US run by psychopaths

mal

Member
As some of you may have guessed by now I think the Bush Administration is making SERIOUS mistakes with it's bully boy approach to Iraq. I've mostly kept my feelings on the matter off the boards because I know Ice won't like it, but this is on a whole new level...

US wants to lift ban on 'mini-nukes'

For those that don't know

psy•cho•path n.

A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
 

gamefoo21

New Member
its so that if the war goes bad they can have someone just drop one of these close to saddam, and drive away. it makes good sense. but what about those terrorists that don't mind blowing themselves up either way what happens if they get ahold of one since they are legal tools of war. and walks by the white house. hmm scary thoughts. :agree with mal on the whole the US i not going the right thing with iraq, i mean we want you to disarm while we mass our army on your borders. if saddam does disarm as the UN + US wants. and the US goes ahead and tries to invade guess who is gonna have to go in to stop them the UN because if it wasn't for them iraq might of had atleast a small chance.

I'm not anti-american but i think the whole reason for this war is oil, and so that daddies lil boy can finish what his father didn't.

Oh and Dubya means asshole in polish.
 

Lyzel

New Member
No offense to both of all, but SHUT UP! Geez.

You both don't know what you're talking about. Oil? That's dumb. For over 100 years, the United States has liberated many nations, and people. If it had wanted to dictate those nations and people, it would have done so.. but that's not what they do.

Please read some U.S history.
 

Myname

Member
If the main reason this war is going to happen is to free the people of Iraq from Sadam Hussain, I'd be all for it but to believe that would be lunacy. It's just a way of trying to win moral backing.

The pro-war countries could do far more good putting the same amount of cash into third-world countries as they are going to war. But that's not potentially profitable, is it?
 

mtxblau

Mid Boss
Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 6, 2003 @ 07:47 PM

You both don't know what you're talking about. Oil? That's dumb. For over 100 years, the United States has liberated many nations, and people. If it had wanted to dictate those nations and people, it would have done so.. but that's not what they do.

Liberated them, yes. All because of the Marshall Plan. But why spend that kind of money? Simple. Once they're liberated, they 1) become ultra reliant on the US and 2) become very strong allies.

It's not just a war for oil, although it'd seriously cripple OPEC if a more US friendly regime was put in place (which is almost guaranteed). Saddam did try to assassinate his daddy...

But realistically, the man is a psychopath. We quite literally have no support for this 'war'. It's going to cost in the 100's of billions, and the US tax payers have to foot the bill. So this tax cut that bush proposes is going to further sink the US is massive recession, or state taxes will have to bumped up. In any event, the taxpayers are going to foot a bill for a war that they don't neccessarily agree with. Needless to say I'm still not understanding the purpose of this war. Saddam has been in power for a good long time - he might be a dictator, ironically he wasn't nor isn't aligned with Al Qaeda... but if we do go to 'war', then he most certainly will.

What I wish he'd do is focus on the economy. Any idea how freaking impossible it is to find a job? Sheesh.
 

racketboy

Member
Originally posted by MTXBlau@Mar 7, 2003 @ 04:14 PM

What I wish he'd do is focus on the economy. Any idea how freaking impossible it is to find a job? Sheesh.

Actually, historiclly, wars have helped economies -- that's how we got out of the Great Depression
 

IUG

New Member
As a citizen of the US, I can say that this is all about the oil. I mean, we have seen some images of missles being dissasembled, he has let inspectors into his contry, and yet we still have plans to get a war going.

Seems to me that Bush is just a stubborn S.O.B. And believe it or not, most Americans are against this war. I only know a few people that want to, and they are all in the Army, lol. And half the people I know on campus who are in the army think this war is stupid.
 

Taelon

Member
From the article linked to at the beginning of this thread:

Bush administration officials have said there is no need for the smaller nuclear bombs right now, but weapons scientists at the nation's nuclear laboratories, such as Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, should not be prevented from exploring the options in case mini-nukes are needed in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Los Alamos the one where they lost laptops and other stuff containing information on nuclear weapons? Too freaky.

On a whole, I'm pretty scared. I'm not a US citizen (yet - still plan to become one) but I've lived here in Ohio since 1996. Mr. Bush angers me every day with his arrogance, going right over the heads of the American public, openly disregarding its protests, calling the UN irrelevant, deciding he'll go to war regardless of its vote and constantly talking of some higher calling to "protect" us that calls for him to push through his own plans. It's sickening and it's frightening.

