Note To American War Protestors

[Ugly Bastard]

In America, we're free to voice our thoughts. But there comes a time when you need to put the moral of others ahead of your own personal opinions of our government.

A message to all Americans who are protesting this war:

The diplomatic window has shut.

The doves and the hawks have each said their piece.

Whether you agree with this war or not, it appears there is no longer room for discussion. The President of the United States gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave his country. Saddam has said he would rather die than to go into exile.

Only the most optimistic -- or, possibly, pessimistic, depending on your point of view -- will say that there is a chance of avoiding war. It's going to happen.

No matter what your point of view has been during the debate on Iraq, it is time to accept the facts. To resist, truly, is futile.

So, as this war unfolds, forget your politics and remember your heritage. We are all Americans, and we must remain united in these times for the sake of our future.

Remember that our brothers and sisters in the armed forces are about to put their lives on the line for our freedoms. Say what you will about the motives behind this country's leaders, but our soldiers don't care about oil.

Remember that human life is precious in all forms. Any loss of life is a tragedy, whether you believe it is justified or not.

Remember that the world may not agree with us, and they may or may not be justified in doing so. But also remember that there is no better country in the world to live. Proof positive is that anyone has the right to claim otherwise.

"A government can be no better than the public opinion that sustains it," President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said.

My opinion is this: We are Americans, and we will stand united.

-Ugly Bastard

[ September 21, 2004, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Ugly Bastard ]

[St. Anky]

Truly the words of a Saint.

To add, I'm sickened with all of these protests in Chicago and New York. The fuckers hold up signs saying "Make peace not war" and then start fucking riots? Hmmm... something about all of this reminds me of the WCHS Administration. Hypocrits maybe?
Also, you will find that only the ignorant, mis-informed american will protest the war (mostly inbreeding hillbillies and such.) I'm fed up, seriously.

Take one of these protesters aside and ask, "ok, if you say war is not the answer, then tell me what we SHOULD do."

The goatfucker will then reply with something stupid like, "use diplomacy. Make peace talks."

Then you slap the motherfucker and say," we've tried that already, Saddam wont comply and he realized by now that the Security Council wouldnt do jack, so he kept pushing the envelope!"

Then the goofy bastard would say something like, "well... we shouldnt go to war. Thats my belief". Then walk away with his thumb up his ass.
Jesus, jesus fucking christ!!!

[This message has been edited by St. Anky (edited March 20, 2003).]

Amen to this rant. I was actually going to make it myself right now only to see that it's already here. God bless you, Mr. Bastard.

If people don't think we should go to war, good for them...but, now that we have gone to war, to not support us is to oppose us. Whether you think it's right or not, it is here and it is reality. Think what you want, but at least show some gratitude toward those risking it all for you.

There are people out there that have never met you...yet they are risking their lives to ensure your freedom remains. They don't know your name...yet they don't think twice about putting it all on the line if it means removing a large threat to the United States and the rest of the world. You corrupt life back in America while they try to liberate lives over in Iraq. What the hell? You're an American. America is at war. Who's side are you on? If you don't like what your leader is doing, if you dont' like what the thousands of men and women are trying to accomplish for you, perhaps you should find a home somewhere else. I hear France has some vacancies...

[Ugly Bastard]

Michael Moore (as seen in this photo) was the director of Bowling For Columbine, which won an Oscar this past Sunday.



When he got up there to receive his award, he bashed America. In summary, he basically said that Bush won the election unfairly, and that America should not be at War with Iraq, and blamed the fact that we are at war, on George Bush.

He was booed off of the stage amidst a few cheers.

Honestly, what a bitch. Did he ever stop to think how the soldiers who are fighting for his fat ass think about his comments? Most of those soldiers have heard about what he said at the Oscars, how do you think that makes them feel knowing that "Hollywood doesn't support them."

