Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Voss on March 29, 2002, 10:31:34 PM
-
Kissinger says: "Iraq has developed weapons of (listen up Toad) mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has stated that he will pay immediate relatives of any participants in terrorist attacks against AMERICANS $25,000 per event. In that he intends to put his Weapons of Mass Destruction. in the hands of terrorists we should not wait until he acts. He must be eliminated. This has been delayed by President Bush due to recent developments in the Middle East, but you must know that this President (G.W.Bush) will do something when he says he will. You can expect a buildup to begin no later than June, and I do not believe this assault on Iraq will end, until Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen. No longer will a line in the sand be satisfactory. Saddam Hussein must be eliminated as a threat to world peace."
I have no doubt this war will widen into World War. We might as well start preparing for it now.
-
What I've heard is that we've seriously depleted the store of "smart" weapons and have run a lot of the flying hardware to the limits.
As my wheat cutting buddies say, "we ran that combine till the metal got too thin". I think a lot of the fighters are "thin" right now. Stuff wears out.
Wonder what the Pentagon morons who kept saying we could still fight a "two front war" after the downsizing are saying now. LOL. We have our hands full with Afghanistan and we're considered a superpower! If Korea popped now, you'd see people leaping through their bungholes! The everyday "stores" are just not there and haven't been for sometime.
IMO though, we're going to Iraq eventually, no matter what the rest of the world says UNLESS:
They let the UN inspectors back in with just enough "access" to keep us from acting.
Barring that, we'll be going eventually. I'm personally convinced they now have chemical and biological weapons that would be effective against the CONUS and will be used against the CONUS eventually. I'm sort of convinced that they are reasonably far along in the nuke department as well and that will be a creditable threat against us shortly.
There's no problem getting ANY of that stuff in. If you've been watching the news about the containerized shipping you realize that. Beyond that, freighter loads and plane loads of dope come in all the time. Shouldn't be too hard to bring a load of something else.
No problem finding somebody to sit on top of whatever it is and set it off in the heart of the Great Satan's downtown, either. You only have to watch the evening news from Palestine to realize that too.
The rest of the world will scream about it, but it's not Paris or London or Stockholm or Berlin or Helsinki that's going to get whacked. We know that and THEY know that. We're the ones at risk and we're going to act.
I personally favor the 13 cent solution but I admit it would be tough, would probably take a while and may or may not actually get him.
Just my .02 from high up in the cheap seats.
-
Well eh next stop in the war should be Germany. Those Bastards sent over all those engineers and pretty much built all the factorys and bunkers for them.
Hmm...The Canadians have groups raising funds for family freinds and terrorists back home....NUKE Em dammit.
Arms for Hostages..Take those guilty parties and Castrate them...make sure they can never do it again.
America continues embargoes against Iraq and violates their national boundaries and you think they wouldn't get pissed?
Think back to the previous thread for a moment.
When the palestinians are subjected to dehumanizing conditions the end result is total whakko behaviour and guided dumb bombs.
Iraq was an American "Friend" at one time. What changed that?
Hell even Kuwait...Historically they were a part of Iraq untill western powers decided to interfere and play GOD with men and borders.
Some here have previously said lets just bring everyone home and let them at it. Good Idea..just leave them with the thought if they go after your mainland that ICBM's will deliver thier next mail shipment from the states.
-
what changed was the Baathist came to power in Iraq.
Its quite a different circumstance. You cant compare our relationship with Iraq with Zionist Israels relationship with the Palestinians.
First of all as despicable as Zionist Israel treatment of the palestinians is it is basically an internal matter.
Iraq threatens not only minorities in its own borders (shiites kurds), its own Suni, buts its neighbors and if the reports are true the world at large.
Couple that with its support of terrorists and the threat Iraq places over the world is by far greater then the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
I would never advocate the occupation or overthrow of the Israeli government but would want my nation not to aid Israel in its treatment of the palestinians. Israel bares the brunt of the consequences of its treatment of the palestinians. By us backing Israel that provides just another in the long list of why the Islamic world distrusts us.
Iraq on the otherhand is where we need to crack the whip. The problem I have with that is what do we do when Sadam is gone? occuppy Iraq? Ofcourse this will lead to terror strikes against us. But it may remove the immediate threat of a terror strike using much worse weapons then car bombs and nail bombers.
