The Freedom From Immoral Thoughts Act

[o_catzeyes93]

Just to jump in and offer a bigger perspective... There were a series of events that led up to this decision.

a) Dad and the UN long ago warned Sadam to cut out the building and arrainging of obtaining the big guns as well as the inhumane treatment of his people. Dad and the UN long ago clearly outlined the arraingments needed to show to everyone that he was complying with the UN. Without compliance, he was warned that dire things would happen. We are not talking about one single issue of 'hand over the wmds', we are talking over a dozen requirements in order for the UN to agree that they would not be attacked. Requirements that Saddam agreed to. But Saddam disregarded and avoided all the requirments meanwhile stalled on showing his compliance. HIS choice.

b) Clinton understood and did nothing about the sideline relationships that Sadam was cultivating to ensure his quick and easy access to not only wmd but lets not forget his ability to hide said wmd. (Still all the while, his sick treatment of his people continued) With this, over the years MANY republicans and democratics alike have all said this guy is up to something, and it isnt good. It was Clintons administration that fell asleep, lulling everyone into thinking that 'give peace a chance' was such a noble cause. Yes, there is a time for peace and tolerance...... (more on this in a bit)

c) After at least 10 years of Sadam being told to comply comply comply... comply or else, comply or else... you start to think this guy perhaps is not going ot comply. So now what? You go back to the original agreement to see what repercussions were put into place in case he didnt comply. Hm... well here is a pickle. No one thought he wouldnt comply, so when the requirements were written up, the repercussions were your basic "comply or ELSE!"... basically, they were vague and everyone is stuck to wonder what to do now.

d) Oh.. and dont forget the cutzy relationships that sadam was creating in the background with certain countrys. Yeah... kickbacks are nice until the world hears about it. Dont kick us in the shins for acting on something when you know darn well you were acting in the opposite direction because of the nice payouts that were going on in your pocket!

e) 9-11. The world stood still. America cried. Then America got angry. Yes, we need to make them pay. Who is them? "The terrorists!" cried Bush. America cheered. But Osama wasnt the only terrorist on the books that needed to be squashed. It seems there is a LIST. So where do we start? We need to start with the ones at the top of the list and work our way down. Yes Osama hurt us, but there are other terrorists in play and other issues that we need to take care of and finish before we can move forward full guns with taking out osama at the knees. We need to clean our plate of past issues before we move onto the one that hurt us the most. Yes, there is a time for peace and tolerance, but now it is time for war. America seems to think our number one enemy is Osama... and he is, however the big picture is that Sadam was more of a threat to the world. Not just us. The world. And things were already put into motion to get this man under control... we needed to resolve this before moving on.

f) So we start at the top of the list to see where we are at with the many terrorists out there. All fingers were pointing to Saddam and the still unfinished business with him. He is hiding something, he is doing something behind our backs, but we cant figure out what it is. America is no longer able to show tolerance, we are no longer able to wait patiently. We need action to ensure the safty of our children as well as the world. We move forward to say we will solve this riddle and finish this problem called sadam. Everyone is in an uproar, no one wants to rock the boat.

g) By the way, in the total history of the UN, only 2 wars were unannomysly agreed upon. The VietNam war and the Korean war. All other wars SOMEONE always had a problem with it. So why is it now that it is SUCH a big deal that we are acting outside of the total agreement of the UN?

h) So, Mr. Prez, while we find sadaam did NOT have any wmd's, we did find other documentation (and kickbacks) of relationships with other countries that are of serious concern. We did find proof of other violations that while in and of themselves they seem to be of no concern, but put together with other violations, it is clear Sadam was stalling so as to be able to build up his power and amunitions to a degree that would have seriously undermined the ability of other world powers to ensure the safety of their countries.

i) Sorry for going over there? NO. Were we wrong? Perhaps wrong to listen to everyone else for saying there ARE wmd's over there, but wrong to go over? Not in the LEAST! For one reason... while wmd's were not found, evidence of bigger issues WERE found... but you wont hear it on the news. You wont hear it from the treehugging peacekeepers. Why? Cuz everyone loves to gossip and tisk their tounges at men in power.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

All Monday Morning Quarterbacking Catz to be sure. Here is the Catch-22 though...

With the ousting and Saddam and the apparent loss of control by the Muslim faction he favored we have now seen the installation of the other faction. This new faction is also the same faction in power in Iran. The events of the last 4 years may have, inadverdantly, created "New Persia" and may further galvanize the members of Radical Islam.

Seems like Catch-22 situation to me. Personally, I would have followed a similar path to what Bush has chosen though I probably would have been less reserved and far more aggressive.

[Lost]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and
the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

This probably fits in with Travis' quote that most quotes are misunderstood or such but definitly works in with the current conversation.

Politics is always a charged topic but the truth is, the leader of the US leads from a chair held up by the richest and most powerful people in the world. What if he tried pushing legislature through to get hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles in to replace gasoline in the next 20 years or so? Could you imagine a man getting assassinated simply because hes pissing off people that like their comfortable existance? Wait, yes, happened at the start of the Vietnam war didn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but how much oil is Iraq capable of producing? And how much of it does the US use daily?

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Break out your tinfoil hats...here comes the "War for Oil" chatter....

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Break out your tinfoil hats...here comes the "War for Oil" chatter....

Well why do you think Iraq was attacked? Clearly not because of it's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', seeing as there were none, and George damn well knew that. Having a go at Saddam? Perhaps, but it certainly wouldn't completely justify attacking a country. So what else is left?