Rant on violent protestors: Our constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." The key word in that is peaceably. Peaceably does not mean blocking streets and disrupting trade. Peaceably does not mean destroying public and private property. Peaceably does not mean forcing thousands of police officers to mind you, taking them away from critical assignments such as fighting crime and criminal investigations. Peaceably does not describe many of the protests as of late.

Ahem...oh....where was I?

That's right, Moore. Anyways, I hate this bitch quite a lot now after what he said. It was uncalled for, and it did nothing but bring down the morale of the troops who are fighting to save his fat ass. I hope there is a terrorist attack on Michael Moore's house rather soon, because I hate him.

It is time to get behind our troops. It is time to support our president. The decision has been made. Further protests and disruptive activities do nothing to make the case against war.

These protesters have to make a decision on which side they stand. They aren't protesting brutal treatment by Saddam's armies, or demanding him to disarm. They are protesting the United States of America.

That should tell you exactly which side these protesters support.

To Michael Moore, go have sex with yourself you fat asshole. I fucking hate you with all of me.

-Ugly Bastard

[StDx]

Ugly,
I find it hard to believe that such ignorant comments can come from someone who, upon our brief meetings, has seemed to be an intelligent man.
You stated a couple of times that the U.S. troops are fighting Mr. Moore's "fat ass". You couldn't be more wrong. I'm sick of misinformed people saying that the "Allied Forces" are fighting for our freedom. The reasons for this war are many and varied but, rest assured, the soldiers were not deployed for Mr. Moore or for you, or me, or any average citizen. One of the few reasons that has been ruled out for why we went to Iraq is American security.
Several CIA officials, along with the former lead U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, have expressed dismay at both the lack of information and the administration's attempt to quell all intelligence that does not support its political goals. In short, no proof of weapons of mass destruction surfaced during any of the inspections.

I do agree that Americans should support our troops, but that doesn't mean that we have to support the war. And that damn sure doesn't mean that we have to support our shining disappointment in office. It sucks that I know someone who has perished in an unjust war... someone who I went to school with then worked with for 2 years died because bush got into a grandiose shoving match with a small time dictator. Real People are dying, more will die... you guys are supporting it and you don't even fucking know why we are over there. Open your fucking eyes!

but you're right, what good would it do to protest something that is completely wrong... I mean it didn't do anything to unite a country and help stop the vietnam conflict, or did it?

[StDx]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Orgazmo:
If people don't think we should go to war, good for them...but, now that we have gone to war, to not support us is to oppose us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. Why do some people see things in only black and white? There are many other options. Look around.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whether you think it's right or not, it is here and it is reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are completely right, we are at war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are people out there that have never met you...yet they are risking their lives to ensure your freedom remains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. Please see my last post then do a little research about why we are at war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>removing a large threat to the United States and the rest of the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Riddle me this, why is Iraq the large threat? Why are we more threatened by Iraq's assumed weapons than we are by the KNOWN weapons of mass destruction possessed by 13 other countries. At least 16 countries have stronger ties to Al-Qaida than Iraq, but George II still chooses to bully them. You don't even have to take my word on this, the same basic thing was said by the United States State Department in a recent article in the New York Times.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You corrupt life back in America <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, I disagree. I think that it would be more corrupt to sit back and accept that we are engaged in an unjust war... to accept that our troops will be killing innocent people... to accept that our troops will be killed and to not voice an opposition.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[b]What the hell? You're an American. America is at war. Who's side are you on? If you don't like what your leader is doing...perhaps you should find a home somewhere else.[b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought you were above using the redneck mantra of "love it or leave it". What's wrong with "love it and do your best to improve it"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hear France has some vacancies...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why is it "cool" to bash France now? I love France. True, they have screwed up more than once, and some of them can be 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 us the truth about what's going on, straight-up, no bullshit. We should all quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once.

I guess governor bush makes fun of the French, so it's not only acceptable but patriotic to join in. Bush says we go to war, so we go and dare not oppose... lest we be thought of as less patriotic than the neighbors.
Blindly following a leader isn't always the best thing to do... remember the holocaust.