It would also send a much more serious message to the terror supporting regimes world wide. Much more so then the actions in Afghanistan.
Simple
Iraq global threat using weapons of mass destruction
Israel and Palestinians acting as animals taking turns killing each other.
The present threat out ways the risk of future less leathal attacks.
Ofcourse one could argue that the threat of US military action against Iraq may cause them to try a premptive strike to shock us out of action. Which it wont. Or that they made plans and have distributed these weapons amongst the terrorists groups in anticipation of US action putting them out of reach. And to be used at a later time.
I am not much for the big talk up to action. As if we need to talk ourselves into it.
When I was a about 13 or so this big bellybutton dude down the street was tellin everyone he was gonna beat my arse on such and such a day and that everyone should come watch.
Well of course I heard and when the time came I was standing out in front of my house with a glass a bleach with some ice in it pretending like it was my drink.
Dude walked up talking crap so I throw the bleach in his facr and broke a long green willow branch off the tree in my yard and whipped his arse with it. You should have seen the whelps. Dude was all cryin and moanin from the bleach and all the folks that came to watch were laughing their arse off.
He would been better off just doing it instead of giving me a chance to prepare. I had thought he still may whoop me but that beetch was gonna feel it as much as I did.
We need to hit Iraq do it now before Sadam has a chance to come up with any doomsday plan. Hes gotta know if we come he cant win and that will be the end of him. I cant imagin he would just sit back and wait.
-
Originally posted by Ping
America continues embargoes against Iraq and violates their national boundaries and you think they wouldn't get pissed?
Point of Order, Mr Chairman!
The United Nations Security Council has implemented the sanctions (embargoes) against Iraq. Members of the UN Security Council at present are:
Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Russian Federation, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, France
Security Council Round Up 2001 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sc7266.doc.htm)
"...On 29 November, the Council extended the programme for a further 180 days beginning 1 December. By unanimously adopting resolution 1382 (2001), it also approved a proposed Goods Review List for implementation on 30 May 2002. ...
You may now go ahead and point out that since the very beginning of the Iraq sanctions, ALL members of the Security Council have merely been running-dog capitalist lackeys of the US and thus the unanimous votes. (I think almost every vote has been unanimous over the years).
For example, in the present Security Council, everyone knows Syria, France and China ALWAYS do what the US tells them to do. No possible way that just about EVERYONE views Iraq as a serious threat, right?
Secondly, Security Council Resolution 688 is used by the US/UK to justify the imposition of the no-fly zones. While the legality of this action under this resolution is disputed, you will note that neither the Security Council or the UN General Assembly has brought the matter up in session. In short, the UN membership, while aware of the dispute over 688 and the no-fly zones, is quite willing to "look the other way". Why is that?
Maybe it's because of things like Halabja? Just maybe?
Chemical massacre of the people of Halabja (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html)
The US is the Great Satan, right? When the sh*t hits the fan, where do the eyes of the world turn?
-
Toad: Iraq was an ally..yet the government KNEW the guy was a homicidal maniac, they turned the other cheek and allowed him to cement himself into power. Now they say oops....we have to get rid of him...
Fast forward to today, Pakistan is an ally, yet the government knows that they have terrorist training camps and are a poor choice for a friend.
Should we perhaps pause and TRY to learn from the past?
He is doing nothing any different now then when he was a FRIEND of the US Government. I think its time that The US Government stop being so Hypocritical and Establish that 0 tolerance that is being touted.
Saddam is a mass murderer and should face the music...but why should we be forced to play the political games. Enough of the BS.
Iraq is no different now than 15 years ago. Fine they have weapons of Mass destruction, I can name a whole toejamload of countries that do and some that have used them, some of them being more unstable.
What I say still stands....Violate national boundaries and yur gonna piss off the country....homicidal dictator or not.
Do I think America is the Great Sastan? NO! But I do live in a country where there is a lot of political roadkill so I can recognize that when I see it.
No offense intended Toad
-
No, we were never friends with Iraq. We may have traded with them, and we may have sent them aid, but friends?
I don't recall seeing Saddam invited to the White House for dinner. Now, THAT would have made him a friend.
