Iraq

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship! ;)

;)

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then I guess the UN should have done something about it. It is supposed to be a WORLD governing body - and the US is only one member. Any number of countries could have come up with that plan - including any in Europe. New Zealand could have even have suggested it. But as i said - if Iraqis are as brainwashed as you claim - would they have accepted it?

If the food was dropped on their heads theyd bleedin eat it:D

By the gods man there have been food drops in many a country ruled by dictatorship:rolleyes: ........................yes it is supposed to be a "world governing body.............why then did the USA ask for "special sancions":mad:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
If the food was dropped on their heads theyd bleedin eat it:D

By the gods man there have been food drops in many a country ruled by dictatorship:rolleyes: ........................yes it is supposed to be a "world governing body.............why then did the USA ask for "special sancions":mad:
But they didn't have to grant them.

[Draken]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BeardofPants
He has a point there, JD. Now admit it........... you have a woman's bottom! I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship!


'Tis better to be a mere lapdog to a stripling of a girl than a...a...git!'

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That was a treaty between Russia and the US. We didn't revoke it - we negotiated our way out of it.


We? Were you there?:rolleyes: Bush did revoke it and Russia was against ending the treaty.


Yes it is obviously partially for oil. A lot of wars have been fought for the free flow of resources. But the majoity of it I BELIEVE is because of the potential threat that Hussein and Iraq can cause in the future.


So that is a justification? It's acceptable because its been done before? Brilliant.


Also - as I've always said - the world is grey not black and white. You have to weigh the probability of things - because nothing is 100%. Unless they pull out a nuclear weapon fully built - it's not 100% that he has nuclear weapons. Even if the inspectors did find a fully working nuclear weapon - people would still accuse the US of planting it.


The world is grey? I always thought it way blue and tan and white. So who is going to make this claim that the US planted a Nuke? Are they going to sneak it in to Iraq in their pants? That is the silliest thing you've said yet.


Oh yeah - just like the accusations from some muslims that the US blew up the nightclub in Bali. I guess you aren't aware that some people are accusing us of blowing up th nightclub in order to justify going into Indonesia. Not to mention that some people still feel that we blew up the Twin Towers.

Who are these crazy people you keep talking about and what could possibly be your point here... that some people make wild accusations? And that means what?

Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it happened.:p


The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house. You keep repeating that bilge about Saddam being a threat to world peace. Under what scenario is world peace threatened? Do you not see the flaw in the logic of saying that we must wage a war to have peace? You compare SH to Hilter and say he is crazy. Crazier than Kim of N. Korea? And he actually does have nukes. We know that because of intelligence. The truth is that the administration tried out several different justification stories and picked the one that the polls showed the public responded to the most. Why didn't they START with the UN and then say it was hopeless and we needed to go it alone? Were you worried about WMDs a year ago or was it just pounded into your head by shear repetition?

When asked whether they support the war in the context of the cost in terms of human life, money and regional stability, most americans are against the war. It is normal when asked a generic question about support to want to be patriotic and say one supports it.

Would it not be simpler and more effective to let Hussein know as a matter of policy that any use of WNDs by terrorist would bring a retaliatory strike against Iraq? This was used during the gulf war and he didn't use them against US troops. Someone should step up and state what would be the required steps for getting disarmament AND the removal of sanctions so that at least we tried to have real peace and bring home our troops.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house.
Truest sentence on this thread.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, but a non-American can't say it for fear of retribution from a certain Jersey Devil.... :p

[Sween]

Ok ill admit that at times i can be a bit of a wind up merchant (but you allways rise to it JD:D ) but also the way your country has handled itself (esspecially your president) to a lot of things shocks and apparls a lot of us on this board.

You havent answred this question which i think is key. What would sadam hussain gain from attacking america?

I accept that you are a proud US citizen that i can respect i am proud to be english. BUt i do not take the we are right and you are wrong attitude that you seem to accustomed to.

There are ways in which the most powerful countrys behave and by attacking the USA would be breaking the most important. Only act in self defence. This is the way the more powerful countries have to behave. You do not have the right just to declare way on a country because of suspecission and fear.

You have not once provided in your argueements one peice of soild evidence that sadam is a threat to you. I can understand why he doesnt want UN inspectors in Iraq. Its been over ten years now since the war ended. Isnt he entitled to a bit of peace? Has he done anything wrong to any country in that time?

As for paying the US back after the marshal plan that was done more out of stablising the world economy rather out of pure good will. If we hadnt had support we would of surely still be struggling to recover even to this day.

Ive given you a few points there but i want you to answer only one not the others because you seem to want to drag this topic into things away from this.

Answer this

What would sadam have to gain from attacking the US?

[osszie]

If you mean, "Are we all going to get killed?" Yes.
Clearly, Field Marshal Bush is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches
closer to Bagdad.
:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween

What would sadam have to gain from attacking the US?
I don't think Saddam would directly attack the US - unless he supplies weapons to terrorist groups. But even then it's not a direct attack.

So then I guess you're right - we should just let him go on about his business. If he's making weapons and working on nuclear weapons - we should just trust in his common good sense and nice character not to use them.

[Earniel]

When the massacre in Rwanda occurred - Americans didn't want to go in because of what had occurred in Somalia. Why didn't any other country go in and help them? Why does every one say "Why didn't America go in there and protect them?" Why was it our responsibility to begin with?
*polite cough* The genocide in '94? We were there. We lost about ten soldiers and three aid-workers.


Nearly 5 pages in one day! I had to spend nearly 2 hours just reading up on it. I can see this is a hot topic. Also noticed JD got his american pride avatar back. I wonder why that would be. :rolleyes: :)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
We? Were you there?:rolleyes: Bush did revoke it and Russia was against ending the treaty.

I know that Russia didn't want to leave the treaty - but they accepted that we wanted to. Again they didn't have to. Were you there? :rolleyes:

So that is a justification? It's acceptable because its been done before? Brilliant.

I feel that the potential threat can be a justification.

The world is grey? I always thought it way blue and tan and white. So who is going to make this claim that the US planted a Nuke? Are they going to sneak it in to Iraq in their pants? That is the silliest thing you've said yet.

Who are these crazy people you keep talking about and what could possibly be your point here... that some people make wild accusations? And that means what?

We're not talking about Iraq building ICBMs here. They could find small nuclear devices. Yeah - and that is about as stupid as the Arab countries claiming that 4,000 jews were told to stay home by Israel because they attacked the Twin Towers.


Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it happened.:p

The biggest threat to world peace sits in the US white house. You keep repeating that bilge about Saddam being a threat to world peace. Under what scenario is world peace threatened? Do you not see the flaw in the logic of saying that we must wage a war to have peace? You compare SH to Hilter and say he is crazy. Crazier than Kim of N. Korea? And he actually does have nukes. We know that because of intelligence. The truth is that the administration tried out several different justification stories and picked the one that the polls showed the public responded to the most. Why didn't they START with the UN and then say it was hopeless and we needed to go it alone? Were you worried about WMDs a year ago or was it just pounded into your head by shear repetition?

No I do not see the flaw in this logic. A lot of times you must take preemptive measures to prevent a larger disaster. Also - as I've stated repeatedly - I'm not for or against the war. I WANT to see how the weapons inspectors are treated in Iraq. I just don't think they will be allowed to do their jobs. I also feel that if Iraq does have these weapons - then they must be removed. I've argued that for a long time. I got into an argument with a friend of mine in Portland when we were bombing Iraq for kicking out the inspectors. So my stance on what to do about Iraq has not changed since then and has not changed with Bush being in the White House. I had felt we should have taken him out when he kicked out the inspectors the first time and refused to comply with the UN.


When asked whether they support the war in the context of the cost in terms of human life, money and regional stability, most americans are against the war. It is normal when asked a generic question about support to want to be patriotic and say one supports it.

Would it not be simpler and more effective to let Hussein know as a matter of policy that any use of WNDs by terrorist would bring a retaliatory strike against Iraq? This was used during the gulf war and he didn't use them against US troops. Someone should step up and state what would be the required steps for getting disarmament AND the removal of sanctions so that at least we tried to have real peace and bring home our troops.
We weren't trying to depose him. He knew that if he used them at that time that he would have received a full retaliatory strike. However it does not mean that he wouldn't once he has enough of these weapons. People keep saying that I shouldn't use the past to back up my arguments on how Hussein will react - but you use the past to back up your arguments. Just because he hasn't used them - doesn't mean he won't use them in the future. But of course if we just let him continue to build without doing ANYTHING then it will be too late once he decides to attack the west or his neighbors with them. or supply terrorist groups with them so they can take out the London underground or the NY subway.

I believe the UN has stated what the requirements are for santions to be lifted against Iraq are. Let the weapons inspectors in and full disarmement and elimination of their biological, chimical and nuclear weapons programs.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, but a non-American can't say it for fear of retribution from a certain Jersey Devil.... :p

You can say it - if that is your belief. But I disagree with the statement.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
*polite cough* The genocide in '94? We were there. We lost about ten soldiers and three aid-workers.

Well then why wasn't more done without complaining about the US not being there? Couldn't Europe have sent in more troops to protect people? Constantly in the world community people complain that the US did not come to the aid Rwanda.


Nearly 5 pages in one day! I had to spend nearly 2 hours just reading up on it. I can see this is a hot topic. Also noticed JD got his american pride avatar back. I wonder why that would be. :rolleyes: :)

Yeah my avatar is back.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
If you mean, "Are we all going to get killed?" Yes.
Clearly, Field Marshal Bush is about to make yet another gargantuan effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches
closer to Bagdad.
:p

Yeah with the help of lower lieutenant Blair. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
I accept that you are a proud US citizen that i can respect i am proud to be english. BUt i do not take the we are right and you are wrong attitude that you seem to accustomed to.

Yes you do - because if you didn't think i was wrong then you wouldn't be having this argument. I don't think you're wrong in a lot of what you say - but I don't think you're right in a lot either. I also don't think that just because Hussein hasn't used the weapons doesn't mean he won't. I also think that he is a larger threat than a lot of the other dictators around the world. Obviously you think my arguments and beliefs are wrong.

He has repeatedly tested the resolve of the world community - and right now he is very happy that he has you guys convinced he won't do anything.

You have not once provided in your argueements one peice of soild evidence that sadam is a threat to you. I can understand why he doesnt want UN inspectors in Iraq. Its been over ten years now since the war ended. Isnt he entitled to a bit of peace? Has he done anything wrong to any coutry in that time?

He has not openly done anything because we have kept the pressure on him. He is still able to continue work on his weapons, coming up with new chemical agents, perfecting them and their delivery methods.

As for paying the US back after the marshal plan that was done more out of stablising the world economy rather out of pure good will. If we hadnt had support we would of surely still be struggling to recover even to this day.

Well at least you admit it. Now why can't the world take the lead and do something similar?

[Sween]

indeed the world powers should make more of an effort to help the poorer countries esspeciall the g7 countries.

Indeed the UN has kept the pressure on him and it has kept him on his toes. But in realtion to america i have never felt he cared much for you. You were never part of his plan he isnt hittler he does not want to rule the world.

America is of little conquence to him. He is not like Osama bin lardin a religious extremist (most dangerous people in the world) and killing a load of US citizens then sealing his own doom does not strike me as something that would give him what hes allways wanted.

He wants overule of the Arab world allways has allways will.

But what pray tell has this got to do with america. Well if you do decalre war then im affraid that all bets are off. He will defintally go into production of WMD and will use them on you.

I firmly believe that sadam will not make an attack on you and talk of war on him will only cause in IMHO more suffering for everyone.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
America is of little conquence to him. He is not like Osama bin lardin a religious extremist (most dangerous people in the world) and killing a load of US citizens then sealing his own doom does not strike me as something that would give him what hes allways wanted.

He wants overule of the Arab world allways has allways will.

But what pray tell has this got to do with america. Well if you do decalre war then im affraid that all bets are off. He will defintally go into production of WMD and will use them on you.

I firmly believe that sadam will not make an attack on you and talk of war on him will only cause in IMHO more suffering for everyone.
So the overthrow of the the Arab world is okay then? If that is his plans - we're supposed to just let him build up his arsenal until he does launch an invasion? Or do we let him take over some countries just to make sure that IS his plan first? Maybe we should just let him take over a couple of countries to make sure that we are right about him wanting to rule the arab world. We may be wrong after all - he may just love his neighbords so much that he just wants to be closer to them. :rolleyes:

And as I said - if you think he has NOT continued his weapons programs then you live in fantasy world. Why would he stop once he got what he wanted - which was the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and the world off his back?

Talk of war is what got him to so far agree to weapons inspections. War is not guaranteed at this point - although I think it is more likely than not. I do not think he will cooperate with the inspectors and as it stands right now - the ball is in his court.

Concerning the 100% vote that he received


Saddam 'wins 100% of vote' (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.elections.ap/index.html )
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Saddam Hussein won another seven-year term as Iraq's president in a referendum in which he was the sole candidate, taking 100 percent of the vote, the Iraqi leader's right-hand man announced Wednesday.

All 11,445,638 of the eligible voters cast ballots, said Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council that is Iraq's key decision-making body.

"This is a unique manifestation of democracy which is superior to all other forms of democracies even in these countries which are besieging Iraq and trying to suffocate it," Ibrahim said at a news conference in Baghdad, apparently referring to the United States........

That statement is too funny for words.

[osszie]

Anyone have any thoughts as to why Bush would choose today to sign the Iraqi war resolution?

The very day Iraq is "celebrating" it's "elections" (so funny, 100% support, no oppostion, ballots marked in blood, those poor people).

The same day that the UN Security Council starts it's debate on Iraq at the behest of dozens of non-Council nations who oppose an attack on Baghdad :rolleyes:

"Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear. Every nation that shares the benefits of peace also shares the duty of defending the peace" - President George W Bush

This guy is the biggest contradiction in history, like as not he'll be recorded as the man who preached peace but caused war:rolleyes:

http://www.itv.com/news/Front782933.html

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Anyone have any thoughts as to why Bush would choose today to sign the Iraqi war resolution?

The very day Iraq is "celebrating" it's "elections" (so funny, 100% support, no oppostion, ballots marked in blood, those poor people).

The same day that the UN Security Council starts it's debate on Iraq at the behest of dozens of non-Council nations who oppose an attack on Baghdad :rolleyes:

So we're supposed to revolve our government around the UN then? The debates in the UN will be going on for awhile? SAre we supposed to stop everything until they get it together? Does England or any government stop it's government if it runs in conflict with what others in the outside world are doing at that time?

Most likely Bush did it to send a message to Iraq and the UN that we are serious. But even if it is the reason - does it matter when it is signed? It was going to be signed anyway.

[jerseydevil]

You left this part out -


International reaction to the election result was one of condemnation. British officials immediately branded the result "a travesty of democracy".

The Foreign Office said Saddam's brutality and intimidation of his own people made a truly democratic poll was impossible.

"You can't have free elections when the electorate goes to the polls in the knowledge that they have only one candidate for president," said the spokesman.

"That candidate has a history of using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, that candidate routinely murders and tortures opponents of the regime.

"The penalty for slandering that sole candidate is to have one's tongue cut out."

This is coming from the British government on what Saddam Hussein does ot his own people. We did go into Bosnia because of what miloshivic was doing to his people. I don't think he had dreams of world domination either.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So we're supposed to revolve our government around the UN then? The debates in the UN will be going on for awhile? SAre we supposed to stop everything until they get it together? Does England or any government stop it's government if it runs in conflict with what others in the outside world are doing at that time?

Most likely Bush did it to send a message to Iraq and the UN that we are serious. But even if it is the reason - does it matter when it is signed? It was going to be signed anyway.

Well if the USA considers itself a part of the UN then surely it would be prudent to allow the UN to do as it proposed, the investigations.......signing today when UN has starting a debate at the request of the countries who OPPOSE an attack on Iraq surely shows America's disdain at such a debate........America is making it quite clear that it will attack with or without support from the rest of the UN..........perhaps it should remove itself from the organisation (somehow I'm not expecting a very strong argument from you on that JD).

IMO signing this today will only cause even more hatred of the western world in Iraq, to interupt their electorial "celebrations" with world dominating headlines of the USA's war intentions can do no good whatsoever:rolleyes: ........... with these open acts of intent I would be very surprised if the UN inspection team are not shot the minute they arrive on Iraqi soil...........not by the military but by civilians brainwashed into believing them to be evil:(

Yes the UN debate will be going on for a while, what has changed regarding the situation in Iraq to justify America wanting to hurry the next investigation.................has Saddam rolled out nuclear missiles that no-one but America knows about?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You left this part out

I didn't "leave it out" I added the link so anyone interested can read the WHOLE article:)

No Miloshovic was engaging in genocide of a whole religious culture..............100% pure murder.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Well if the USA considers itself a part of the UN then surely it would be prudent to allow the UN to do as it proposed, the investigations.......signing today when UN has starting a debate at the request of the countries who OPPOSE an attack on Iraq surely shows America's disdain at such a debate........America is making it quite clear that it will attack with or without support from the rest of the UN..........perhaps it should remove itself from the organisation (somehow I'm not expecting a very strong argument from you on that JD).

You won't. But I think it doesn't matter much when it was signed - since it was going to be signed anyway. Are we supposed to wait for 100% support form the world also?