[This message has been edited by StDx (edited March 26, 2003).]

[Ugly Bastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StDx:
You stated a couple of times that the U.S. troops are fighting [for] Mr. Moore's "fat ass". You couldn't be more wrong. I'm sick of misinformed people saying that the "Allied Forces" are fighting for our freedom. The reasons for this war are many and varied but, rest assured, the soldiers were not deployed for Mr. Moore or for you, or me, or any average citizen. One of the few reasons that has been ruled out for why we went to Iraq is American security.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you just say what I think you said? Did you just say that we are not in Iraq to ensure American Security? If not that, then why the hell are we over there? We have stated several times that it's not for the oil via Bush's "the oil is the Iraqi people's property" statements. So if not the oil, and not American Security, why are we over there? I would argue that the entire reason we are in Iraq right now, is to ensure the security of our country, and the countries of our friends from attack via chemical and biological weapons.

StDx, you are entitled to your own opinion. Unlike what you did to me, I do not view you as any less of a man for the thoughts you have shared. I just hope you put yourself in our troops' shoes from time to time, and think how it would make you feel knowing that millions of people in our country are sickened by the fact that they are fighting in Iraq. I know it wouldn't make me feel too good knowing that a healthy percentage of my country was blatantly against supporting my willingness to die for my country.

It's cool if you want to disagree with the war, which is exactly what you are doing, so I guess that I don't really have any concrete problems with you, StDx. I just have problems with the people who are protesting on the streets, and blocking traffic, and being destructive, and making a huge scene about the war. I would much rather see those people flood their congressmen with anti-war letters, than block traffic, and take police officers away from other important tasks.

I guess that's just me though..... :-/

-Ugly Bastard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StDx
Riddle me this, why is Iraq the large threat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including clear and distinct ties to al-Qaida. He also has been lying to the world for 12 years regarding weapons that his country possesses. Of course, we could choose to trust a bloodthirsty dictator...even though:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>He has already shot Scud missile at our troops...missiles that he says he doesn't have...
<LI>He possesses a "hospital" full of automatic weapons, 3,000 chemical suits, and many injections meant to counter the effects of nerve gas (even though he doesn't have chemical weapons)
<LI>He has advised his troops to use chemical weapons once US Troops have crossed an invisible line around Baghdad (again, the chemical weapons that he doesn't possess...according to his word for the past 12 years)
<LI>He possesses 26,000 liters of Anthrax...enough to kill several million people...
<LI>He has 38,000 liters of Botulinum Toxin, another biochemical weapon...
<LI>He has 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agents...
<LI>He has several mobile biological weapons labs (which he fails to disclose)
<LI>In the 90's, he had an advanced Nuclear Weaponry program, as well as a full design for a nuclear bomb and labs researching methods of enriching uranium
<LI>He told his scientists that they, along with their families, would be killed if they cooperated with UN officials
<LI>He blocked UN surveillance flights over certain areas...[/list]
Let's recap. There's a man that has an utter hatred for America. He has ties with terrorism in general, and direct ties to those responsible for the WTC attacks. Although he refuses to admit it, he has the means to conduct very large-scale attacks. In case you don't trust your country's intelligence, Saddam proved his lying by using weapons that he supposedly didn't have just a few days into the war. Also, he has been pushing to develop even more weapons of mass destruction...

In a nutshell, an iron-fisted madman with the means to do so would like to destroy America. This is a guy that has ordered a picture of Bush Sr. to be put underneath an entrance to Iraq's finest hotel so that any going through will walk on his face. Why are they such a large threat? Yeah...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wrong. Why do some people see things in only black and white? There are many other options. Look around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right here. I was speaking about the public displays against the war...as opposed to a person simply not supporting the war. I still stand by my opinion that public anti-war protests are opposing America, though...which ties into my other refuted point, that the public antiwarheros are corrupting the US. You can't honestly tell me that people blocking traffic, shitting on roads, chaining themselves across New York's busiest roads is helping us out...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Blindly following a leader isn't always the best thing to do... remember the holocaust.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fruitlessly attempting to appease & contain a well-armed & anti-American dictator for years also isn't the best thing to do. Of course I remember the Holocaust...and I'm glad that my country is doing what it can to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.