We tolerated the lesser of available evils. Had there been another solution then we would have done differently. There have been times when the we (the U.S.) tried to allow local regions to police their peers, and in the case of the middle east they all hug each other, while clutching knives. When trouble arises they seem incapable of handling the issue themselves. It would be wrong for an Arab to kill an Arab, after all. So, they cry to the U.S., or turn a deaf ear to pleas for help.
We DID betray the Kurds. There's no doubt about that. Which of the middle eastern countries didn't? Name one that rushed to aid the Kurds. Not a damn one! Yet, it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Time-after-time the Kurds have been Guinea Pigs for his new weapons. It's absolutely sickening what has happened to them as a people. Had a 'civilized' nation (go ahead - argue that Iraq is civilized) done such a thing, we would have ANNILIHILATED their ability to do so. We tried that with Saddam, and then installed a President that didn't give a flip whether Hussein was the devil himself!
Yeah, we suck. That's why everyone turns to us when the chips are down. I will submit to you that we suck the least.
-
Oh, so we were once "friendly" or "semi-allied" with Iraq and that changes something forever?
See the quote above. We were also allied with Stalin, generally acknowledged as a "not so nice guy".
I think you can go back through recorded history and find many, many examples of numerous nations that "make poor choices for friends". They do so for many reasons, necessity being one and "seemed like the thing to do at the time" being another.
However, don't forget one other thing. Times and situations change. The reasons that cause a nation to "make a poor choice for a friend" can and do alter over time.
Want to go back through history and see how many instances of "friends" becoming "enemies" that we can find? I'd guess you'll concede that one, eh?
Like Stalin, we once found or thought it advantageous to cooperate to some degree with Saddam. The right or wrong of those decisions is now immaterial. They were made by folks who thought they were doing the right thing, given the information they had at the time.
They certainly didn't make those choices by looking into the future and trying to deliberately design a way to bring us to the present sad situation.
Anyway, times and situations have since changed. Unless Pakistan alters some of its behaviors I doubt our new found friendship there will long endure. BUT... it was the thing to do at the time based on the information we had and the situation we had to face in Afghanistan.
There is also the possibility that Pakistan's "new" relationship with us will give impetus to the changes that would make them a "better" member of the world community.
Politics isn't static, it's fluid.
I totally disagree with the statement that Saddam is "doing nothing any different now then when he was a FRIEND of the US Government." Exhibit A would be the $25K he is offering to folks that are "martryed" attacking the US. THAT seems a bit different to me anyway.
Please name the countries with bio/chem/nuke weapons of mass destruction that you consider more unstable than Iraq. Then refine that list to name those that have clearly made the US a public target of their political/military system...as Saddam has.
As I said, I think all that needs to be done to avoid US intervention is for Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back in and give them access to the places they feel they need to go.
He can do that or he can be attacked by the US eventually. Won't be my choice but I'll have no problem with either solution. I see Iraq's chem/bio/nuke weapons eventually being detonated on US soil unless we act first... and the clock is running.
In Saddam's case, I think we should "get there firstest with the mostest" .
I don't want to wait until an Iraqi chem/bio/nuke weapon comes in on a container ship and is detonated by an "extreme" Islamic group in the middle of DC or NYC.
Sorry if you find that to be political BS.
-
actaully voss, reason we betrayed Kurds has more to do with Turkey then Iraq ...
I believe that most of them would rather live in Saddam's place then in our friendly Nato ally...
-
On Thursday the 22 States of the Arab League issued a statement asserting that ANY attack on ANY Arab League state, SPECIFICALLY Iraq, would be regarded as an attack against the entire Arab League. Iraq has agreed to recognize the existance of Kuwait and has agreed to the Arab League resolution to allow Israel to exist in peace should Israel give up its captured lands of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and as a further consession Iraq has agreed to allow UN Inspectors access to their weapons development sites again (wink wink).
Bottom line? Same old "Peace for Land" offer by the Arabs, same old "Yeah, we'll get back to you" line by the Israelis, but we have a brand new twist now- The Arab League, with all 22 of its nations, issued a resolution stating they will not condone a strike against Iraq. Basically this means we will be an armed agressor to the Arab League rather than the armed savior we were 12 years ago should we attack Iraq. This will be far different than Desert Storm, and as Toad mentioned we're already getting spread pretty thin military-wise.
