The Freedom From Immoral Thoughts Act

[o_fathom]

USA owns.... Every country has their downfalls... We are just the center of attention because everyone wants a peice... Go get a fucking economy...

[o_binarylife]

I am not associated with the above.

[o_cudweiser]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

Meh, at least I stole everybody's balloons!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~siebel7/balloons.jpg

May I just say....Dane has the most disturbing avatar out of everyone on the forums. The movie still gives me nightmares.

[o_thedarkone]

If you're going to try to justify the invasion of Iraq, PLEASE do not try to say that it was for self-preservation.

Maybe the media coverage was different in the US leading up to the war, but it seemed fairly obvious here that Saddam was a smaller threat than he was during the first gulf war- when Bush Sr decided not to invade.

I wouldn't have objected to the invasion of Iraq if Bush had stated clearly from the beginning that it was because of his human rights violations. Instead, Bush started trying to pin blame of 9/11 on Saddam. When Osama and his Taliban buddies came to light, Bush's administration still put out vague statements that inferred a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 hijackers.

Lame.

[o_ekim]

Parellel the situation to something less severe. You and you're friends are hanging out at a restaraunt. Doing the friend thing, eating, talking laughing and having fun. Then, a person who has attacked you before comes over to you. He says that he is planning on attacking you. He's going to get some of his friends together and he's going to bash your brains in. He has a history of violent behavior. He is a classic sociopath. He leaves, and you and your friends continue to eat. You enjoy yourselves, but naturally you're a bit concerned. After many more nights and many more threats this man attacks you and your friends with his gang of "evil doers" (Dumb or not, you can't deny your urge to laugh when bush called them Evil Doers).
Now, I have to ask, are you going to sit there and let him beat you? If you say that you'll wait for the police to come and help you you're still allowing violence. The police are doing it instead of you. If you don't fight back and restrain the men they will continue to attack you until they grow bored, or you grow dead. I dont believe that you wouldn't fight back. Wanting peace is important, and wonderful. However, you may be the most peacful man in the world, there can still be an ignorant jerk out there willing to kill you for your wallet.

Worst analogy ever...

Ok try this... You and your friends are hanging out at a restaraunt. Doing the friend thing, eating, talking laughing and having fun. A guy comes in, you know him. Once he was having a fight with his neighbour and you called the cops to sort it out. Now, you irrationally decide that he's going to finally come and get revenge by killng you. You call the cops. Understandably, they ask you what evidence you have for this rather bold claim. When you're forced to admit you don't have any, you accuse them of being crooked and accepting a bribe from this guy to turn a blind eye. You decide to take the law into your own hands. When you see him leave the restaurant, you tail him to a back alley and beat seven shades of shit out of him. Then you take his wallet.

I don't know about you, but the above is not the conduct of a civilised person, or nation.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

You guys have it all wrong. A better analogy would be say if you're out having a meal with a friend. Your food server is also a mutual friend. So, the meals over and you divvy up the check. You take the tip money (all in coin) and you then put it at the bottom of a glass of water. You then consolidate all of the drinking water left at the table to fill the "tip glass" to the very rim. You take a plastic card (usually one of those menu things) and cover the top of the glass. You upend the glass, keeping the card in place and set it on the table. You carefully remove the card, pay for your meal and leave. Head out to the parking lot and watch through the window as the bus boy clears the table. He quickly grabs glasses and does not notice the upended glass....water showers EVERYWHERE.

Ok, so it wasn't an analogy but an anecdote. The point? This was mostly harmless but funny! Arguing things you can't prove on a message board is stupid...eat out more often. Everytime you argue on the net Saddam kills another kitten...please, think of the kittens...

[o_catzeyes93]

Yeah... love thy kittens! Meow! >^..^<

[o_cudweiser]

And what have all these arguments acheived?....Nothing.

[o_broodingdude]

LMFAO @ "...and beat seven shades of shit out of him." I never heard that expression before.

[o_storm]

I think most people being in Bush's position would have invaded Iraq. Saddam was an Evil bastard and was committing mass genocide, no one can deny that. Saddam was continuously ignoring UN resolutions and hampering the work of the weapons inspectors, no one can deny that. Saddam has oil and we need oil, don't even try and deny that. And surely we all know Evil+genocide+oil=war

[o_binarylife]

Ekim you're opinion is jaded and irrational. My analogy was a general reference to self defense.


Saddamn was a threat. The US did find missles he constructed that were capable of reaching our nation. We also found a facility that may (and I stress MAY) have been used to develop chemicle weapons. There was no hard evidence of chemicle weapons, and nuclear weapons, however, powerful rockets and powerful missles were found. Such weapons could reach the US. Not to mention that the largest threat wouldn't be a missle, but a suitcase left by an unknown mercenary in an airport. Such a threat existed anyway, and there was no need to prove it, or find it.

When a sociopath with a missle says he's going to kill you, you listen. Saddam is a sociopath. Saddam had missels. Saddam said he was going to attack the United States. I dont' know about you, but I find that analogy quite within the realm.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Binary...I am a Bush supporter on most thing. I also support what was done with Saddam. HOWEVER, I do not recall much of anything beyond the 200 mile missles being discovered. There were some that I recall being jury-rigged for longer distances but there was much skepticism as to whether they'd have performed as intended. What is it you remember about anything in their arsenal with true intercontinental reach? Other than those with the Corporate branding of "American" and "Delta"?