IMO signing this today will only cause even more hatred of the western world in Iraq, to interupt their electorial "celebrations" with world dominating headlines of the USA's war intentions can do no good whatsoever:rolleyes: ........... with these open acts of intent I would be very surprised if the UN inspection team are not shot the minute they arrive on Iraqi soil...........not by the military but by civilians brainwashed into believing them to be evil:(

Like they need an excuse to go out and march against the west. We could sneeze and Iraq and many in the Arab world would turn into that it's against them. They give their citizens an excuse to hate us so they won't look inward at their own governments. I seriously doubt that much is different in their country with the signing in Washington. Yeah - it'll get headlines - but if it wasn't that it would have been any number of things.:rolleyes:


Yes the UN debate will be going on for a while, what has changed regarding the situation in Iraq to justify America wanting to hurry the next investigation.................has Saddam rolled out nuclear missiles that no-one but America knows about?
Blair seems convinced that Saddam Hussein poses a threat. But I know - he sits on America's lap as we spoon feed him. :rolleyes: By the way - I think if that IS the case - you need a new Prime Minister.

We want to get inspectors in there as soon as possible before Hussein has time to organise his hiding places and preparedness for the inspectors. Whether we will rush the inspectors once they are there is pure conjecture.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No Miloshovic was engaging in genocide of a whole religious culture..............100% pure murder.

Oh yeah - I forgot - Hussein just kills and tortures the people that don't support him. *Must make note for talking over world: Okay to kill and torture none supporters - bad to just kill. Also okay to test chemical weaponary on innocent civilians.* :rolleyes:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh yeah - I forgot - Hussein just kills and tortures the people that don't support him. *Must make note for talking over world: Okay to kill and torture none supporters - bad to just kill. Also okay to test chemical weaponary on innocent civilians.* :rolleyes:

Did I say he didn't:confused: ............. in fact I said several times that he did:rolleyes: ................ The fact is that we entered Bosia at the request of the people:rolleyes:

So by the above rational you feel that we should have removed Saddam already?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Did I say he didn't:confused: ............. in fact I said several times that he did:rolleyes: ................ The fact is that we entered Bosia at the request of the people:rolleyes:

But we didn't have the support of ALL the people. And at this time we do have the support of SOME Iraqis also. Also - I never stated that you didn't say he tortured his own people. But you did make a distinction between what Hussein does to his people and what Milosevich did to his.

So by the above rational you feel that we should have removed Saddam already?
Yes I do think we should have taken him out before. Too bad the Gulf War was restricted to just getting him out of Kuwait.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You won't. But I think it doesn't matter much when it was signed - since it was going to be signed anyway. Are we supposed to wait for 100% support form the world also?


Like they need an excuse to go out and march against the west. We could sneeze and Iraq and many in the Arab world would turn into that it's against them. They give their citizens an excuse to hate us so they won't look inward at their own governments. I seriously doubt that much is different in their country with the signing in Washington. Yeah - it'll get headlines - but if it wasn't that it would have been any number of things.:rolleyes:


Blair seems convinced that Saddam Hussein poses a threat. But I know - he sits on America's lap as we spoon feed him. :rolleyes: By the way - I think if that IS the case - you need a new Prime Minister.

We want to get inspectors in there as soon as possible before Hussein has time to organise his hiding places and preparedness for the inspectors. Whether we will rush the inspectors once they are there is pure conjecture.

March against the west? your in a dreamland JD...........Iraq did not have military power to hold Kuwait!!

Really it is up to the US if it wants 100% support form the world, it either works with the world or against parts of it:rolleyes: this of course will lead to further conflict with other countries in the future.

Yes Blair has many faults, hopefully this will be the action that causes his downfall:rolleyes:

So what are these "any number of things" the west has done today to antagonise Saddam?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
March against the west? your in a dreamland JD...........Iraq did not have military power to hold Kuwait!!

I didn't mean "march against the west" in terms of military action. I was using it as symonym for demonstrating.


Really it is up to the US if it wants 100% support form the world, it either works with the world or against parts of it:rolleyes: this of course will lead to further conflict with other countries in the future.

So we shouldn't do ANYTHING if 100% of the world doesn't agree? You must be living IN Iraq - I think it's the ONLY country that has had 100% support of a leader. Britain must get nothing done if they wait around for 100% support on a decision for they do something. :rolleyes:

So what are these "any number of things" the west has done today to antagonise Saddam?
I was saying that Saddam Hussein would USE any number of things to get his people to DEMONSTRATE against the west. It doesn't have to be true or anything. It just needs to be printed in the paper or be shown on TV. He has organised marches, sorry demonstrations, in the streets of Iraq against the west.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But we didn't have the support of ALL the people. And at this time we do have the support of SOME Iraqis also. Also - I never stated that you didn't say he tortured his own people. But you did make a distinction between what Hussein does to his people and what Milosevich did to his.

Yes I do think we should have taken him out before. Too bad the Gulf War was restricted to just getting him out of Kuwait.

So you don't have the support of ALL the Iraqi people but you did have the support of SOME of the Bosnian:confused: ........... and the distiction would be?:rolleyes:

Yes I think the world would like to know why Bush Snr did not take the Gulf War offensive into Baghdad and eliminate Saddam.........I'm just having a wild guess here, but maybe it was because the next government (Saddams opposition) had not been suficiently groomed for takeover:D

[Cirdan]

The characature of Hussein straining to attack his neighbors is ironic. The circumstance under which Kuwait was invaded seems to be lost in the rhetoric here. He encouraged SH's invasion of Iran. We knew about the massing of troops on the Kuwaiti border. Everything he did up until that time was done with the blessing of the US administration. After the gulf war there has been little of no movement in this area because the US changed its policy to one one containment. This is the same policy we us e for all other dictators with little dreams of empire. There is only one reason why Taiwan is independent and we are not at war with China; the US deterrence. This is a successful approach.

"Perfecting them and their delivery methods" with regards to WMDs. You are just resorting to hyperbole now. Aside from what was given to them by the US and Russia, Iraq has nothing in the was of any more than the most rudimentary technology. Is it dangerous? Of course, but perfecting it...? please!:rolleyes:

If your threshold for invasion is how the citizens have been trested in any country then we have a whole lot of countries to invade. I don't think we invaded Serbia, we only bombed the crap out of it. This was during a full scale miltary operation against a minority province. No such activity is occuring in Iraq at this time or in recent years.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So we shouldn't do ANYTHING if 100% of the world doesn't agree? You must be living IN Iraq - I think it's the ONLY country that has had 100% support of a leader. Britain must get nothing done if they wait around for 100% support on a decision for they do something. :rolleyes:

I was saying that Saddam Hussein would USE any number of things to get his people to DEMONSTRATE against the west. It doesn't have to be true or anything. It just needs to be printed in the paper or be shown on TV. He has organised marches, sorry demonstrations, in the streets of Iraq against the west.

Oh no, in Britain we value our place in the UN..........when we act it is in the common good or in self defence/the defence of others at their request.............we know that we are a military, and more importantly, nuclear power and we practice caution when we exert either the power itself, or the threat of power. The UK's international relations have never been better as a result:)

And I was pointing out that todays actions in the US merely provided them with amunition TO demonstrate against the west:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So you don't have the support of ALL the Iraqi people but you did have the support of SOME of the Bosnian:confused: ........... and the distiction would be?:rolleyes:

Well you said that we entered Bosnia at the request of the people. We didn't have the request from ALL the people. And there are Iraqis that want us to go in there. So - you can't use the "we entered Bosnia at the request of the people" argument to say that we shouldn't enter Iraq. Many Iraqis are requesting that we depose Saddam Hussein.

Yes I think the world would like to know why Bush Snr did not take the Gulf War offensive into Baghdad and eliminate Saddam.........I'm just having a wild guess here, but maybe it was because the next government (Saddams opposition) had not been suficiently groomed for takeover:D

There are a number of resons. Congress had only given him authorisation to free Kuwait. The other would have been because the coalition would have fallen apart. The coalition was built to drive Hussein from Kuwait - not to depose him and overthrow his government. Also - over course if you're oging to overthrow a government - you do want someone in place to take over. If not - then you are left with anarchy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The characature of Hussein straining to attack his neighbors is ironic. The circumstance under which Kuwait was invaded seems to be lost in the rhetoric here. He encouraged SH's invasion of Iran. We knew about the massing of troops on the Kuwaiti border. Everything he did up until that time was done with the blessing of the US administration. After the gulf war there has been little of no movement in this area because the US changed its policy to one one containment. This is the same policy we us e for all other dictators with little dreams of empire. There is only one reason why Taiwan is independent and we are not at war with China; the US deterrence. This is a successful approach.

I am aware of the US attitude toward Iraq prior to the Gulf War.


"Perfecting them and their delivery methods" with regards to WMDs. You are just resorting to hyperbole now. Aside from what was given to them by the US and Russia, Iraq has nothing in the was of any more than the most rudimentary technology. Is it dangerous? Of course, but perfecting it...? please!:rolleyes:

Are you there in the middle east and inparticular Iraq to know what Hussein is doing or what supplies he is getting. We have satelite photos of rail lines tat have been built from Syria right into Baghdad. Satelite photos though can't see through boxes, box cars or walls. So we won't know what Hussein has unless he allows unfettered access to the inspectors. Which I highly doubt he will.

If your threshold for invasion is how the citizens have been trested in any country then we have a whole lot of countries to invade. I don't think we invaded Serbia, we only bombed the crap out of it. This was during a full scale miltary operation against a minority province. No such activity is occuring in Iraq at this time or in recent years.
I wasn't using it as a guide. But it was the main reason for Bosnia - they didn't have any oil or anything that people claim is the only reason we get involved in the Middle East. Of course the other reason we got involved was because we were afraid it would have spilled over their borders. So if those arguments were good enough for Bosnia - then why not Iraq?

[osszie]

Your right, I did say that about Bosnia and you have clearly stated that you feel this is a valid reason for invading Iraq and of course because some Iraqi's ask the west to remove Saddam then we should have already invaded....................so you are pro-war:rolleyes:

Yes someone to take over the running of a country is an absolute........it's a shame there is none for Iraq really:rolleyes:

Oh a little light entertainment for you all here

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1166331

Orwell was only off by about 22yrs:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Your right, I did say that about Bosnia and you have clearly stated that you feel this is a valid reason for invading Iraq and of course because some Iraqi's ask the west to remove Saddam then we should have already invaded....................so you are pro-war:rolleyes:

I'm not pro or anti war. I weigh the options. As I said - I would rather not see an all out war. But I do support this war if it comes to it.

[Cirdan]

Actually the coalition did not topple SH at the request of the moderate arab allied coutries. It was part of the agreement to use bases, airspace, etc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie

Oh a little light entertainment for you all here

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1166331

Orwell was only off by about 22yrs:p
He was giving that speech in terms of the war on terrorism. I believe the world is out fighting terrorism all over the place right now - not just the US. I do however disagree with many things in terms of the "Homeland Security" agency. Also the Homeland Security Office is an internal government agency that the American people must deal with. It has nothing to do with the outside world - other than if you come to visit the US. But that has nothing to do with Iraq. If he was effectively declaring -

permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya.

Then I guess he wouldn't have to go through Congress or anything. And I guess we've declared war on the world. I guess Europe should start spending some money on military. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh no, in Britain we value our place in the UN..........when we act it is in the common good or in self defence/the defence of others at their request.............we know that we are a military, and more importantly, nuclear power and we practice caution when we exert either the power itself, or the threat of power. The UK's international relations have never been better as a result:)

yeah - I forgot about the Faulklands.

And I was pointing out that todays actions in the US merely provided them with amunition TO demonstrate against the west:rolleyes:
An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

Right, JD they are all alike, aren't they?:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

How does it feel to know that if Saddam has WMD it is because the US armed him?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Right, JD they are all alike, aren't they?:rolleyes:

I guess I should go about listing all the Arab countries seperately that set up demonstrations against the west. I forgot - if I'm too general then you think I feel that everyone is like that. No I DO NOT FEEL ALL the Arab countries do that. For one thing Jordan doesn't and neither does Saudi Arabia. Iran does, the Palestinians do, Iraq absolutely does. I bet Saudia Arabia would if they didn't need the west so much because they have many problems with their own citizenry.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah - I forgot about the Faulklands.

An as I said - like they need ammunition to demonstrate against the west. The arab countries keep their citizen hating the west for any reason in order to keep them from revolting against their real problem - which is their own governments.

Oh yes the Falklands (wondered how long it would be before that was dragged up:rolleyes: ) a foreign country invaded OUR soverign territory and we removed them, there were casualities on both sides, no nuclear weapons were used, no depleted uranium that would kill thousands of innocents........the Falklands returned to British rule and we did not even bother to punish Argentina for its pathetic attemp at a show of power......if we had we would certainly not have waited for over a decade to do so:rolleyes:

And how nice it was of the US to provide so much ammunition for propaganda in Iraq, on the day of the Iraqi elections no less:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
How does it feel to know that if Saddam has WMD it is because the US armed him?

It doesn't feel like anything. That was the past and there were reasons for it. Whether it was a good decision we can never know because it's easy to judge the past in the eyes of today. Who knjows what would have been the situation in the Middle East if we hadn't supported them in the war against Iran.

[osszie]

Supported yes, how did it feel when Saddam stabbed America in the back?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh yes the Falklands (wondered how long it would be before that was dragged up:rolleyes: ) a foreign country invaded OUR soverign territory and we removed them, there were casualities on both sides, no nuclear weapons were used, no depleted uranium that would kill thousands of innocents........the Falklands returned to British rule and we did not even bother to punish Argentina for its pathetic attemp at a show of power......if we had we would certainly not have waited for over a decade to do so:rolleyes:

The only reason I brought up the Falklands is because you said that you manage your military and only fight in self defense. But I could have just as easily have brought up Ireland.

You really can't take the moral high ground in this. No European country can.

And how nice it was of the US to provide so much ammunition for propaganda in Iraq, on the day of the Iraqi elections no less:rolleyes:
Oh - i guess now we're supposed to revolve the management of our government around Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Supported yes, how did it feel when Saddam stabbed America in the back?

How did he stab us in the back? You're whole argument yesterday was that he never did anything to the US. He sank US ships and I suppose that is what you are getting at maybe. He invaded Kuwait. Of course his attack on US ships also nullifies your argument that he has never attacked the US - IF it was on purpose.

[BeardofPants]

JD:
You're whole argument yesterday was that he never did anything to the US.

No. I specifically stated yesterday that he sunk a couple of US ships prior to the gulf war.

Our arguments have been that Saddam hasn't done anything against the US since he got slapped on the hand AFTER the gulf war.

Geez, JD, quit putting words into peoples mouths. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No. I specifically stated yesterday that he sunk a couple of US ships prior to the gulf war.

Our arguments have been that Saddam hasn't done anything against the US since he got slapped on the hand AFTER the gulf war.

Geez, JD, quit putting words into peoples mouths. :rolleyes:

READ ABOVE - I was editing my statement as you were posting.

[BeardofPants]

So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only reason I brought up the Falklands is because you said that you manage your military and only fight in self defense. But I could have just as easily have brought up Ireland.

You really can't take the moral high ground in this. No European country can.

Oh - i guess now we're supposed to revolve the management of our government around Iraq.

WTF?? The Falkland islands are part of the UK!! The Argentinians invaded our soil!! Inhabited by UK citizens!! It was self defence, buy an atlas JD.

Your country's government is relvolving around Iraq IMO.........the more it can do to antagonise it, the more it will do:rolleyes:

Do you really think that today was the best day for those papers to be signed......................?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I'm not here to show you the money and you'll have until hell freezes over for me to do that or until the weapon inpsectors prove it (which ever comes first). I have said that of course there is NO proof that he has WMD at this time (at least any that has been brought to the surface o released to the general public) he hasn't let weapons inspectors since he managed to kick them out. . I have said that the PROBABILITY of him having them is greater than not having them. If you would read my posts you may finally get that through your head!!!

I had missed this - so I had to add it in

WTF?? The Falkland islands are part of the UK!! The Argentinians invaded our soil!! Inhabited by UK citizens!! It was self defence, buy an atlas JD.

I know where the Faklklands are and know they are British TERRITORY. I should have just stuck with Ireland which was my first choice. AND I DO HAVE AN ATLAS, which is right here next to me.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, I get what you are saying JD. :rolleyes:

What I would like you to prove is the probability of him having them being greater than him not having them? What is this speculation based on? Are you privy to something that we are not? :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, I get what you are saying JD. :rolleyes:

What I would like you to prove is the probability of him having them being greater than him not having them? What is this speculation based on? Are you privy to something that we are not? :rolleyes:

It's based on his past action and lies. If a person continously acts one way - do you expect them to just wake up one day and just change over night? Answer this - why would he stop manufacturing once he got what he wanted - which was the inspectors out of the country. You can't deny the fact that they did find weapons and that he was and is in the pursuit of nuclear. I'm sure even you can realise that.

I was trying to refrain from the personal attacks, like the many that you guys have been throwing my way - but I guess I failed.

[BeardofPants]

IIRC, even the fact that he was supposedly producing biological weapons was dubious.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
IIRC, even the fact that he was supposedly producing biological weapons was dubious.

The only way you would be satisified with proof of him having these weapons is if you were dragged to Iraq and had your nose shoved into them.

Everything that anyone reports that says that he has these weapons is dubious to you. So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only way you would be satisified with proof of him having these weapons is if you were dragged to Iraq and had your nose shoved into them.

Everything that anyone reports that says that he has these weapons is dubious to you. So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

Probably. ;)

I'm sorry, but at the time all the media reports were American.... now, if you can't see the bias there, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :p

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

Or to put it another way, WHEN THERE IS PROOF:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Probably. ;)

I'm sorry, but at the time all the media reports were American.... now, if you can't see the bias there, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :p

The UN Inspectors were made up of people from various countries. Not only the American inspectors said that they found weapons. Not only the American inspectors said they were hindered at every turn.

I guess New Zealand media is superior and completely unbiased right? Or is it only the editorials and opinions that you agree with that are unbiased?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess New Zealand media is superior and completely unbiased right? Or is only the editorials and opinions that you agree with that are unbiased?