How many of you think we should take Sadaam out? Better yet, how many of you think the Saudi people actually WANT Sadaam out?? How many of you think Saudi Arabia is our ally? How many of you think the Arab world will allow us to use their bases from DS 1990 to launch attacks against Sadaam? How many of you think there's not already a steady supply of new extremist zealots entering Afghanistan every day willing to die for the opportunity to kill Western agressors? How many Taliban and Al Queda fighters are there? Do you think they will ever run out of recruits willing to die for their cause? How many of you are willing to get mired in a long war where history might eventually show we were the agressors using the pretext of "destroying evil" to establish our influence over foreign states? Do you think the current Afghan government will continue to represent the will of its people, or do you think it might become (if it not already is) a military dictatorship run by a strongman propped up by the United States?
Before everybody slams me, please- I have no solutions. All I have is the lesson of history, which seems to repeat itself. Voss has a great point- are we willing to have a nuclear war, or are we simply going to play politics and bleed off our youth in a long, drawn-out war like we did in Viet Nam? Just my 2 cents worth.
-
Well, I'm sure we can depend on the mighty, unified Arab League to deal with Iraq after some Islamic extremist sets off a bio weapon traceable directly to Iraq in downtown NYC.
:rolleyes:
It's not IF, it's WHEN.
So, sit on your hands and watch it happen. Then moan about it.
-
Voss and Toad are you guys considering the ramifications of an assault on Iraq?
Lets start with the UN Security council resolution 1382. Your right that is in regards to embargos. Resolution 688 is in regards to the no-fly zone. So for a new attack on Iraq you would need a new UN resolution to be within international law. So far, we have zero support from the EU or the Arab league an luke warm support from Briton.
You want to disregard internationa law swell but beware it might bit you on the bellybutton down the road.
Another problem. Where are going to launch this mass attack from?.. aircraft carriers? At most you would be able to sortie 300 flights a day. That’s fine for some air raids but not for the large scale attack your talking about here. Saudi Arabia has said no.. Turkey has said no. Kuwait maybe..
Another thing to consider: Ground forces. Lately we like to use indigenous tribesmen. I suppose in this case we’d be using the Kurds. This causes all kinds of geopolitical problems with Turkey.. Who would be running the show over there if we won, the Kurds as masters of the Iraqi people?.. I think not. Your other alternative is to start up the draft again to get the required 200,000 plus army... This means explaining to the parents of these soldiers that it’s really not a war to seize Iraqi oil fields.
Finally, there are 15 countries in the world that possess WMD.. We have an understanding with the world that if ANY country uses WMD on American soil, their entire country turns into glass within 24 hours.
I’d say the solution is for Israel to pull back from the occupied territories. They seem to be the root cause for ALLLL this nonsense.
As for Saddam... diddly him... he’s getting old and gonna die soon. I understand his son Udie (hehe) is going to take over anyway. Lift sanctions and start making deals.. because it’s the oil you guys are really after now isn’t it?.... Isn’t it?
-
A "union" of Arab states isn't worth the paper it's printed on .......
BTW, you hand-wringers ready and willing to pay $5 a gallon and up for gasoline(if you can find any) if and when Iraq invades Saudi Arabia?? Don't think it can't happen, the Saudi's and Iraqi's despise each other. Some stupid "union" or not.......
Arabs are six-faced and triple-hearted. Pay no attention at all to what Arab "leaders"(re: repressive despots)say. Pay attention to what they do..............
Cabby
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Voss and Toad are you guys considering the ramifications of an assault on Iraq?
No.
I'm considering the ramifications of NOT making an assault on Iraq if UN weapons inspection programs fail to remove Iraq's bio/chem/nuke warfare programs.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
actaully voss, reason we betrayed Kurds has more to do with Turkey then Iraq ...
I believe that most of them would rather live in Saddam's place then in our friendly Nato ally...
Actually, I didn't say *why* we betrayed them (I don't care why, I'm not a liberal), I just said we did.
I'm with Toad on this issue. Our President said we're going in, so it doesn't really matter what the U.N. said. They'll change their position next week, anyway.
I'm all for a fight. I have never liked anyone from the region. Those that have come to America, and have actually become Americans, I accept. The others are getting what they deserve at home.
