Are you Pro-War or Anti-War?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

Thanks alot Asher. Last time we let you in on a secret.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Glonkie, Hussein is a nasty bastard. In fact, he has been one all along. Being one didn't stop the US from being friendly to him, and it certainly didn't stop Cheney from shaking hands with him. If you somehow think that's the real cause, you are either naive or deluded.

When did I say anything about the cause of the war?

I think Saddam needs to be put out of office, for the sake of the Iraqi people and the world.

The arguments against the war are nonexistant, they're all bunk -- every last one of them that I've heard.

Some people just don't think the US should mess with other countries, period, and they can think it. I think it's wrong in cases where the leader does **** like torture a soccer team when they do badly or use chemical weapons on their own people, etc.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are you seeing the whole picture, or are you just seeing what they want you to see?

You're the one that lives in China, and you ask me this?

[Asher]

To be sure, I have seen the protests in Baghdad and the like too. But I'm pretty sure that most of the people there are protesting because they believe Saddam will still be around, and Saddam isn't someone you show opposition to if you care for your life.

[Dominikos]

Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

Asher, so far you have not stated anything that may remotely be your opinion.

I think Saddam needs to be put out of office, for the sake of the Iraqi people and the world.

The arguments against the war are nonexistant, they're all bunk -- every last one of them that I've heard.

I don't mind someone being pro-war. I myself am no friend of Saddam, but in all honesty, you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dominikos
Asher, so far you have not stated anything that may remotely be your opinion.

I disagree, I would think that my opinions would be my opinions.

I think you meant to say I haven't backed up my opinions. Which is true, and I'm not going to. It'd be a waste of my time.

I don't mind someone being pro-war. I myself am no friend of Saddam, but in all honesty, you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

I didn't realize I've been repeating the same sentences over and over again, seeing as this is basically the first thread I even said I was pro-war.

I'm not surprised you have nothing to say other than this stuff, though.

I can say, however, I was absolutely floored by the stupidity of the anti-war demonstrators I've seen interviewed. The one that stays with me is the woman who said that this war is going to be far worse than any other war in history, because the weapons are so much deadlier now than they were before!

Great stuff, God bless America.

[Dominikos]

I didn't realize I've been repeating the same sentences over and over again, seeing as this is basically the first thread I even said I was pro-war.

Read the words carefully. I stated that George Bush repeats the same sentences over and over again, not you.

you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

I do, however, understand that it can be taken both ways.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

The news networks must talk almost all day on the war in Iraq. They have much and much blah blah (sorry, lack of vocabulary) to produce each day. They also have to show new images to keep the public interested. Lastly, they have to be on the spot, and to give te information at the very moment they get it.

The military astonishingly eases their jobs : they hand their images, their reports and such to the networks, who are too happy of having a news material to comment on. The only sources other than the military to get news material would be to inquire on the field. They do this too (hence the raw of corpses shown on BBC, you bet the military wouldn't have boasted about them), but these inquiries produce blah blah much more slowly, and much less often than the materian handed by the army. Especially because it is difficult to do your job as a journalist in a country at war.

Hence, the army has the upper hand on the information sources the media rely upon. It is not false to say the media report military propaganda most of the day.
I think it'll be in order to read the newspapers tomorrow, for more in depth analysis, which will escape the hype of instant information.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I sincerely doubt that other countries would beef up military spending on the sole basis that the US kicked ass in Iraq.

They can beef it up all they want, they won't be able to beat it. I'd think they'd know that. The US is content on beefing up to match any opposition, and will probably invade you if you start to build up your army noticably.

The American decision to attack a country which is weaker now then it was 10 years ago sends a message to other governments that it doesn't matter what they do, they will be attacked.

Look at Iran. They know they're on the US hit list, part of the "axis of evil". The message being delivered to them from this war is that they can either wait to be attacked, or they can prepare themselves for the invasion that will come. They have nothing to lose.

So the Iranians will prepare themselves for war with the US. So will the North Koreans. So will the Syrians.

Anti-American dictators around the world will be trying to figure out how to defend themselves and the only way to do that is by getting nuclear weapons or other "weapons of mass desctruction." After all, the US won't attack Pakistan even though it is a major base for terrorism because Pakistan has the bomb.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anti-American dictators around the world will be trying to figure out how to defend themselves and the only way to do that is by getting nuclear weapons or other "weapons of mass desctruction." After all, the US won't attack Pakistan even though it is a major base for terrorism because Pakistan has the bomb.

Dictators learned this a long time ago, after the first Gulf War. The Axis of Evil was a response to ongoing nuclear programmes, not the other way around...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

First of all, my response was to your post, quoted as follows:

Why are the citizens ripping down posters of Saddam while cheering if they liked him?
Why are they shaking US soldier's hands and smiling?
Why hasn't the US taken out the power grid?
Why has the US made it so easy to surrender, while even letting Iraqi officers keep their sidearms?

People are making the US out to be a monster, and that's proven not to be the case. What happened?

I haven't seen anything about [1], [2], or [4] on Reuters or BBC. If you have links to these on either of them, please do post them.

As to [3], the easiest way to take out power is to bomb the generator plants, but, guess who are there? Civilians, foreign civilians nevertheless. They seem to give Uncle Sam second thoughts.

Now, I am sure some Iraqis don't like Saddam. So what? How many of them don't like him, and how many of them do? This is the important question, and the one which answer you can't find in those nice pictures of Iraqi soldiers surrendering or Iraqi citizens tearing down posters of Saddam Hussein.

Have you visited any Islamic or Arabic news websites?

EDIT: added links

Lebanon Daily Star
Arabic News
Islamic Republic News Agency
People's Daily

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Anti-war before the invasion, and still against the war on principle. I hope now that the dye is cast that there are minimal casualties all-round and our soldiers come home ASAP.

[Tingkai]

Does Iran have a nuke programme?

The North Koreans had shut their programme down. Now they're starting it again in response to American policies.

The first Gulf War was a UN sanctioned response to one nation invading another nation.

This time it is simply the US deciding it is time to get rid of Saddam, despite opposition against its methods from the rest of the world.

The tin-pot dictators know that world politics has now drastically changed. The US is flexing its muscle and there is no other superpower to constrain it.

MINOR EDITS

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

ANTI-WAR... but where is the Banana option?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does Iran have a nuke programme?

http://www.iranexpert.com/2003/iranplays14march.htm