[This message has been edited by Orgazmo (edited March 26, 2003).]

[Ugly Bastard]

Orgazmo, easily one of the best posts you've ever made.

Phenominal points, this thread has turned into one helluva point-counterpoint thread, and I love it.

-Ugly Bastard

[This message has been edited by Ugly Bastard (edited March 26, 2003).]

[Mister Bater]

This war is basically America making up for a past mistake. Does anybody here remember when Saddam was an "ally" of ours during the conflict with Iran? We gave him weapons in hopes that he might help form some stable government in the Middle East. Needless to say, that plan went to hell and we're stuck with this bastard trying to attain nukes.
People keep citing Blix and the rest of the U.N. weapons inspectors as definitive proof that Iraq has no WOMDs. Let's look at the facts here. During the 80's, Iraqis spent much of their time testing bioweapons (videos were shown of it on foxnews about two weeks ago...sick shit). From the early 90's to the present, they've been extremely uncooperative with allowing weapons inspections. This is a nation that tortures their Olympic athletes if they do not perform well. It is a pure dictatorship, as evidenced by the recent election in Iraq (I think Saddam had 100% of the vote...those against him were punished). Throw in the recent torturing of POWs on tv, and I think the words "threat to humanity" are entirely appropriate.
The disturbing thing at the moment is the confidence exuding from him. Logistically, this war should be over in a matter of weeks. Nam pretty much proved the flaw of reading too much into numbers, though. Still, the fact that he seems unworried to U.S. invasion makes you wonder what he is hiding. The most obvious possibility one could discern from the information given to the public is that he is going to go all out. The main flaw of the U.S. war plan is the name "Iraqi freedom". Saddam is the dictator. They will not be free unless Saddam is ousted. Dropping the MOAB on him is useless since it will cause far too many civilian casualties and make "Iraqi freedom" look like "Iraqi genocide". Therefore, we must take him out. Since his life is on the line here, Saddam will use his entire arsenal as a means to survive. Throw in the fact that we will be fighting on the streets, you can see how he may have some confidence. Still, the likelihood of an Iraqi victory is unlikely unless North Korea/China/Russia (take any 2 of those 3) decide to attack us.
As for opinion of the war, everyone has their own. The problem comes from when each side begins to lose respect for the other. This entire conflict falls into the gray area of being neither right or wrong...it's just there. People should convey their opinions through editorials or debates, not senseless protest. The same can go for people labeling protestors as "un-American". While protestors are not expressing their opinions in ways that could make a difference, their still Americans. And at least they haven't protested the French by changing french fries to "freedom" fries (Side Note- Does anyone besides me find it disturbing how the most powerful nation in the world is acting like a 3 year old with this "change the name of french things to freedom" shit?)
My final thought is I hope they bring back the draft so Lebron James can be the number one pick in two drafts this year.

[Titan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mister Bater:
Does anyone besides me find it disturbing how the most powerful nation in the world is acting like a 3 year old with this "change the name of french things to freedom" shit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be me.

I find it kind of funny StDx that when the spaceshuttle exploded, you were saying that their deaths really aren't that big of a deal since danger is a big part of their job.

Now you're getting pissed because we're fighting in a war that you don't think we should be fighting in, and it really pisses you off the soilders are dying. Just kind of funny to me, since danger is clearly a part of their job, too.

Bottom line is Saddam poses a threat to America. It might not be a huge threat right now, but nevertheless, it's still a real threat. Why not take care of this threat before he can really hurt us?