Come to think of it, it kind of rubs me the wrong way for someone to have duel citizenship. In the interest of Homeland Security, perhaps we need to review a few million passports. You never know what a son-of-a-squeak will infect himself with in order to sabotage America.
Hmm,...
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
A "union" of Arab states isn't worth the paper it's printed on .......
BTW, you hand-wringers ready and willing to pay $5 a gallon and up for gasoline(if you can find any) if and when Iraq invades Saudi Arabia?? Don't think it can't happen, the Saudi's and Iraqi's despise each other. Some stupid "union" or not.......
Arabs are six-faced and triple-hearted. Pay no attention at all to what Arab "leaders"(re: repressive despots)say. Pay attention to what they do..............
Cabby
Cabby, the Saudi and the Iraqui representatives to the Arab League just kissed and made up in front of the whole wide world. Bottom line? The Arabs consider the USA to be a bigger threat than Sadaam. But reading between the lines of your question- "Are you hand wringers willing to pay 5 dollars a gallon for gasoline"- well, hell yes, if it can avoid the loss of even ONE American (or other coalition) kid's life. Hell, I'd give up both my cars and my boat and WALK to work every day if there was a guarantee that no more of our children would have to die in a war. What the hell do YOU drive, a Ford Exposition? And the right to drive your gas guzzler is paid for with the blood of our children???
Your statement "Arabs are six-faced and triple-hearted" shows the general disregard so many of us so-called "civilized" Westeners display towards those we choose not to take the time to understand. Aren't you curious WHY the Arab League has come out in such broad support of Sadaam Hussein? Why do they interpet our response to 9-11 as imperalism and an attack against Islam?
Now I'll tell you something you can absolutely take to the bank as a Gospel Truth. For every Taliban we kill we create two more. For every rock-throwing Palestenian kid that's killed by Israelis two more will take his place. Every time an American recon squad rips apart a village and frisks all the residents and arrests all the males we create even more enemies.
These people don't know about 9-11 other than it's a great victory against Satan that has brought the Beast amongst their midst to exact revenge, and they are prepared to meet the Beast and to maybe even defeat it. How do you fight what is in the heart of someone?
-
He's a gibbering idiot.
-
I'd wager that Iraq DOES have a tiny nuclear arsenal . Remember they had a nuclear power plant once . But Isreal destroyed it in 89. Of course this earned those barbarous isrealis a lot of condemnation from the rest of the world including the US . A few years later we were asking them to show restraint when Iraq was shooting ballistic missles at them . Think about that, saddam had ballistic missles and a nuclear reactor 11 years ago .
Libya also has a practically impenetrable weapons plant inside of a mountain that has been operating for a decade at least .
-
I'm with Toad on this issue. Our President said we're going in, so it doesn't really matter what the U.N. said. They'll change their position next week, anyway.
I wouldn’t be to sure about that Paul it DOES matter what the UN says otherwise we are in violation of international law.... the Rule Of Law???... remember that??? So instead of defeating one enemy we’ve created 10 more.... Oh no you have to get a UN resolution for this.. and they don’t seem to willing to vote for it.
But wait ...hold on .. I got another argument.... You rednecks understand money.. How much is this thing going to cost? Operation Allied Force was only a few hundred million. One reason was one of our main bases was only 60 miles away in Italy. When you do operations in places like Afghanistan or Iraq it goes up into the TENS of BILLIONS of dollars. All the re-fueling the long distance to target.. it gets very expensive.
I'm all for a fight. I have never liked anyone from the region. Those that have come to America, and have actually become Americans, I accept. The others are getting what they deserve at home.
Ah geese Voss what kinda argument is that.... you don’t like the people in the region...Good Gravy!
So lets review. Us taxpayers are told we have to foot the bill on this adventure told we must offer up our military aged kids.. told we must use caution everywhere in the world because of all the terrorists Why?... because President Bush wants to do revenge ops, or oil seizure ops.. nothing more...
And another thing Voss, President Bush is not king.. we don’t have kings he’s president and is accountable to the people of the United States and Congress. We don’t send our boys off without very good reason. Saddam has to have done something recently not ten years ago that’s ridiculous.
Like I said above, 15 countries have WMD they know the score. Saddam is ruthless but not insane he’s not going to light up a nuke in NYC that’s just silly. Besides he’s got his weapons stashed in the sand -- you’ll never find them..