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Iraq was attacked because they have some really nifty hats that the US was jealous over.

By the way, there is just as much hard evidence supporting my point as there is the War for Oil. EVERYTHING I have seen to date to "support" this position has been pure speculation or wildly circumstantial. As well supported as the "Gunman on the Grassy Knoll".

[o_catzeyes93]

BAH HA HA!!!! Nifty hats indeed!

Well... I know I have done my homework and read up on some of the details that the media has somehow left out. But there are many reasons as to why. Just because the number one reason turned out to fool us all, it wasnt the ONLY reason, nor was it the only IMPORTANT reason. Still... yes we look like we have egg on our face, but that doesnt mean going there was wrong.

Me personally... if after finding there WERE no wmd's, I would have been tempted to simply PUT some there! Just to avoid the billions looking to see us fall. No matter...

perhaps we should hijack the thread somemore and have us all post our favorite nifty hats?

[o_otiz]

My favourite hat is a hat I once had. It was unique. It was a skunk and when I wanted people to go away I would lift his tail and they ran away.

[o_catzeyes93]

LOL! I want one of those!!

The only kewl hat I have is one of those big obnoxious ones that you only wear at a picknick or on easter. It is especially fun on easter tho cuz it blocks the view of the people behind me. (hehe... I have SUCH a mean streak!)

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Not much of a hat wearer though when I put the top down on my car I have a Motorola ball cap I got at a Golf Tourny that I sometimes wear.

Catz, we could have easily planted WMD's and did not do so. I think that alone speaks volumes. Fact is, we know they existed. Some were given to them by the US others from other places. They appeared on the Manifest over a decade ago and much of it was never accounted for. All we have is speculation at this point as to where it went.

[o_ekim]

g) By the way, in the total history of the UN, only 2 wars were unannomysly agreed upon. The VietNam war and the Korean war. All other wars SOMEONE always had a problem with it. So why is it now that it is SUCH a big deal that we are acting outside of the total agreement of the UN?

hahahahaha

[o_catzeyes93]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Catz, we could have easily planted WMD's and did not do so. I think that alone speaks volumes. Fact is, we know they existed. Some were given to them by the US others from other places. They appeared on the Manifest over a decade ago and much of it was never accounted for. All we have is speculation at this point as to where it went.

hm..... 100 feet deeper in the sand? LOL!

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Catz, we could have easily planted WMD's and did not do so. I think that alone speaks volumes.

You forgot to add a [sarcasm] tag... I hope...

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

You forgot to add a [sarcasm] tag... I hope...

No Sarcasm Travis. Which word were you having trouble with?

[o_travis dane]

You're saying because they didn't purposefully planted WoMD there, we should assume Bush genuinely thought those weapons were there? That holds about as much water as the oil argument, if not less.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

You're hardly in any position to weight the relative merits of either idea. You are, after all, just some clown on the internet. I'll bet you don't have a single nifty hat either. :P

[o_catzeyes93]

hey hey... for some of us, clowns are terrifying creatures! What was that movie called? "It"?

[o_travis dane]

Meh, at least I stole everybody's balloons!

[o_broodingdude]

WE ALL FLOAT DOWN HERE, GEORGIE!

[o_binarylife]

Well why do you think Iraq was attacked? Clearly not because of it's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', seeing as there were none, and George damn well knew that. Having a go at Saddam? Perhaps, but it certainly wouldn't completely justify attacking a country. So what else is left?

Did you read Cat's post? Because it listed a series of reasons. It's a frame of mind that I've noticed. Some people see a multi-headed serpent attacking our nation (America) and others see just one snake. The fact is, there are mulitple enemies, reasons, and motives. The people that carry the desire to cause us physicle harm, arne't good people. They're overloards, dictators, murderers, theives, and hateful bastards. The world is better off without them. But the fact remains that it isn't anyones right to choose who can live and who can die. Including America's. However, If one of these people tries to destroy our nation, or one of our ally's nation, we will fight them.

Keep in mind, that W. Bush doesn't own any more oil fields. If he did, America's gas prices wouldn't have doubled in the past 5 years. Not to mention the fact, that he isn't taking the oil at all, yet leaving it for the nation who ownes it. If he went in for oil, he certainly did a bad job, since he didn't take any of it.

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.

Saddam is willing to kill a lot more people for a lot more wallets. Some may have run away in the situation above, which is not cowardly, because in the end you're alive, and those who did nothing are dead. However, a nation can't exactly run away. Anyone willing enough can eventually chase you down and do as they wish.
It is not our business to police the world.
It is not our business to kill all that is evil.
However, it is our business to protect ourselves from apparant threats.
We cannot ask permission of the UN to save our own asses. I'm sorry, but if someone was trying to stab me with a knife I wouldn't look for a nearby passer-by and ask them permission to fight back. Nor would I ask a group of people who seak to benafit from my demise.

I certainly don't like bush, but I like what he's doing... some of it. I don't like the anti-environmental and anti-civil rights stuff bush believes in. However, I do think killing someone who is killing you is fair, balanced, and reasonable.

People seem to misunderstand me when I go on rants. I am an american. I do NOT like Bush. I do like Europe . I do like America. In my opinion, Europe would me sitting next to me at that dinner tabel in the restaruant. Perhaps they don't want to get involved in my conflict. They don't have to, but if they held me down while I was pummeled because they though violence was wrong, I certainly wouldn't hang out with them anymore.