a post and not on the behalf of others...when the post was originally made i knew it would end up like this, like so many others, people taking sides and a war of words developing and thats why i steered clear, i didnt even read the thread till yesterday...

but i wonder this, i dont ask this in a confrontational manner purely because i am exasperated when trying to voice an opposition but here goes...

i know its up to me to find an arguement but when can a guy actually come out and say that they disagree about a certain US governmental international policy and the american members on here will take it seriously? i.e. they will enter into a rational discussion and look at it without bias for the purposes of debate and not pull the anti american get-out-of-jail-free card?

bye for now..

👍
This post is much more along the lines of quality standards I like to see.

As for your question, it's not that hard to answer.

As an American, I do not mind if you voice your opinions that may disagree with American policy at any point as long as there is solid validity to it.

When people like rallyf1 get on and say Bush sucks, he is an idiot and that we are at war for oil and economics, there is little to no validity to any of the content.

So for example, say you've got beef with the way the war on terror is being waged... Don't express views saying Bush is an idiot, instead, express views about what you would do differently.

Then, if what you give as an alternative is valid and valuable, then we could go on forever talking about whether or not your right, how to go about it, etc.

Don't fool yourself, I very may well agree with you on several things in the future, we just have to be reasonable about what we present and how we present it.

Later.

Btw, I want to remind you guys that saddam was not simply told to not have WMDs... he was told to provide them and destroy them, as we knew he already had them. (The clinton Administration as well as the UN have both recognized that there are several thousand litres of anthrax, along with other chemical agents, that are unaccounted for.)
This is what Saddam was ordered to bring forth and destroy.

Instead, he lead weapons inspectors around to where they could search or allowed them to search what they wanted, when he wanted them to.

That single reason along with the three other violations of international law, are sufficient in my opinion evidence to support a ultimatum of exile or destruction. (3 reasons being stated in other post, but not limited to those reasons... Some reasons being: enviro crime, crimes against humanity, violation of cease fire peace treaty, illegal support of terrorist activities, and finally, just being a bad guy. )

Those reasons are evidence enough for war... but, when we know he has weapons, and the UN demands the weapons be destroyed... yet we get a line of B.S. followed by men in chem suits doing various activities right before the war...
(I think you get the drift)

Anyway,
Later.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by RallyF1
i have seen posts like these that have turned out to be ugly and people got booted out of this forum, because theire ideas where too radical for moderators to handle, just like the case of the U.S. against the world" i don't like you then i will boot you out of existence.

please moderators don't block me from coming to this forum, i kinda like it here, except for the extremesit moderartors that are here

Speaking as a moderator, I can state categorically that no person in the history of GTPlanet has ever been banned for their opinions. Plenty have been banned for the way they express their opinion, but never for the opinion itself.

 

[RallyF1]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Speaking as a moderator, I can state categorically that no person in the history of GTPlanet has ever been banned for their opinions. Plenty have been banned for the way they express their opinion, but never for the opinion itself.

well i guess that's it guys
and beleive it or not i did not read half of the things that where posted, i think i have a short term interest too many words make me dizzy, so i guess that's that
oh this one just slipped , oh here it goes again

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
i know its up to me to find an arguement but when can a guy actually come out and say that they disagree about a certain US governmental international policy and the american members on here will take it seriously? i.e. they will enter into a rational discussion and look at it without bias for the purposes of debate and not pull the anti american get-out-of-jail-free card

We'll take it as seriously as you frame the question. Come up with something you want to discuss, back your point of view with at least some facts, and offer an alternative policy you think the US should have pursued instead. We'll digest that and reply to it.

But here's a hint: saying Bush is a "blethering idiot" and asking how anyone (implying "anyone sane") can support him does NOT meet the criteria of seriousness.

Just like the American vs. Japanese debates in the Cars forum: if they discuss, we discuss; if they attack, we defend. You'll note that I just banned a rude and thoughtless American car supporter over there...