You conservatives should urge your representives to stop funding for this thing.. The rest of the world might vote sanctions ON US!! Look, you’ve got 190 countries telling us this is wrong.. If 190 people tell you your wrong, don’t you at least consider their concern?
And Toads argument... “we got to attack them before they attack us”
What?!!!!
That sounds like something the Germans would say back in 1940. We’ve got to look at the root cause of trouble in the middle east not cause more of it.
-
10Bears, I don't know where to start.
If Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons isn't reason enough to be proactive nothing is .
Saddam won't use nuclear weapons ? Thankfully you're gifted with such clairvoyance, Now we can all breath a little easier. It's ok Saddam has nukes, he's not going to bomb anyone, that would be just silly !
I can't believe you made such an arrogantly stupid statement, especially considering the recent state of the world .
No saddam is no more crazy than your average warlord despot, oh but wait, actually Mr Hussien , you see he's a megalomaniac, and thats an established fact .
Mr Hussien hasn't done anything in 10 years ?! Have I unknowingly slipped into some wonderfull alternate reality and Saddam Hussien hasn't been a super criminal since 1991 ? Or is there a simpler explanation. hmm.
Oh and btw thanks for the Nazi analogy, was starting to fear we were going to end this conversation without one .
-
Iraq has WMDs', Libya, Pakistan, India, Israel, China (every freemans boogeyman), France (lord help us, If only because its fun to pick on France).
Pakistan and India are on the brink of disaster in that region and both have their own terrorist groups fighting for Kashmir.
Saddam had the occasion to use WMDs' in defence during desert storm. Scuds were sent daily bearing HE.
He didnt use them then and now we are being told that he is a threat to world peace because he has them.
He did use them internally, true....But name 1 major power that has not used WMD against a foe in wartime. And that is not ancient history.
I'm going to stretch here and propose that they have them for the same reasons that all of the other nations do, America included, If you try to annhilate us, we will use them.
Iraq has been pushing for mainly 2 things, Americas withdrawl from the region and Israels pulling out of occupied territory.
Now the Arab league is saying they will safegaurd the peace.
Is the US Government So Godlike as to say the world can trust nothing other than what they themselves say or promise? Thats Arrogant political BS.
The World didnt turn to the US for help on 911, they turned to them with sympathy. The US Gov then blackmailed the world by demanding that everyone had to take a side. Either with us , or against us. A Nuclear Power DEMANDING sides.
Countries that were historically at odds with the US had sent there condolances and then afterwards were placed on the US' terrorist hit list. toejam Now theres the way to work with a feuding neighbour.
I think its time to pull outta this thread...It gets me all pissed off.
People all over the world are basically the same(other than the French ;) ) Its the F#%!&@ Politicians that are ruining it for us.
-
If by WMB you mean chemical and biological weapons, i.e. antrhax, nerve gas, mustard gas . He gave the ok to his commanders to use that ordnance and some of them did . Thank goodness for NBC alarms, mopp suits, gas masks, and a lot of decon . Some of the other countries in the coalition have since acknowledged this .The US and UK never did . One reason I suspect is becuase we had a crapload of our own tactical NBC deployed to the area, or at least we made it look like we did .
Don't you think it's odd that all the chem alarms that were going off at impact areas were "malfunctioning" . They also said that scuds were being shot down by patriot missles, that is pure BS. Scud uses a ballistic warhead, what the patriots were acquiring and hitting were the falling boosters .
-
Speaking of Iraq's reluctance or lack there of to use WMD, weaponized anthrax, I suspect in the not too distant future we will have evidence that will leave no doubt that it's trail leads back to Iraq .
One could speculate that we allready have it. One could speculate that that is the reason for all the Iraq hubub as of late .
-
Quote:
"Cabby, the Saudi and the Iraqui representatives to the Arab League just kissed and made up in front of the whole wide world. Bottom line? The Arabs consider the USA to be a bigger threat than Sadaam. "
LOL!! All righty then.......
BTW, the Arabs HATE the Jews and want Israel to disappear. The Arabs would kiss a pig if it meant the death of Israel. Some of you are so damn naive it's breathtaking........
Without the free flow of oil at market prices it would mean worldwide economic disaster. A Depression to rival the 1930's. Take your anti-Capitalism diatribe and "not one more death" nonsense and stuff it.......
