Bomb Iraq!

[Eye of Sarnath]

Ain' it the truth...? Anyway, one of my friend emailed this to me, it's SOOO funny I just had to show ya'll. And now... BOMB IRAQ! (sing to the tune of "If You're Happy and You Know It")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, no, I don't support war of any kind. But it's FUNNY!

[Deathknight]

Wow, whoever wrote that is a smart democrat. "Gotta look tough for elections" That is exactly what Bush is trying to do by going after Iraq.

[Eye of Sarnath]

Whoever wrote that is just smart, period.

[That Matt Guy]

Well Saddam is a dictator and he has killed thousands of his own people. And he has lied to the UN countless times, and violated sanctions given to Iraq after the Gulf War.

[Reznorite420]

We don't have actual proof, and it doesn't matter if we ARE the US, we have no rights to just barge in there. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like it if some other country just barged in on us.

[That Matt Guy]

We don't have actual proof.

We don't have proof he is a dictator? I am not talking about his phantom nuclear weapons. He has murdered thousands of his own people, just so he could stay in power.

[Tokka-B]

That was the greatest parody ever. That sums up exactly what's been going on lately....geez

And yes, we can't just go into a country and kill its leader just because we hate their government. We act like the world's police too much and I'm sick of it...no wonder we have no allies, I jsut wish me can become more of a global community and be as equal as other nations...
Pissing Saddam off will only do us harm as we would go in without UN support and then watch the terrorists use this as an excuse to kill us. There are so many other options to war, so why don't we do something else? War will only keep us as an enemey to the international community.
Heck, Bush is killing enough of his own people already and we don't think anything of it...I am surprised Iraq didn't declare war on us just for that, but then again, they aren't the bullies, we are.

Oh well, thanks for the great humor EyeofSarnath! :)

[Wingnut]

Matthew,look at the US's history.Bush and all the other right wing conservative presidents have had THOUSANDS of young men and women slaughtered to further their cause,war makes money,it also makes the president look 'good' to the 95% of voters who pay NO attention to details and vote for the guy who 'looks cooler'.While little B is in office we'll be in war for his entire run as president of the US.I personally think that Saddam is more sain than Bush,which he more than likely is.Bottom line,the US has killed WAY more of there own people for dumb ass political propaganda.

[Deathknight]

Matthew,look at the US's history.Bush and all the other right wing conservative presidents have had THOUSANDS of young men and women slaughtered to further their cause,war makes money,it also makes the president look 'good' to the 95% of voters who pay NO attention to details and vote for the guy who 'looks cooler'.While little B is in office we'll be in war for his entire run as president of the US.I personally think that Saddam is more sain than Bush,which he more than likely is.Bottom line,the US has killed WAY more of there own people for dumb ass political propaganda.
Wow, you're smart Wingnut. Of course we have to go to war with Iraq. Bush absolutely has to lose thousands of soldiers so he can be popular, I mean god forbid that he loses the next election. If he's so intent on going to war with them let's see him lead the troops.

[heretic888]

i think this thread would have some relevance if an educated individual stepped up........

[That Matt Guy]

Matthew,look at the US's history.Bush and all the other right wing conservative presidents have had THOUSANDS of young men and women slaughtered to further their cause,war makes money,it also makes the president look 'good' to the 95% of voters who pay NO attention to details and vote for the guy who 'looks cooler'.While little B is in office we'll be in war for his entire run as president of the US.I personally think that Saddam is more sain than Bush,which he more than likely is.Bottom line,the US has killed WAY more of there own people for dumb ass political propaganda.

I was just stating that Saddam is a tyrant, but he is more likely to hurt his own people than to attack the US. And YES Saddam and his regime have been violating the Gulf War sanctions, but that is no reason to kill Saddam off. Bush IS in the wrong to point his finger at Saddam and basically ignore other more formidable foes, all Bush is trying to do is finish his father's agenda. But I really don't see your point on how war makes a president look "cooler" hell, it didn't help Johnson or Nixon very much.

[Karpo_007]

Yes Saddam is not Ideal leader, far from it, But a full scale war is not the answer. GWB will call the attack even if UN says No. That is a proof of the fact that USA can do pretty much anything it wants, and no one can oppose it. US even resigned itself from the enviroment treaty[Sorry can't remember the name]because of it's heavy industry.

During the cold war there was always 2 super powers, and things were balanced. Now after the fall of Soviet Union, USA is the only superpower in the world, and when it decides to do something, no one can oppose it.

Just a tought, no one take that personally.

[Eye of Sarnath]

I think that if we have to worry about Iraq attacking us in the first place with nuclear weapons we only think they have, then we're the ones who've done something wrong.

[Tokka-B]

Exactly Eye.....It would be hilarious if North Korea just bombed the **** out of the white house and you still have bush wanting to kill sadaam....well, it wouldn't exactly be hilarious, but it might get the point across to his thick head... :lol:

I say fix our own problems (and yes, our country has MANY more problems than Iraq currently) before we try and fix a country's problems when they don't even want us there. These people you say that are being killed by Saddam...it is actually there choice, they like their type of government the way it is, and if they wanted anyone to fix it, they would want a different country to, NOT THE U.S. It is funny....you see people burning american flags over their and yet bush seems to think they want our help to oust saddam...sheesh, people are so dense. :roll:

[heretic888]

I think everyone in this board would benefit by actually taking some courses in either world history or politics..... you will be very suprised.

[Karpo_007]

True, and not one Arab nation has a government choosen by election. They have their own culture, and for most part should be let alone. As for Iraq, I think Saddam should be over thrown, but a war against Iraq can't be the only choice.

[heretic888]

i seem to recall that when people were 'left alone' two world wars happened......

[Karpo_007]

That would be a good example if Iraq would be a real threat. No one wanted a war with germany, thats why they let it be alone for awhile. They knew what kind of a war it would become.

But I don't belive that US is as afraid of war with Iraq as surrounding nations were afraid of war with germany. There is too much involved in the iraq conflict, like the Oil for example.

[Tokka-B]

I love it when people try to compare the world wars with today's world...just cracks me up.
And speaking of provocation, heretic, you keep referring to Saddam in Hitler-like terms but today's paper actually had an editorial about how for the years following WWII we have wondered how the world could just "let" Hitler do what he did. And the author then discusses how in the coming years it could be historians analyzing how we could "let" Bush do what he is talking about doing. So 2003 may be 1939, yes. :lol:

[heretic888]

ok ok ok.....

for all those engaged in either a conservative or liberal monolithic diatribe here, I will just flat-out tell you the reality of this 'war'.......

the problem with most of the people here, and most people in general, is they think this way is motivationally simplistic: that its ONLY about oil, or ONLY about the re-election, or ONLY about protecting America, or ONLY about liberating whoever......

WRONG. this is a very complex and subtle issue. there are many, MANY motivational factors behind this war. some are not so noble, such as Bush's bid for re-election. some are a bit more noble, such as preventing future 9/11's from happening.

