Author Topic: Al Capone's Vault (Read 1991 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #45 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:28:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
And it's fine for me
I've doubt for this only :

// It is about WMD.
// It is about terrorism.

We've given you credible sources and links showing indeed he was harboring terrorist, what more do you want? With all due respect...Sounds like you just have a fear of being wrong.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #46 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:29:35 AM »

Straffo:

Saddam is largely dangerous and destablizing becaouse of WMD - you cannot seperate the two.

SirLoin · « **Reply #47 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:29:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sirloin, just for the record, the Operation was called from the beginning..."Operation Iraqi Freedom"...., freeing the people from oppression was priority 1 the day the war started.... So, its been liberation from the beginning.

Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.

Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #48 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:29:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by falken
heay !

kill Saudi Arabia and Egypt if it was cause of WMD and terrorism
There will never be Democracy in the Arabian countries dont lie, they just cant cope with it.
And political reforms cant not be dictated from our western hemisphere, just cant be done withour decades of riots of the muslim world. Try read some history and learn

Theres a difference between a stable Gov't that tries to prevent terrorism (though weakly) and those that promote it.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #49 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:30:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.

Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.

What closet you been hiding in up there in Canada? Oh, I get it, its all "propoganda" right?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #50 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:30:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
What does China have to do with this?

Unless you are joking Rip we do actually trade most with Canada...

We love to help the less developed nations of the world, god bless the USA...

Martlet · « **Reply #51 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:31:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I've doubt for this only :

// It is about WMD.
// It is about terrorism.

I guess you just have to live here to understand.

Call it paranoia if you'd like, because to a certain extent it is. The US doesn't like to be pushed around. We have big muscles, and we don't mind flexing them.

To a good portion of Americans it IS about terrorism. We don't want people we view as a threat to us around. Does this mean we are going to attack every nation a terrorist comes from? Not at all.

What we want is countries that have terrorist working inside their borders to work at fixing that. The Taliban wouldn't, so we went in. Saddam wouldn't, so we went in.

Sure, other countries have terrorists too. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, but all those countries are "working" on a political level to fix that. As long as they are, we won't do anything about it. Sure, some of them are just paying us lip service, while doing nothing, but when politics stop, we'll take action.

I don't expect you to understand what many Americans think or feel, because you aren't here. But it isn't right to say it isn't about terrorism too, because it is. That's why WMD in Saddam's hands is a big deal to us. Not because we think he's going to gas the US, but because he IS friendly with terrorists, and it is a legitimate fear to think those WMD might fall into their hands.

falken · « **Reply #52 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:32:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ahh yes the other great anti-war argument. Why not attack Great Britain, France or Russia too?

Another funny thing about the anti-war crowd is how they lambasted Bush as a dim witted moron for decribing our enemies as "evil" - many said that was too simple and not nuanced enough for the complexities of the real world.

Yet now they emply some of the most ridiculous simplistic nonsensical arguments against the war, like why not attack any other unrelated country with WMD.

And finally lets not forget the samm deatil that Iraq was ordered not to have WMD as a condition of the 1991 cease fire.

I'm assuming you are troll falken so I'm not sure it really matters to even respoind to you but there it is.

because most of them are friendly (well pakistan might is but just a wannabe)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:32:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.

Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.

Wow!!! Let me ask you something, do you belive there are any american tanks in Baghad?

SLO · « **Reply #54 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:35:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Theres a difference between a stable Gov't that tries to prevent terrorism (though weakly) and those that promote it.

so what your sayin is putting a viel over the truth looks much better then not putting 1....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #55 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:37:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Unless you are joking Rip we do actually trade most with Canada...

We love to help the less developed nations of the world, god bless the USA...

Our biggest trade deficit is with China, we import more Chinese goods than any other nation, or so I thought...time for research...

Ripsnort · « **Reply #56 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:39:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
so what your sayin is putting a viel over the truth looks much better then not putting 1....

There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia probably has WMD, but do they have a ruler that would actually USE them? Saddam has used them...he's invaded other countries, fought other countries, he was not a stable person to posess these weapons. Neither is NK, but hey, one step at a time

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #57 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:43:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by falken
because most of them are friendly (well pakistan might is but just a wannabe)

We are friendly with India and have good relations.

America is too important a trade partner for China to make serious trouble IMHO - they would stand to loose a lot if our relationship went down hill, so would we but its a mutual thing.
Finally China and America are serious big boy countries who understand how to play the game and are aware of the reprecussions of misbehaving too much - think of it how neatly the cold war worked out between USA/USSR with tons and tons of WMD.

Pakistan is OK for now. musharraf is a good guy and they are amking an honest effort to help us out. I doubt they will mishbehave too much because they have a country at stake and have reponsibilities with regards to India. Basically if Pakistan messes up in a big way India will take advantage of the sitiation in some devious way.

North Korea is the biggest concern of course. They are pretty bad on all counts. Ironically I think the only thing thats keeping them safe from a big attack is the fact that they can destroy Seoul withing minutes of the start of any war. This means we must treat them more carefully. Its not a simple answer like yoiu would like but I feel its reasonable considering how things usually work out.

SirLoin · « **Reply #58 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:43:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I wouldn't mind fighting a few of the more outspoken 'critics' of the U.S.
lazs

You chickened out of dueling WildThing,why should I think you're serious now?

straffo · « **Reply #59 on:** April 08, 2003, 09:45:35 AM »

Martlet ,it's just we don't have the muscle to play the game like USA can do,so we have to rely on other tricks.

But I agree that current war on Iraq don't look to end like I was affraid to see (no pan-arabism explosion for now).

Currently the outcome of this war look to be pretty good, but it was not what I expected.

The ROE of the US army were smart enougtht to permit advance of the troop without creating tons of martyr (even with some psychological error like sending the brit to Basra).