Cabby
-
Carefull with the gross generalization Cabby .
While I agree with you for the most part . All Arabs don't hate jews or americans, I have known arabs, egyptians, and they didn't hate anybody, they abhor the criminal acts of terrorists just like rest of the civilized world .
But I'm assuming you knew that, just your word choice created a statement of overgeneralization .
-
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
On another note...If the UN issues a resolution, should countries be bound to follow it? If they are in violation of these resolutions should other countries then support them?
All this Glorious talk of IRAQ not living up to sanctions in accord to resolutions..Gives the US government reason for Going in and Wiping out IRAQ. They support Terrorists, good lord, 1 mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Americas war of Independance relied heavily on guerilla tactics....unacceptable by "modern warfare" standards of the time. T'weren't very sporting after all.
Where is the proof he is the Devil Incarnate and shipping terrorists worldwide to kill democracy. Why is the bulk of the world saying stay outta Iraq?
We Now turn to Resolutions#1397 of 2002, #1337 of 2001 Reminding us of resolutions #242 of 1967 and also #338 of 1973
Israel is in Violation of a number of resolutions still as of this date. The US Government continued to back them as an ally through this entire time period even though in Violation of Security Council Resolutions.
Lets now turn back to Iraq. The US government CHOOSES to turn a blind Eye to whomever as long as it is convenient to their political agenda. Does not this blatant Hypocrisy give these Middle East Extremists (Whacko's) arguments against US efforts for peace in the area, especially when they are favouring and arming a country guilty of ignoring UN Resolutions?
I really am trying to have reasonable discussion on this and am not Saying americans are evil...we are all like...Its Government Agenda I have the problem with.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Speaking of Iraq's reluctance or lack there of to use WMD, weaponized anthrax, I suspect in the not too distant future we will have evidence that will leave no doubt that it's trail leads back to Iraq .
One could speculate that we allready have it. One could speculate that that is the reason for all the Iraq hubub as of late .
And Speculation is a very reasonable and Compelling reason to go to war. Saddam has possibly got or nearly has Nukes.
No different from the other crackpots out there already holstering theirs.
Hitler was a raving lunatic...yet the Germans didnt use their WMD during WW2. Begs the question..who has used theirs?
Name the Countries in the world who have been polluting the atmosphere, oceans, or terrain with Nuclear fallout waste and generally haveing a grand ole time with their toys.
SANE WORLD LEADERS, and I use that term loosely.
I have yet to see Saddam pop one off.
I will tell you that I'm more frightened of our wonderfull allies India and Pakistan than I am of Iraq. Hell both sides with terrorist groups opereating in country and at each others throats.
But thats ok cause they are allies. I feel all sweet and tingly knowing that we will concentrate upon a rubble strewn backwater as opposed to the real threats against WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY.
The governments should be looking at the causes..and not the symptoms. They are trying to cure the cold by stifiling the cough.
-
Ping it's pretty cut and dry, it's a matter of national defense and preservation .
If it is determined that Iraq played a part in attacking US with WMD which I suspect it will be . Then we must act to preemtively end and prevent future attacks .
If it is determined that Iraq possesses or is close to possessing atomic weapons we must do whatever it takes to prevent and end this, with or without a coalition, without a doubt. There is simply no other option .
If you suggest that we should sit idly by waiting for approval and do nothing but protest while our overt and deliberate enemy arms it's self . Well then you will be dissappointed .
On a side note, remember when Isreal destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability in 89 and the international community, even US, condemned them for it . But we all know that everyone is glad that they did it, except of course Saddam .
-
Originally posted by Ping
And Speculation is a very reasonable and Compelling reason to go to war.
No it isn't and I never said it was so don't try to imply that I did .
Hitler was a raving lunatic...[/b]
No he wasn't, that's an exageration . And if he was alive today and seeking WMB you bet I'd support neutralizing him. You wouldn't ?
I have yet to see Saddam pop one off.[/b]
Are you willing to wait ? I'm not .
I feel all sweet and tingly knowing that we will concentrate upon a rubble strewn backwater as opposed to the real threats against WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY.[/b]
By this statement we can ascertain that you don't consider Saddam with WMD a real threat against world peace and security . OK I think that speaks for itself .