[o_binarylife]

Well I heard it on FOX...

....


Also NBC and CNN, so it's not "fair and balanced" (god I hate them). They said they found a factory that was designed to produced ICBM's but hadn't launched any. It was speculated that the intent was to add chemicle weapons, but without the chemicle weapons, that's really just a guess.

There was a specific missle name they reffered too, but I can't remember it. I also can't remember it's range, so I wasn't going to reference it, as I don't like saying things that I can't back up.

I haven't been able to find archived reports however, so for current reference, I am unable to show. I can only give the news stations which reported it. Also, I didnt' look very hard.

Edit: by the way Ekim, that last post came off as aggressive, it wasn't meant so. You're the only person who actualy reads what I say, instead of manufacturing god knows what, and I thank you for that.

[o_otiz]

Do you have any proof Mr. Saddam was/is a sociopath?

[o_ekim]

Ekim you're opinion is jaded and irrational. My analogy was a general reference to self defense.

I don't think I stated my opinion at all in my previous post =o

Saddamn was a threat. The US did find missles he constructed that were capable of reaching our nation. We also found a facility that may (and I stress MAY) have been used to develop chemicle weapons. There was no hard evidence of chemicle weapons, and nuclear weapons, however, powerful rockets and powerful missles were found. Such weapons could reach the US. Not to mention that the largest threat wouldn't be a missle, but a suitcase left by an unknown mercenary in an airport.

So any nation with missle weapons is a threat? I'm not even going to bother pointing out how flimsy the evidence you've cited is, it speaks for itself.

Such a threat existed anyway, and there was no need to prove it, or find it.

So the assertion that a threat exists, is enough to justfiy pre-emptive self defence?

When a sociopath with a missle says he's going to kill you, you listen. Saddam is a sociopath. Saddam had missels. Saddam said he was going to attack the United States.

Saddam wasn't going to attack the United States. He's not suicidal. When did he say he was going to attack the United States? And, again, what missiles are you referring to exactly?

Also NBC and CNN, so it's not "fair and balanced" (god I hate them). They said they found a factory that was designed to produced ICBM's but hadn't launched any. It was speculated that the intent was to add chemicle weapons, but without the chemicle weapons, that's really just a guess.

There was a specific missle name they reffered too, but I can't remember it. I also can't remember it's range, so I wasn't going to reference it, as I don't like saying things that I can't back up.

I haven't been able to find archived reports however, so for current reference, I am unable to show. I can only give the news stations which reported it. Also, I didnt' look very hard

Again this isn't really compelling evidence

Edit: by the way Ekim, that last post came off as aggressive, it wasn't meant so. You're the only person who actualy reads what I say, instead of manufacturing god knows what, and I thank you for that.

no worries =o

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Binary, google it...see if you can find something supporting what you're saying. Honestly, the only ones I recall were "MacGuyvered" for longer range but never fired. They didn't even fire SCUD's this time and I don't think that they had any of the Silkworm variety either. The majority of what Iraq had were 50-200 miles in range only.

Here's a quick link to something I recall from a couple of years ago. Patriot Interceptions.

Binary, an intercontinental ranging weapon is actually much tougher to do which is why so few nations can actually wield them. For example...North Korea's being watched closely. If we get confirmation that they have anything long range watch the clock as they will be taken out. There's a number of nations who will not sit idly by with Korea having any real long range capability

[o_binarylife]

So any nation with missle weapons is a threat? I'm not even going to bother pointing out how flimsy the evidence you've cited is, it speaks for itself.

Not any nation. Any nation with the desire to use them. A man can threaten to shoot you, but with no gun, this threat is empty. However, if a man had a gun, and threatened to shoot you, then you'd better be prepared to take some kind of action.

Saddam wasn't going to attack the United States. He's not suicidal. When did he say he was going to attack the United States? And, again, what missiles are you referring to exactly?

He isn't suicidal, but he is power hungry and crazy. He knows that he can control with threats. No one would start an attack on him if that attack would result in the murdering of thousands of innocent Kuwatians (?). In that sence he could keep the larger nations at bay, while he grew his power. This was clearly his strategy. He would threaten to destroy nearby, innocent nations if any country interviened. This way he could develop any weapons he wanted, as well as an army to fire them. The threat was not imminent in this case, however it was still valid and very real. If no action was taken Saddam would have expanded his power, and killed many people. I can't claim that a possible future outcome is a fact, or true justification, however, his behavior was very simaler to that of every dictator in the past (I.E. Hitler).

There were weapons, I sware. ... now I sound like Bush. I better find those articles or this is going to be a perfect parallel. Although I'd actualy admit I made a mistake instead of quickly changing the subject. Speaking of which:

Do you have any proof Mr. Saddam was/is a sociopath?

