I think it is time for the USA

[Kanth]

If saddam gets longer range missles going, guess what country still won't be hit by them.

That's right, he'll be more able to hit you guys before US but if you want to be anti war and give him that capability, great show of power before he murders your people.

I think we should pull out of the UN, take the money that we spend in the UN and put it towards defense spending and see how that goes.

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
IMHO , US should concentrate more on NK than on Irak.. Which one has publicly said to be ready to launch a pre-emptive strike?

There's still a chance to peacefully and diplomatically resolve the conflict with NK. NK is currently being dealt with diplomatically to circumvent a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula.

The chance to diplomaticaly resolve Iraq's non-compliance with the UN left the building several years ago. To this day he is still not complying with the UN. You can sit there and believe you have brought peace to the region by allowing Iraq to continue to give the UN the run around and not comply, during that time he will still be producing chemical and biological weapons, and still be seeking nuclear material, bombs or missles.

When he feels he has enough, he will be sure to use them. You can count on that.

No amount of UN inspections will stop Saddam, they haven't for 12 years and they won't tommorrow. It's end game for Saddam.
-SW

[LLv34 Jarsci]

I donīt say that you should not attack Iraq. Basically its a war to remove Saddam.(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..)  So why go in with a full force when good intel and one 2000lbs laser guided bomb would make the job much cheaper and losses would be minimal... And Saddam-wannabes run out faster than bombs.

Of course your weapons best-before day may be coming shortly, so there is another reason for full live-fire excercise.

Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade. Mostly Europeans are pissed off about your governments we-do-what-we-want  attitude. While in fact everyone agrees that Saddam should go, this whole Iraq thing has become  a pissing contest between US and Europe, and main point has been lost during that.. only guy winning is Mr. S.

Oh.. And NK has weapons, proven capability to make nukes and manpower, and then you go diplomatic.
Saddam prolly has some nasty bacters somewhere, but everything else heīs missing, and there you go with a bang.

?

[Hangtime]

Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade.

Yup.. seems like Europe would rather keep him in power in exchange for lucrative financial kickbacks instead of kickin his bellybutton out and taking your chances on a US/UK brokered regime that would (I hope) have a long memory regarding where the petitioning nations pre-ouster politics are concerned.

You'd think the French would rememeber that Germany was Frances largest trading partner pre-1940.

At least Britan remembers that appeasement is a ticket to a betrayal.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..)

Ah yes... I always enjoy reading this line. It makes a fantastic anti-war poster, but the truth it holds is as much as Clinton's "not having sexual relations with that woman."  

So why go in with a full force when good intel and one 2000lbs laser guided bomb would make the job much cheaper and losses would be minimal... And Saddam-wannabes run out faster than bombs.

You know where Saddam is? Does your government? Does anyone other than Saddam and his cohorts? We never know where Saddam is. We did during the Gulf War, but since assassinating country leaders is a big international "no no", it just can't happen.

Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade. Mostly Europeans are pissed off about your governments we-do-what-we-want  attitude. While in fact everyone agrees that Saddam should go, this whole Iraq thing has become  a pissing contest between US and Europe, and main point has been lost during that.. only guy winning is Mr. S.

I'm not pissed about Europeans not joining this "crusade"... but I don't think it's very intelligent of them to stand in the way either. And you're right, Saddam is the only one winning. He's winning more time. He's been winning more time, hell he's effectively kicked the living toejam out of the UN for 12 years. He's winning alright, and he will continue to win until he's taken out. You see another option? No one, not one person in any country, has offered a better solution other than "lets give Saddam more time".. and "let the inspections continue". That option has been played out going on 12 years now, got a better one?


Oh.. And NK has weapons, proven capability to make nukes and manpower, and then you go diplomatic.
Saddam prolly has some nasty bacters somewhere, but everything else heīs missing, and there you go with a bang.
 

NK has proven that they will turn the Korean peninsula into a glowing crater visible from the far reaches of space. You condemn the US for taking the diplomatic route, but then you'd condemn the US even more for going the military route because there'd be a million dead Koreans and thousands of people from other nationalities.

And there you admit it Saddam prolly has some nasty biological agents, and possibly chemical... and he's still pursuing the nuclear option.

So that in itself proves diplomatic relations and UN inspections haven't been working at all, and are continuing to fail. But you insist taking out Saddam isn't the best option.

So, tell me, what is the best option? To wait and let him grow stronger so instead of a relatively small armed conflict tommorrow, you have a region-wide nuclear conflict 3 or 4 years down the road?

I still have yet to see a better option than waiting till he gets his hands on bigger and better weapons capable of killing off everyone in that entire region.
-SW

[Turdboy]

GScholz why should we have to pay all of what we  "owe"?

We have always paid more than any other country plus we supply more food troops and equipment.

Still we are told we "owe" the worthless POS we call the U.N. money.

[Hangtime]

On 30 September 2002, President Bush signed into law the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 1646.  Since 1994 no such State Department Authorization Bill has been able to pass Congress, yet this year was different.  In the words of Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the U.S. took “a huge step toward normalizing our relationship with the United Nations” with the recent signing into law of H.R. 1646, because with its passage the United States has made the last of its U.N. arrears payments.  With the release of this $244 million sum, representing the third and final arrears payment, the U.S. absolved its debt to the U.N.

Frankly, I don't think we should have paid 'em. Ain't there a "Lemon Law"??

I mean, if it's broke; why in hell should we pay for it??

[funkedup]

.(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..)

A lot more people than just the US would benefit from Iraq modernizing their oil industry.  People like the Iraqis and any nation who imports oil.

[Kanth]

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
I donīt say that you should not attack Iraq.

 ok, that's 2 minutes I'll never get back.

also funny that it's 'we' when you talk about making a decision but it's 'you' when it comes down to an approved attack on Iraq.

 That pretty much illustrates my feelings on the usefulness of 'you'

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Originally posted by mietla

ROFL!:D

[Frogm4n]

history never repeats itself does it

[Udie]

Originally posted by mietla

the best humor is always ruited in truth