New Zealand media isn't any better.

Put it this way: I don't trust journos. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Or to put it another way, WHEN THERE IS PROOF:rolleyes:

Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind made up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
New Zealand media isn't any better.

Put it this way: I don't trust journos. :rolleyes:
So who do you trust and what sources do you use to get your news? I guess you only trust the people that already support your view.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

JD. Please. Don't presume to know my thoughts and intentions. I've said it before, I'll say it again, in caps, so you'll understand. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I have said time and again: I don't support a war based on unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the proof and then I'll revise my opinions. For me proof does not involve a highly biased media. Got it?!

Now, I will trust the SOURCE of the information, not the F***ing media. How hard it is to get your head around that???

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

When the UN inspectors have done there job there will be PROOF and if they find WMD the following actions against Iraq will be justified:D

personally I think the UN inspectors will find "dual use chemicals" (which includes pencils!!) and the US will use this to justify their attack:rolleyes:

Erm just out of curiosity why are you telling us what BoP has put in her posts?.............her posts are there for everyone to read:rolleyes:

Personally I make my decisions on FACTS..........everything else is just hearsay:rolleyes:

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess I should go about listing all the Arab countries seperately that set up demonstrations against the west. I forgot - if I'm too general then you think I feel that everyone is like that. No I DO NOT FEEL ALL the Arab countries do that. For one thing Jordan doesn't and neither does Saudi Arabia. Iran does, the Palestinians do, Iraq absolutely does. I bet Saudia Arabia would if they didn't need the west so much because they have many problems with their own citizenry.

Yes, you should qualify your statements so they don't sound like hyperbole. Saudi Arabia is in trouble both because of their relationship with the west and the way their dictatorial monarchy treats it's people. We won't be helping the stability of either Jordan or Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq and setting up a puppet state. If the US is going to invade it should just plan to occupy all the countries that harbor terrorists or are sympathetic to the US but are threatened by internal opposition. Or is that the plan already?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD. Please. Don't presume to know my thoughts and intentions. I've said it before, I'll say it again, in caps, so you'll understand. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I have said time and again: I don't support a war based on unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the proof and then I'll revise my opinions. For me proof does not involve a highly biased media. Got it?!

Now, I will trust the SOURCE of the information, not the F***ing media. How hard it is to get your head around that???

I guess you'll go to the UN and just walk in and ask them then. Or do you have friends that are weapons inspectors that you might trust? Because I'd really like to know how YOU ARE supposed to get this information if it doesn't first go through the media. Because either the media will have to have interviews with the weapons inspectors - where there have been many - or they will have to diseminate the UN reports to the general public.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess you'll go to the UN and just walk in and ask them then. Or do you have friends that are weapons inspectors that you might trust? Because I'd really like to know how YOU ARE supposed to get this information if it doesn't first go through the media. Because either the media will have to have interviews with the weapons inspectors - where there have been many - or they will have to diseminate the UN reports to the general public.

In case you haven't noticed, the UN has a nice little website that I can go to. :rolleyes:

I'm talking conventional media here, JD. Journos, newspapers, etc. :rolleyes:

As Osszie has already said, why are you stating (and twisting) what I'm saying? It's there to be read by other people. They don't need you to spoon feed them your twisted version of what I'm saying. You know, a good example of the media there JD. Always go to the primary source. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
When the UN inspectors have done there job there will be PROOF and if they find WMD the following actions against Iraq will be justified:D

personally I think the UN inspectors will find "dual use chemicals" (which includes pencils!!) and the US will use this to justify their attack:rolleyes:

I will determine whether the actions will be justified at that time. At this time I feel they will. My mind can chnage based on the circumstances. If weapons were found right now - I would support military action.

There was more than pencils found the last time.

Erm just out of curiosity why are you telling us what BoP has put in her posts?.............her posts are there for everyone to read:rolleyes:

Because I just wanted her to admit that unless she was in Iraq and saw the weapons for herself that she wouldn't believe they existed. I pretty much got her to admit that.

Personally I make my decisions on FACTS..........everything else is just hearsay:rolleyes:
Well it was a fact that weapons were found when the weapons inspectors were there. It was a fact they were hindered. It was a fact that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get nuclear weapons. And as you said it is his goal to rule the Middle East.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
In case you haven't noticed, the UN has a nice little website that I can go to. :rolleyes:

I'm talking conventional media here, JD. Journos, newspapers, etc. :rolleyes:

As Osszie has already said, why are you stating (and twisting) what I'm saying? It's there to be read by other people. They don't need you to spoon feed them your twisted version of what I'm saying. You know, a good example of the media there JD. Always go to the primary source. :p

I'm not twisting what you are saying. Or is it like the way you twist and distort the things I say?

I do go to the sources also. I'm even surprised that you trust the UN. Don't you think they only let out what they feel they want to?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I pretty much got her to admit that.

Bull****. You got me to admit a JOKE.

I WILL NOT be satisfied unless it comes directly from the UN.

There, a soundbite for you. :rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not twisting what you are saying. Or is it like the way you twist and distort the things I say?

I'm even surprised that you trust the UN. Don't you think they only let out what they feel they want to?

Yeah, there is an inherent bias in the UN as well, but seen-as-so it's run by more than one country, it tends to get held in check. :rolleyes:

I'm not presuming to re-word your statements, JD. Unlike you. This whole thread I have been asking for proof. Nothing more, nothing less.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Bull****. You got me to admit a JOKE.

I WILL NOT be satisfied unless it comes directly from the UN.

There, a soundbite for you. :rolleyes:

Sorry - but for some reason anymore - I think it was less of a joke and closer to your true feelings.

The UN inspectors have said that weapons were found and that they were being hindered. but I guess you want a huge report coming out of the UN - that may not come. For one thing - if too much information is leaked - then Saddam Hussein WILL use it to hide the weapons. It'll make the inspectors job harder to perform and uncover the facts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, there is an inherent bias in the UN as well, but seen-as-so it's run by more than one country, it tends to get held in check. :rolleyes:

I'm not presuming to re-word your statements, JD. Unlike you. This whole thread I have been asking for proof. Nothing more, nothing less.
And we have MANY news sources - believe me - you could find one that you'd like that would already support your established views that you'd be satisfied with.

AND I have REPEATEDLY said that I can not give you proof because the weapon inspectors were kicked out 4 years ago. Maybe if they were able to do their job the first time - you'd HAVE your proof that you want. And there WAS proof he had been manufatcuring and USING chemical weapons.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but for some reason anymore - I think it was less of a joke and closer to your true feelings.


A question: Do you live in my head JD? Cos you sure as hell seem to know what's going on. :rolleyes:

I understand that weapons were found, and I understand that they were being hindered. I believe this. However, there is a small difference between weapons and weapons of mass destruction. As of yet I have seen no proof of WMD. Like you, I will revise my opinions accordingly IF I SEE THE PROOF.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well it was a fact that weapons were found when the weapons inspectors were there. It was a fact they were hindered. It was a fact that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get nuclear weapons. And as you said it is his goal to rule the Middle East.

When did I say it was his goal to rule the Middle East?.........JD don't presume to put words into my mouth as well.......if this is the only way you can engage in a discussion then I don't really know why you bother:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
A question: Do you live in my head JD? Cos you sure as hell seem to know what's going on. :rolleyes:

I'm making observations based on your posts. I may be wrong - but for some reason I doubt it. You may not be wearing you aluminum hat right now either. :D Run quick, you better find it. :D


I understand that weapons were found, and I understand that they were being hindered. I believe this. However, there is a small difference between weapons and weapons of mass destruction. As of yet I have seen no proof of WMD. Like you, I will revise my opinions accordingly IF I SEE THE PROOF.

Well then I guess the subject is closed until the weapons inspectors go in. Maybe then you'll have the proof you want. It probably won't be enough , or you'll find some fault with the source, or maybe by that time you think that the US has a gun to the Security Council's heads.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
............I understand that weapons were found.....

Sorry. I have to reword this.

I understand that COMPONENTS were found which might suggest weapondry, but no actual complete weapons were found. It is speculation (probably right on the money, but still speculation, nonetheless) that they were actual weapons.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
When did I say it was his goal to rule the Middle East?.........JD don't presume to put words into my mouth as well.......if this is the only way you can engage in a discussion then I don't really know why you bother:confused:

Sorry that was sween -


He wants overule of the Arab world allways has allways will.

pg 14

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Run quick, you better find it. :D

I'll have you know that I haven't washed my hair for months since I found out that you could read my mind. My aluminium hat is right where I need it, baby. :p

JD:
...or maybe by that time you think that the US has a gun to the Security Council's heads.

JD! You should know better! :mad:

It's a BIG STICK! ;)*

* Note Mr. Winky.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Sorry. I have to reword this.

I understand that COMPONENTS were found which might suggest weapondry, but no actual complete weapons were found. It is speculation (probably right on the money, but still speculation, nonetheless) that they were actual weapons.
The weapons inspectors have said that chances are - they won't find the weapons. There will be proof that they exist, that they are being manufactured, but if people are looking for complete weapons - then you're living in fantasyland. They said that Hussein is too smart to leave the weapons just lying around.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'll have you know that I haven't washed my hair for months since I found out that you could read my mind. My aluminium hat is right where I need it, baby. :p


You weren't supposed to tell anyone.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then I guess the subject is closed until the weapons inspectors go in. Maybe then you'll have the proof you want. It probably won't be enough , or you'll find some fault with the source, or maybe by that time you think that the US has a gun to the Security Council's heads.

That should have been posted ten pages ago;) ..........except the gun bit:rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

Ok, I have a suggestion. How about we leave it be for a while, until something substantial happens. It seems that neither side here is going to back down. Or if the discussion continues, how about if it's by someone other than myself, JD, osszie, or BoP? I think that right now that would be the best road to take before this gets completely out of hand. What do you say?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, I have a suggestion. How about we leave it be for a while, until something substantial happens. It seems that neither side here is going to back down. Or if the discussion continues, how about if it's by someone other than myself, JD, osszie, or BoP? I think that right now that would be the best road to take before this gets completely out of hand. What do you say?

I'll back down if they will.

It's a stalemate anyway. Neither side can add anything else to the conversation that wasn't said before.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, I have a suggestion. How about we leave it be for a while, until something substantial happens. It seems that neither side here is going to back down. Or if the discussion continues, how about if it's by someone other than myself, JD, osszie, or BoP? I think that right now that would be the best road to take before this gets completely out of hand. What do you say?

HELP!! HELP!! I'M BEING REPRESSED:eek: (j/k;) )

Seriously tho' we have been repeating ourselves quite a bit on this topic:rolleyes: ............ it has always surprised me that more people didn't get involved in it:(

Cya's back here when the news changes:D

[osszie]

Everything is about to get very complicated regarding the "axis of evil":(

North Korea has admited to having a nuclear weapons operation:(

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7BBC67FEC9-E1D0-40D8-8D7F-EEC631081482%7D

[BeardofPants]

Okay, we actually had them ADMITTING to nuclear armament...unlike Iraq, and it looks like they're still gonna go after Iraq? Hmm...

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay, we actually had them ADMITTING to nuclear armament...unlike Iraq, and it looks like they're still gonna go after Iraq? Hmm...

It would seem so...........they are going after Iraq who may have nuclear weapons...........yet are hoping for a peaceful settlement with North Korea who have nuclear weapons:rolleyes: .......I'm sure there is a logic in there somewhere.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Everything is about to get very complicated regarding the "axis of evil":(

North Korea has adimited to having a nuclear weapons operation:(

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7BBC67FEC9-E1D0-40D8-8D7F-EEC631081482%7D

Yes our news just had that on too.

[Sween]

Ild of loved to of joined in more but i have a social life and seem to be out or sleeping when most of this is going on :(

I would watch out if i was you JD cos BoP might come to america and bitch slap you all the way to iraq if you dont start been nice :D .

Seriously though i akm disguested by bush's actions of singing that resoultion before the UN has decided what to do. Its the whole 'we will do whatever the hell we like and you can just sit there and like it' attitude of the bush administration.

Im sure the american people love it. But the rest of the world see it as a slap in a face to them. His international realtions are the worst ive ever seen its a good job tony spends most of his time smoothing things over.

If someone asked me who are you most scared of sadam husain or president bush it would have to be president bush given the chance he could start world war 3.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
Ild of loved to of joined in more but i have a social life and seem to be out or sleeping when most of this is going on :(

You just need to discover the hidden joys of insomnia Sween:D

Bush definitly could start WW3...............I wonder which direction he will fire in now tho'

:rolleyes:

[Sween]

i reckon the hillbilly would just spin a bottle and see which way it points.

I mean we are saying sadam could have wepons of mass destution but we know bush defitally does. Thats a sobering thought isnt it.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by Sween
Im sure the american people love it.

Some, perhaps, but not all! Remember, Dubya was NOT democratically elected --- he did NOT receive a majority vote.

I for one am ashamed and embarrassed that he is the President of the country I live in.:( What makes the whole event terrifying is that he has so much power. It is more than likely he will strike Iraq, and claim a moral victory. Interesting behavior from the son of one of the dirtiest CIA heads in history. How far can that apple fall from the tree? And what comes next? People keep talking about regime change, but I have yet to hear a cogent plan.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Ild of loved to of joined in more but i have a social life and seem to be out or sleeping when most of this is going on :(

I would watch out if i was you JD cos BoP might come to america and bitch slap you all the way to iraq if you dont start been nice :D .

Well this may come as a surprise to people - but BoP and I used to talk on AIM. We had actually started talking online during the last Iraq thread. And we didn't get into heated while talking online. I had offered to show her around the New Jersey/New York area because she was planning on coming out here. The offer still stands. Having different opinions about certain issues does not mean that people can't get along on personal level. I have a friend in Portland that politically we are very far apart - and we had one time gotten into a serious heated argument - but we have agreed we will not discuss politics anymore. :)


Seriously though i akm disguested by bush's actions of singing that resoultion before the UN has decided what to do. Its the whole 'we will do whatever the hell we like and you can just sit there and like it' attitude of the bush administration.

Im sure the american people love it. But the rest of the world see it as a slap in a face to them. His international realtions are the worst ive ever seen its a good job tony spends most of his time smoothing things over.

If someone asked me who are you most scared of sadam husain or president bush it would have to be president bush given the chance he could start world war 3.
In every relation there is the one that plays the heavy and the one that plays the conjoler. Maybe that is partially what is going on here. The world already hates us - they've hated us before the Iraq thing. 9/11 was a blip of understanding the world showed - but even then the despisement showed through. This was demonstrated by the many comments of "Well now they know how it feels." "They got what they deserved" "Maybe it'll make them get off their high horse". These comments were not only coming from the Middle East - but from Europe. I think Blair and Bush are working this out an playing their prospective roles out on the world stage. maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm not. I guess for any of us only time will tell.

The fact remains though - without Bush's tough talk of war - the UN would NOT have been talking about sending inspectors into Iraq and Iraq would not be talking about LETTING them in. We have not as of yet invaded Iraq - there is still no guarantee we will.

I think a lot of this is show to tell the world that we are serious - we want results. We don't want anymore pussy footing around from the world community on the issue. If you're going to deal with it - deal with it; if not - we will. That is basically what he told the UN - in addition to telling them that it was time for them to prove that they were not irrelavent.

[Sween]

what next after iraq i mean there plenty of evil in the world to go round i mean the percicusion of tibbetens in china is just as bad if not worse than sadam will he be picking a fight with them? god forbid.

Out with Bush :D

you do take things a tad too seriously JD :D Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming :(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
Some, perhaps, but not all! Remember, Dubya was NOT democratically elected --- he did NOT receive a majority vote.

How was he not democratically elected? Are you one of the people that doesn't understand the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that IS in our Constitution? Also - the hand count was performed in Florida - and under the way Gore wanted the ballots counted it was determined that Bush would have won. It was a close race - that is all. It's over with. If Gore had won - people would be saying the same thing. And I'd rather have the international advisors (such as Condoleeza Rice and Collin Powell) that Bush has than the one's Al Gore would have had.

I for one am ashamed and embarrassed that he is the President of the country I live in.:( What makes the whole event terrifying is that he has so much power. It is more than likely he will strike Iraq, and claim a moral victory. Interesting behavior from the son of one of the dirtiest CIA heads in history. How far can that apple fall from the tree? And what comes next? People keep talking about regime change, but I have yet to hear a cogent plan.
If you don't like how much power he has - you should find out how your senators and representive voted and if they didn't vote the way you think they should have - then you should write to them. Congress is the one that gave him the power right now to attack Iraq, which was actually approved by a larger margin of Congress than when approval was given for the Gulf War.

The plans are still in the works. People were complaining about all this stuff two months ago. There is no plan there is no plan, he's not going to the UN, he's not talking to our allies. Well he did go to the UN, he has been talking to our allies. Plans are being worked out. I'm waiting to hear what the proposals are too - but I guess I'm a little more patient - because I don't really think that we're planning on attacking Iraq tomorrow. Even three - four months ago many of you felt that we were going to invade Iraq any day now. I said to wait then and I think we should wait now.

But as I said - if you don't like the direction - then write to your Congressmen and local politicians and write to Bush. (that of course only relates to American citizens, international mooters will just have to write to their own governments)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
what next after iraq i mean there plenty of evil in the world to go round i mean the percicusion of tibbetens in china is just as bad if not worse than sadam will he be picking a fight with them? god forbid.

Out with Bush :D

Well yeah - I guess all through history we should not have gotten involved in bringing down any evil. Why did we go into Bosnia? There were other evils going on in the world. Why did Europe really only want us to get involved there? Is it because it was in their backyard? Maybe a little self interest there by the European countries?