The WORST of it all is still that this president was, as my local newspaper put it yesterday, "selected, not elected." It all feels like a huge conspiracy against our nation - that Bush was put into office instead of Gore in order to get this whole war thing going - even without 9/11. I know I'm entering conspiracy-theorist land here but it seems too damn possible.

I just hope there's never going to be a World War III. And I also hope the United States won't be responsible for starting it.

 

racketboy

Member
lemme just say that I'm glad we have Bush instead of Clinton.

Also, I think Clinton, Gore, along with many of our past presidents would have done the same thing.

It's the way this country is. This country isn't perfect, but I'm glad I'm here and not somewhere else.
 

mtxblau

Mid Boss
Originally posted by racketboy@Mar 6, 2003 @ 08:46 PM

Actually, historiclly, wars have helped economies -- that's how we got out of the Great Depression

The difference between this war and previous wars is that the threat to our own livelihood wasn't nearly as large. I mean, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Pearl Harbor did happen on US Soil, but 1) It was Hawaii, a couple thousand miles off mainland and 2) It was against a military target. And I know of the Cold War preparations for nuclear attacks - but nothing like 9/11 has come to pass in the U.S. (well, Oklahoma City... but that was quite different).

Perhaps this is Bush's way of jump starting the economy - but at the same time, this war entails a great deal more than WWI, WWII, and the like. Another issue with prior wars is the type of support that's given - during the Great Depression, it was patriotic to go to war. The private sector was almost completely dedicated to the war effort. This war is almost evenly divided between support and dissent - and with a populace fearing for their lives, no one is about to go spend money. Case in point - Vietnam. The US was mired in recession during that time as well, and the 'war' on Iraq isn't dissimilar.

No use debating it, though. Mr. Bush feels sometimes 'you need to buck the popular opinion'. We'll go to war if he wants it, and there's nothing we can do about it. This could be a WWIII, if it gets polarized into muslims vs. non-muslims. Bush's evangelizing of his speeches is certainly *not* helping.
 

racketboy

Member
Originally posted by MTXBlau@Mar 7, 2003 @ 06:06 PM

Perhaps this is Bush's way of jump starting the economy - but at the same time, this war entails a great deal more than WWI, WWII, and the like. Another issue with prior wars is the type of support that's given - during the Great Depression, it was patriotic to go to war. The private sector was almost completely dedicated to the war effort. This war is almost evenly divided between support and dissent - and with a populace fearing for their lives, no one is about to go spend money. Case in point - Vietnam. The US was mired in recession during that time as well, and the 'war' on Iraq isn't dissimilar.

You make some valid points, but even if it doesn't help the economy in such a grand scale, it will still greate jobs and such as the government boosts it military spending.
 

mtxblau

Mid Boss
Originally posted by racketboy@Mar 6, 2003 @ 10:03 PM

lemme just say that I'm glad we have Bush instead of Clinton.

Also, I think Clinton, Gore, along with many of our past presidents would have done the same thing.

I'm really curious - why Bush over Clinton?

Past Democratic presidents wouldn't have done the same thing, not by a long shot. Democrats historically and currently value the opinion of the world populace as well as the UN, much more than Bush (and a lot of Republicans, I should add).

What would have been different if Gore was President? More ground troops would have been sent to Afganistan to find Bin Laden. And we certainly would not be doing pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Well, actually, one could argue that this would have happened if anyone but Bush were elected, I suppose.
 

mtxblau

Mid Boss
Originally posted by racketboy@Mar 6, 2003 @ 10:08 PM

You make some valid points, but even if it doesn't help the economy in such a grand scale, it will still greate jobs and such as the government boosts it military spending.

You're missing something, though - funding. The last Gulf War cost $53 billion, $50 billion of which was funded by other countries. Same with WWII, essentially - we got quite a bit of funds from the French, and the British. But at the time, it hardly mattered - we had half the world's GDP. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, by the way, were the biggest lenders in the last Gulf Excursion - around $23 billion from both.

This 'war' will cost $95 billion, with no support from anyone. This is all out of pocket expenses. When the government runs up debt, economics states that the rest of economy is going to suffer. The minimal gains that some private companies will make is going to be offset by the massive spending the states have to provide ... $3 billion from PA alone.
 

racketboy

Member
Originally posted by MTXBlau+Mar 7, 2003 @ 06:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MTXBlau @ Mar 7, 2003 @ 06:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-racketboy@Mar 6, 2003 @ 10:03 PM

lemme just say that I'm glad we have Bush instead of Clinton.