Another thing, this man puts people into a plastic shredder, either head first or feet first. This man is a monster and he kills his own people every day. I don't know about you, but if I lived there, I would sure as hell want America to come in and kill him, so I could stop living in fear of getting my tounge ripped out.

[This message has been edited by 50 Cent (edited March 26, 2003).]

[St. Anky]

Stdx,

You stated, there are other possiblities and alternatives...right you are. Now, since you protest this war, I ask you... what should we have done?

We threatened Saddam all we could, and still he'd dodge weapons inspections as much as he could. Despite the fact that he threatened his own scientists saying that if they talked, he'd kill them and their families.

So since diplomacy didnt work, i ask what you would have done.

[StDx]

oh I don't know stanky... perhaps bush should've worked with the U.N. during the inspections instead of blatantly undermining them by issuing ultimatums. maybe, just maybe, congress shouldn't have granted bush a blank check to wage a pre-emptive war using "all means necessary". bush's doctrine of pre-emption violates international law, the charter of the United Nations and our own long-term security interests. It forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them. we are now engaged in a war not so much over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as it is over bush's weapon of mass distraction.

[StDx]

The president has told us that we must attack Iraq because our nation is in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein. We have received no proof of immediate danger, and scant evidence that Iraq has the means or intent to use weapons of mass destruction against us. We have not been told why the danger is greater today than it was a year or two ago or why we must rush to war rather than pursuing other options. We have not given the United Nations time to try to reach diplomatic solutions.

We do know that virtually all of our allies are strongly opposed to a first strike by the United States. Statesmen such as Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela have beseeched us to turn away from this disastrous course. The majority of the world is opposed to forced regime change.

We all agree that the world would be better off without Hussein in power, but we would be better off still if we eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the entire world.

President Bush has asked Congress to provide him with "all means that he determines to be appropriate including force" to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq. This resolution is based on the false assumption that we have no other options; it also falls short of a fundamental constitutional standard -- an actual declaration of war. Furthermore, the resolution is misleading: While it includes language from the U.N. charter acknowledging the right to national self-defense, it deliberately omits the charter's next crucial words: "if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."

The desire to rush to war glides over the tremendous costs and risks involved, including the dangers for American servicemen and women and for Iraqi civilians, as well as the potential destabilization of the Middle East. War would likely derail any chance at a Palestinian-Israeli agreement, while trampling international law and U.N. principles and setting a terrible international precedent. It would also sidetrack efforts to prevent terrorism. Moreover, it would divert some $200 billion from our own profound domestic needs, including health care, prescription drugs, education and homeland security.

This is a price we do not have to pay. There are viable and more effective alternatives. For these reasons, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 473, which urges the United States to re-engage the diplomatic process and stresses our government's commitment to the U.N. inspections process. Containment and inspections have worked and can work in the future.

President Bush called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities. I call on the United States to assume ours by working with the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction by utilizing mechanisms such as the resumption of arms inspections, negotiation, regional cooperation and other diplomatic means.

-Rep B. Lee

Because of the NCAA Tournament, I have limited time...meaning I can't actually reserach these points...but I'll respond to certain things with what I already know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have not been told why the danger is greater today than it was a year or two ago or why we must rush to war rather than pursuing other options.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my previous post I outlined why Iraq is a threat. Mr. Lee insinuates that Iraq was as much of a threat 2 years ago as they are today. That means we have been living with the threat for 2 years already. Should we live with it for another 2 years...?

Also...we have pursued other options. We've been pursuing other options for 12 years. Coincidently enough, this is the same amount of time that Hussein has failed to comply with any other methods. We could have extended the deadlines time and time again, giving Saddam more time to develop his weapons...or we could recognize that what hasn't happened was never was going to. We chose to drop false hopes and to pick up a gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We all agree that the world would be better off without Hussein in power, but we would be better off still if we eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the entire world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true...but saying this is like saying "I'd be happy if I had $20 dollars in my pocket...but I'd be even happier if I had $1,000 in my pocket." Of course eliminating all weapons of mass destruction would be a great option...but, until it becomes feasible, we can focus on eliminating those who possess the aforementioned weapons along with a hugely anti-humanitarian sentiment.

