We're at war

I agree with Malibu & Fig... and mostly with Pank.

The anti-war people have done nothing to convince me that war is not the answer. They don't seem to offer any alternatives or reasons... only slogans ('no war', 'no blood for oil', etc).

Through k10k.net i found a list of design sites (http://www.futurefarmers.com/nowar.html) who have replaced their homepages with stripped down anti-war pages. They offer no reasons for 'no war' and neither do the sites they link to. I went to one of the anti-war organization sites and i COULD NOT FIND a list of reasons why we should not go to war. only lists of protest times/locations and photos of protests.

i knew that pank wouldn't be brainwashed by that sh!t and hijack his homepage with some misinformed, hippie-wannabe bullsh!t. I checked teamphotoshop.com and thank god i was right.

Cheap summary: War is the only option until proven otherwise, no arguement.

After you see the news (which they filter what they what you to think)


Read this

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_dear_raed_archive.html#91126187

So the problems one person faces outweighs the safety of a nation(s)? I don't think so. Regardless of how much the media tells us we already know that war is devastating, not like we didn't consider those factors already; we acknowledged the fact that there will at least be some civilian casualties and people's lives will be disrupted for the duration of the war as well. That link will no way sway our opinions. Next.

ugh.. in my haste to post at work and not get caught, I didnt say why I posted that article. :D I do not know the man who wrote it. It was forwarded to me and I thought it would make an interesting conversation piece. In no way are those my thoughts or opinions, even though I do agree with a few points.

Good discussion though. And Malibu, were you calling me names? Im not sure. Im still figuring out if I was slammed in a previous thread.

Originally posted by malibu
*NL*: Unfortunately your arguments are like every other person I had this 'discussion' with who is against war. You have no viable alternative. You have NO way of dealing with the atrocities of Saddam, because you are not willing offer any consequences for his action.

We did not destroy Afghanistan. Russia did. They had bombed the **** out of that country long before we got there. We are attempting to provide aid and fix things that we did not do. The only targets we hit were military installations which were basically military installations cut into caves. You're wrong on this one too, friend.

Ok, let me turn this around. Can you guys tell me for sure, 100% sure, that this war will fix things? My alternative would be to school people there, and make them notice thereself that something has to change.

And with that Afghan-stuff, c'mon... you know better then that. Can you tell me that you didn't drop a single bomb on Afghan!?? No. And my point with saying that was... Bush said he would help rebuild Afghanistan, by supporting them with money... but,

"...Bush's 2003 budget request did not include one red cent in aid to Afghanistan..."

And I don't care that you only bombed millitary installations, the bombings dislocated the whole country. That's why they needed money, money Bush promised... but didn't request.

just for a fact, here in Denmark 63% are against the war, still our government supports Bush and Anders Fogh (our 'president') is one of the 5 most hated guys in the world right now. Where's the democracy in that ?? We actually dont have that much to say even though we have democracy and a very free country..

Another thing, yes, the Americans are using high-tech weapons to lower the civilian casualties.. The problem is that Saddam houses his military in civilian areas, which kindda makes it hard not to kill a great deal of cilivlians, smart bombs or no smart bombs..

Im agreeing that Saddam has to go, like the rest of you do.. I just wanted to point out some few 'flaws' in what is called 'The right way'.. Im not no super-politician.. I just wanna hear some response to what i just wrote, because i seriously dont get it..

Yes. First let me make sure all you guys don't see me as the über-evil-anti-war-european-bastard. I agree with all the stuff about Sadam leaving, I'm only argueing the fact that we are making him leave by destroying the country even more.

War isn't the most secure way to make things better, I think the past has learned us that.

*agrees again with NL* im no anti-war-bastard either you know

but another thing.. what the f*ck was that ultimatum, Bush gave Saddam, all about?? Leave Iraq or we will start a war..

Okay, turn it around.. lets say Saddam wanted to start a war.. He gave Bush the same ultimatum,.. you think Bush would Leave USA?? The thing is.. Saddam made it absolute CERTAIN that he would die in his country (in his speech), so why does Bush gives him this sort of ultimatum ??

Maybe to gain some time to mobilize his troops so he would be ready to attack within hours instead of days, maybe weeks..

again.. im not that bastard.. just having some questions i would like some answers for.. lets not get all hostile at each other in here

You can't really reverse the roles of Bush and Saddam with the ultimatum, Saddam doesn't have a way to back up his word about threatening to throw Bush out of the White House.