By the way - we really got tired of the blasting from the French about our culture invading theirs - so France is next on the invasion schedule. They deserve it for protesting against Euro-Disney and ransacking McDonalds (not that McDonalds doesn't do a HUGE business in France - they just won't admit it) Next would be Germany - since they bought out Chrysler. Finally England - all the other countries in Europe are small potatoes. :) Of course we do still need to make Canada a territory or commonwealth similar to Puerto Rico. That way they only get one non-voting representative in Congress and can't pollute the US with their socialist programs. :D See there are plans under the works - we just haven't relayed them to you yet. :D

you do take things a tad too seriously JD :D Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming :(
Oh - and you guys don't take everything so seriously.

I thought the lake region was really nice in Cumbria. At least that's what I heard and seen from pictures.

[osszie]

He's backing down:D

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7BDEAFB19D-8DF2-45AF-8DCE-D5AC333F8914%7D

After all that shouting, all that threatening the Redneck is finally seeing sense:rolleyes:

Wanted to chat more at the mo'.........too much stuff to do:(

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
He's backing down:D

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7BDEAFB19D-8DF2-45AF-8DCE-D5AC333F8914%7D

After all that shouting, all that threatening the Redneck is finally seeing sense:rolleyes:

I didn't expect the UN to give a green light to military action and that's basically what isn't given. Maybe now you guys can stop whining about us not listening to the international community. However we will have to wait to see how much cooperation Iraq gives once the inspectors are in Iraq - which I feel won't be much.

Also - the compromise isn't even out there yet - so who knows what that might contain. I think it SHOULD include tough talk and mention the possibilty of military action if Iraq does not comply. Tough talk is the only thing Hussein understands, it's what's getting the weapons inspectors back in there in the first place. Maybe if he realises that WE are serious - he will let the weapons inspectors do their job (highly doubtful).


Denmark's UN ambassador, Ellen Margrethe Loj, speaking on behalf of the EU, said: "The government of Iraq should make no mistake about the fact that non-compliance with this inspection regime would have serious consequences."

That is the tone I think should be taken with Iraq - with the "possibilty of military action" added in. Of course there must be follow through with the threat as well if Saddam does not comply, otherwise why would any despotic regime listen to the UN or worry about their "consequences". And if they don't worry about UN consequences - then the UN HAS become irrelavent.

[jerseydevil]

This is sort oif interesting. ABCNews has the same exact article on their web site crediting it to the Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/).


U.S. Offers U.N. Resolution Deal As Pressure Mounts, U.S. Offers Compromise to Win Support for Iraq Resolution (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021017_1140.html)

The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS Oct. 17 — Facing strong opposition from dozens of nations, the United States has backed down from its demand that a new U.N. resolution must authorize military force if Baghdad fails to cooperate with weapons inspectors, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday......

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



U.S. offers to tone down its demands on Iraq in compromise UN resolution (http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7BDEAFB19D-8DF2-45AF-8DCE-D5AC333F8914%7D)

Canadian Press

Thursday, October 17, 2002

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Facing strong opposition from dozens of countries, the United States has backed down from its demand that a new UN resolution must authorize military force if Baghdad fails to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.....

© Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press


To the casual observer it would look like the Canadian Press had written that story. They do include "(AP)" and they kept in the "told The Associated Press..." but since it contains their copyright notice it makes it look like it was written by them.

When I first read it - I thought it was a Canadian Press article, so I went to ABCNews to see what they had on about the UN Resolution compromise and if they had anything additional to say or how they presented the story. I was surprised when I started reading it and it was the same article, but credited to the AP.

Maybe I'm wrong about the way the Associated Press works - but I would think that all news organisations that publish an AP article must keep the Associated Press copyright there. I think local newspapers print the copyright somewhere on the inside front cover and then just use the "(AP)" throughout the newspaper for articles that originate from them.

ABCNews carries a lot of news items supplied from various sources - but you always know where they come from. They keep the originator's copyright notice with the article.

By the way - the Associated Press International Headquarters is in New York. Here is there faq page - The most frequently asked questions about The Associated Press. (http://www.ap.org/pages/aptoday/aptoday_faq.html)
In it it states -


1. Who owns The Associated Press?

The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,550 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.


On the Associated Press faq page it also states - " All republished material must carry AP credit.".

On it's Fact and Figures (http://www.ap.org/pages/aptoday/aptoday_fact_fig.html) page it contains...


Founded in 1848, The Associated Press is the oldest and largest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video for more than one billion people a day.

The AP is the backbone of the world's information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you'll have some idea of AP's reach....

The Associated Press has received 47 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization in the categories for which it can compete. It has 28 photo Pulitzers, the most of any news organization.


So if you thought you were reading a non-American news source- you were wrong. :D

I know - nothing to do with Iraq- but I thought it was interesting. I wonder how many people read AP articles on the web thinking they are coming from a non-American source.

[osszie]

Yeah I knew that article was from the associated press, it just happened to be the one I was reading when I realised I was being pushed for time so I slapped it in here..

There's a slightly different view on the same story if anyone is interested

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=230792&lang=e&dir=news

I could post more links and articles but I'm sure everyone is capable of using their search engines and forming their own opinions:rolleyes:

JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yeah I knew that article was from the associated press, it just happened to be the one I was reading when I realised I was being pushed for time so I slapped it in here..

There's a slightly different view on the same story if anyone is interested

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=230792&lang=e&dir=news

I could post more links and articles but I'm sure everyone is capable of using their search engines and forming their own opinions:rolleyes:

JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks:D
Damn and I'm trying so hard to upset you too today. :D

Oh yeah - George Bush is really comparable to Adolf Hitler. :rolleyes: I guess we were actually planning the take over of Europe. Just think - if 9/11 didn't happen and Al Qaeda just continued to be bombing American targets oversees - we wouldn't be talking about Iraq right now. Americans would not be supporting the overthrow of Iraq - or at the very least it would have taken A LOT more convincing. When terrorist fly a plane into Parliament - you let me know what kind of action you are willing to take to overthrow these type of governments.

I know - there is no proof that America has presented to the world concerning the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It doesn't mean that there isn't a link and it doesn't mean that their won't be down the road. We waited for Al Qaeda to make it's first true move against the US and they killed 3,000 people and wiped out more office space than all the city of San Diego. We won't wait for the first attack again.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sween
Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming :(

I'm sure we can think of something to do. :p

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The world already hates us - they've hated us before the Iraq thing.

I have to say this.

This is not true for me. I have never hated Americans, nor the country. Sure, some have managed to irritate the hell outta me.... but I'm easily irritated. ;)

And (don't shoot me for this) but I thought Clinton did a pretty good job.

I think Bush jnr is an idiot. Quite possibly the biggest idiot out. Not quite happy with taking away the rights of women (abortion policies) he's gone a step further and actually placed himself in a rather war mongering position. What he fails to realise is that waging war is only going to stir up the ants nest more. Many of these so-called Axis of Evil (what a name!) countries are now taking more positive steps to arm themselves because of the perceived American threat.

I'll say it again: I don't hate the American people, but I intensely dislike your administration.

JD:
The fact remains though - without Bush's tough talk of war - the UN would NOT have been talking about sending inspectors into Iraq and Iraq would not be talking about LETTING them in. We have not as of yet invaded Iraq - there is still no guarantee we will.

This is true..... but since there has been no evidence amassed against Saddam, there has been a perception that sour grapes was the motivation rather than fear of threat.

JD:
We don't want anymore pussy footing around from the world community on the issue.

This is fine and dandy, but with N. Korea actually coming out and admitting that they had nuclear capabilities, it seems rather absurd that Bush is still going to go after Iraq.... although in light of the new developments, I have hope that he will choose to do the sensible thing and try and deal with why N. Korea went against the treaty ratification (Probably didn't help that they were one of the targets on the axis of evil thing - daftest thing ever, leaking that out.)

JD:
Maybe now you guys can stop whining about us not listening to the international community.

We don't WHINE! ;)

Osszie:
JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks. :D

You think it is going to end there? *sigh* I wish I could be that optimistic. Although, I guess this gives him a good excuse to go and deal with the bigger threat - N. Korea - them, and their damned tunnels! Next thing you know, they'll have tunnelled into the US! :eek:

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When terrorist fly a plane into Parliament - you let me know what kind of action you are willing to take to overthrow these type of governments.

IF it happened we would go in and bomb the **** out of them, it hasn't happened to us though.

So is America planning on dealing with the whole of the "axis of evil" the same way it had intended on dealing with Iraq? If so then PLEASE be careful, one of those countries has just announced it has nuclear capability:rolleyes: .......... all these years america was looking in the wrong direction.......quite amazing:rolleyes:

I sincerely hope Bush isn't on planning invading Europe (checks atlas for any "axis of evil" stamps)but he has named more countries he is willing to go to war with more countries than any other leader since 1945:rolleyes:

JD you can upset me very easily.......offer some proof to back up your statements and I'll be devasted...........honest I will:D

[Cirdan]

And (don't shoot me for this) but I thought Clinton did a pretty good job.


He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.:D

JD, there were hundreds of Europeans in the towers so don't discount their loss.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You think it is going to end there? *sigh* I wish I could be that optimistic. Although, I guess this gives him a good excuse to go and deal with the bigger threat - N. Korea - them, and their damned tunnels! Next thing you know, they'll have tunnelled into the US! :eek:

Oh no, I have no doubt the war against terrorism will go on long after I'm dead and buried, but it will be the UN that call the shots, not America:)

For the record I don't hate individual Americans, wouldn't be communicating with Americans at all if I did:)

I'm gonna leave this thread alone for a little while, give some others a chance to whine about the situation;)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh no, I have no doubt the war against terrorism will go on long after I'm dead and buried, but it will be the UN that call the shots, not America:)

Now that's being optimistic!

Cirdan:
He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.

That's not what I heard. :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.:D

JD, there were hundreds of Europeans in the towers so don't discount their loss.

I know there were - but there were 800 New Jerseyans that were killed also. I'm not discounting other countries' victims - but they don't live 45 minutes away from where the Twin Towers stood. Most people around the world have not gone to the huge memorial that wraps it's way around St Pauls Chapel, which once stood at the base of the Twin Towers. I have 15 rolls of film of the memorial that I plan to add to my Twin Towers Memorial website. They didn't see the Twin Towers all the time and now have the empty space as a constant reminder. The people that are still suffering the most are the families that lost friends and families, and the people that live in the area of the attacks - mostly everyone else around the world has moved on. People will forget until there is another attack. I think Bali was another wake up call for everyone.

This was an interesting article on that site you supplied Osszie -

British poll: Support to war against Iraq on the increase following Bali bombing attack (http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=230657&lang=e&dir=news)

A substantial increase in support among British voters for military action against Iraq was indicated in the aftermath of the Bali bomb attack, an opinion poll published on Wednesday showed.

A survey by The Guardian daily found that support for a military strike on Iraq had risen by 10 percentage points in the last week from 32 percent to 42 percent.

The survey, which was carried out on Monday, showed that opposition to an attack dropped from 41 percent to 37 percent. Forty-one percent of respondents said it was essential to fight the war on terrorism on two fronts, against Iraq and al-Qaeda.

According to the poll, 35 percent of respondents thought al-Qaeda rather than Iraq should be the focus of international attention. (Albawaba.com)

The problem with Albawaba.com is they don't give a lot of information though. There isn't a margin of error or anything listed. Most of their articles are very short and don't go into much depth.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This was an interesting article on that site you supplied Osszie -

Yeah, it was certainly not supposed to represent a definitive article.

I'm off to re-read some chapters of LotR (Iron Parrot has asked a very interesting Merry+Pippin question:) )

I expect nothing less than WORLD PEACE when I return;) :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

This is true..... but since there has been no evidence amassed against Saddam, there has been a perception that sour grapes was the motivation rather than fear of threat.

Well as I said - I don't see how you expect to get the kind of evidence you want since he kicked out the inspectors four years ago. But it is completely ignorant if you don't think that he has continued with his weapons production.

Not quite happy with taking away the rights of women (abortion policies) he's gone a step further and actually placed himself in a rather war mongering position.

Contrary to popular belief - the President can't do anything about abortion rights. He can state his beliefs and try getting congress to pass a bill, but it is only Congress that can change the abortion laws. The president only signs it after it has been approved by Congress. First it most go through the House of Representatives and then after it is approved there - it must be approved by the Senate - then it can go on the president's desk for his signature to become law. In addition - each state has it's own abortion laws. The Federal Government doesn't ban abortions - but neither does it prevent states from banning abortions. Again people seem to have a very simplistic view of the way our government works.


This is fine and dandy, but with N. Korea actually coming out and admitting that they had nuclear capabilities, it seems rather absurd that Bush is still going to go after Iraq.... although in light of the new developments, I have hope that he will choose to do the sensible thing and try and deal with why N. Korea went against the treaty ratification (Probably didn't help that they were one of the targets on the axis of evil thing - daftest thing ever, leaking that out.)

Actually - supposedly the US government has suspected that they were building or attempting to build nuclear weapons.


U.S.: North Korea admits nuke program (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/index.html)
A CIA report in January said that during the second half of last year, North Korea "continued its attempts [to] procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program," the AP reported.

"We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons," the report said.

Another senior U.S. official told CNN that Washington received intelligence "back over the summer months" indicating that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program involving the use of highly enriched uranium.

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The official said that when Kelly confronted the top North Korean official with information about the nuclear weapons program on October 4, the North Koreans were "belligerent" but did not dispute the U.S. claim and "showed not a hint of remorse."


I guess the CIA was correct.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh no, I have no doubt the war against terrorism will go on long after I'm dead and buried, but it will be the UN that call the shots, not America:)
Not if they don't take a more active role in enforcing their own resolutions. If they just talk the talk and don't follow through with any action then they have become irrelavent.

The only way that there will ever be a successful world governing agency is when earth is attacked from outerspace.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I know there were - but there were 800 New Jerseyans that were killed also. I'm not discounting other countries' victims - but they don't live 45 minutes away from where the Twin Towers stood.

I was 1/2 a mile from the Pentagaon and four blocks from the White House when the plane hit. I could hear it and see it burn. I think bombing a bunch of strangers will not make anyone's grief go away. Now, getting bin Ladin's head on a pike, that might help.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now, getting bin Ladin's head on a pike, that might help.
Well I've proposed that for a long time. I would like to see it at ground zero and have it stuck on one of the Twin Tower girders.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
IF it happened we would go in and bomb the **** out of them, it hasn't happened to us though.

Well at leats you admit it.


So is America planning on dealing with the whole of the "axis of evil" the same way it had intended on dealing with Iraq? If so then PLEASE be careful, one of those countries has just announced it has nuclear capability:rolleyes: .......... all these years america was looking in the wrong direction.......quite amazing:rolleyes:

Alreadyu answered. We had been looking and we knew they had a weapons program.

I sincerely hope Bush isn't on planning invading Europe (checks atlas for any "axis of evil" stamps)but he has named more countries he is willing to go to war with more countries than any other leader since 1945:rolleyes:

He was putting the world on notice that no country had better be found supporting terrorists. If a country is found to be supporting terrorists or harboring terrorists - they will pay the consequence. We will go in there. I believe the international community DOES stand by America on that one.


JD you can upset me very easily.......offer some proof to back up your statements and I'll be devasted...........honest I will:D
I was hoping I had to work at it a little. Give me something to do in my spare time. Make me think about ways of irritating you. :D Now you just took the whole fun out of it.

What proof do you have that he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction? No one has concrete proof at this time either way - because no one has been allowed into Iraq.

My argument all along has been let the inspectors in and let's see what happens. I already know what will happen and that is Hussein will attempt to block the inspectors from doing their job or come up with some reason why they should be removed and replaced with new inspectors.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Contrary to popular belief - the President can't do anything about abortion rights. He can state his beliefs and try getting congress to pass a bill, but it is only Congress that can change the abortion laws.

Remind again who had it as part of his presidential election campaign? :rolleyes:

JD:
He was putting the world on notice that no country had better be found supporting terrorists. If a country is found to be supporting terrorists or harboring terrorists - they will pay the consequence. We will go in there. I believe the international community DOES stand by America on that one.

Yes, but I don't think it was perhaps the best of ideas to publish them in something called the Axis of Evil. :rolleyes: If that doesn't make those countries want to arm themselves to the teeth, then I don't know what will. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Remind again who had it as part of his presidential election campaign? :rolleyes:

Yes - but the only way it really becomes an issue is when the Congress is likely to support the presidential candidate on the issue or if there are any Supreme Court vacancies that might have to be filled. If the bill doesn't go through Congress - the President can talk till he's blue in the face about being anti-abortion and it's still not going to do a damn thing to change the law.

The truly sad thing is - is that most Americans are ignorant of the way the government works. They have no understanding of the checks in balances in place. Politicians can spout off about all different kinds of things - many of which they have absolutely no control over without Congress - and people buy into it.

Yes, but I don't think it was perhaps the best of ideas to publish them in something called the Axis of Evil. :rolleyes: If that doesn't make those countries want to arm themselves to the teeth, then I don't know what will. :rolleyes:
Well i did think that the naming of the countries like that was wrong. But the only one I really had a problem with was Iran though - because with their moderate government in place (albeit with the hardline muslims clerics in control) Iran and US relations seem to have been improving. I would hope that they would continue to improve. I wish after their help (even if a lot of it was low key) that he had not named Iran as one of them - but had given them some sort of praise for helping instead.