The fact is Iraq IS a threat. There IS proof Hussein is in possession of both nuclear and biochemical weapons. That is why the UN recently demanded Iraq disarm, which Hussein blithely ignored. The fact is there IS proof that Hussein, if he did not support Al-queda, IS supporting terrorist organizations. Do you want Hussein delivering a nuclear warhead to next Bib Laden?? Nah, I didn't think so.

If military action is not the answer, i would like to see a probable alternative. These kinds of men are purists and militatants. As long as people they don't think are 'good' (as in non-Arabs and non-Muslims) exist, they will always attempt to 'purify' the planet as they see fit. There is ONLY one way to deal with these types of sociopaths and talking isnt it.

Is it true North Korea is probably a bigger threat?? Hell yeah. Like I said, there both noble and not so noble motivations behind this war. I think Bush is politically choosing his battles.

[Tokka-B]

See, that is the problem....we are asking sadaam to proove he has no weapons...if you were smart you would realize that that is impossible to do. The fact that the UN wants to inspect Iraq has nothing to do with attacks or anything, they are just doing their business, as they do here in America. Bush is a belligerent, a war-monger, and cannot make constructive use of intelligence to solve problems relying first on the iron fist of military might. I can propose a hundred alternatives to war...some are being looked at now, but others have not been considered. Diplomacy, global action through the UN, letting other nations step up to take a turn leading the world, leading by example in getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction, the list goes on and on. War is not and should not be a necessary part of human relations with each other. Saying war is ever necessary, even to promote peace, is laziness on the part of those in power. It is, despite all the talk of how hard it is to send soldiers off to war, too easy to say "the end justifies the means." Yes, war sometimes is necessary just as it may be necessary to harm someone who pulls a gun on me after breaking into my house. But we have not been invaded by a foreign enemy. America is not acting under self-preservation. America is acting out of greed for our supposed safety. We are willing to kill others to make sure we never feel what we felt on 9/11 ever again...all the while forgetting that other nations live with 9/11 types of violence everyday. If we can do whatever we want whenever we want, what is to prevent other nations from doing the same? Does it all boil down to who can bully the best? Anti-American sentiment are at an all time high right now and I agree because I'm within it all and I think our nation needs to be put in its place. It's sad, really, how all our "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" can quickly turn into greed, disregard for other nations, and the wrong-headed belief that everybody should be just like us. If we're the shining example for the world to follow boy is the world in for some trouble.

Sorry for the long post, it just ticks me off when I am said to be "uneducated".... :x :evil:

[The Master Foot Soldier]

Well said, Tokka.



That song at the beginning of the topic is very well written. Whoever wrote it deserves a lot of credit.

[Reznorite420]

Sorry for the long post, it just ticks me off when I am said to be "uneducated".... :x :evil:I don't see why you would get upset...there've been plenty of examples in your posts that verify you are...

[That Matt Guy]

We've been kicking ass for so long now, maybe it's time we got ours kicked.

[heretic888]

See, that is the problem....we are asking sadaam to proove he has no weapons...if you were smart you would realize that that is impossible to do.

Yes, especially when we already know for a fact he has these weapons in the first place. It's hard to prove a lie.

The fact that the UN wants to inspect Iraq has nothing to do with attacks or anything, they are just doing their business, as they do here in America.

Actually, it has to do with the fact that Hussein has violated all Gulf War treaty provisions, has had a history of both lying and refusing admittance to the UN inspectors, and has known ties to terrorist organizations including the Al-queda. This is is hardly 'business as usual'.

Bush is a belligerent, a war-monger, and cannot make constructive use of intelligence to solve problems relying first on the iron fist of military might.

I'm no big fan of Bush, but that hypothesis of yours kinda flies in the face of Bush's recent whining to the United Nations.

I can propose a hundred alternatives to war...some are being looked at now, but others have not been considered.

Yes, please enlighten us with your vast politically educated background... :roll:

Diplomacy

Diplomacy with the guy that has violated every known international agreement he has engaged in, and that uses his own people as human shields?? Riggghhhhttt.......

global action through the UN

As I recall, the United Nations has demanded Iraq disarm, which Hussein has blithely refused......

letting other nations step up to take a turn leading the world,

Its called the United Nations, genius, and that's what IS taking place. In reality, the Unites States is little more than the military strongarm of the UN. Like all other countries, they only have one vote.

leading by example in getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction,

You're not seriously THAT naive, are you??

War is not and should not be a necessary part of human relations with each other. Saying war is ever necessary, even to promote peace, is laziness on the part of those in power.

I disagree. War is sometimes an unfortunate necessity when dealing with certain types of individuals.

Yes, war sometimes is necessary just as it may be necessary to harm someone who pulls a gun on me after breaking into my house. But we have not been invaded by a foreign enemy.

Just what do you call 9/11, then??

Anti-American sentiment are at an all time high right now and I agree because I'm within it all and I think our nation needs to be put in its place.

Not really. Do a little research, child.

It's sad, really, how all our "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" can quickly turn into greed, disregard for other nations, and the wrong-headed belief that everybody should be just like us. If we're the shining example for the world to follow boy is the world in for some trouble.


This monolithic diatribe of idealistic naivette is beginning to bore me...

Sorry for the long post, it just ticks me off when I am said to be "uneducated"....

For all your bravado, you did nothing but prove my point. You clearly haven't researched this subject in any degree of depth nor do you possess a practical understanding of politics and international relations. Adolescent idealism is hardly a suitable base of reference in these matters.

We've been kicking ass for so long now, maybe it's time we got ours kicked.

Now, THAT was just stupid. :roll:

[That Matt Guy]

We've been kicking ass for so long now, maybe it's time we got ours kicked.

Now, THAT was just stupid. :roll:

Just because you have read a few books, you think you are an immediate scholar on every f*cking subject. You obviously didn't know that was a famous quote from the movie Platoon.

[Karpo_007]

You said that US getting rid of it's Nuclear weapons is naive... So how do you justify the need for them? If nuclear war would someday occur, it would probably end to the end of the world.

[Wingnut]

heretic why the hell can't you discuss things with an open mind,you HATE it when someone disagrees with you and you always think that you have the final word in everything.If you can't consider other peoples opinions don't post in these political or religious topics (need i remind you how you got your warning)Get off your pedistal :roll:

[Eye of Sarnath]

Allow me to insert my $2 here...

Not really. Do a little research, child.

I think that maybe you're the one who needs to do a little research, heretic888.

In fact, you make quite a good argument, and you've covered yourself on evry postion except one:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, war sometimes is necessary just as it may be necessary to harm someone who pulls a gun on me after breaking into my house. But we have not been invaded by a foreign enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Just what do you call 9/11, then??

9/11 was not war, it was a terrorist action. Terroist action is usually an unprovoked attack against civilians. 9/11 was a perfect example of this. We were not attacked by another country. So are we going to war with Al-queda? It's not a clearly defined group. I think if you look in history, the majority of the wars that have been fought have been against a country, a group of countries, or at least a clearly defined group of people. Terrorist action and war are two separate things. People compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor: well, guess what! The Japanese actually HAD a fairly good reason to attack us then! Al-queda did NOT have any semblence of a real reason to attack us 9/11. Pearl Harbor was war; 9/11 was not.

