Why Republicans Don't Understand War

[TennesseeJed]

We are fighting a war that the U.N. should be fighting. If you would research the subject rather than blowing smoke out of your ass for the hell of it you would understand this. There is nothing worse than a bunch of dumbass Americans with the "let's blow Iraq to hell" mentality. Your irrational and uneducated judgements are the basis of utter ignorance in America, and that is exactly why France doesn't support our efforts with the war.

Now that I have clarified that point, I would like to share the real reason we are at war-oil. If Iraq wasn't one of our largest suppliers of oil, we would not be over there right now. The government, sadly, is issuing a false sense of security throughout our nation. They have made up the "War on Terrorism" as a scapegoat to the events on September 11th. This is for sure: you cannot win a "war" against terrorism. The "War on Drugs" is proof. You can't stop drugs, and you can't stop terrorism. You can, however, prevent them both. But you cannot stop either or. The Bush administration is utilizing the anger that the American public has as a consesequence of 9/11 so that they can fight their war on oil. Hussein was removing the weapons, just not as fast as Bush wanted him to. That is why France isn't supoprtive of our cause. They see through the propaganda. I do, however, believe that a war was going to happen at some point, and I would be very supportive of it had we taken the correct path to war. Bush, however, acted irrationally, just like all the idiots who are posting stupid ass threads such as "All liberals suck dick". If it wasn't for liberals, we would still be practicing slavery, women would not vote and we very well might not have won WWII. Read a fucking book, asshole.

[shade]

wow, you are ignorant beyond belief. I guess we will start at the top.

We are fighting a war that the U.N. should be fighting. If you would research the subject rather than blowing smoke out of your ass for the hell of it you would understand this. There is nothing worse than a bunch of dumbass Americans with the "let's blow Iraq to hell" mentality.

Ok, explain why this is a war for the UN other than just stating it. Unlike most countries in the UN, we actually are capable of doing things on our own or with very little help. Unless you give legitimate reason why this is for the UN and not us, you sir are blowing smoke out of YOUR ass.

None of us have a "lets blow Iraq to hell" mentality. We have a "lets remove saddam and his secret police, rape rooms, torturing, murdering any political dissent, acid baths, torturing dissenters children to get information from the parents, regime" mentality.

The war on drugs isnt even a war you idiot. It is the name of overall effort that includes programs like D.A.R.E. The closest thing to a war aspect of it is when we sieze and burn fields of drugs, and our people defend themselves if they have to.

If we wanted oil, we can just lift the trade embargo and sanctions and buy tons and tons of oil from Iraq dirt cheap. Iraq often tries to sell for lower than the standard OPEC price which pisses off other OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia. We can also drill in alaska if you liberals would stop protecting a square mile of ice arbitrarily declared a preserve by bill clinton on his way out of office to spite republicans. Venezuela has oil reserves similar (some believe more than) to Iraq. They are on the virge of civil war. Why dont we do something to try to stabilize their situation if we just want oil? All of these choices are far less expensive than an actual full on war, and wouldnt cost lives; wait, the sanctions would because saddam's regime would continue with its murderous policies that would be endorsed by the USA due to us lifting the restrictions.

Hussein was removing the weapons, just not as fast as Bush wanted him to.

Site *ONE* time that Saddam actually declared a weapon in violation and publicly destroyed it? Every thing he destroyed was NOT declared and had to be FOUND by inspectors. So.. you are flat out wrong on that statement. How about that chemical weapons plant we found? 100 square acres of mass death production in the middle of the desert guarded by 2 generals and a garrison of troops covered in camo to not be seen from the air.

That is why France isn't supoprtive of our cause.

France will lose $2,456,000,000+ a year of exporting to Iraq during this and for a while after the war, not to mention their under the table dealings that we are likely to find. Hey... france sold them a nuclear reactor back in the day! Now why would a nation like iraq need nuclear power?

I do, however, believe that a war was going to happen at some point, and I would be very supportive of it had we taken the correct path to war.
Well, we cant always reach and end by the means we personally prefer... but I would say by the way the war is being conducted, and all the discoveries we are finding, that soon we will have all the UN support we would have had with your prefered means.