[Cirdan]

Some talking head just said "Sure, N. Korea has nukes, troops on massed on the border, and their leader really is insane, but you must remember, Saddam has lots of oil".:rolleyes:

It's going to be a tight timetable know. Maybe the next time we won't announce the list of countries to invade until we are ready (note to self).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Some talking head just said "Sure, N. Korea has nukes, troops on massed on the border, and their leader really is insane, but you must remember, Saddam has lots of oil".:rolleyes:

Well at least they were being honest about it. Although I don't think it's all about oil. But to say that oil isn't a part of it is just as ignorant as saying that Saddam has no WMD nor is developing them because he would never use them.

It's going to be a tight timetable know. Maybe the next time we won't announce the list of countries to invade until we are ready (note to self).

Well wasn't that the reason he left Europe out of the list? I mean right now we want them on our side - but afterward..... :D

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well at leats you admit it.

Alreadyu answered. We had been looking and we knew they had a weapons program.

I was hoping I had to work at it a little. Give me something to do in my spare time. Make me think about ways of irritating you. :D Now you just took the whole fun out of it.

What proof do you have that he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction? No one has concrete proof at this time either way - because no one has been allowed into Iraq.

My argument all along has been let the inspectors in and let's see what happens. I already know what will happen and that is Hussein will attempt to block the inspectors from doing their job or come up with some reason why they should be removed and replaced with new inspectors.

Yes we readily admit that we only attack countries that openly attack us.

You KNEW for a fact that North Korea had a weapons plan yet you did NOTHING about it???..............you did not even bother to tell the rest of the world about it?:rolleyes:

JD I have no doubt that you are getting your jollies at this little charade you are performing:rolleyes:

Hmm the only proof I have is that I am not sitting here in a gas mask and radiation suit......................oh and the fact that he has not done as North Korea has and admitted it..........would america still attack if there was proof that he had WMD that kill hundreds of thousands:rolleyes: .............. somehow I think not:rolleyes:

I'm glad you know what will happen regarding the un inspectors JD............we can all sleep peacefully now:rolleyes: .......... just where did you find this fantastic precognitive power???

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well wasn't that the reason he left Europe out of the list? I mean right now we want them on our side - but afterward..... :D

I miss the good ole days when we subjegated countries economically. So much less overhead.:D

N. Korea does seem to be mobilized to move, however. Why the use of nukes all of a sudden not the primary issue, I can only wonder. Could N.K. have connections to terorists? If we get bogged down in the M.E. then our hands will be tied for any other problems.

I would be happy if they would catch this damn sniper. It was an adventure getting gas today. I may get really wild and go to Home Depot later.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Hmm the only proof I have is that I am not sitting here in a gas mask and radiation suit......................oh and the fact that he has not done as North Korea has and admitted it..........would america still attack if there was proof that he had WMD that kill hundreds of thousands:rolleyes: .............. somehow I think not:rolleyes:

I don't know. If we are afraid to attack because of that reason - then he knows he holds the world in his grasp. He will then push the limits and try figuring out how far he can go before the west will fight him and risk nuclear attacks. Unlike you - I don';t think he will just happily sit on his arsenal of weapons. Nor will he stop making them - so the longer the wait - the stronger he would become.

I'm glad you know what will happen regarding the un inspectors JD............we can all sleep peacefully now:rolleyes: .......... just where did you find this fantastic precognitive power???
yea you can sleep now. We'd rather attack you guys when your asleep anyway - less of a resistance.

[Sween]

This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever :D

oh im so proud.

And JD i finally got that argueement that i wanted so dearly with you.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't know. If we are afraid to attack because of that reason - then he knows he holds the world in his grasp. He will then push the limits and try figuring out how far he can go before the west will fight him and risk nuclear attacks. Unlike you - I don';t think he will just happily sit on his arsenal of weapons. Nor will he stop making them - so the longer the wait - the stronger he would become.

yea you can sleep now. We'd rather attack you guys when your asleep anyway - less of a resistance.

No I believe he would quite happily sit on his arsenal of weapons, controlling 30% of the worlds oil happily, looking to the west to start the nuclear holocaust..........if he did have nuclear weapons I think he would call our bluff without a seconds notice:rolleyes:

I ask again...........would you agree to a direct attack on Iraq if there were proof that he had WMD and hundreds of thousands of people would die as a result of Saddam's retaliatory attack?

I'm glad I can sleep easy now.............at least this time you would make a descion and not watch while your so-called allies were crippled as in WW2:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever :D

oh im so proud.

Sween, you **** stirrer! :p

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever

It must be:D .................. I wonder what my typing speed is now:D

Sween yer a genius:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever :D

oh im so proud.

I was going to say that the What would you do? heh heh heh . . . (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2741)thread was, but I'm not sure.

And JD i finally got that argueement that i wanted so dearly with you.
I figured you were going through withdrawal.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I ask again...........would you agree to a direct attack on Iraq if there were proof that he had WMD and hundreds of thousands of people would die as a result of Saddam's retaliatory attack?

I'm not sure. I would have to see what the situation is when we get there - if we get there.

I think it would be a mistake to just let someone like Hussein have nuclear weapons though.

I'm glad I can sleep easy now.............at least this time you would make a descion and not watch while your so-called allies were crippled as in WW2:rolleyes:
Why would you be crippled? Do you have such little faith in your military? And we're still allies - for you guys it just seems to be more out of necessity than actually liking it. :D

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not sure. I would have to see what the situation is when we get there - if we get there.

Why would you be crippled? Do you have such little faith in your military? And we're still allies - for you guys it just seems to be more out of necessity than actually liking it. :D

So you agree with threatening Iraq with invasion under the suspiscion that they have WMD.........yet you are not sure that you would support your country invading Iraq if they definintly did have WMD?:rolleyes: ..............so if America does attack Iraq and they do not have WMD it is unjustified and if they attack Iraq and they (Iraq) cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through the use of WMD you would be against it? IMO your just contradicting yourself JD:D

I was reffering to the way America stood back and watched Europe become crippled during WW2..............if the USA attacked Europe in this day and age, we would be crippled, as would you, and the nuclear holocaust and following ice age would effectively wipe out life on the planet.................I cannot beleive that you joke about such a subject:(

JD am I wrong or do you constantly contradict yourself...........you say that you support America taking an offencesive, threatening, stance against Iraq and then you say that you are not sure and that we should wait for a UN inspection.............are you pro-war with Iraq or against it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So you agree with threatening Iraq with invasion under the suspiscion that they have WMD.........yet you are not sure that you would support your country invading Iraq if they definintly did have WMD?:rolleyes: ..............so if America does attack Iraq and they do not have WMD it is unjustified and if they attack Iraq and they (Iraq) cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through the use of WMD you would be against it? IMO your just contradicting yourself JD:D

No I'm not. I said it would be based on the circumstances. And I never said that I was for attacking Iraq if they didn't have WMD. I said if Saddam refuses to let inspectors in or do their job then I support it. I do support the removal of Hussein in either case though.

See it might be hard to understand - but each senario you throw out - HAS to be thought of in a different context. For instance - if he has no way of deploying his weapons at this point and refuses to dismantle - then I say go in there. If he is capable of blowing up London or something - then I would say we'd have to reevaluate the situation.

I was reffering to the way America stood back and watched Europe become crippled during WW2..............if the USA attacked Europe in this day and age, we would be crippled, as would you, and the nuclear holocaust and following ice age would effectively wipe out life on the planet.................I cannot beleive that you joke about such a subject:(

We did not watch you as you were crippled. We were supplying you with weapons and everything else. The American people felt it was your war to fight. Like I said - you had gotten America involved in the war which was ironically called the "War to End All Wars". We didn't expect you to get us in the middle of an even bigger war less than 20 years later.

I was teasing you regarding the ally bit - it is partially true though I think. But of course we need you guys also. The fact that our economies are so tied together dictates that we stay allies. Plus we share a common history with Europe.

JD am I wrong or do you constantly contradict yourself...........you say that you support America taking an offencesive, threatening, stance against Iraq and then you say that you are not sure and that we should wait for a UN inspection.............are you pro-war with Iraq or against it?
No - it's you that can't remember what I say and only hear what you want to hear. Just like asking me 50,000 times for proof when I repeatedly say that there is no hard evidence proof because Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors - so at this time we have no idea what he has. We only have intelligence information and satellite images. I do think we should take a hard line attitude with Iraq though - that does not necessarily mean that it RESULTS in war. But as I said before tough talk is all the he understands. It is also what got the UN off their a$$es to do something about the situation finally.

Also, I think I had already said several times on this thread including in my first post that I was not necessarily for or against war with Iraq.


Currently I don't support or condemn a war with Iraq.

page 2 (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5758&pagenumber=2)

[BeardofPants]

Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

True and we weren't as strong of allies with Europe at the time of WW I as we are now. During the Civil War, which was just about 50 years earlier - England was supporting the south - hoping that the US would destroy itself and it would be able to reclaim North America. And in 1812 they set the Whitehouse on fire and invaded the US. Before that it was the Revolution. We had a long history of conflict with England prior to becoming allies. And the other European countries weren't much better. Even France only helped us during the Revolution because it was in their self interest, They waited to get involved until they knew we could win.

[osszie]

:o ...................... JD when, and if, you finally make a decision where you stand on this be sure to let me know:D

Khamul asked yesterday to let it drop and I said I would until the news changes, it did and I added some posts, are you still talking about Iraq or are you just trying to defend any stance that the USA takes.

As you said yesterday "I'll drop it if they will" personally I would love to hear from another american who shares your point of view ........actually I would love to hear from ANYONE who shares your point of view..................let me know when you find someone because, to be frank you repeat and then contradict yourself over and over again:o ....................... this is a personal critisicm, as I'm sure your aware, pls don't forget the pm service for any remarks you may have on this:)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Not that this is on topic, but America went into WWI because Germany was trying to make an alliance with Mexico, thus causing havoc on home soil so to speak.

Read "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman for a amusing telling of the three stooges-like episode of american history.

On topic: How is it we knew the count, type and location of the Soviet weapons yet we have such a hard time getting hard info on Irag? Is it because they have very little to hide?

Well, if it does come to war we can at least hope they fold quickly. It won't be much of a fight anyway.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
:o ...................... JD when, and if, you finally make a decision where you stand on this be sure to let me know:D

Khamul asked yesterday to let it drop and I said I would until the news changes, it did and I added some posts, are you still talking about Iraq or are you just trying to defend any stance that the USA takes.

No I'm not trying to defend any action that the US takes. I have supported the tough stance the US has taken with Iraq. As I said though - when it was proposed that we attack Iraq, which was A YEAR ago, I was against war with Iraq.


As you said yesterday "I'll drop it if they will" personally I would love to hear from another american who shares your point of view ........actually I would love to hear from ANYONE who shares your point of view..................let me know when you find someone because, to be frank you repeat and then contradict yourself over and over again:o ....................... this is a personal critisicm, as I'm sure your aware, pls don't forget the pm service for any remarks you may have on this:)
Well I think Khamul does support the same view (hopefully he will state his opinions when he gets on) and I know many others that do. Even my friend in Canada supports this view on Iraq - none of them, except Khamul, are on Entmoot though.

You obviously don't understand you think that the whole issue is black and white. Again you say that I don't support invasion of Iraq if they have WMD - and that isn't true. I said that we would have to look at the situation. If they were able to lob an ICBM and nuke London - then I think we'd have to reconcider the situation. if they had WMD that weren't that powerful - but refused to dismantle and stop production - then yes I do support war (But again I'd have to see the situation when the time came). There are a lot of variables to determine and things that can change. For one thing the situation with North Korea changes some things, the support of allies changes some things, the reception of weapons inspectors in Iraq changes some things, future terrorist attacks changes some things, the feelings of Arab countries changes some things, etc etc. Surely you can understand that everything must be weighed. Right now weapons inspectors are supposed to go into Iraq - so am I for invading Iraq right this minute? No I'm not. I think we should wait for the weapons inspectors. I have said this repeatedly but you keep wanting me to reword it so you can understand.

I had ALSO said in this thread that I would prefer to take Hussein out in the heart of darkness than have an all out war. These are ALL true. They do not contradict one another.

And I'm not going to PM you because I can careless if you personally attack me. It doesn't affect my life what so ever what you think of me or my opinions. You are more than capable of PMing me if you want to take this "offline".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
On topic: How is it we knew the count, type and location of the Soviet weapons yet we have such a hard time getting hard info on Irag? Is it because they have very little to hide?
It is harder to hide the movement and manufacture of ICBMs than the maufacture of microscopic biological agents or chemical weapons. Even the manufacture of suitcase size nuclear weapons can take place inside a garage. Not to mention the huge spy network that the Soviet Union and the US were using to gather information on each other.

There was a lot of stuff that came out after the cold war that the US was surprised at. Even during the Cuba Missile Crisis - it just came out that the subs we were firing on carried nuclear weapons. At that time US did not think that the Soviet Union had armed their subs with nuclear weapons.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is harder to hide the movement and manufacture of ICBMs than the maufacture of microscopic biological agents or chemical weapons. Even the manufacture of suitcase size nuclear weapons can take place inside a garage.


Not quite true. While the finished product can be smaller than what we normally think it would be, the equipment to build these weapons is very difficult to hide. Microbiological weapons require a significantly large culture area to create enough to be anything like a WMD. There are more ways than just visual to detect these thing as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not quite true. While the finished product can be smaller than what we normally think it would be, the equipment to build these weapons is very difficult to hide. Microbiological weapons require a significantly large culture area to create enough to be anything like a WMD. There are more ways than just visual to detect these thing as well.

How are we supposed to detect these from the air and also - he supposedly has a lot of underground complexes.

[BeardofPants]

Ah, going back into speculative territory are we? :rolleyes:

[osszie]

My dear JD I have absolutely no interest in attacking you:)

However the endless tirade of referrences to WW2, America attacking Europe etc were becoming a little tiresome:rolleyes:

Ah, again you misunderstand me, I never claimed that the problem of Iraq was "black and white" in fact I think you will find if you re-read my posts I was discussing that it was exactly the opposite, that there are many questions still regarding Iraq and that America, by threatening war, was reducing the problem of Iraq to a "black and white" choice..........I will say this yet again DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!...........you are beyond contempt JD.

You have constantly shifted your opinion (take a good look at your posts) you try to justify this by making, in your eyes, a distinction between your personal opinion and that of your government.

My point in this discussion has alway been HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?............the question remains.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
At that time US did not think that the Soviet Union had armed their subs with nuclear weapons.

Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them:rolleyes: ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
My dear JD I have absolutely no interest in attacking you:)

However the endless tirade of referrences to WW2, America attacking Europe etc were becoming a little tiresome:rolleyes:

Ah, again you misunderstand me, I never claimed that the problem of Iraq was "black and white" in fact I think you will find if you re-read my posts I was discussing that it was exactly the opposite, that there are many questions still regarding Iraq and that America, by threatening war, was reducing the problem of Iraq to a "black and white" choice..........I will say this yet again DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!...........you are beyond contempt JD.

You have constantly shifted your opinion (take a good look at your posts) you try to justify this by making, in your eyes, a distinction between your personal opinion and that of your government.

My point in this discussion has alway been HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?............the question remains.

By threatening them got the possibillity of inspectors back in. After that it is a wait in see attitude. Capisce?

[Erawyn]

The same goes for Canada. Instead obviously you only look at your own needs so you can supply YOUR country with high living standards.
Sorry this was along time ago!!
Yes we do look after our own country. I do not mean to say that other countries shouldn't do that at all! But one of the differences between Canada and the US is that the US is hugely militaristic and while the US spends about 280 billion on their military a year Canada spends about 8 billion a year. Most of what Canada's military does is peacekeeping anyways.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them:rolleyes: ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN:rolleyes:

okay - twist the facts around. How werre we pressured into COMPLYING with the UN? We were trying to get a resolution through the UN that said that if Iraq had weapons or hindered the inspectors that military action would be used. It obviously was not going to win support - it's not an issue of complying. We ARE currently working on a NEW resolution. It has nothing to do with the US complying with the UN.

Do think the only reason Hussein has agreed to weapons inspectors is because of fear of invation and now this gives him stalling time so he can prepare and hide his weapons and equipment. Also - so he can produce some signs in ENGLISH that say "hospital" and "Baby Food Factory" on them.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By threatening them got the possibillity of inspectors back in. After that it is a wait in see attitude. Capisce?

Capisce? Definitely I understand that everyone from Iraq, North Korea to militant and religious fanatics have just strengthened their resolve (not to mention armaments) against the threat of America:mad: ............"comply with us or suffer the our wrath" is not an invite it is a declaration................so who next in the "axis of evil" is going to have to either comply or resist this statement...........North Korea maybe?...........would America dare tempt a nuclear holocaust?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
okay - twist the facts around. How werre we pressured into COMPLYING with the UN?

Because the UN did not wholly support America :rolleyes: .........are you saying the change is solely down to Bush's change of heart............if so then why?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
How are we supposed to detect these from the air and also - he supposedly has a lot of underground complexes.

Actually it was a trick. We didn't have real numbers about the Soviets. They we speculative and overinflated; designed to justify inflated military budgets and wars against "dominoes".

Intelligence can be massaged to get the desired answer. If you see a new building in a complex it could be a weapons factory or a machine shop, depending on what one wants to see..

[osszie]

Originally posted by osszie
Would these be the same thinkers that think that Saddam has WMD? Noooo because even the CIA does not think he has them:rolleyes: ................ they beleive that he may soon and that is why the UN are going to carryout investigations.........thank gods the US government has been pressurised into complying with the UN:rolleyes:

Which of these facts was I actually twisting around JD?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by osszie
...HOW IS AMERICA BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTUSTIFEID BY THREATENING IRAQ WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?....

Morality has very little to do with it. It's purely strategic, in the eyes of the government. That question is unaswered as well,; that is: Is it a good strategic move to start a war in the Middle East? If Iraq attacks Israel and they retaliate blah, blah, blah and war breaks out in the entire area, then what? Can you say 60$ a barrel?