Well, I just got some info that may help to fix Nubblies' latest problems with stability & speed...so I'm going to work on that now. I really like this debate though.

[Rufus]

STDX, I think you are a dumbass. We have many allies in this war. The French will join this war if Saddam uses chemical weapons. You also said we should be thanking the French for the revolutionary war. Well that was over two hundred years ago. A hell of a lot changes in 200 years. Besides they didn't even help out till near the end of the war when they realized we had a chance against the british.
You also say Bush is a bad president. I think differently. He is taking action and geting the job done.
You also say there are other things that could have been done then someone says we have done everything, then you say the samething again and someone else says we have done everything. When are you going to realize we have done everything possible over the last 12 years.
I now look at you as an idiot.

[StDx]

Rufus,
What an ugly way to join a thinking man's debate. Obviously you haven't read my previous posts carefully. Had you done this, you would notice that we didn't do everything in the past 12 years, or the past few months for that matter. Governor bush has gone against the U.N. in order to start Operation Iraqi Liberty (perhaps a better title).

Please understand that I am not simply a tree hugging hippie... there are many good reasons to go to war. Unfortunately, there was not a good reason for this one.

Arguments for the war are paper thin and fall apart at first touch. Weapons of mass destruction? Iraq may develop one nuclear bomb (though the U.N. inspectors find no sign of development), but Israel has 200 nuclear weapons and the U.S. has 10,000, and six other countries have undisclosed numbers. Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Undoubtedly, like many others in the world. A threat to the world? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? Defending ourselves? The most incredible statement of all. Fighting terrorism? No connection found between September 11 and Iraq.

I believe it is the obvious emptiness of the Administration position that is responsible for the swift growth of the anti-war movement. And for the emergence of new voices, unheard before, speaking "inappropriately" outside their professional boundaries: 1,500 historians have signed an anti-war petition; businessmen, clergy, have put full-page ads in newspapers. Everyone from the Pope to the Dixie chicks, from Martin Sheen to Howard Zinn have explicitly opposed this war. All are refusing to stick to their "profession" and instead are professing that they are human beings first.

Rufus, your personal attacks are childish and unfounded. The reason I have to repeat myself is because, despite the facts, people (such as yourself) simply don't understand. It's hard to debate with someone who ignores facts and rests on the "you're an idiot" argument. Although I don't agree with Ugly or Orgazmo, I respect their positions because they present them in a way that isn't completely lacking aplomb. Oh yeah, my dad could beat up your dad.

side note: I find it extremely hard to believe that not one other person on this board agrees with me on this. Currently, I have very limited computer access, so I will not be able to hoist my ass back onto this soapbox for a while now... if any well-informed person could help to explain the cause in my absence, it would be greatly appreciated.

[StDx]

Ugly-
First I'd like to thank you for pming me and telling me that I had a hand in opening you to the views of the other side. I only wish you had the moxie to say that in the main forum. Anyway, I apologize for ignoring your questions of why we are at war in my last post. I would like to invite you to seek out information, to look for the story behind what you're being told, to not swallow what the news channels, the radio hosts, and the president are spoon-feeding you. If you want the answers, look to the people who are being silenced... read Howard Zinn, Sen. Robert Byrd, Noam Chomsky, or Rep. John Conyers.

You said that bush stated that oil isn't a factor in this war... if you would like to read more lies bush has told please visit bush's lies

I think that the real reasons for this war were summarized best by the U.K.'s poet laureate, Andrew Motion.

'Causa Belli'

They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
Elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.