The simple question is: we were attacked by Al-queda... so logically, this is who we should be looking for, the guys we should be bombing. So then why are we attacking Iraq? Do you think that bombing Iraq is really going to help anything? Is it going to stop terrorism? Is it going to stop Al-queda? No, I don't really think so. War should only be declared in the worst possible cases; this is far from the worst possible case.

Also, think: considering the little proof we have against Iraq, and we attack them, aren't we the terrorists then? If we have proof that Iraq does indeed have these weapons of mass disruction, and we have good reason to belive that they actually intend to use these weapons against us, much less use them at all, then we attack. It would be justified because we would only be protecting ourselves, and every nation has a right to do that. But right now? There is no justification for war.

Isn't it ironic: we, the United States, have nuclear weapons, and yet, we are attacking Iraq because we think they have nuclear weapons? Certainly, we should be prepared for possible attacks, but how do we know that isn't just what Iraq is doing? Protecting themselves from attack, from idiots like us?

[DarthRaphael]

Wow, I totally agree with Heretic here.

Some of you really need to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I can't beleive there are so many liberals here. Once most of you get a little older, you'll realize conservativisim is the way to go.

So, what most of you are saying is, that a man who kills and rapes his own people, has violated every UN treaty put upon it about 15 years ago, and cannot account for various chemical weapons (verified by the UN inspectors), is no threat? Ask the people who live in Iraq if he is a threat. Most will be afraid to even answer the question.

[Eye of Sarnath]

Wow, I totally agree with Heretic here.

That's rare.

Anyway, I feel this topic has only a ways to go before it goes too far.

[heretic888]

Just because you have read a few books, you think you are an immediate scholar on every f*cking subject. You obviously didn't know that was a famous quote from the movie Platoon.

In case you didn't notice, that was a joke.... :roll:

You said that US getting rid of it's Nuclear weapons is naive... So how do you justify the need for them? If nuclear war would someday occur, it would probably end to the end of the world.

The same way I justify the need to learn martial arts in case I am ever assaulted. They were both created for self-defensive measures as an absolute last resort, and that is how they SHOULD be used (nuclear weapons have only been used once in human history, and this was to prevent a much larger and bloodier war).

I considered the complete nuclear disarmament of the Unites States as naive because Tokka seemed to have the silly delusion that this would somehow 'inspire' Hussein to forsake his ways and disarm Iraq. I should mention, however, that I favor a PARTIAL nuclear disarmament of the Unites States.

Besides, this fear of 'nuclear war' is both naive and unfounded. If it didn't come down to nuclear war during the paranoid years of the Cold War, it ain't gonna happen now.

heretic why the hell can't you discuss things with an open mind,you HATE it when someone disagrees with you and you always think that you have the final word in everything.If you can't consider other peoples opinions don't post in these political or religious topics (need i remind you how you got your warning)Get off your pedistal

The only thing I polemicize against, Wingnut, is a lack of justification and a lack of evidence. The only thing the arguments on this thread so far have been based on is adolescent idealism and naivette. Tokka (as well as a few others) has qualitatively demonstrated he/she does not possess an understanding of international history, politics, or recent events (such as the UN's recent sanction against Iraq to disarm, the proof connecting Iraq to Al-queda and other terrorist groups, and the proof of nuclear and biochemical weaponry in Iraq).

I think that maybe you're the one who needs to do a little research, heretic888.

Not quite, Sarnath. Unlike most of the posts on this thread, mine actually show knowledge of recent events. Not to mention political realism.

9/11 was not war, it was a terrorist action. Terroist action is usually an unprovoked attack against civilians. 9/11 was a perfect example of this. We were not attacked by another country. So are we going to war with Al-queda? It's not a clearly defined group. I think if you look in history, the majority of the wars that have been fought have been against a country, a group of countries, or at least a clearly defined group of people. Terrorist action and war are two separate things. People compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor: well, guess what! The Japanese actually HAD a fairly good reason to attack us then! Al-queda did NOT have any semblence of a real reason to attack us 9/11. Pearl Harbor was war; 9/11 was not.

The simple question is: we were attacked by Al-queda... so logically, this is who we should be looking for, the guys we should be bombing. So then why are we attacking Iraq? Do you think that bombing Iraq is really going to help anything? Is it going to stop terrorism? Is it going to stop Al-queda? No, I don't really think so. War should only be declared in the worst possible cases; this is far from the worst possible case.


Yes, 9/11 was a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack that was partially funded and supported by Hussein. I mean, what more do you want?? We know he has been hiding deadly weapons arsenals from us (by 'us' i mean the United Nations) and we know he supports terrorist groups including the Al-queda. Contrary to your beliefs, we DO actually have proof of all this.

Also, think: considering the little proof we have against Iraq, and we attack them, aren't we the terrorists then? If we have proof that Iraq does indeed have these weapons of mass disruction, and we have good reason to belive that they actually intend to use these weapons against us, much less use them at all, then we attack. It would be justified because we would only be protecting ourselves, and every nation has a right to do that. But right now? There is no justification for war.


Actually, the complete opposite of everything you said is true. We DO have proof that he is both hiding nuclear and biochemical weapons, and that he supports Al-queda (among other terrorist organizations). Like I said previously, do a little research.

The point is NOT that Hussein will launch a nuclear attack against us directly (which he does not possess the technology to do anyway). The point is that Hussein can supply these weapons to terrorists that leave them in a briefcase in the middle of central park. Hussein has been amassing these weapons in secret for a reason.

I think there is most definitely a justification for military action against Iraq. However, I beleive the Unites States should not go at this alone without the support of the international community. The very fact that Hussein has flatly refused to disarm regardless of the recent sanctions of the United Nations is indicative that this war is an inevitability. It is just a matter of time until the UN takes action.

Isn't it ironic: we, the United States, have nuclear weapons, and yet, we are attacking Iraq because we think they have nuclear weapons? Certainly, we should be prepared for possible attacks, but how do we know that isn't just what Iraq is doing? Protecting themselves from attack, from idiots like us?

The difference is we are run by a temporary democratically elected president, not a brutal dictator that assumes ultimate political power via military conquest. The difference is we do not fund terrorist organizations that destroy world trade centers. The difference is we do not think everyone that is non-Arab and non-Muslim deserves to die a painful and bloody death. The difference is that we are relatively honest about the weapons armaments we possess. The difference is we do not fly in the face of the international community and refuse to cooperate on any level.

Tell me, when Hussein was funding the Al-queda's attack on 9/11, who was he 'protecting' then???

[DarthRaphael]

Oh, BTW, just because the majority of you disagree with heretic, it dosen't mean he is wrong.
I've noticed that people are doing the exact same thing you are accusing him of, pushing upon someone an idea, and flaming them for not agreeing.

