Author Topic: We get a war - oh yay, LGB's on CNN! :D (Read 1406 times)

StSanta · « **on:** October 08, 2002, 01:00:50 AM »

Bush's speech was exactly what I expected. And, we get a war. Check the demands out for NOT going to war:

1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.

2. End its support for terrorism.

3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.

4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.

5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said. "And military conflict could be difficult."

Ok, no. 1 is doable. But no.2? Iraq won't be abe to convince teh US they're not harboring terrorists - the US will simply not believe anything Iraq says here.¨Iraq face a difficult task - if they're not harboring terrorists, they'll have to prove a negative. "Prove that there aren't great red hippos living in an oasis in the centre of the sun".

Number three. This is a bit silly - if this was a criteria for avoiding war, a helluva lot of countries arond the world ought to fear invasion. So in order to avoid double standards, the US would have to invade these too. I gather soon we'll have USCA - United States of Conquered Africa - and why stop there?

4. Righto. Do this while the US cease to import heroin and cocaine

5. Perhaps they cannot account for all personell. Perhaps the pilot went down with his plane and his remains were scattered over a large area. Small piece of human material decompose rapidly. Don't mean to be disrespectful of the pilot who lost his life, but this is the cruel fact of life.

So, soon I'll be watching LGB's and GPS guided munitions killing people on CNN again.

I hope Bush/Blair find more evidence before that though. So far they've made a convincing argument, but one that lacks heavy, solid evidence. It'd be good if they got something on this guy - otherwise goiung in with a lighter into a powderkeg is unwise. Some evidence might help to make the powder a little bit less dry.

Please read this post from the position of a neutral - I don't care if this speech was made by Bush, Blair, Hussein or our Rasmussen. Just evaluating it for feasability And it lacks that.

Saintaw · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2002, 03:04:58 AM »

Remember that guy in elementary who had a ball ? You could only play if you followed "his rules"(I am allowed to score, but not you!).

This is what I'm thinking about now, of course... it's only morning, but...

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #2 on:** October 08, 2002, 03:33:57 AM »

The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem.

The US did a great job of harbouring Real IRA terrorists after the Omagh bombing, even though the British government had outlawed them. So to start getting all sniffy and holier than thou at this late stage, simply because of Sept 11th, is as transparent as Rumsfeld's rhetoric.

Hristo · « **Reply #3 on:** October 08, 2002, 03:53:24 AM »

Seems that every Bush starts a war somewhere

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2002, 06:15:47 AM »

Dowding:

"The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem."

So what heppens when he kicks them out again, or to use your liberal descrimination victim terminology creates a hostile workplace environment for the inspectors leaving them no choice but to depart? Do you support military action then, or do we go back to yet another round of wishful: "The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem.". In all these Bush speech whine threads I have never seen anyone mention his numerous clear statements that in fact war would hopefully be a last resort if other attememts to get a solid NEW UN inspections and WMD regime implemented. Why a new one? Because the old one was a disater. I wonder why you fellows fail to quote these parts of the speech.

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** October 08, 2002, 06:20:14 AM »

it was a great speech

but thanks for the meaningless commentaries from across the pond

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2002, 06:59:45 AM »

You're welcome, Eagler. Just give a shout if you need any clarification.

Yellowherz - you see all those other conditions attached to the ultimatum. What the shreck do they have to do with WMD? Nada.

And yes, if the inspectors were kicked out, I would support military action. I've said that many times before, in many different threads...

... but the other 'terms' are unadulterated BS and have nothing to do with WMD.

Monk · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:15:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)

And yes, if the inspectors were kicked out, I would support military action. I've said that many times before, in many different threads...

Haven't they already been kicked out?

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:17:36 AM »

Folks, im not sure where all this will end up,
Afghanistan is still explosive and far away to be a peacefull place,
Israel - Palestine is still burning and high explosive too,
and now another War in that region ?
I hope Bush knows what he is doing.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:18:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
Seems that every Bush starts a war somewhere

Oh, did Bush invade Kuwait in 1990? Huh! didn't know that!

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:34:05 AM »

Ripsnort:

The liberals idea of peace is letting a dictator swallow up countries. Like Hitler did in 1938 with Czeckoslovakia. Its only a war when the good guys start to defend themselves.

An extreme example were the "anti-war" activists after 911. To them the "war" only started if we attacked the Taliban - the actuall 911 attack was not the start of war in their minds.

I am not sure but I beleive this attitude comes from their fundemental hatered of our and thus their own western society and culture.

How else can you explain them thinking President Bush actually started the Kuwait war in 1990?

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:49:34 AM »

Quote

I am not sure but I beleive this attitude comes from their fundemental hatered of our and thus their own western society and culture.

I am not sure, but I believe your beliefs stem from a dangerous and hate filled bitterness felt towards Western society for not actually stepping in to the Balkans and stopping your brethren from killing each other.

However, your difficulty in accepting other people's views that happen to differ from your own, as well as your inability to comprehend the concept that dissent or criticism is not heresy or sacriledge, is as clear as day. It's almost as though you want to live under a totalitarian regime, where the prevailing views of the government are the only views to hold.

You're the embodiment of everything that isn't Western generally, or American specifically. In your hurry to be seen as a patriot in your new country, you overlook the most fundamental ideals the state was founded upon.

Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Liberty

Staga · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:50:36 AM »

Just one question: Are you ready to see pics like This and This?
In war there's always casualties thought I'm sure U.S would have better K/D ratio.
If there's a way to avoid war every health person would use it.

Monk · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:56:22 AM »

here is a interesting articlehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-10-5&id=2328

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2002, 08:02:02 AM »

The spectator is a pretty poor publication.