[Ugly Bastard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StDx:
Ugly-
First I'd like to thank you for pming me and telling me that I had a hand in opening you to the views of the other side. I only wish you had the moxie to say that in the main forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

StDx-

I said you opened me to views to the other side; meaning, you helped me understand where the protestors are coming from. But I still hate you guys. Here is exactly what I said to you in that PM:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ugly's PM to StDx Reguarding This Thread:
Wow....holy shit. Not sure what to say after reading that. You made some decent points I guess. I'm still sticking with where I stand, but I'll admit that I'm at least somewhat more open to the other side now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I said that I am "at least more open to the other side now." I was simply stating that StDx showed me where the protestors are coming from. So now, I am more informed as to why they are protesting. But in no way, shape, or form, am I siding with them. I think it is absurd that they are protesting in the way that they are.

And to tell the whole truth to everyone, that exerpt was a small part of the PM I sent you, the rest was some small-talk about life completely un-related to the war, but nonetheless, thanks for opening the can of worms on that PM, I now know not to tell you anything via PM.

How many more terrorist attacks will it have taken for you to want to go to war with Iraq and finally end Saddam's regiem? Would another 9-11 have done it? They have conclusively linked Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda terrorists. He finances their actions, and wishes to continue to execute further attacks on our country.

People are so concerned about the loss of innocent lives in Iraq. I am concerned about that too. But I put them second on my priority of innnocent lives, next to the innocent lives of Americans who are being threatened by Saddam.

Say all you want to about the fact that "Saddam doesn't have chemical weapons". You and I both know he does. If he didn't, then why else would Iraqi troops have state-of-the-art gas masks issued out to them? They know Americans aren't going to use chemical weapons on them; it's because they know Saddam is going to use chemical weapons on us.

Maybe you're right StDx. Maybe this whole war is just a "right wing conspiracy" to get oil. Keep sendin those letters to Hillary Clinton, and maybe she can get this war stopped for you. Oh wait....crap. That won't work. 'Cause she, and every other democrat in the Senate gave the "okay" for this war. Hmm...shit.

You keep urging me to look at it from the protestors' side. By sending you that PM, I indicated to you that I was being fair, and that I was trying to see things from your side. Unfortunetly, I didn't like what I saw, thus the reason that I am holding my ground with the Anti-Protestor stance.

Now I only ask you to do what I've done for you in return: Look at things from my/our side. I've been fair enough to see things from your side, now put your liberalness aside, and try to understand where we are all coming from.

During this thread, I have been nothing but fair, open, and honest to you, and everyone else. I have calmly stated my opinions. StDx, you however, have called me "ignorant", and you have told the board partial contents of a PM I sent you, that completely distorted what I was actually saying to you. Why don't you start acting with some class from here on in. This is just a friendly arguement we are all making here, there is no reason to turn into a re-fuck.

-Ugly Bastard


[This message has been edited by Ugly Bastard (edited March 28, 2003).]

[Combat Chuck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> believe it is the obvious emptiness of the Administration position that is responsible for the swift growth of the anti-war movement. And for the emergence of new voices, unheard before, speaking "inappropriately" outside their professional boundaries: 1,500 historians have signed an anti-war petition; businessmen, clergy, have put full-page ads in newspapers. Everyone from the Pope to the Dixie chicks, from Martin Sheen to Howard Zinn have explicitly opposed this war. All are refusing to stick to their "profession" and instead are professing that they are human beings first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I could join this excellent 'point/counter-point' forum/discussion we have going here, I'd like to state that when you say that actors and musicians are protesting the war, that don't mean jack. It's widely known that most of the entertainment industry is of liberal persuasion. I read a few articles about the protests led by 'bigger names' (such as Martin Sheen). Funny thing is, I've looked at a few polls conducted by a few major newspapers, and many Americans state that even though these big names in the ent. industry are pushing the anti-war sentiments, it doesn't make them sit up and pay any more attention than seeing a bunch of people with signs.

I find it funny because a celebrity can push a product and that product will obviously see a big increase in sales, but when it comes to real life issues, where it seems that they are out of their area of expertise, people could care less about what they are saying.