Post some proof or references to make a counter post.
Opinions don't matter much, just the facts. Don't put a spin on it.
If you lay out the facts, just the facts, the truth becomes obvious.


To Heretic:
If you find credible news articles, etc, I'd love for you to post them to strengthen your arguments. I am backing all of your responses in this thread so far.

[Eye of Sarnath]

It doesn't mean he's wrong but it's still fun to disagree with him.

[DarthRaphael]

It doesn't mean he's wrong but it's still fun to disagree with him.

So are all of you just trying to push his buttons, or are you trying to have a debate?

[heretic888]

Wow, I totally agree with Heretic here.


Thank you. :D

Some of you really need to listen to Rush Limbaugh

Ummm....... :roll:

I can't beleive there are so many liberals here. Once most of you get a little older, you'll realize conservativisim is the way to go.


Just for the record, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. My views could be called 'moderatism' to be simplistic, but I would suggest reading Ken Wilber's writings on politics if you want insight into my views.

So, what most of you are saying is, that a man who kills and rapes his own people, has violated every UN treaty put upon it about 15 years ago, and cannot account for various chemical weapons (verified by the UN inspectors), is no threat? Ask the people who live in Iraq if he is a threat. Most will be afraid to even answer the question.

Bingo.

Anyway, I feel this topic has only a ways to go before it goes too far.

Well, that depends on you guys.

To Heretic:
If you find credible news articles, etc, I'd love for you to post them to strengthen your arguments. I am backing all of your responses in this thread so far.

I actually read various news sources a lot. Online, on tv, and in the newspaper. I don't have any of them offhand, though....

It doesn't mean he's wrong but it's still fun to disagree with him.

Bingo. There is no reason this should not be kept fun and civil.

[Eye of Sarnath]

So are all of you just trying to push his buttons, or are you trying to have a debate?

Not really either of them.

And heretic, your points are well thought out, except for the one I posted about.

[Machias Banshee]

Wow, I totally agree with Heretic here.

Some of you really need to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I can't beleive there are so many liberals here. Once most of you get a little older, you'll realize conservativisim is the way to go.

So, what most of you are saying is, that a man who kills and rapes his own people, has violated every UN treaty put upon it about 15 years ago, and cannot account for various chemical weapons (verified by the UN inspectors), is no threat? Ask the people who live in Iraq if he is a threat. Most will be afraid to even answer the question.


Woohoo! Another Rush Limbaugh fan!!! :D *doesnt feel alone anymore*


I seems to also recall a recent election that took place in Iraq...SUPPOSEDLY, Saddam was relelected with a 100% vote turnout...seem a lil odd to you...? ;)

[Karpo_007]

I have nevver said we should fear a nuclear war, Just that it is a weapon that should never be used. If there were proof Iraq has them and is willing to used them, of course an attack would be justified.

But it should be done with the Aproval of UN. United States has stated that it will do it even if UN resists. That's the problem. But either way, Saddam should be overthrown, but is UN not US that should be the police of the world.

[heretic888]

And heretic, your points are well thought out, except for the one I posted about.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. :P

I posted why I think Iraq, or rather Hussein and his 'regime', were involved and somewhat responsible for 9/11, as well as other terrorist attacks (most of which, admittedly, have taken place in western Europe). I believe the fact that Hussein is in possession with both nuclear and biochemical weaponry and directly funds and supports more than one terrorist organization (including the Al-queda) is justification enough for military action.

In a sanction ratified only a few months ago, based on the evidence, the United Nations declared that Iraq is to be disarmed. Hussein has blatantly refused this sanction by the international community. What does THAT tell you??

I seems to also recall a recent election that took place in Iraq...SUPPOSEDLY, Saddam was relelected with a 100% vote turnout...seem a lil odd to you...?

Gee... yah think?? :P

I have nevver said we should fear a nuclear war, Just that it is a weapon that should never be used.

I beleive nuclear weapons are more or less 'used' to prevent large military attacks from foreign powers as a deterent. It sure worked in the Cold War. In any event, I believe the Unites States should begin a PARTIAL disarmament of nuclear weaponry, which both they and Russia began a short while ago (so this is already taking place).

If there were proof Iraq has them and is willing to used them, of course an attack would be justified.


There IS proof Iraq has nuclear and biochemical weaponry. That is why the UN sanctioned Iraq to disarm only a few months ago.

As for using them..... well, I doubt Iraq would use them directly, as Iraq doesnt possess the long-range technology to strike the United States from afar (although they could always aim for Israel or Britain). However, the greater fear is the Hussein will supply this kind of weaponry to terrorist groups that will unleash devastating attacks on virtually any country (ever seen the 'Sum of All Fears'??). Hussein has known ties to these organizations, and is known to protect, fund, and support these groups (including Al-queda). Besides... Iraq isnt even supposed to HAVE these weapons in the first place!!

But it should be done with the Aproval of UN. United States has stated that it will do it even if UN resists. That's the problem. But either way, Saddam should be overthrown, but is UN not US that should be the police of the world.

I agree with that much. I believe Bush is being too gun-ho about all this and should be more patient and wait for the consensus of the international community. Given the fact that Iraq has refused to disarm, completely disregarding the sanctions of pretty much the rest of the world, I feel it is only a matter of time until the UN takes action.

[Eye of Sarnath]

It's a "damned if ya do, damned if ya don't" situation.

[Kid Icarus]

But it should be done with the Aproval of UN. United States has stated that it will do it even if UN resists. That's the problem. But either way, Saddam should be overthrown, but is UN not US that should be the police of the world.

I coulden't have said that better Karpo.

Saddam is a VERY dangerous man. He has gasses thousands of his own people just to prove he has power over them.

I don't think war should ever be the first choice of action, but used as a final result. Bush is trying to make it appear that he and the UN have done ever thing they can, when their's no proof. But yeah... Saddam NEEDS to be taken out, along with the dictator of N. Korea who is keeping his people in Holocaust like conditions while he sits on his butt and does nothing to help.[/code]

[heretic888]

It's a "damned if ya, damned if ya don't" situation.

Eh??

Saddam is a VERY dangerous man. He has gasses thousands of his own people just to prove he has power over them.


Bingo.

I don't think war should ever be the first choice of action, but used as a final result.

That it should be. But, when Hussein refuses to cooperate with the international community, there is not much we are left with.

Bush is trying to make it appear that he and the UN have done ever thing they can, when their's no proof.

Actually, you are only half-right in that sentence.

Bush IS being too gun-ho about all this, and needs to have a little more patience. Given that Hussein has refused to disarm, I think it is just a matter of time until the UN takes action.

However, there also IS proof that Hussein has these weapons and that he has ties to these terrorist organizations. Do the research, its there.

Saddam NEEDS to be taken out, along with the dictator of N. Korea who is keeping his people in Holocaust like conditions while he sits on his butt and does nothing to help

Yes, I agree. North Korea is just as dangerous, if not moreso, as Iraq.