[osszie]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Morality has very little to do with it. It's purely strategic, in the eyes of the government. That question is unaswered as well,; that is: Is it a good strategic move to start a war in the Middle East? If Iraq attacks Israel and they retaliate blah, blah, blah and war breaks out in the entire area, then what? Can you say 60$ a barrel?

Well, I have a little trouble speaking in an american accent, but at that price I would whistle dixie:D

[katya]

this thread got long really fast (not surprisingly). i havent read like any of it. oh well. later. ini the meantime, an essay i found (note- this is long so it is in two separate posts):

[start essay]

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (''weapons of mass destruction'') -- mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its ''Cold War'' with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other ''regional conflicts'' that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of ''weapons of mass destruction.''

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of ''mass destruction'' -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes ''a shield.'' Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and ''mens rea'' (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by osszie
Well, I have a little trouble speaking in an american accent, but at that price I would whistle dixie:D

Accent? I don't have an accent.:D

I can do Brit except I waffle between John Cleese and Oliver:rolleyes:

I was a bit disturbed to find out that Israel is going to have free reign to retaliate if there is a war, because it could cause others to attack them. That would defintely get messy. It could spread to others as well; Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Lebannon, and Egypt are all candidates.

[katya]

[continuation of essay]

Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are ''guilty by association'' -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a ''weapon of mass destruction.'' If a two-pound pipe bomb is a ''weapon of mass destruction,'' then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed ''The Spirit of Oklahoma.''

This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a ''justified'' response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to and end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone''

''Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.''

sincerely, Timothy McVeigh
[end essay]



note: i dont know when exactly this was written. also, i am in no way saying that i don't think the oklahoma city bombing was not an attrocity.

[katya]

darn someone posted between my posts darn that 90 second rule darn it to hell

I just wrote a letter to Bush. Know what it might be compared to? A letter to Santa Claus, only possibly less effective.

[Khamûl]

*sigh* Why do these topics always turn into a "Bash America" thing? The last couple of pages have been mainly about points that have already been made or how people think Bush is stupid. It also seems that this thread is getting increasingly personal. How about we try this compromise thing one more time? Like I said before, let's just let this thing lie until something substantial happens in the situation with Iraq. And let's try to make it last longer than the 3 hours and 34 minutes it lasted last time.

[HOBBIT]

but....Bush is stupid.

[osszie]

a Bash America thing? a critisice American Policy thing maybe.........but openly bashing America would have gone a lot further:D

I do enjoy some American news reports tho':D

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822418.asp

[Lief Erikson]

I realize that when I'm posting I haven't read everything that came before, but I simply want to deliver my opinion, even if it is redundant.

President Bush isn't stupid, HOBBIT, he's doing his best and overall I think he's doing a good job. He's probably got one of the toughest jobs that anyone in the world has right now also, and he has more responsibility as well.

As for the attack on Iraq, I think that most Americans simply want Sudam taken out of power. We don't care about bombing out soldiers or infrastructure unless it is terror related. Sudam is a menace, and he is a threat that cannot be ignored. Anyone who ignores it is inviting disaster. If war is necessary to accomplish the end of taking him out of power, it will be done in an effort to save more lives in the long run.

But Sudam ceased to be a threat, we would lower the raised fist.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
a Bash America thing? a critisice American Policy thing maybe.........but openly bashing America would have gone a lot further:D


Yeah like this past thread plus many other threads have turned very anti-American...
anti american sentiments (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4928)

Of course the Anti-American thread was started because there WERE so many threads that turned extremely anti-American. Afro-Elf was curious what the reasons were.

Others on Iraq (notice how threads had to be marked "no US bashing")-
Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!) (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5208)

I tried getting this thread going so people could explain the good things about their country or state after a bunch of threads turned anti-American, not to mention the Anti-American thread itself.
What's your country like (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4969)

It seems as if a lot of the threads that turned anti-American have been removed, including others on Iraq. There were several - including the one about the Isreali-Palestinian situation.

[osszie]

Read those three:D

Couldn't find any of the others I'd heard rumours of:(

Maybe it's time to start a fresh one?:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Read those three:D

Couldn't find any of the others I'd heard rumours of:(

Maybe it's time to start a fresh one?:p

yeah I know you're just heart broken.

As I said in one thread though - "Those who live in glasses houses shouldn't throw stones."

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah I know you're just heart broken.

As I said in one thread though - "Those who live in glasses houses shouldn't throw stones."

bless :)
that good ol' competitive spirit just has to find an outlet:D
There are a multitude of forums out there to slag off America.......I prefer to let them do it themselves:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
bless :)
that good ol' competitive spirit just has to find an outlet:D
There are a multitude of forums out there to slag off America.......I prefer to let them do it themselves:p

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over America. When Britain becomes perfect - let me know.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over America. When Britain becomes perfect - let me know.

Then what were the comments "bet your heartbroken" and "those who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" in aid of?, not to mention "when Britain becomes perfect let me know"

You never can resist that last kick in the teeth can you JD?

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over America. When Britain becomes perfect - let me know.

that happened ten minutes ago :D

PS we all know you wish you were english :D i mean who wants to be american what did you ever bring to the world hehehehehehe

[Cirdan]

Time for little levity....

On a chain of beautiful deserted islands in the middle of nowhere, the following people are stranded...

Two Italian men and one Italian woman
Two French men and one French woman
Two German men and one German woman
Two Greek men and one Greek woman
Two English men and one English woman
Two Bulgarian men and one Bulgarian woman
Two Japanese men and one Japanese woman
Two Irish men and one Irish woman
Two American men and one American woman.

One month later, on this absolutely stunning deserted island in the middle of nowhere, the following things have occurred....

One Italian man killed the other Italian man for the Italian woman.

The two French men and the French woman are living happily together in a ménage a trois.

The two German men have a strict weekly schedule of alternating visits with the German woman.

The two Greek men are sleeping with each other and the Greek woman is cleaning and cooking for them.

The two English men are waiting for someone to introduced them to the English woman.

The two Bulgarian men took one look at the Bulgarian woman and started swimming to a different island.

The two Japanese men faxed Tokyo and are waiting for instructions.

The two Irish men divided the island into North and South and set up a distillery. They do not remember if sex is in the picture because it gets somewhat foggy after a few liters of coconut whisky. However, they are happy because the English aren't having any fun.

The two American men are contemplating suicide because the American woman will not shut up and complains relentlessly about her body, the true nature of feminism, what the sun is doing to her skin, how she can do anything they can do, the necessity of fulfillment, the equal division of household chores, how sand and palm trees make her look fat, how her last boyfriend respected her opinions and treated her a lot better than they do, and how her relationship with her mother is the cause of all her problems, and why didn't they bring a cell phone with them so they could call 911 and get them all rescued from this godforsaken deserted island in the middle of nowhere... so she can get her nails done and go shopping.

[azalea]

Ouch.

[afro-elf]

Hey Cirdan thanks for posting that one. I hadn't heard it in a while.


I really wanna say through a tired mind at this point, NOBODY'S country is unblemished.

We should be talking about policies not unabaitted criticism.

If you don't think America should attack say so and why and vice versa.

If you don't like George's decision fine.

But there is a big differenece between saying that I don't like his policies and saying that America is full of War mongers and baby killers.


Policies and people are not the same. (in the general sense for you nitpickers)

[Cirdan]

Hey A-E it's good to hear from your again.

I was surprised to hear that the news of the nukes in North Korea was withheld by the administration until the Iraq bill passed. Shenanagins!

[afro-elf]

Greetings shipwright.

I still stick my head in but just don't have the time to engage in lengthy debates but I am gonna post your above joke on the feminism thread :D

[BeardofPants]

AE:
...feminism thread :D

**** stirrer.;)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Greetings shipwright.

I still stick my head in but just don't have the time to engage in lengthy debates but I am gonna post your above joke on the feminism thread :D

That's cool. My sister the feminist sent it to me.:D

[The Lady of Ithilien]

What are your personal feelings on this? would an attack be justified? Has Iraq acctually made an attack on the US? One has to keep in mind that Iraq isn’t the main issue: America has embarked on a global war against global terror, and it began after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This war is indeed unlike any other war because the true "bad guys" are not affiliated with any one nation or any other single, identifiable characteristic.

Iraq is called to task now because Saddam Hussein has been harboring terrorists, fostering terrorists and collecting WMD for himself, and even, unbelievably, providing a retirement zone for old terrorists (though not a completely safe one, as Abu Nidal recently found out). See http://www.iraqfoundation.org for a closer picture of Iraq, check out the Project: Eden link, and then tell me, what are your personal feeling on the opportunity offered for preserving Paradise?

It's all in how one phrases the question. :)

What is haunting everybody right now is not really Iraq or any other particular facet of the war -- these same questions could be and were phrased with Afghanistan as the subject rather than Iraq. They will, with time, be phrased with other regions, countries, individuals, as the war continues. The recent terrorist action in Bali points out the possible next region of concern and subsequent response.

But presently what everybody really has in mind is the specter of World War III as we have been conditioned to view it by Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" and other man-made 'portents of doom.'

Indeed, the "cowboy" characterization of the current president of the United States (who is actually from the cream of the upper class elite and the son of a New England-born patrician) seems in large part an attempt to cast him into the role of Slim Pickens in "Strangelove," riding the bomb down to the ground and setting off Doomsday.

What is wrong with this picture, apart from the absence of a workable 'Doomsday' system, is that it overlooks that World War III has been going on for quite a time. It doesn't have to be nuclear to qualify: just global and war. Look around the world, check the body counts, and you'll see that we have been wading in the blood of the innocent and the guilty alike for quite some time now. America has stayed out of it, as much as possible, at least militarily, just as with WWII, but this is no longer possible after the attacks of 2001.

Now we must join in and thoroughly defeat a faceless, homeless, yet very powerful enemy. It's like trying to wrestle with a Ringwraith -- what's to hold onto if they shed their cloak? And yet they have the power to wound us, kill us, or even worse, drag us into their own horrible, dark world if we do not fight them wisely.

This is hardly an easy struggle, but no other nation could be more qualified for the job than us, not because of our arsenal or economic might or global business connections, but because we are ourselves a nation of diverse individuals who see things on the individual level and best deal with things on that level.

Well, I do go on. I will mention one other Tolkien tie-in to this situation, though.

America used a real-life form of The Ring to end World War II, there being no real-life version of Mount Oroduin to toss the A-bomb into, and since then we have had to grapple with a problem that even Tolkien couldn't solve non-fantastically. It has scarred us at times, brought out our worst characteristics at times, and our very possession of this "Ring" has deformed us in the eyes of many of our peers ever since then. Yet always have we tried to do the right thing, to first keep this thing out of others hands -- not for selfishness, but for the sake of world peace. We failed, of course, but in the long struggle we have learned better than anyone else how important it is to do something for the right reasons. We are doing this now (or why else would we be working so hard to come to agreement on Iraq within the framework of a UN that seems afraid to take its own resolutions--16 of them, I think it was--seriously).

If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov or some other archival site and read the text of the major presidential speeches by President Bush immediately after the attacks in 2001 and early 2002, you will see overall not a justification of premeditated war but the construction of a blueprint of good intentions that has been laid down to guide others as this global war continues down through the years (and it will take years) and takes its toll on our wills, hearts and dreams.

I don't believe Kubrick had the right view of World War III. I do think we have entered into a new world where none of us can see very far ahead. But as Tolkien said in another context, some things are good to have begun, no matter how dark the eventual end may be. We have begun . . . .

[afro-elf]

Hello Lady of Ithilien,

You said some good things there, and always your "NICE "
nature shows forth.

The only thing I would comment on is George Dubya CAN be portrayed as a cowboy despite his parentage and a country will look out for its interest so American motives may not be totally altruistic. This not a swipe at the US just stating ANY country may act this way.

Anyway, it nice to know nice people are still around.

[Coney]

*yawn*

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Coney
*yawn*


I guess George Dubya will be setting his sights on the Isle of the Ever Young now.:p

[Coney]

Originally posted by afro-elf
I guess George Dubya will be setting his sights on the Isle of the Ever Young now.:p

Well, I'd never be so audacious to call him a Formorian devil;)

[The Lady of Ithilien]

You said some good things there, and always your "NICE " nature shows forth. Thanks, Afro-Elf -- I think. "Nice" has become such an epithet these days. As one would imagine it was in Mordor.

Not at all the world I want to live in, or envision for others. And yet, as someone said long ago, all that's needed for Evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. And it's so hard to be good in a bad world.

"Who has not hoped
To outrage an enemy's dignity?
Who has not been swept
By the wish to hurt?
And who has not thought that the impersonal world
Deserves no better than to be destroyed
By one fabulous sign of his displeasure?" -J. Bronowski, The Face of Violence The Good, unlike the Evil, must resist this universal impulse; and one step along the way by which we liberate ourselves from this mindset, which holds the terrorists, their enablers and many of their victims in thrall, is by cultivating "nice." With backbone. Exactly what the US and its allies are doing today. And so, I believe, we will win.

[afro-elf]

It was meant as a compliment.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

And so taken -- thanks!

[Coney]

THIS was only to be expected:mad:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021029_1949.html

Bush and his meglomaniac mouth:rolleyes:

[samwiselvr2008]

I'll come back and post more later, but since I have a time limit, I'll just mention why I do not wont to have war this time:

I don't wont to have war, because my brother dropped out of high school, and that added on to the fact that he is jouning the army in January, if we go to war, he would be in one of the first groups. I love my brother, and even though I don't like some of the things that he has done to me, and suspect that he has done to me, I still love him. If my brother died, then I would go insane. And if he didn't die, then he would never be the same again. He just wouldn't be Richard, he would be, well, not Richard, someone diffrent, that I would prefer Richard over. So lets say that he dose not get called off to war. While we were wating to see if he was or not, it would be tense. We would allways be waching and wating and waiting some more to see if he got called or not to go to war! I don't want war for that reason.

[Coney]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
I'll come back and post more later, but since I have a time limit, I'll just mention why I do not wont to have war this time:

I don't wont to have war, because my brother dropped out of high school, and that added on to the fact that he is jouning the army in January, if we go to war, he would be in one of the first groups. I love my brother, and even though I don't like some of the things that he has done to me, and suspect that he has done to me, I still love him. If my brother died, then I would go insane. And if he didn't die, then he would never be the same again. He just wouldn't be Richard, he would be, well, not Richard, someone diffrent, that I would prefer Richard over. So lets say that he dose not get called off to war. While we were wating to see if he was or not, it would be tense. We would allways be waching and wating and waiting some more to see if he got called or not to go to war! I don't want war for that reason.

:(

That's probably the best anti-war argument on this thread.

[jerseydevil]

Why does your brother want to join the army rigth now? He must support the war then or supports the stand the US is taking.

My brother joined the navy before 9/11. He was stationed in Bahrain when the terrorist attacks occurred and was there during the Afganistan action. It is lucky that he's in the navy and not the army - but still he supports the action that the US is taking.

There is only one reason to join the armed forces and that is to fight and defend your country. If a person isn't willing to give their life for their country - then they shouldn't join the armed forces.

I know it doesn't make it any easier on you. I had to calm my father down during 9/11. My father was in the Navy Sea;ls and he was concerned about my brother.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I want to thank you Coney for posting that link. I found the new information very interesting, and I hope that when other people find out something new, they also will post links. It would be so convenient for us lazy people ;).

As for entering the army, I agree with you, jerseydevil.

And I actually think that Iraq is being a little high and mighty to say that we are "tantamount to declaring war" simply because we demand that they do what they said they'd do in the first place. If it takes threatening or bullying to get them to disarm, then so be it. And if they refuse even then . . . We know what Saddam Hussein is willing to do to people, President Bush keeps stressing that on the news. He is certainly willing to use the weapons of mass destruction that he creates, or give them to terrorists, and I think that it is much better to deal with him now than later, when he can kill millions at a command.

I agree with the U.S. position to Iraq, except as regards our position on trade, because that is hurting the Iraqi people much more than the government.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I agree with the U.S. position to Iraq, except as regards our position on trade, because that is hurting the Iraqi people much more than the government.

The trade is actually not the US position. That is the UNs - the US has repeatedly tried to get smart sanctions that would allow much more humaitarian aid into Iraq, but has repeatedly been blocked by Russia. Russia makes money off of the way things stand now and would make more if sanctions would be lifted completely which is what they want.

Iraq 'smart sanctions' postponed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1643357.stm)
Iraq 'smart sanctions' derailed by Russia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/04/wirq04.xml)

Russia Benefits from "Smart Sanctions": The U.S. unfreezes $200 million in Russian contracts in the "oil for food" humanitarian program to Iraq (http://www.cdi.org/russia/200-10.cfm)

Russian oil companies export the bulk of Iraqi oil. They account for 40% of "the black gold" coming from Iraq. LUKoil's press service (the company is regarded as Iraq's leading partner in the implementation of the "oil for food" program) told Izvestia that the company has drawn up a plan for the development of the Western Kurna-2 oil field, but it will not launch it as long as the sanctions remain in force.

[Coney]

But isn't America the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil under the food-for-oil program?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
But isn't America the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil under the food-for-oil program?
yeah. But in our overall supply of oil it's a minor amount.

Just because we buy the oil doesn't mean that we don't want to institute better sanctions that get food and medical supplies to the Iraqi people.

The accusation that it is AMERICAN's fault that the Iraqi people are starving is ridiculous. Saddam Hussein spouts this crap as he lives in his palaces. By instituting smart sanction - hopefully we can get the goods and money directly to the Iraqi people. I don't know why the UN lets it get funneled through Hussein in the first place.