Bush, however, acted irrationally, just like all the idiots who are posting stupid ass threads such as "All liberals suck dick".
Well... while posts like all liberals suck dick are funny to laugh at, i dont think most of us actually condone it or really believe it. Bush didnt act irrationally... he did try fart around/talking diplomacy which didnt work. Now he is using ultimate diplomacy.

If it wasn't for liberals, we would still be practicing slavery, women would not vote and we very well might not have won WWII.
You are partially correct here. Although if by liberal you mean democrat we would still be practicing slavery, and women would not be able to vote. But if you mean liberal by forward thinking, then you are right. We also wouldnt have good Anti-Trust laws, a 40 hour work week, etc. Forward thinkers fixed the country in the past, and now it is good. Many of us believe that if it aint broke, dont fix it. And there really isnt much left for liberals to do, so we vote conservative to keep things how they are.


Read a fucking book, asshole.

I have, many books. You may want to go read oil books though, and see if you can find a time in history other than India where pacifism freed a country.

[DrNaste]

Originally posted by shade
I have, many books. You may want to go read oil books though, and see if you can find a time in history other than India where pacifism freed a country.

Hate to point out your ignorance, but obviously, of the many books you have read none of them have been about South Africa and a man called Nelson Mandela.

[shade]

Eh.... I would disagree. I would say they were let on their own because of world opinion of the overt racism and because imperialism was a dying idea. Controlling a nation on the other side of the world really isnt worth it.

[Unregistered]

I have a big hard on, anyone here care to suck me dry?

[DrNaste]

The South African Peace movement was one that was alive since 1948 (possibly before, not sure of actual year), and was only deterred because of massacres in response to their peaceful dissent. After they again started to protest, it was AGAIN done peacefully. They took to the streets, runing and singing songs and prayers of peace. For you to say that all of the years of protest and perseverence had nothing to do with their eventual liberation, and it was all due to (majorly) the United State's overt opposition is extremely close minded, and ethnocentric.

This says to me that you believe that the US holds the key to the treasure of all morals and ethics, and the causes of other peoples are not legitimized until the US approves/disapproves.

please prove me wrong.

[shade]

..
let me repeat

world opinion of the overt racism
Did I say US? nope... we were still very racist at that time.

Both of these countries were freed from british imperialism, that you have to admit did bring these nations to the modern world much much faster than they otherwise would have. The difference between those and Iraq, is that they would have all been dead.

I am currently researching south african's peace movement because I honestly am not informed enough on it to expand beyond what I have just said and dont want to give false information.

[Unregistered]

"If it wasn't for liberals, we would still be practicing slavery, ..."

I seem to remember it was Abraham Lincoln, a republican, that freed the slaves.

[Unregistered]

Are you aware that we get 3% of our oil from Iraq?

Do you remember that when we attacked Afghanistan Iraq stopped sending us oil? Do you remember that it was no big deal?
Oil is a very small part of this. Invading Canada would be much easier than Invading Iraq. Maybe you should look up how much oil we get from Canada.

[shade]

Hehe yeah, there is a reason why 80something % of canada's exports are to the US. Oil and video cards :D
Too bad for them, Nvidia > ATI

[C0wb0y84]

First of all whoever unregistered is was correct the US gets most of its oil from South America. Only 3% form iraq and at the current time none and it has not affected the economy. Neither has this war stimulated the economy to a degree that makes a difference. So to say that the war is about economics is close minded. Second of all while peacefully protesting has worked in a small amount of cases, it was not in the middle east where there is a dictator that has killed humdreds of thousands because he didn't like them or because they didn't agree with them. You give Tennesseans a bad name. And now it is time for you to eat your own words, "Your irrational and uneducated judgements are the basis of utter ignorance in America." Get your fucking facts straight before you open your ignorant mouth about information that you get off the news and from other un-informed people who go around looking for stuff to complain about, asshole.

[AcdnluvsUSA]

You know, i'm really impressed by all the people who can think on here, it's not normal for me to see this in visual society.
I'm enjoying all these wonderful comments, even though some are written with name calling, which is immature, but I still enjoy reading all the opinions that you guys have, it's educational for me and i'm learning alot, this is actually better then listening to CNN or CBC, any news station actually, you guys got all the info, pros and cons, info and disinfo, but it's there for me to make a judgement and I wish one day there will be something like this on TV so you guys and debate and name call there.