[Wingnut]

"The difference is we are run by a temporary democratically elected president, not a brutal dictator that assumes ultimate political power via military conquest. The difference is we do not fund terrorist organizations that destroy world trade centers. The difference is we do not think everyone that is non-Arab and non-Muslim deserves to die a painful and bloody death."

Point #1. GWB DOES assume political power through war(as did his war monger father)
Point #2.According to american history the whites thought that indians who don't follow christianity should die a slow and painful death.

and heretic if you haven't read 'Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee' if do so to find that us americans have killed plenty of our people as well

[Dark Turtle]

First of all i think we are pretty stupid in going in this whole thing alone!!

If they do call up the draft and for some reason i get drafted i am going to flee because i am not going to die over stupid oil! And don't say it is terrorism because it's not! Then we are going to start a war with North Korea because they have nuclear weapons! How in the heck can we fight a war on 2 fronts?!! Look at WWII, Germany couldnt do it! And don't say that we are America and we can because that is too arrogant! That is exactly how Hitler lost the war! I think we shouldn't go in until we get complete solid support from all nations! It's going to be freakin World War 3 if we are not too careful and we are going to be end up alone!

By the year 2020 there won't be much oil left in the world then those middle eastern countries won't have anything.

Dieing for oil is soo stupid!

[Wingnut]

listen to Rush Limbaugh.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I've read the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken so many times...why don't we all have a big 'American Pride' parade in the streets of Baghdad while we're at it :roll: .Im an adult and i prefer to be a liberal because i don't agree with senseless killing...call me a hippie or whatever you want to but im a politically educated induvidual and i seriously dislike when know it all conservitives get involved in deep political discussion.Darth,screw Rush Limbaugh and screw all the right wing capitilist,conservitive,war mongering,murderers who run this country that has WAY too much power in the world.

[heretic888]

Point #1. GWB DOES assume political power through war(as did his war monger father)


Funny, I coulda sworn he was elected. :roll: Guess I missed out on the Second Civil War, huh??

Point #2.According to american history the whites thought that indians who don't follow christianity should die a slow and painful death.

The WASPS certainly annihilated more than one Native American culture, but it wasn't because of religion. If you are so devoted to 'history' (snicker snicker ralph), I suggest you research the Treaty of Tripolli. Baseless idealistic naivette is hardly 'evidence' of anything.

and heretic if you haven't read 'Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee' if do so to find that us americans have killed plenty of our people as well

Your analogy is so flawed its pathetic. NOTHING in American history parallels what Hussein has done and is doing right now. In any event, what's past is past. I am talking about the present, not what happened 200 years ago. Hussein used his own people as human shields to protect his precious weapons not even 15 years ago.

First of all i think we are pretty stupid in going in this whole thing alone!!


I don't think the UN is going to sit idly by as Hussein blithely ignores their sanction to disarm.

If they do call up the draft and for some reason i get drafted i am going to flee

Please. They are not going to call up the draft. This is going to be an asswipe war... especially once the other nations get involved.

because i am not going to die over stupid oil!

As I clearly pointed out in another post, the monolithic stupidity that this war is about a single thing such as oil or terrorism or whatever is simply naive. Like all wars, this has many many complex factors involved and those that make sweeping generalizations that 'its all about stopping terrorism' or 'its all about oil' prove nothing but their own ignorance (or is that arrogance?). Personally, I find the vast majority of both conservatives and liberals to be full of it.

And don't say it is terrorism because it's not!

More monolithic diatribes. Read above.

Then we are going to start a war with North Korea because they have nuclear weapons!

Like Iraq, North Korea is refusing to cooperate with the international community. Nobody wants a rogue nation.

How in the heck can we fight a war on 2 fronts?!! Look at WWII, Germany couldnt do it!

You obviously aren't familiar with modern American military technology.

And don't say that we are America and we can because that is too arrogant!

Correct. Nationality does not assure victory.

I think we shouldn't go in until we get complete solid support from all nations!

Bingo. Bush should evoke a little patience and wait a few more months. Its only a matter of time until the UN ruffles its collective feathers at Hussein's blatant disregard for international cooperation.

It's going to be freakin World War 3 if we are not too careful and we are going to be end up alone!


No, it will just be Gulf War, mark 2.

Honestly, there won't be any repercussion of America going in alone except for political ones. But that is enough. Bush needs to realize our place as a respectful member of the international community.

By the year 2020 there won't be much oil left in the world then those middle eastern countries won't have anything.

By that time, we will have begun to develop new, environmentally-safe technologies rendering gasoline power obsolete.

I've read the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken so many times...why don't we all have a big 'American Pride' parade in the streets of Baghdad while we're at it

I am inclined to agree. Limbaugh truly is a jackass.

Im an adult and i prefer to be a liberal because i don't agree with senseless killing...call me a hippie or whatever you want to but im a politically educated induvidual and i seriously dislike when know it all conservitives get involved in deep political discussion.Darth,screw Rush Limbaugh and screw all the right wing capitilist,conservitive,war mongering,murderers who run this country that has WAY too much power in the world.

Ugh. More of the same monolithic diatribes. :dead:

Yes, liberalism is on the whole politically more desirable than conservatism. But liberalism has just as many flaws and imperfections as conservatism, some of which are even more drastic. Liberalism is in no position to be the 'only way' any more than conservatism is.

No, the way to go is a more integral embrace. A moderate, postconservative, postliberal political agenda that embraces the strengths of both sides and rejects the unnecessary baggage. Enough of this bipartisan political poppycock. Both sides have respectable and not-so-respectable qualities that need to be acknowledged and incorporated into our postmodern thinking accordingly.

[DarthRaphael]

listen to Rush Limbaugh.



...i seriously dislike when know it all conservitives get involved in deep political discussion.

What are you afraid of? Conservatives are not allowed in political discussion? The country should be run by liberals? Fill me in here.


Just to clue you all in to my political direction, In all the time I've been listening to Rush's show, I have not disagreed with him once.

[Machias Banshee]

*hugs fellow rush loyalist*

we've been listening to him for YEARS at home....

[Wingnut]

No darth i have faced the fact that conservitives will run this country for most of my life.As far as liberals running the country,believe me i wasn't a fan of clinton BUT when he was in office we had a trillions of dollars in surplus...thats extra money,we had a higher employment rate,nothing like 9/11 happened and the US ACTUALLY had allies.And i find it funny that when GWB came into office we have the largest terrorist attack on american soil,he blows the surplus,and we have NO allies* Funny ain't it



*except for UK

[Eye of Sarnath]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a "damned if ya do, damned if ya don't" situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Eh??

I think you'd like me to clarify here, Heretic. What I meant is, if we don't attack Iraq, they could pose a threat to us later (if they don't already) and if do attack them... well. Someone's gonna be unhappy either way.

[heretic888]

What are you afraid of? Conservatives are not allowed in political discussion? The country should be run by liberals? Fill me in here.