By the way - are you saying we SHOULDN'T be buying their oil?? If that's the case then the people of Iraq would be getting even less - since Iraq only gets things through the food-for-oil program.

[Coney]

Then if America is the biggest buyer of oil from Iraq then surely America makes the most profit from the existing sanctions?

I think that if sanctions were relaxed to allow Russia and France to trade with Iraq (as per their pre-Gulf War contracts) it would be a good thing.. Saddam is never going to feed/give medical treatment to his people with $'s that come from America (why would he want his people to be grateful to America for anything?) and as America is the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil is it not time that is it not time that the biggest buyer was a country not quite so antagonistic towards Iraq.

Yep Russia would make Billions if sanctions were lifted, and the country could certainly do with the income. Iraq would also make billions, and that has to be good for the Iraqi' people. Maybe Saddam would be willing to spend money on his people if the money came from fair trade after completion of a contract(s) signed with France and Russia more than a decade ago.

The money gets funneled through Saddam for one simple reason, he can pull the plug on existing oil exports at the drop of a hat.

[Cirdan]

It would be nice if the were some carrot with the stick, so to speak. The UN resolution being pushed doesn't seem to contain any laguage as to conditions for lifting sanctions. It may be that it is complicit with complying to the previous resolutions, but is does give it a face of a declaration of war. I would prefer that the regime change be left to the Iraqi people annd the disarmament occur. The UN should be a tool to maintain peace, not waging war by proxy. It seems obvious the administration has read the polls (Gallup) that say we are against was without the UN "seal of approval".

EDIT: Has anyone found the text of the resolution as put forth by the whitehouse? I looked a bit last night but didn't find it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Then if America is the biggest buyer of oil from Iraq then surely America makes the most profit from the existing sanctions?

I think that if sanctions were relaxed to allow Russia and France to trade with Iraq (as per their pre-Gulf War contracts) it would be a good thing.. Saddam is never going to feed/give medical treatment to his people with $'s that come from America (why would he want his people to be grateful to America for anything?) and as America is the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil is it not time that is it not time that the biggest buyer was a country not quite so antagonistic towards Iraq.

Yep Russia would make Billions if sanctions were lifted, and the country could certainly do with the income. Iraq would also make billions, and that has to be good for the Iraqi' people. Maybe Saddam would be willing to spend money on his people if the money came from fair trade after completion of a contract(s) signed with France and Russia more than a decade ago.

The money gets funneled through Saddam for one simple reason, he can pull the plug on existing oil exports at the drop of a hat.

We could stop buying Iraqi oil and it wouldn't do anything to the US. Nothing is perventing others from buying Iraqi oil.

So America is the bad guy for this attitude - "Saddam is never going to feed/give medical treatment to his people with $'s that come from America (why would he want his people to be grateful to America for anything?)"?

These are just more examples of no matter what the US does - it's viewed as our fault.

France and Russia like the way the sanctions are right now - because there are loopholes that allow them to sneak in and sell things that would not be permitted under the smart sanctions. I suppose this is America's fault too.

I love how everything bad with the UN is America's doing and everything good that the UN does is the UN's doing. It's just great.

Also - it might be good to point out again that Saddam Hussein NEVER complied with the previous UN resolutions in order to get sanctions removed. Should we just removed them because 10 years have gone by and the people are suffering? It's his fault - not America's. If he complied with the previous UN resolutions - the sanctions would have been lifted.

Also - do you REALLY think that if sanctions were lifted and Iraq was making billions that it would go to the people???

[Coney]

But isn't the only way to get oil to participate in the food-for-oil program? How then can anyone "buy" oil?:confused:

If he doesn't comply to the current sanctions then why on earth would Saddam comply with smart sanctions? It has already been stated the much "back door" trading goes on through "loopholes".......... I find it amazing that anyone would think that further tightening sanctions, to the detriment of not only Iraq but also Russia and France would ever be accepted.

I couldn't care less how the rest of the world views the USA, when did America ever have a good reputation in the eyes of other people? I'm not a citizen of the USA so I don't have to worry about it. What I am concerned with is how the actions of the USA effect the country I live in. If you don't think that America deserves it's reputation then surely you have to ask yourself why so many people think America has that reputation.

I honestly do not know if Iraq's money would go to the people, all I know is that people are starving and dying from disease in Iraq today and it looks like they will continue to starve and die tomorrow. It is pretty obvious that food-for-oil with America as the biggest buyer is proving only to keep more people suffering.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
But isn't the only way to get oil to participate in the food-for-oil program? How then can anyone "buy" oil?:confused:

So is America the only one with food in this world?
Oil for Food Program (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/)

If he doesn't comply to the current sanctions then why on earth would Saddam comply with smart sanctions? It has already been stated the much "back door" trading goes on through "loopholes".......... I find it amazing that anyone would think that further tightening sanctions, to the detriment of not only Iraq but also Russia and France would ever be accepted.

Well everyone argues that the Iraqi people are suffering and it's America's fault. So we have proposed smart sanctions - yet it seems as if you think that the current sanctions are America's fault. You stand up for Russia and France and Iraq blocking aid from getting to the Iraqi people - but it's still America's fault. :rolleyes: The smart sanctions would only tighten up what should not be getting into Iraq - but would allow more humanitarian aid in.

I couldn't care less how the rest of the world views the USA, when did America ever have a good reputation in the eyes of other people? I'm not a citizen of the USA so I don't have to worry about it. What I am concerned with is how the actions of the USA effect the country I live in. If you don't think that America deserves it's reputation then surely you have to ask yourself why so many people think America has that reputation.

America has this reputation mostly because everyone feels superior by laying all their problems on America's doorstep. It prevents themselves form having to face the facts and live up to their own short comings. The problems in the middle east were there LONG before the US was involved. And as I have said in previous posts that have been deleted - most of the Middle Easts and Africas problems today are a left over from England and France's colonial days.

I honestly do not know if Iraq's money would go to the people, all I know is that people are starving and dying from disease in Iraq today and it looks like they will continue to starve and die tomorrow. It is pretty obvious that food-for-oil with America as the biggest buyer is proving only to keep more people suffering.
So what do you propose? Eliminate the sanctions? Let Saddam Hussein get off scott free? Why not argue that Russia and France should look beyond it's self interest (as is repeatedly stated that America should do) or why not get mad at Iraqi leadership for letting their people suffer - while it's ruling party live in splendor.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You stand up for Russia and France and Iraq blocking aid from getting to the Iraqi people - but it's still America's fault.


Do I? I thought I was stating that IMO a lot of the Iraqi peoples problems are because America has involved itself so deeply in this.

I don't see anyone "laying the problem of Iraq at America's feet" I do see America wanting to tackle the problem of Iraq personally.
If the rest of the world disagrees then sure America gains a bad reputation. Is it justified? Probably not, there are plenty of countries ready to stand against America in the UN, luckily America is capable of changing its resolutions as and when another power opposes it.

Smart sanctions would have taken power, monetary mainly, away from France and Russia. We all know this, as I've said it amazed me that America ever thought this would be passed by the UN.

http://www.merip.org/pins/pin62.html

I don't propose getting rid of the sanctions, I do propose that America stop waving it's fists around, stop trying to pass sanctions that only empower America further, stop giving Saddam even more propaganda amunition to use on his people and let the UN do it's job!

I also propose that this conversation is going nowhere

:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Do I? I thought I was stating that IMO a lot of the Iraqi peoples problems are because America has involved itself so deeply in this.

I don't see anyone "laying the problem of Iraq at America's feet" I do see America wanting to tackle the problem of Iraq personally.
If the rest of the world disagrees then sure America gains a bad reputation. Is it justified? Probably not, there are plenty of countries ready to stand against America in the UN, luckily America is capable of changing its resolutions as and when another power opposes it.

yes - As if America told Iraq to invade Kuwait. The Iraqi people would be suffering with or without the US involvement.


Smart sanctions would have taken power, monetary mainly, away from France and Russia. We all know this, as I've said it amazed me that America ever thought this would be passed by the UN.

So - just because they might oppose it - means that it shouldn't be tried? I am constantly hearing the world community whining about not signing the Kyoto Treaty. It's not in our best interest to - which was my argument on the Kyoto Treaty thread. But I suppose that it is okay for Russia and France to let Iraqi citizens suffer because it would hurt them financially.

I can care less if France and Russia oppose the smart sanctions. I have always stated that countries as well as people look after their self interests first. Coming from the Russia and France standpoint - I can see why they oppose smart sanctions. It's just that the US is constantly critisized when we act inour self interests - but other countries are obviously treated with kid gloves and it's accepted.

I don't propose getting rid of the sanctions, I do propose that America stop waving it's fists around, stop trying to pass sanctions that only empower America further, stop giving Saddam even more propaganda amunition to use on his people and let the UN do it's job!

What job has the UN done? And how do smart sanction empower America more???? Saddam Hussein wanted the weapons inspectors out - he managed to get them out. The UN has rolled over completely when it comes to enforcing anything that Iraq doesn't want. Bush gave the UN an ultimatum - and it's about time. Either enforce what was supposed to be enforced - or we will take action. What purpose does the UN serve if it doesn't follow with action after it's resolutions are flagrantloy ignored? Is the UN delegation in NY just to supply carbon dioxide to the trees?

I also stand by my belief that the US should get out of the UN - shut down the UN headquarters located in New York USA and use that land that is in the SELF INTEREST of Americans.

[Coney]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2384129.stm

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
e: I always thought that spying was illegal???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2384129.stm

Since when has spying been illegal?? What do you think the purpose of the CIA and the KGB, not to mention British Intelligence.

Also - this was wired.com going about it. Anyone that thinks when they send a PM on entmoot that others can't read it - obviously don't know too much about technology. The same goes for people sending personal e-mails or greeting cards off of websites.

The US can not spy on it's OWN citizens without a warrant however.

[Coney]

mistake pls delete:)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Sp there is no more "Freedom of speech" in the USA?

(I don't really expect u to rise to this ;)

Sure you don't expect me to rise to it. Yes there is Freedom of Speech. What does this article have to do with freedom of speech in America? The article wasn't just about Americans sending Saddam Hussein letters and stuff - it was about how wired.com could get into Hussein's e-mail account.

But if an American citizen is suspected of doing something illegal - such as plotting to blow up a building and if the police/FBI can show resonable supicion of this and convince a judge that they should be issued a warrant - then they can wire tap and set all that up.

Wired.com's article -> Dear Saddam, How Can I Help? (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55967,00.html)

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Since when has spying been illegal??

Probably since China shot down an American spy-plane :rolleyes:

*yawn*:rolleyes:

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But if an American citizen is suspected of doing something illegal - such as plotting to blow up a building and if the police/FBI can show resonable supicion of this and convince a judge that they should be issued a warrant - then they can wire tap and set all that up.

Does suspicion justify a warrant for spying in the USA? If so does that mean the every voice in the world that is anti-USA is justifiably spied on? How on earth did N.Korea develop a nuclear program then...........or the Waco Kult occur etc etc etc.:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Probably since China shot down an American spy-plane :rolleyes:

*yawn*:rolleyes:

So since China shot down our spy plane - it's made it illegal? You think that the US government just stopped spying on China?

You mean like these alegations made by the Australian government about Britain -


Intelligence Services Bill 2001: Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2001-02/02bd011.pdf)
The reporter repeated claims regarding ASIS operations aimed at
destabilising the Aquino Government in the Philippines. He also made claims regarding ASIS assistance to UKSIS in the Falklands conflict, in Hong Kong and in Kuwait for thebenefit of British interests and potentially to the detriment of Australian interests.....


On 23 May 1999, the Sunday program aired a cover story on DSD.33 The program aired allegations regarding the existence and operation of Echelon, a computer automated
satellite surveillance network under the 'UKUSA alliance' involving Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. 34 Specifically, it was alleged that Britain had used a similar agency in Canada to undertake surveillance for domestic political purposes.

It was also alleged that Echelon intelligence had been used by the United States to obtain commercial advantages for domestic companies negotiating for contracts with Indonesia. The implication was that the network could be or had been used by the larger parties to gain information for their interests potentially to the detriment of Australian interests.


I think spying is alive and well.

[Coney]

But does that make it legal? As you previously claimed??:confused:

And was China within international law by shooting down an American plane? (for that matter was America complying to international law by flying over China's territory?) very confusing this:rolleyes:

I cannot remember "meaning" Australia or Britain on my previous posts:confused: :rolleyes: ....... why do you insist on bringing arguments that do not involve the USA into this disscusion:confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Does suspicion justify a warrant for spying in the USA? If so does that mean the every voice in the world that is anti-USA is justifiably spied on? How on earth did N.Korea develop a nuclear program then...........or the Waco Kult occur etc etc etc.:confused:

Well sorry - the Waco cult falls under freedom to practice your religion. There was no reasonable supicion for anything until guns that were being delivered there fell out of a UPS truck.

Concerning the North Korea - the US had supicions that the North Koreans were developing a nuclear weapons program.

Intelligence agencies aren't always perfect in getting information. If they were - then 9/11 would never have happened, Pan Am 109 (which my father was scheduled on) would not have happened, Balie would not have happened, many of the IRA bombings throughout England would never have happened, the recent attack in Russia would not have happened. of course at the same time MANY attacks are diverted and prevented everyday.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
But does that make it legal? As you previously claimed??:confused:

Spying is not ILLEGAL so it must be legal. And legal to whose eyes? If the US catched britain spying on us - we'll be pissed. Just as you would be if you caught us spying on you. But believe me - that is happening.

And was China within international law by shooting down an American plane? (for that matter was America complying to international law by flying over China's territory?) very confusing this:rolleyes:

I don't know where international law stands.

Actually I don't see what the International law really does. The countries that don't have any care about human lives - go about avoiding international law. What is International law going to do about North Korea, or about Somalia, or about Iraq, or Saddam Hussein.

If you think that Britain or any other country doesn't do the same things - then you are blind. I don't see where shooting down our plane was necessary unless after being told to get OUT of their airspace we refused.

Remember during the cold war when the Soviet Union shot down that passenger jet for flying into their airspace. Was that justified? Was that against "international law?"

You just obviously hate the US and want to pick out all this stuff that you think the US does wrong. The problem with your spying thing - is that isn't against any laws.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well sorry - the Waco cult falls under freedom to practice your religion. There was no reasonable supicion for anything until guns that were being delivered there fell out of a UPS truck.

Concerning the North Korea - the US had supicions that the North Koreans were developing a nuclear weapons program.



Hmm so freedom of speech and freedom of religious opinion are two entirely different things :rolleyes: ....so if I said "I hate the USA" I would be spied upon but if I said "I hate the way the USA is" because that is my religious belief then I would not be spied upon:rolleyes: ...... ok that makes sense.........if I'm religious I can stand against the government without recriminations, until I buy guns and if I'm not religious then I can stand against the government until they have enough evidence to prosecute me:rolleyes:

Concerning North Korea.............yes I can beleive they had suspicions.........yes I can beleive they did absolutely nothing to veryfie these suspicions............yes I can beleive that America pointed all it's fingers at Iraq while N.Korea held back it's ace while (alledgedly) Iraq laughed it's back off:p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Hmm so freedom of speech and freedom of religious opinion are two entirely different things :rolleyes: ....so if I said "I hate the USA" I would be spied upon but if I said "I hate the way the USA is" because that is my religious belief then I would not be spied upon:rolleyes: ...... ok that makes sense.........if I'm religious I can stand against the government without recriminations, until I buy guns and if I'm not religious then I can stand against the government until they have enough evidence to prosecute me:rolleyes:


You have no understanding of US law or the constitution so their is no sense in even talking about this.

You can say you hate the US all you want - doesn't mean you're going to be spied upon. There has to be some intent to do harm to the government or to American citizens or property.

The CIA by the way - is an international intelligence agency and has no juristiction in domestic issues.

In addition - during the Sniper case - the miliatary was used to supply intelligence - but again they are not able to be directly involved in internal affairs. They could not arrest or have any other involvement other than to pass information to the local law enforcement agencies.

Concerning North Korea.............yes I can beleive they had suspicions.........yes I can beleive they did absolutely nothing to veryfie these suspicions............yes I can beleive that America pointed all it's fingers at Iraq while N.Korea held back it's ace while (alledgedly) Iraq laughed it's back off:p
Oh yeah - we've just been putting all our resources into Iraq for the past 10 years. We haven't done anything else other than concentrate on Iraq. You do realise that a lot more countries are involved with North Korea than just the US??? You do realise that Iraq also violated EVERY UN resolution that was agreed upon after the Gulf War - right?

[Coney]

So are you saying that spying is both legal and illegal under US law? please enlighten me.........you have stated on several threads that most Americans do not understand the law either

And when exactly did I say I hated the USA:mad:

Your unbelievalbe..........Paranoia:rolleyes: .......... I think that I was right yesterday saying that this conversation was going nowhere:rolleyes:

Yes I am very aware that Iraq violated a lot of of UN resolutions when that country attacked Kuwait..........isn't it a pity that America sold most of the armaments to Iraq in the hope that Saddam would use them againsnt Iran:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter how you look at it.......America will go down as the greatest monetary success and the biggest war monger of the late 20C and the first decade of the 21C:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes but surely the USA initially implemented the instricitons/observation laws regarding N. Korea.....and did they not say that they would enforce these restrictions????

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney


And when exactly did I say I hated the USA:mad:

Your unbelievalbe..........Paranoia:rolleyes: .......... I think that I was right yesterday saying that this conversation was going nowhere:rolleyes:

I didn't say you hated the US. I guess I should have stated it in PROPER english and said "One can say the hate the US all they want". I said it in reply to your ridiculous statement that if someome says they hate the US - that they'll be spied upon.