I ask you if you know what a sociopath is? It's a person with no conscience. Not your average criminal. Not "temporarily insane". They don't kill because they're angry, they don't steal because they're hungry. They do so because they know it's wrong, and simply do not care. Saddam knows killing thousands of people is immoral and unethicle. He simply does not care, and it entertains him. These are the people who are calm when they murder. They are at peace, relaxed, cool headed. They don't need provocation simply boredom. There's more professional descriptions, but I'm trying to simplify.

As far as proof, I could offer the thousands of dead people and Saddam's lack of tears, or motive. But the many phsycologists who have posted journals, reported on every news channel from here to around the world, may have a more luck convincing you.

[o_ink]

First they told us there were WMD's Nothing was found, the search is officially over. They said the oil revenue would help pay for the war; the costs have exceeded 150 billion, which drove the defecit up...war is quite expensive. They said the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms and a parade of roses(Rummy Quote...I got it). As we all know, the American casualty rate sky rocketed post war. Where were the roses? Then they told us Saddam had direct connections with Al Queda and the events of Sept 11th. Duelfer report proved otherwise - in fact, theres much speculation that Saddamn hated Bin Laden and his organization. Now they tell us Saddam had to be removed, immediately....despite the fact that we were already engaged in major combat in Afghan fighting the people who had already attacked us. We're still fighting that war. Bin Laden got away. 1590 Americans are now dead. North Korea has openly admitted to maintaining WMD capabilities.

I really hope something good comes from this, cause so far this war has baffled me.

[o_thedarkone]

Originally Posted by ink

North Korea has openly admitted to maintaining WMD capabilities.

But Ink, North Korea actually has an army. I have no doubt that Iraq was chosen because they thought taking it over would be a walk in the park. when there are a bunch of shady characters to choose, why go for the one who can actually fight back?

And a quick note about the genocides Storm was talking about: Saddam gassed the Kurds before the first Gulf War. It was a horrible act, but why is it justification to invade now when it wasn't when Saddam was also trying to take over another country?

[o_binarylife]

And a quick note about the genocides Storm was talking about: Saddam gassed the Kurds before the first Gulf War. It was a horrible act, but why is it justification to invade now when it wasn't when Saddam was also trying to take over another country?

So if I killed a family member of yours, would you no longer care 20 years from now? Interesting.
The most leniant laws in the world say that I should be put in jail for life for committing such an act. Saddam can't be put in jail for thousands of life sentences. He can't be rehibilitated either. I really couldn't picture him running a coffe shop down the street going "murder free for 3 years and counting."

This is, of course compeletely ignoring the fact that he was building and army, and building powerful weapons. As I've said I don't like Bush. Anyone could have told you that when we invaded there would be no WMD. The fact is, there were other reasons for invading that weren't Bush's concern. They were however, a nation's concern.

Also the USA is keeping a watchful eye on North Korea. They have not yet taken the step needed to justify an attack. They want weapons. They want "the gun." We are telling them that they cannot have it, and they are not listening. However, they are not telling us that they will kill us with the gun they are developing. Once they say that, our lives become in danger and it becomes necesary to defend those lives. The same injustices are going on in North Korea that went on in Iraq. Innocent people are suffering. As a country the USA has not consistantly done the right thing in the past. However, that does not change what the right thing is.
You may have watched many purse snatchings take place, and only stepped in to save one. That one was still saved. You may have done so only to seek a self benafit. That one purse, was still saved.
Saddam did not change his ways. He simply lost his desire to kill those specific people. This desire was replaced with a desire to kill other people, which he planned on carrying out.

There are many types of people in Iraq. There are innocents and there are fighters. Saddam had many fighters. Naturally, they are trying to maintain power and destroy the american force. The innocents however, are simply trying to live. They are no longer forced at gun point to cheer for saddam. They enjoy this fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/wo...00/2933237.stm


Finding weapons is difficult. Not to mention the possibility, rather likelyhood, that these weapons were moved to another country using one of Saddams many connections with terrorist leaders. There are more terroirists than Osama.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2594263.stm

A minor and seemingly unrelated point: http://slate.msn.com/id/2076026/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213

At some point in a different thread, I'm going to post the same story in different coutnries news forums, as well as america's different news forums. I don't like the news. The news lies. This aggrivates me greatly. This is why I rarely share the news articles I read. I simply assume everyone has read them, and understands the validity. I try to keep an open perspective and refuse to post anything that I feel isn't 100% reliable. I have not done that here. However, the news reports do have validity and it's important to remember that there is a great deal of evidence that shows reguardless of what we've found, that saddam has weapons, or had weapons. His intent was clear.

If you watched any news on the subject at all I'm sure you've seen video of saddam threatening to use weapons. Or, read transcripts, threatening to use weapons. The threats are real, and he had "the gun." Screw politicle propeganda and ignorant spin, that means lives were in danger.

For the last time, America does not, did now, will not, own any of the oil in Iraq without paying for it. We did not invade a country to steal oil from the innocent people who depend on that oil to live. At no point did bush or any bush administration say this. This was said by the media with no actual informational backing to it. Only theory. It was possible that oil motivated Bush. However, if he wanted to steal their oil, he did a really bad job, not taking it and all. He's dumb, but I don't think he's quite that dumb.