Darth has got a point there. A monopolar political agenda ruled by liberals is really no better than a monlithic creed enforced by conservatives. When will everyone learn to adopt a more integral and holistic way??

Just to clue you all in to my political direction, In all the time I've been listening to Rush's show, I have not disagreed with him once.

Ummm.......... no comment. :roll:

No darth i have faced the fact that conservitives will run this country for most of my life.

Why? You gonna die in the next five years??

As far as liberals running the country,believe me i wasn't a fan of clinton BUT when he was in office we had a trillions of dollars in surplus...thats extra money

Please don't make up illusory 'facts' to support a baseless argument.

we had a higher employment rate,nothing like 9/11 happened

Ok, THAT was just low and pathetic. To think 9/11 occured because the righteous liberals were ousted is the most conceited and convoluted argument I have ever heard. 9/11 was being planned for a long, LONG time. It had NOTHING to do with Bush.

and the US ACTUALLY had allies.

Contrary to what you may believe, the United States has no fewer allies than it did six years ago. In fact, if I recall correctly, Clinton had us involved in quite a few scuffles: Bosnia, Kosovo, the Chinese embassy mix-up, the Chinese stealing of nuclear secrets.....

And i find it funny that when GWB came into office we have the largest terrorist attack on american soil,he blows the surplus,and we have NO allies* Funny ain't it


No, the only thing 'funny' is your ethnocentric naivette.

I think you'd like me to clarify here, Heretic. What I meant is, if we don't attack Iraq, they could pose a threat to us later (if they don't already) and if do attack them... well. Someone's gonna be unhappy either way.

True. The United States, by the very virtue of BEING the United States, is going to be seen as a 'bad guy' no matter what we do. This simply reveals this idiotic, ethnocentric anti-american proselytizing for what it really is....

[Tokka-B]

Listen heretic....here is your freaking evidence for the greed and unfairness of the U.S....
The Clinton Administration throughout the nineties, and the Bush Administration since, have said right out that simply cooperating with the inspection regime would not get them to support lifting sanctions - only Saddam's loss of power would convince them to do that. And everything the US has said and done for the last ten years indicates that it expects Saddam to die as part of the "regime change."

Deterrence requires two components:

1. A sure penalty for noncompliance.
2. A clear benefit to compliance.

US policy toward Iraq has lacked factor 2 for a decade. Current, stated policy is


If Saddam uses, acquires or conceals weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
If Saddam foreswears use, acquisition and concealment of weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
Here's another policy we have going:

If Saddam subsidizes the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he dies.
If Saddam stops subsidizing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he dies.

So ask yourself heretic: According to the US government's stated policy ("regime change" no matter what), what benefit does the USG offer Saddam for ceasing to subsidize suicide bombers?

Answer: None.

By the way, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....You are like Bush, even the weapons inspections can't satisfy you....The only things that the inspectors have found were old reminissance of the Iraq-Iran war, why else would they all be empty? :roll: When you say Saddam killed or gassed his own people you obviously can't tell the difference between an Iraqi and an Iranian, you assume that a dictator does that....a highly attractive American trait. Weapons of mass destruction aren't things you can just hide in your pocket, it would be quite evident if the country had them, and we have been inspecting for quite a while now... This is not what self preservation is all about, we are invading another country without any support so when we are done, they will be so ready to bomb the crap out of us, it will not be pretty...if someone like Saddam is so insane, why would be try to attack his country, he can easily just do what he did to Kuwait in 91, but at a larger scale this time, if someone who you claim is so insane, there is no limit for what he can do if he knows he will die. An international diplomacy is the best thing and the Iraqi's are the ones that don't trust us right now, and for a good reason, just as any other country doesn't...So if we show that we can get rid of our weapons, I bet he will gain our trust and do the same, that is, if he has any of these weapons...
A bigger threat is North Korea, they are ready to sell nukes to terrorist organizations to get the money they need for their people to live....if we cared about the global community, we wouldn't have this problem.

[The Master Foot Soldier]

North Korea isn't as dangerous as Iraq, here are my reasons:


1. They have not threatened to attck with their weapons.
2. They have (at least I think) no connection to the events of 9/11.
3. N. K will disarm IF someone supplies a resource for electricity.



There you have it. Why North Korea isn't as dangerous.

[That Matt Guy]

North Korea isn't as dangerous as Iraq, here are my reasons:


1. They have not threatened to attck with their weapons.
2. They have (at least I think) no connection to the events of 9/11.
3. N. K will disarm IF someone supplies a resource for electricity.



There you have it. Why North Korea isn't as dangerous.

They have threatened to use force against the US and also Japan (I'm not sure why).

[Tokka-B]

I agree with you for the most part...

1. They do not pose a DIRECT threat to the U.S mainly because they can't reach us in the present time...but what we are worried about is them selling weapons to terrorist groups just because we are too ignorant to care about their current state of power...

2. Yes, they don't have any connection with the events of 9-11, but that doesn't make them any less feared, because Iraq neither has a connection with 9-11.

3. Ding-Ding! Except right now, that only person is a terrorist group so far, so they currently do pose a greater threat...

[Wingnut]

"Please don't make up illusory 'facts' to support a baseless argument."

Thats true,heretic :roll:

[heretic888]

Listen heretic....here is your freaking evidence for the greed and unfairness of the U.S....
The Clinton Administration throughout the nineties, and the Bush Administration since, have said right out that simply cooperating with the inspection regime would not get them to support lifting sanctions - only Saddam's loss of power would convince them to do that. And everything the US has said and done for the last ten years indicates that it expects Saddam to die as part of the "regime change."

Deterrence requires two components:

1. A sure penalty for noncompliance.
2. A clear benefit to compliance.

US policy toward Iraq has lacked factor 2 for a decade. Current, stated policy is


If Saddam uses, acquires or conceals weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
If Saddam foreswears use, acquisition and concealment of weapons of mass destruction, he dies.
Here's another policy we have going:

If Saddam subsidizes the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he dies.
If Saddam stops subsidizing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he dies.

So ask yourself heretic: According to the US government's stated policy ("regime change" no matter what), what benefit does the USG offer Saddam for ceasing to subsidize suicide bombers?

Answer: None.


As humorous as I find your childish justification of Hussein's actions to be, it kind of flies in the face of facts. Hussein has refused to cooperate completely with the UNITED NATIONS, not just the United States. Because of this, the UN recently ratified a sanction in which Iraq is to disarm. He has also refused this. We DO have proof he is in possession of these weapons. We DO have proof he supports terrorist groups. He has openly refused to cooperate the international community. In its present state, Iraq is, very simply, a rogue nation. Your naivette cannot change the facts.

By the way, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....You are like Bush, even the weapons inspections can't satisfy you....The only things that the inspectors have found were old reminissance of the Iraq-Iran war, why else would they all be empty?

Wrong.

Do some more research, oh childish child. Your naivette does not change the conclusions that the UNITED NATIONS ITSELF has acknowledged. Just WHY do you think they sanctioned Iraq to disarm??? 'Oh, we don't have proof Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, so lets make a sanction for them to disarm these non-existent weapons?' How naive.....