I know that this didn't really add any valid points, I just wanted to state that using the above argument really isn't valid. Just cause the Dixie Chicks are against the war, doesn't mean that that's the way to go.

Now, your other examples were highly valid.

Anyway, I'm a supporter of the war, for many reasons, as to which I will bring up possibly at a later time. Hopefully I'll find some quality time later.

[Mister Bater]

While I'm relatively indifferent to the war, I am enjoying all of the protests, mainly because both sides have valid points. Even more impressive is the fact that StDx is pretty much holding his own agaisnt a forum full of hawks. I've never been much of a fan of anti-war sentiment, but StDx did bring up one valid point in that the news is not presenting the whole picture.
News is amazingly biased. Has anyone noticed lately how we appear to be struggling in this conflict? Why, because we've suffered most of our casualties from friendly fire? Every news station is acting like the fact that this war is still continuing is a sign of American weakness and Iraqi strength. Desert Storm lasted longer than this, and that was more of a global policing incident than an invasion. For the news to compare this war to what was a once in a lifetime occurrence is absurd.
At the time of this reply, I know of only one reporter who spoke out against his station (the BBC). He was one of the guys covering the war from the front lines, and he basically called out his bosses on the air for not telling the truth. We're doing just fine right now. If it gets to the extremes of a Vietnam, Korean War, or World War, then lets worry.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there is no objective reporting out there. Each nation is pushing the view that they want there public to believe. This happens all the time, extending from the news to movies, tv shows, commercials, etc. Most of this comes from the same people, those in charge of broadcasting and communications. Let's face it, most of the tv channels are controlled by Rupert Murdoch (from fox news to joe millionaire) and Disney (abc, espn, etc). Since media moguls pretty much control what gets said, doesn't it make sense that they augment what is reported with one of their most powerful assets, celebrities?
The truth about this war, like all others, will be told sooner or later. Just don't look for the news to give an accurate picture. Remember how Gore won in 2000? That's what I thought.
Anyway, I give this war another 2 months, give or take a few depending on use of bio weapons. After that, we can get back to our hellish economy and see if we can breakthrough the Dow resistance of 8500.

[Rufus]

STDX you damn dirty hippie. We dont care that other countries have nuclear weapons because they aren't a threat. Saddam is a threat, he has killed his own innocent people, and why take the chance of him killing our own if we leave him be.

Do you think if we didn't start we would suddenly say "OH i like americans, I think i will stop making weapons of mass destruction because they are just so damn nice." Fucking hate liberal hippies. It's blind people like you that think the government is a whole conspiracy against the american people. Wake up you dumb shit. It's the real world and war goes on in the real world and a few thousand people aren't going to stop it. OH wow 1,500 historians are against the war. There are over 5 billion people in the world. There are probably thousands of historians.

[StDx]

Rufus, you poor dumb bastard. If you are going to insult me, please take the time to proof-read. It's easy to believe what you are told and to think that you're well-informed because you watch the news. You go ahead and do that because I wouldn't want you on my side of this debate.

[StDx]

Ugly,
Good to see you're stooping to name-calling. That's usually a good sign of desperation. For the record, I didn't call you ignorant, I said that you made ignorant comments... I stand by this. The reasoning for me putting in the portion of the pm was not to mislead anyone who read it... quite the opposite really, I wanted everyone to see that you were speaking to me in a completely civil and complimentary way in the message then getting on the board and speaking down to me. I have a real problem with people who are two-faced.

Ugly, you have to understand that I have looked at it from your side. I would love to be able to support what is going on here, but I can't. It must be nice to be able to watch the news and feel pride for your country.

All of the arguments you brought up in your last post for the war have already been said... do you really need me to go through them all again?

It's obvious when you say you hate me and start with the name calling that this debate is going nowhere. At this point, I might as well be discussing the art of subtlety with Rufus. Cheers.