Also, I think Clinton, Gore, along with many of our past presidents would have done the same thing.

I'm really curious - why Bush over Clinton?

Past Democratic presidents wouldn't have done the same thing, not by a long shot. Democrats historically and currently value the opinion of the world populace as well as the UN, much more than Bush (and a lot of Republicans, I should add).

What would have been different if Gore was President? More ground troops would have been sent to Afganistan to find Bin Laden. And we certainly would not be doing pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Well, actually, one could argue that this would have happened if anyone but Bush were elected, I suppose. [/b][/quote]

Well, I'm not much of a politics person, but that's just the way it seems to me.

As for Clinton, he just doesn't seem like the kind of person I'd want running my country, for somewhat obvious reasons
 

Myname

Member
Well at least those reasons showed he was human. His private life has nothing to do with how well he could do his job.
 

Daniel Eriksson

New Member
First, I have to state that both Bush and Saddam are power hungry dictators. I am not for any of them. Now when that is said, I can explain why I am forever against this attack :

Wars dont happen between countries anymore. I dont think that Saddams Peasants, their familys and children want a war. I dont think Saddams soldiers want a war either. They go to war because Saddam would kill them if they didn´t. I guess it is the same with most of the US population. I agree that Iraq should be free from Saddam, but slaughtering his peasants dont make Iraq free. As for the oil that everybody talks about, I dont think that is the primary reason, even if US has a shotage of oil right now. Instead, I think that Bush cant stop the war now, since he wouldnt get re-elected then. Think about it, almost all US presidents that has started a war has been re-elected.

In another point, why the heck would they suddenly start to talk about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction? I am shure that there are many other countries that have more weapons of that kind. And which country has most of this kind of weapons in the whole world? Which is the only country that ever has used weapons of mass destruction, killing thousands of innocent people while the president though it was a military base they bombed? US, of course. But I refuse to say that it was US that did it. It wasnt. As usual it was a president, and his army that did it. Not the people. Not the country. As stated, war isnt between countries. Just in the minds of power and money-hungry dictators. Demcratic elections between two parties? Yeah right...

No. A war is not the solution of this. And as for the mini-nukes, thats insane. Yeah, lets allow small biological weapons to! Yes, we only send small diseases on them... Mini-Nukes - Kills almost the same, but costs less. A capitalistic presidents dream.
 

Curtis

Member
I have strong feelings about this so-called war. Bush really bothers me on a number of levels, and to be frank, his fervent determination to bomb the shit out of Iraq scares me.

Not once has any reason ever been given to justify why Iraq is suddenly a huge threat to world peace. It is know that Hussain is an "infidel" - there is no way he'd just give his precious WMD to someone like bin Laden, or any other religious fanatics.

Bush's continued insistence that leaving Iraq alone is dangereous, despite all the evidence that attacking Iraq will increase anti-American sentiment and therefore terrorist activites is bewildering. I simply can't understand his point of view on any level.

Why the hell is he calling it a "just war"? What has Iraq done in recent memory to justify mass slaughter of it's civilians - as is bound to happen in a war. If owning WMD is a pre-requisite for this, then Iraq is hardly alone in owning them. Remember, America still has the recipts for most of Iraq's biological agents.

Most of all I'm sick of my own Government's determination to join this war - a war that has nothing to do with us, and a war that has no moral legs to stand on.

[/end disjointed rant]
 

crystalmethod

New Member
I wasn't going to reply but I just wanted to bring a few things up.

There has been recnt evidence to suggest that North Korea has been developing weapons of mass destruction. Why doesn't Bush go stick his nose there?

Because the Koreans will give them a HELL of a fight.

Thats not to say I'm not against the whole war. Truthfully, you must remember that the media will manipulate things so as the general populace will view it in a certain way. Did you know that Saddam has purchased EXACT replicas of US and British soldeir uniforms just to videotape his people being killed but someone in those uniforms? Pretty creepy, DAMN effective. This will only increase anti-American sentiment amoung supporters. Being a Canadian, I cannot help but be disappointed at Chretien and Canada as a whole's lack of involvement in the whole situation.

Truthfully though, Hussein, if he could would do serious damage to the world. Why don't all the protesters around the world who have been chewing up the US organize a giant rally to have Iraq disarm? We all know Hussein has just not been following requests. A little suspicious, no?
 
Top