A bigger threat is North Korea, they are ready to sell nukes to terrorist organizations to get the money they need for their people to live....if we cared about the global community, we wouldn't have this problem.

North Korea is a threat that will eventually have to be dealt with.

[heretic888]

They have threatened to use force against the US and also Japan (I'm not sure why).


Korea and Japan have a not so nice history with one another.....

[Wingnut]

** NO PERSONAL ATTACKS **

DR

[heretic888]

I agree with you for the most part...

1. They do not pose a DIRECT threat to the U.S mainly because they can't reach us in the present time...but what we are worried about is them selling weapons to terrorist groups just because we are too ignorant to care about their current state of power...

2. Yes, they don't have any connection with the events of 9-11, but that doesn't make them any less feared, because Iraq neither has a connection with 9-11.

3. Ding-Ding! Except right now, that only person is a terrorist group so far, so they currently do pose a greater threat...


I find it humorous that you are so worried about possible terrorist supports that Korea might do in the future..... but completely ignore the very concrete and real terrorist supports Iraq is engaged in right now.

[heretic888]

Please don't make up illusory 'facts' to support a baseless argument."

Thats true,heretic

Yes, it is true.

And, it is also true that thus far none of the 'america is bein' bad, lets not go to war!' types on this thread have shown even the slightest resemblence of evidence or facts to support their views.

[heretic888]

hey heretic stop treating people like thery're in kindergarten,you self centered piece of crap


When people rigidly and dogmatically assert their claims on others without the slightest resemblence of evidence or factual basis for them, and whose only base for their arguments is an overly idealistic naivette typical of teenagers, then i treat them as they are behaving... like children.

[Donatello02]

North Korea is more of a direct threat then anything else. Good ole Dubya can't see that.. He's blinded by revenge, greed, and childish beef with Iraq. Have you noticed that Osama pretty much went clean after comitting one of the most outrageous acts against America in this countries history? Yeah, you see, we have this thing for a president. What do you call them? Oh yes, A DUMBASS. This is the first time the UN has ever disagreed with US and if Bush keeps up with his constent war mongering, US is gonna be alone on this one and I wouldn't be suprised if this is just another Desert Storm fiasco. Oh and it doesn't help our already low economy. Like I said, North Korea holds a larger threat then Iraq. He just choosed not to see this.

[Wingnut]

all i've heard from you heretic is "saddam is naughty"

[heretic888]

North Korea is more of a direct threat then anything else. Good ole Dubya can't see that..

North Korea is not currently channeling support to terrorist organizations, and North Korea was not involved with 9/11.

He's blinded by revenge, greed, and childish beef with Iraq.

Well, that much is true..

Have you noticed that Osama pretty much went clean after comitting one of the most outrageous acts against America in this countries history?

This is true. It is also true that Saddam Hussein helped protect and supported Al-queda and is in many ways directly responsible for 9/11.

This is the first time the UN has ever disagreed with US

Ummm... then why has the UN sanctioned Iraq to disarm?? :roll:

and if Bush keeps up with his constent war mongering, US is gonna be alone on this one and I wouldn't be suprised if this is just another Desert Storm fiasco.

Please. Like the UN is gonna sit by when a rogue nation they sanction to disarm just says no.

Oh and it doesn't help our already low economy.

Actually, wars typically bolster the economy.

Like I said, North Korea holds a larger threat then Iraq. He just choosed not to see this.

North Korea is most certainly a threat. But they are nowhere near as direct and immediate a threat as Iraq. Korea MAY do dealings with terrorists. Iraq already has.

[heretic888]

all i've heard from you heretic is "saddam is naughty"


I've presented empirical facts and summary findings to you. All the 'idealists' on this thread (such as yourself) have given me is petty rationalizations detached from reality.

[Wingnut]

War boosts the economy....rrrrriiigghtt

[Kameko]

War boasts the economy....rrrrriiigghtt

Erm... I think you mean 'boosts'....

[Wingnut]

my bad

[Donatello02]

Heretic, so what if they had ties with terrorists. But do they have a fullly operational power plant suplying them with uranuim??? Hmm??? Didn't think so. THINK before you post.

[heretic888]

Heretic, so what if they had ties with terrorists. But do they have a fullly operational power plant suplying them with uranuim??? Hmm??? Didn't think so. THINK before you post.


I do think before I speak, Donny-boy. :roll:

Saddam Hussein protects and supports terrorist groups, both now and in the past. Contrary to the idealistic diatribes perpetuating this thread, we (as in the United Nations) DO have proof of this. If a group of people fund, protect, and support a mafia in your local neighborhood... are they not also culpable of the crimes??

The evidence indicates Hussein is in possession of deadly weapons. The evidence indicates that Hussein supports terrorist organizations including the Al-queda, and was at least indirectly involved in 9/11. If he is not stopped, it is just a matter of time until a terrorist group has in their possession a nuclear or biological weapon. Personally, I wouldnt take that chance. But that's just me.

[GoonOilPirates]

Greetings,
I wanted to let those of you who complimented some of tokka's thoughts to know that I am flattered. Why? Basically, he cut and pasted my exact words out of another website's forum where similar debates are ongoing and he did not make it clear that they were not his own thoughts. Then, he had the nerve to e-mail me asking for "help" over here in the back and forth blather.

As I told him, I really have no desire to get involved in a complex moral, ethical, religious, and political discussion with people I don't know. It is one thing to discuss the matter among friends where I usually post, but quite another to simply be the "ringer" for one thread here. I have little interest in the rest of this website (no offense to anyone though), so I will refrain from joining in as it would waste my time and the time of you other users. The cause of peace is a good one and I encourage those of you who see the wrongheadedness of war to work hard. And let us all pray that if those wanting bombs and bullets get their way that little blood is spilled. Very scary times ahead either way...may the evil in Iraq, the evil in America, the evil in Korea, the evil all around the world find the inner wisdom to create a better world with 21st century intelligence and not Stone Age barbarism.

And tokka, I suggest you apologize to your fellow users here for what you did.

Thank you for reading.

Adieu.

[heretic888]

I don't know about Tokka 'plagiarizing' anyone, as the arguments in question weren't all that thought-out or well-researched in the first place, but anyways.....

The cause of peace is a good one and I encourage those of you who see the wrongheadedness of war to work hard.

You see, here is the inherent hypocrisy of the detached idealists. You post that peace is a 'good cause' and yet are against taking action against a basically rogue nation that refuses to cooperate with the international community, is in possession of weapons they are not supposed to have, and in every way supports terrorist organizations. How is not taking actions to control the situation supporting 'peace'??

And let us all pray that if those wanting bombs and bullets get their way that little blood is spilled.

Aye. I would prefer a peaceful discourse with Iraq, but realistically that's not gonna happen.

may the evil in Iraq, the evil in America, the evil in Korea, the evil all around the world

"Evil"?? Gee.... now you're the one sounding like GW. :roll:

find the inner wisdom to create a better world with 21st century intelligence and not Stone Age barbarism.