Keep up the good work cool guys!


PS: Did u know you could actually make oil from coals? I forget what the recipe is but some non terran told me about it. He's underneath the Atlantic Ocean so I can't ask him right now, but i'll get ahold of him if some of you guys want to make your own oil ...

[chris_78660]

through compression i believe...
obviously you cannot use charcoal, but if you compress the coal to the right psi, it should age the caol rapidly thus creating the crude oil....but do not quote me on that.


i know that they make diamonds like that as well

[Bergs]

Also, are all you liberals ready for this shocker, when all the civil rights legislation was passed in the 60s guess who controlled congress.

REPUBLICANS

[shade]

I find that most democrats have no grasp on who has done what for equality. For example, click this link.

Did ya know there is a democrat senator that was in the KKK in the 90s? I bet he just magically became not racist when he was elected senator.

http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madminute/2002/mm2002-05.htm

[Bergs]

Conveniantly liberals always find ways to forget this. But when a republican senator makes a speech in which he accidentily implies that he is rascist and doesnt quite come out and say it like some people (byrd) he is nearly run out af fucking office. A little stupid huh. Anyway the democratic party does not wish for the advancment of black because then they might be able to think about politics on there own and not just vote the way their idiot "rev" leaders tell them to.

[DrNaste]

oh man, if this isn't he saddest bunch of name-calling I have seen yet (a practice I keep getting accused of). If you're going to discredit the anti-war side by citing ONE senator from WEST VIRIGNIA for god's sake?!? EVERYONE in west virignia was in the KKK at one point or another...

As long as we're employing these tactics, what do you have to say for your friend, Strom Thurmond??

[DrNaste]

oops. last post popped up while I was writing this, my bad.

However, whether it was a slip or it was blatant, it's reacist all the same and neither case serves to discredit either side. There's really just no point.

I would argue what you say about Democrats being against the advancement of colored people, but I think that's better said elsewhere and probably not by me (as I would just explode).

[Bergs]

Fair enough, I didnt say that that should lott's situation should discredit your side and the republican party is better off without him in leadership because he is an idiot but if lott is treated such a way for a far lesser offense dont you think byrd should be treated the same? I just think that there is an amazing double standard

[DrNaste]

yeah, but we're not in any sort of position to make any sort of change. If it were up to me, I'd exclude West Virginia from the senate altogether based on Byrd's stance. What I think was atrocious about Lott was the way he dealt with his criticism. Instead of taking a 'that was a thing of the past' stance, the dunce prances around on BET pretending to be every black man's best friend. Being unapologetic about being racist is no better however, and I think they should both be eliminated from our government.

[Bergs]

We would be in a position to do something if the media would talk about it as much as they talked about lott's stupid comments but I do thank them for helping new republicans get rid of that moron

[shade]

That senator has nothing to do with the anti war movement, im pointing out the extreme hypocracy of democrats and their double standards.

[Unregistered]

The UN should be fighting this war??? With what? The UN army? Whoops there isnt one. Yea thats what i thought...

[Mr Jumping]

I posted the 3% figure. Now I'm registered.

[Instigator]

Shade, DO NOT try and tell us that imperialism is a "dying idea." Your beloved USA is the largest empire in the world, singlehandedly controlling almost the entire continent of South America, for example. Also, why should Saddam disarm? Why is it ok for us to have weapons of mass destruction, but not Iraq? Because we are the perfect U S of A and we can do no wrong? Trace that back about 50 years and you'll have Nazi Germany.

[Unregistered]

Does the United States use its own people to test out its weapons of mass destruction??

2 Million people are dead because of Saddam. The only reason you have for not going to war is because of innocent lives being lost. Well a few hundred pails in comparison to the MILLIONS that will die as Saddam attempts his "ethnic cleansing."

[disturbed2]

one time the US used a hydrogen bomb on 1000 army personell, only 3 survived. i dont recall anything other than that.