You arte right - this doesn't going anywhere. The only thing you want to prove is how evil and terrible the US is - while ignoring everyone else or the past history that has caused the problems in the Middle East. Most of which has been caused at the hands of European colonialism in the Middle East and Africa.

Yes I am very aware that Iraq violated a lot of of UN resolutions when that country attacked Kuwait..........isn't it a pity that America sold most of the armaments to Iraq in the hope that Saddam would use them againsnt Iran:rolleyes:

Sometimes in real life you have to choice the lesser of two evils. If iran had one - it would have been much worse. We weren't supporting Iraq - we were just preventing Iran from getting an upper hand. We didn't want either Iraq or Iran to win.

It doesn't matter how you look at it.......America will go down as the greatest monetary success and the biggest war monger of the late 20C and the first decade of the 21C:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Oh yeah - sure we will. I guess Germany and Europe get the war mongering status for centuries and the enslaving of races and raping of countries. America has a long way to go before we even come close to the attrocities commited at the hands of Europeans.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I didn't say you hated the US. I guess I should have stated it in PROPER english and said "One can say the hate the US all they want". I said it in reply to your ridiculous statement that if someome says they hate the US - that they'll be spied upon.

You arte right - this doesn't going anywhere. The only thing you want to prove is how evil and terrible the US is - while ignoring everyone else or the past history that has caused the problems in the Middle East. Most of which has been caused at the hands of European colonialism in the Middle East and Africa.

Sometimes in real life you have to choice the lesser of two evils. If iran had one - it would have been much worse. We weren't supporting Iraq - we were just preventing Iran from getting an upper hand. We didn't want either Iraq or Iran to win.

Oh yeah - sure we will. I guess Germany and Europe get the war mongering status for centuries and the enslaving of races and raping of countries. America has a long way to go before we even come close to the attrocities commited at the hands of Europeans.

nothing there even worth replying to:o

A hole only grows as you dig it:rolleyes:

[Khamûl]

Make me the third person that thinks this debate is going nowhere. There is really nothing to debate that hasn't already been run into the ground. It's inevitable that these things always end up blaming America. Why don't we just let this thing rest?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
nothing there even worth replying to:o

A hole only grows as you dig it:rolleyes:

yeah I know - and Europe has dug it pretty deep. Now America has to try fixing the mess left in the Middle East - while at the same time putting up with ignorant statements that everything is America's fault.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah I know - and Europe has dug it pretty deep. Now America has to try fixing the mess left in the Middle East - while at the same time putting up with ignorant statements that everything is America's fault.

*shakes head*................do you REALLY believe that?

Propaganda in real action

:rolleyes:

Khamul why do you believe this is more centrally aimed agaisnt America.............surely not because that is the general jist of the thread:rolleyes: ...... and the thread only supports the opinions of the memebers? right? and the it is an international membership?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
*shakes head*................do you REALLY believe that?

Propaganda in real action

:rolleyes:

Actually if you look at the history of the Middle East and Africa - you will find that most of these countries were arbitrarily created by England and France.

England ruled over the Iraq region, Israel/Palestinian region, Pakistan and India.

maybe you should learn what role Europe had before critising only America. I agree that America hasn't always done thet right thing. Sometimes the action is right for the times - but later - seems like the wrong action. You can't judge the past in the eyes of today. Look at slavery in America - Europe started that and it's something that we're still paying for here.

[Khamûl]

These threads become a bit tiresome after you see so many of them. They wander away from the topic (whatever it is) and end up with people arguing about what's wrong with America, why America was wrong for doing this or that, etc. And then people start taking things personally, and it gets heated. I believe afro-elf started a thread called "anti-american sentiments" a while ago. You might find it interesting.

In the meantime, I say again that this debate is not going anywhere. Pretty much all major points have been argued in the last 23 pages. There haven't been any major events lately in the course of action against Iraq. There is only the development of North Korea, which has nothing to do with this thread. Just let it be for a while.

[Coney]

Fair enough......I'm still amazed why JD qoutes my posts while refering to history in his statments though:confused:

I guess it doesn't matter tho;) ..........he'll get to justify it one day:D

blame history for the present...........for your son's will do the same:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Fair enough......I'm still amazed why JD qoutes my posts while refering to history in his statments though:confused:

I guess it doesn't matter tho;) ..........he'll get to justify it one day:D

blame history for the present...........for your son's will do the same:rolleyes:

What you think that the Middle east situation just appeared because of US involvement? That Europe hasn't nor has any role in the current situations?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What you think that the Middle east situation just appeared because of US involvement? That Europe hasn't nor has any role in the current situations?

Did I say that the middle east situation was solely because of the USA? NO.........do I believe that the USA is antagonising the Iraqi situation ........YES!! and my reasons are echoed in numerous posts in this thread:)

Why would you suggest that I said that the situation appeared because of US involvment??? are you purposely looking for even more direct attacks on the US?..........Paranoia is a worrying trait JD, especially in a member of a superpower democracy :eek:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Did I say that the middle east situation was solely because of the USA? NO.........do I believe that the USA is antagonising the Iraqi situation ........YES!! and my reasons are echoed in numerous posts in this thread:)

Why would you suggest that I said that the situation appeared because of US involvment??? are you purposely looking for even more direct attacks on the US?..........Paranoia is a worrying trait JD, especially in a member of a superpower democracy :eek:
Well considering the fact that I have never heard you mention any role that Europe played in creating this mess - but I do see you spouting off about everything wrong the US does.

As it turns out - legally the US doesn't need a new resolution to attack Iraq. Technically since Iraq didn't comply with the previous UN resolutions - the Gulf War has never ended. Maybe if the UN and the world community did their job after the Gulf War - we wouldn't be talking about the US attacking Iraq now.

It's not paranoia. When Clinton first went after Al Qaeda after the US Emabassy bombings - the world also criticised the US. No one around the world, including Americans, felt Al Qaeda was a threat. We didn't go any further and we have lost 3,000 people - not to mention an entire "city".

Just because you don't see why we should go after Hussein right now - doesn't mean that the situation won't get worse and we'll have to deal with a bigger problem in the future.

[BeardofPants]

ENOUGH with the finger pointing. Khamul, I think you should probably just close this thread.

[Lief Erikson]

No, BeardofPants, there I disagree with you. Perhaps reasonable discussion degenerates to finger pointing, but even if it does, when something new on the situation comes up it is good to have a topic open. It helps some people to learn that these things happen and it also enables people to discuss the situation.

I think that if people think the discussion is going nowhere, they'll drop out, and then it will go nowhere. And then it will come up again when further news arrives, but it should be open as an option to people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
ENOUGH with the finger pointing. Khamul, I think you should probably just close this thread.

Oh - but it's okay to constantly and relentlessly point the finger at Ameica.

What I was stating was historical fact. The problems we deal with today in the Middle East and in Africa are a left over from Europe's colonialism. So if you want to criticise the US for what we do today to handle the situation, you should criticise the actions of the previous players in this global mess. Or better yet - criticise the regimes that let THEIR people starve.

I love how people demonstrate against the US and our policies. I don't see any demonstration against Iraq or the suicide bombers or the North Koreans, or the Saudis. Is it that maybe because even the demostrators are smart enough to realise that they're voices will go on deaf ears? If you want to demonstrate - why don't you demonstrate against the real evil and speak out against them and their policies.

[BeardofPants]

JD, this is very repetitive. This paranoia that you have is very tiresome. When I said to stop the finger pointing, I meant ALL of it. Don't try and stick that on me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, this is very repetitive. This paranoia that you have is very tiresome. When I said to stop the finger pointing, I meant ALL of it. Don't try and stick that on me.

Well if your tired of it - then stop replying. Don't try playing moderator. Your and everyone else's constant attacks on America is what is getting tiresome.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, and I can turn that back on you: you don't have to reply either. :rolleyes: You accuse people of "attacking America", when only perhaps a couple have been doing so. The rest of us have been trying to discuss the Iraq situation. But I now see that it is perhaps a rather futile exercise, when people like you persist in twisting everyone's arguments out of context.

You are right though, I have exhausted what I have to say here. Consider my two cents over and done with. This thread really is going nowhere. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I wasn't playing moderater, you silly git, I was trying to divert this back into a civil debate about the topic at hand. Again, a futile exercise. :rolleyes:

[Coney]

WOW I'd been wondering what I'd been up to when I was drinking last night.........appears that I'd been posting on here lolol:D

Thanks for a wonderful evenings entertainment JD:) ......I don't think I would have had the patience for this "debate" sober.;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, and I can turn that back on you: you don't have to reply either. :rolleyes: You accuse people of "attacking America", when only perhaps a couple have been doing so. The rest of us have been trying to discuss the Iraq situation. But I now see that it is perhaps a rather futile exercise, when people like you persist in twisting everyone's arguments out of context.

You are right though, I have exhausted what I have to say here. Consider my two cents over and done with. This thread really is going nowhere. :rolleyes:

You had exhausted what you had to sday along time ago. OOOPs I was going to repeat what you said - but I better not - otherwise you'd accuse me of twisting it around. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I wasn't playing moderater, you silly git, I was trying to divert this back into a civil debate about the topic at hand. Again, a futile exercise. :rolleyes:
Sure - when you keep a conversation civil without going on personal attacks (which I did not resort to until I was repeatedly attacked) that will be the day.

[Radagast The Brown]

I don't think that this argument add something important to the thread. But you can PM if you want. :p

originally posted by JC
What I was stating was historical fact. The problems we deal with today in the Middle East and in Africa are a left over from Europe's colonialism. So if you want to criticise the US for what we do today to handle the situation, you should criticise the actions of the previous players in this global mess. Or better yet - criticise the regimes that let THEIR people starve. I think that most of the europains don't hate US, just most of the Franc people, and some of other countries... but they do hate jews, witch is pretty annoying. Not more then that, because it doesn't l;et you to go out to Europe a lot. Some one did a poll on that and the Spanish were most anti-shemis. oops.... I think I should go back to Iraq. Well, I don't like them, they don't like us, but I can't see them NOW as a threat. Maybe more couple of years... but it's a good thing that US will attack this country, to prevent troubles in the future.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Administrative Warning- This will only be said once. If you wish to discuss Iraq, then do so in an intelligent and respectful fashion. That means without bashing other countries, and without flaming other members. If this thread continues on its current course, I will not hesitate to close it. Political discussion is a sensitive topic and your conduct is expected to be civil. Anymore flaming or disrespectful and negative comments about another's country will result in the closing of this thread, and other possible action for the delibrate violation of the posting policies which you agreed to abide by when registering to this message board. I hope I have made myself clear.

[Cirdan]

What about slightly disgrunted comments about the leadership of my own country?;)

[markedel]

I don't see Iraq attacking Israel unless the US invades. And if Saddam attacks Israel it might be with chemical weapons...if I lived there I wouldn't support it. But then again sharon is kind of busy trying to wield a government of the right and the self-assuredly right.

[Cirdan]

What about the obstinantly right; has he got those too?:)

I think that they will be alerted, given the flight codes (unlike the Gulf War), and will be prepared for a full retaliatory strike. You right though, If I lived there...

[markedel]

Yeah he got those too. Who knows it's not as if the left is much better...but I'm just an interested observer.

[Aeryn]

Millane, Okay that was just an ignorant comment (1st page)
No President, while in the presidency (except monroe) has EVER stepped foot on a battlefield.
If you live in Australia, you go ahead and keep lookin' at the bouncin' marsupials!

I believe that Irag has not really threatened America, but Sadam is still a threat to other nations . So what do we do with bully's? WIPE THEM OUT! That is the American way. What did we do to the Brits? Pushed back. What did we do to the French and Indians? Pushed back. What did we do with Sadam before? Pushed back (for the SAKE of Kuwait).
Plus Hussein is a down right dirty capitalist (communist, whatever). Who needs those kind?

*smiles innocently after that rambling section* *sighs contentedly* :cool: :rolleyes:

[Radagast The Brown]

originally posted by Aeryn
I believe that Irag has not really threatened America, but Sadam is still a threat to other nations . So what do we do with bully's? WIPE THEM OUT! That is the American way. What did we do to the Brits? Pushed back. What did we do to the French and Indians? Pushed back. What did we do with Sadam before? Pushed back (for the SAKE of Kuwait).
Plus Hussein is a down right dirty capitalist (communist, whatever). Who needs those kind? Actually, you have no right to go to Iraq and say that the goverment is wrong and that you chose another person to be the leader.

I think Saddam is a dictator, but he is defenately not a communist.

[markedel]

Actually the US ensured Saddam's rise to power, funded him, armed him, and led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis when deciding not to depose him. He's a bad guy, and I'm sure the world be better off without him, but US political machinations are not always so idealistic and pure...

[The Lady of Ithilien]

I like what US Senator Fred Thompson said (as quoted by columnist Paul Greenberg in October): "The Arab countries in the region want Saddam either dead or happy. They don't want him aggravated, and we've been just aggravating him for years."

The "keep him happy" crowd has recently been floating ideas like sending him and his family into exile a la Idi Amin, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. Too, he's happy when he's gassing Kurds, etc., which is not acceptable.

Which leaves only the third alternative...and few powers in the world are capable of bringing it about. It's not 100% guaranteed even the US can end his regime. But what is a sure bet is, if and after we do, the whole world will clapping us on the back and telling us they were with us all the time.

[jerseydevil]

Today is the day the US resolution goes for a vote.

I will be extremelhy surprised if iraq actually fully cooperates with the resolution though. He never has before - can't really see why this one would be any different.

[markedel]

I wonder what slippery semantics the U.S will do to start the shooting. Saddam deserves what he gets when he gets it, I wonder if the Iraqi people do? It's not that I doubt U.S military prowess-but I doubt's Bush commitment to a rebuilt Iraq-after all it would have to be the first multicultural democracy. Even us Canadians can't pull that off! And we've had 160 years of responsible government.

[Dunadan]

Looks like all but Syria will back it. You're probably right, but I reckon it's better to have him tied up giving inspectors the runaround. It might also keep moderate arab opinion on-side.

And maybe then the US can re-assign some of its intelligence personnel back to the hunt for Al-Quaeda...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
I wonder what slippery semantics the U.S will do to start the shooting. Saddam deserves what he gets when he gets it, I wonder if the Iraqi people do?

If we wanted to - we could have gone in there already. We have the technology and the manpower. And in case you didn't notice - the Republicans did win the Senate and gained seats in the house - which some analysts are saying is a sign that Bush has the AMERICAN people's backing on this. Which I believe he does.
[clarification] He doesn't have full public support for just going into Iraq without weapons inspectors. People support the tough stand he has taken with Iraq and if Hussein does not cooperate - Bush will have public support for military action whether or not the UN is with us or not.

So what would you suggest? Obviously you don't trust America. Would you support just turning around and saying to Hussein if he doesn't coopertae "oh well, we tried. You can go about your business because we don't want to hurt the Iraqi citizens who you have no problem torturing or gassing."


It's not that I doubt U.S military prowess-but I doubt's Bush commitment to a rebuilt Iraq-after all it would have to be the first multicultural democracy. Even us Canadians can't pull that off! And we've had 160 years of responsible government.
I'm not even going to comment - it's just too funny for words. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

The resolution was passed unanimously


The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

[jerseydevil]

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

[jerseydevil]

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[Cirdan]

That's for the post, JD. It looks as though the administration has done everything short of backing down to win allied support of the effort against Iraq. It will now be a matter of how successful inspections are measured. Will it be enough to say that weapons of mass destruction were not found, if that is the case? It is difficult to say what the next step would be in such as circumstances other than to declare the inspections flawed, or declare the resolutions as in compliance. It will be an interesting story as it unfolds.

[Draken]

Devil's Advocate time...what if the inspectors find missiles and spray tanks full of influenza virus? Proper, nasty influenza that puts you in bed for a fortnight. Use that on an unprotected population and you'll much increase your chances of defeating them with a follow-up conventional attack.

Maybe we need to think out a stance of weapons of mass incapacitation as well as mass destruction?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
That's for the post, JD. It looks as though the administration has done everything short of backing down to win allied support of the effort against Iraq. It will now be a matter of how successful inspections are measured. Will it be enough to say that weapons of mass destruction were not found, if that is the case? It is difficult to say what the next step would be in such as circumstances other than to declare the inspections flawed, or declare the resolutions as in compliance. It will be an interesting story as it unfolds.

No problem.
Well everyone knows - including the weapons inspectors that they can't really prove that Hussein doesn't have weapons. They're going to have to go in there and try proving that he does.

A while ago Nightline had pointed out that under resolution 687, which the Iraqi government had accepted, that technically the Gulf War had never ended since Hussein did not comply with that resolution. This, it was argued, gave the US a green light to launch an attack on Hussein without having to go back to the UN.

This fact is spelt out in the new resolution.


Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Contrary to worldwide opinion - I think the US has been very much taking it's time. Again the UN has to prove itself. It's let Iraq walk away from all resolutions without following through on any of the consequences. This time the US won't let that happen. It's going to be either Iraq complies and gives up it's weapons arsenal or it's war. The ball is in Iraq's court now.

[Sister Golden Hair]

This thread again?:rolleyes: People, be very very careful in your discussion here. Do not begin ranting and flaming. Stay polite, on topic, and keep it flame free.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
This thread again?:rolleyes: People, be very very careful in your discussion here. Do not begin ranting and flaming. Stay polite, on topic, and keep it flame free.

If people stick to the facts and don't bash the US and play "let's blame America" - I'll stay calm.

So far it's calm and I thought it was important to post the resolution here and state that it was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Now we just have to wait and see how Iraq reacts and then see what happens with the UN Inspectors.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Okey dokey JD. It is just a little reminder that I deemed necessary after the last nasty episode.:)