Wow, overly-emotive idealistic propaganda. I am so impressed. :|

And tokka, I suggest you apologize to your fellow users here for what you did.


I don't see that any apology is necessary here, in that I myself borrow from certain writers all the time..... but, I think Tokka's desire to channel this individual as a 'backer' is indicative of the flimsiness of their arguments.

Talk to yah later.

[DarthRaphael]

All evidence against Iraq is being presented now by Colin Powell.

We will see who is right and wrong.

edit


check out this news link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

more
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77624,00.html

[heretic888]

dun dun dun!!! the plot thickerns..... :P

Thanks for the links, Darth.

The third one from Foxnews gave the best summary of how the other nations immediately responded to Powell's presentations:

"But Powell's remarks did not seem to sway the other three veto-holding members of the Security Council. Representatives of China, Russia and France all argued that the work of the weapons inspectors should continue. France proposed tripling the number of inspectors and opening more regional offices in Iraq.

The Bush administration is counting on Spain and Bulgaria, among others, to be part of its coalition. Its next step is to decide whether allies will support a resolution specifically authorizing force against Iraq, a senior official said. The key is France, this official said. But if President Jacques Chirac insists on vetoing such a resolution, Bush won't seek one.

The foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, put out a statement in support of the U.S. position.

'It has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions,' the statement read. 'We are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq.'

Powell planned to meet later in the day with the foreign ministers of Russia, Chile, Cameroon, Mexico, Angola, Pakistan, France, Spain and Bulgaria."

So............ in addition to Great Britain, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all backin' America on this on...... sounds like a 'lot of allies' if you ask me. Spain and Bulgaria are also apparently 'big maybes' to the Bush camp.

Even those that oppose direct military intervention based on Powell's initial presentation, such as China, France, and Germany, still basically agree that the inspection efforts need to be strengthened and greater surveillance (including allowing American U2 spy planes to be flown over Iraq) needs to be instated.

Analysis of the proof provided by Powell will tell us how many more countries will jump on. But, already, it is a very large percentage...

[DarthRaphael]

People wanted proof. They now have it.

[heretic888]

well, we will see how the other nations respond to Powell's presentation. even if the proof is acknowledged doesnt necessarily mean they will all choose to take military action.

[Tokka-B]

Yes, I have to apologize for using my friend's resources without crediting for it or even asking him. It really wasn't right, but he knew how to argue a case, he does it better than most people in the government I know, yes democrats included...Sorry Goon.... :cry: Here on, it will be me talking. :)

Anyway, I am still not convinced with what Colin Powell said, I caught some of it on the news and I was just laughing histerically...I mean he is telling the entire UN inspectors that there were weapons...if there were, how come the inspectors can't find them, but the Bush administration can? I don't understand that at all. Like I said earlier, it isn't something you can just hide anywhere you want, these are weapons of mass destruction we are talking about, not cherry bombs.... and after a long time of inspecting, I think there should be your answer...he has no weapons... out of the pictures I saw, they only show buildings and cargo trucks, I didn't see any weapons...I do believe however, like some smart nations have said, we need to keep up the search in case he may have weapons...That is only the first hurdle...next we have to prove that he is selling them to terrorist groups or using them as a threat, otherwise we are just as guilty as him...It is innocent until proven guilty, which he has not been proven of. I kinda liked Colin Powell, but I was really confused that he was the one that suddenly went all pro-war, he seemed like a decent man for a while, but then again, all he was was Bush's lab rat...Oh well, hopefully now we will avoid this pointless war, and deal with him in another fashion and in kind manners too, as well as North Korea...All war does is stimulate vengeance....I mean, if we are going in to stop Saddam from supplying weapons to a terrorist group as they say...do we really think that they won't attack us for stopping their deal? that is very close minded...plus all the other countries in the world they could get weapons from, geez
We are indeed, on the brink of WWIII unfortunately.....

By the way, the countries that joined to help our pointless cause are definately not the ones we needed....the major powers are still against us...France, Germany, China, Russia, etc....I don't see what Latvia is going to do except for giving Al Keida a reason to nuke the crap out of them...sheesh :roll:

[heretic888]

Anyway, I am still not convinced with what Colin Powell said, I caught some of it on the news and I was just laughing histerically...

Proof of nothing more than your childish naivette when hard facts are presented. This should tell you something when you rigidly and dogmatically assert your positions despite of the strong empirical evidence against them.

mean he is telling the entire UN inspectors that there were weapons...if there were, how come the inspectors can't find them, but the Bush administration can? I don't understand that at all.

Because Hussein knew WHEN and WHERE the inspectors were going several hours, sometimes days, beforehand. A good deal of the evidence presented by Powell was taken from satellite photographs and intercepted phone conversations. You should really try and achieve a good understanding of the methodology used in these types of activities before making banal, overly-idealistic claims.

Like I said earlier, it isn't something you can just hide anywhere you want, these are weapons of mass destruction we are talking about, not cherry bombs....

Actually, that's not true at all. Its relatively easy to conceal a weapons plant.... especially when Iraqi officials are directing where and when the inspectors are visiting.

and after a long time of inspecting, I think there should be your answer...he has no weapons... out of the pictures I saw, they only show buildings and cargo trucks, I didn't see any weapons...

You don't actually believe you saw ALL of Powell's presentation, do you?? In any event, there is more than enough proof presented from the intercepted phone conversations, satellite photographs, inside sources, and 'trails' of the weapons themselves.

kinda liked Colin Powell, but I was really confused that he was the one that suddenly went all pro-war, he seemed like a decent man for a while, but then again, all he was was Bush's lab rat...

He changed his position because of the evidence accumulated, nothing more. Powell is a very decent man, but as a military officer he is also a realist.

Oh well, hopefully now we will avoid this pointless war, and deal with him in another fashion and in kind manners too, as well as North Korea...

What are you talking about?? If anything, Bush has gained even MORE supporters from the UN than previously. These events have just made the war a hell of a lot more likely.

All war does is stimulate vengeance...

Not necessarily. It depends on how the defeated party is dealt with. After WW2, the United States used its own resources to rebuild West Germany and Japan. Today, they remain among our closest allies.

I mean, if we are going in to stop Saddam from supplying weapons to a terrorist group as they say...do we really think that they won't attack us for stopping their deal? that is very close minded...plus all the other countries in the world they could get weapons from, geez


Quit being naive. Terrorists are going to attack us anyway, no matter what we do. The only course of action is to stop them. Period.

By the way, the countries that joined to help our pointless cause are definately not the ones we needed....the major powers are still against us...France, Germany, China, Russia, etc....I don't see what Latvia is going to do except for giving Al Keida a reason to nuke the crap out of them...sheesh

You are under the mistaken impression that the countries in question do not possess any military resources, or that we could not use their bases as locations for coordination.

Besides, the major powers have not flat-out denied to help. They will simply examine the evidence a bit before taking action.