For some fun......

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 02:20pm

Read this site:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cg ... =DCConfID1

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 02:28pm

It burns!

There's one delusional person whose claiming that the small size of pro war rallies means that polls showing a majority support for war are all government propaganda.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:29pm

And for some more fun

read this site

This site happens to be the one whose members harrassed the owners of Chuys (where the Bush daughters were caught trying to buy alkeehol)

They were the ones that gave out the home address of the employee that called the cops on the girls, gave out his baby's description, directions to his house, etc.

These people also threw a big party when Wellstone was waxed AHEM, died in the crash.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 02:31pm

Hameru wrote:And for some more fun

http://www.freerepublic.com

Ah, FR.

Generally more sane than Dummies Underground

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:32pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Hameru wrote:And for some more fun

http://www.freerepublic.com
Ah, FR.

Generally more sane than Dummies Underground

I think not

Especially when they think 50 people at a pro-war rally is a success

I will agree that too many DU members are melodramatic to the point of "eww"

Same goes for the FR denizens that think kids should bring guns to school

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:33pm

Hameru wrote:Especially when they think 50 people at a pro-war rally is a success

50 people is still better than hundreds puking for peice.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 02:34pm

Hameru wrote: I think not

Especially when they think 50 people at a pro-war rally is a success

And dozens of anarchists puking all over people and throwing molotov
cocktails is a success?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:34pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Hameru wrote: I think not

Especially when they think 50 people at a pro-war rally is a success
And dozens of anarchists puking all over people and throwing molotov
cocktails is a success?

And millions of protestors all over the world isn't a success?

Goody

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:36pm

Hameru wrote:And millions of protestors all over the world isn't a success?

Goody

Considering we went in anyway they're a total failure.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:36pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Hameru wrote:And millions of protestors all over the world isn't a success?

Goody
Considering we went in anyway they're a total failure.

I think that's a failure of the US government, not the protesters

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:38pm

Hameru wrote:I think that's a failure of the US government, not the protesters

Or that the peaceniks simply offered nothing but complaints. For all they talked about stopping war they offered no viable alternatives to it.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Hameru wrote:I think that's a failure of the US government, not the protesters
Or that the peaceniks simply offered nothing but complaints. For all they talked about stopping war they offered no viable alternatives to it.

WTF do you expect them to do? Alternatives and arguments ranged from the inane (war never solved anything) to things rooted in fact (containment, etc)

You kind of get this stuff when you put people of different backgrounds together like this. You think we didn't see inane arguments from the pathetic pro-war rallies? My country right or wrong bullshit, not much else

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:44pm

Hameru wrote:WTF do you expect them to do? Alternatives and arguments ranged from the inane (war never solved anything) to things rooted in fact (containment, etc)

All they did was argue the staus quo or variantions there of which obviously not going to work.

Hameru wrote:Regardless, they at least tried

And failed miserably.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:46pm

All they did was argue the staus quo or variantions there of which obviously not going to work.

According to you, perhaps

And failed miserably.

Oh well

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:47pm

I'm going to buy a barrel of french cheese just to spite you guys

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:51pm

Hameru wrote:
All they did was argue the staus quo or variantions there of which obviously not going to work.
According to you, perhaps

According to people willing to consider things objectively. Containment hadn't worked because the embargo had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's clear Saddam wasn't going to give up his WMDs and he was going to flout the UN resolutions. Nothing the protestors, nations or citizens, proposed got around the fundamental fact that containment had failed.

Hameru wrote:I'm going to buy a barrel of french cheese just to spite you guys

Good for you.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 02:53pm

According to people willing to consider things objectively. Containment hadn't worked because the embargo had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's clear Saddam wasn't going to give up his WMDs and he was going to flout the UN resolutions. Nothing the protestors, nations or citizens, proposed got around the fundamental fact that containment had failed.

Objectively?

What nation has Saddam invaded in the past 10 years?

Since when did the resolutions specifically call for war?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:58pm

Hameru wrote:Objectively?

What nation has Saddam invaded in the past 10 years?

If that's all it takes for you to call him safe then you're a fool.

Hameru wrote:Since when did the resolutions specifically call for war?

They didn't. But he breached all sorts of agreements. Under terms of the cease fire we could have just bombed him a long time ago. Plenty of applicable resolutions said we could go in. The only reason we jumped through all the hoops was to try to get internation support.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-22 03:01pm

Hameru wrote:I'm going to buy a barrel of french cheese just to spite you guys

How, exactly, is buying foreign cheese going to 'spite' us? Or is this one of those silly things the anti-war crowd say?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:03pm

If that's all it takes for you to call him safe then you're a fool.

Ok. No evidence to show he's a danger to the United States. The CIA agrees with me.

For a guy with soooooo many WMDs, he sure is holding back, that he is.

They didn't. But he breached all sorts of agreements. Under terms of the cease fire we could have just bombed him a long time ago. Plenty of applicable resolutions said we could go in. The only reason we jumped through all the hoops was to try to get internation support.

You don't get international support by bringing forgeries and plagiarizations to the UN.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:03pm

SirNitram wrote:
Hameru wrote:I'm going to buy a barrel of french cheese just to spite you guys
How, exactly, is buying foreign cheese going to 'spite' us? Or is this one of those silly things the anti-war crowd say?

I wasn't being serious

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:10pm

Hameru wrote:Ok. No evidence to show he's a danger to the United States. The CIA agrees with me.

For a guy with soooooo many WMDs, he sure is holding back, that he is.

It's not just WMDs though I doubt he'd be able to use them right now if he wanted to. It's long range missles he shouldn't have, the opression of his people, and his continued dreams of expansionism.

Hameru wrote:You don't get international support by bringing forgeries and plagiarizations to the UN.

Or by trying to negotiate Jacque Iraq... I mean Chirac. It's clear that no matter what those countries were so far in bed with Iraq that they never would have done anything anyways.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:13pm

It's not just WMDs though I doubt he'd be able to use them right now if he wanted to. It's long range missles he shouldn't have, the opression of his people, and his continued dreams of expansionism.

If he tries to bring his dreams of expansionism to fruition, he'll get a broom up his butt.

Or by trying to negotiate Jacque Iraq... I mean Chirac. It's clear that no matter what those countries were so far in bed with Iraq that they never would have done anything anyways.

Yeah, the French have selfish interests in this

Doesn't change the fact we're making up shit as we go along

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:16pm

Hameru wrote:If he tries to bring his dreams of expansionism to fruition, he'll get a broom up his butt.

Yeah. But why wait until the next time he breaks out the nerve gas? Why wait till he's got long range ballistics missles? We wait until they're another Korea and can blackmail and entire region?

Hameru wrote:Yeah, the French have selfish interests in this

Doesn't change the fact we're making up shit as we go along

Bush and Co. could have handled it better but it doesn't change the fact that some of those countries were dead set against the war whatever we did or do.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-22 03:22pm

Yeah. But why wait until the next time he breaks out the nerve gas? Why wait till he's got long range ballistics missles? We wait until they're another Korea and can blackmail and entire region?

Without an ongoing WMD program, especially without the infrastructure to support one, this isn't likely to happen.

Not to mention that invading a country because of some non-existant threat they might pose in the distant future sets a dangerous precedent. whoa nelly watch us fall down this slippery slope

Bush and Co. could have handled it better but it doesn't change the fact that some of those countries were dead set against the war whatever we did or do.

There's no way to predict what they would have done in the event that we actually provided evidence to support our position. Unfortunately, we didn't provide enough evidence

who knows