The governments should be looking at the causes..and not the symptoms. They are trying to cure the cold by stifiling the cough. [/B]
I think a more apt analogy of what "governments" are doing would be preventive medicine .
-
It isn't so cut and dried. Taking out Iraq has more to do with the fact that The US Government is pissed that they had unfinished business in IRAQ. Its just like that little exageration of babies being dashed to the floor from Kuwati hospital incubators. Its a hard sell to get public support for a war against IRAQ.
Why...and explain why YOU know that Iraq shouldn't have nukes as opposed to say India, Pakistan, China, North Korea (if they have them) France, Israel who has threatened serious retaliatory actions in the past.
I think Nukes are an abomination, and NO ONE should have them. But at the same time Who should Determine what is acceptable evidence. You? Me?
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW MAYBE?
There is the problem I have. The US Gov. says its so, therefore to arms.
The Government has been shown to Lie, Exagerate, Fornicate...ooops that was Clinton, and use pure unadulterated propaganda to support military action.
Just because they say so, does not mean we have to accept it at face value.
The American Military had elements that just itched to get back to Iraq and finish them off, Is this just an excuse to do so?
I mean hell, when the amercan government gets pissed off with a backwater look out, Cuba is still suffering from Pissing off the US Gov. How long has that been now? Are there still terrorist groups operating in the US for the Liberation of Cuba?
Fine Establish the evidence of Iraqs involvement with terrorist acts against the American Homeland, but then introduce it in an international court of law. Untill that time...its just a vengefull act on the part of the US Gov.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Saddam is a mass murderer and should face the music...but why should we be forced to play the political games. Enough of the BS.
Do I think America is the Great Satan? NO! But I do live in a country where there is a lot of political roadkill so I can recognize that when I see it.
For those that choose to ignore previous posts.
Saddam along with a great many others deserve the Death penalty. I just refuse to listen and take at face value the crap politicians spout in order to whip up support or mold human reaction.
-
Originally posted by Samm
One could speculate that we allready have it. One could speculate that that is the reason for all the Iraq hubub as of late .
But untill Evidence is presented...I guess its all speculation
-
Originally posted by Ping
But untill Evidence is presented...I guess its all speculation
Of course, what is your point ?
-
I DON'T think India Pakistan or China should have nukes as opposed to Iraq . We both agree that Saddam is a dangerous "mass murderer" . He also happens to be the dictator of a rogue state that is actively at war with us . If India was run by a murderous despot at war with us and actively seeking nukes well then our reaction would be no different . As for unfinished business, your government has unfinished business there too, actually I guess the whole coalition does. Yes I'm angry that we will probably have to go back now becuase we didn't defeat him the first time . I don't think it has anything to do with revenge . Revenge for what btw ? It's really a matter of protecting and preserving ourselves .
We don't have the right to decide to take up arms against a country that we feel is a threat to us without the approval of some international committe first ?
This is totally irrelevant but since you asked. Yes there are still cuban terrorist groups but sadly their goals are much less philanthropic than the liberation of Cuba .
-
Originally posted by Ping
that Iraq shouldn't have nukes as opposed to say India, Pakistan, China, North Korea (if they have them) France, Israel who has threatened serious retaliatory actions in the past.
Because of all these only Iraq *at present* is considered to be a willing supplier of chem/nuke/bio weapons for terrorists that want to strike the US. Our intelligence services, as prone to fault as anyone else's, are still our first line of defense here and they've identified Iraq as a primary threat.
Sorry, but I'm going to value their opinion more than yours.
Ping: Fine Establish the evidence of Iraqs involvement with terrorist acts against the American Homeland, but then introduce it in an international court of law. Until that time...its just a vengefull act on the part of the US Gov.
Problem is that odds are overwhelmingly great that a chem/bio/nuke weapon will be used against us, on our own soil, before we can provide the "proof" that would convince you and people like you around the world.
In fact, I suspect there IS and would be no proof that you would accept.
We could probably have "security camera" film of Saddam himself pushing the button on a "suitcase nuke" in front of the UN and you'd just say we had Hollywood make it up for us. Remember the Bin Laden videos?
Well, as I said upthread, it's only a matter of time until a chem/bio/nuke weapon is used against a major US city.
Six months, one year, five years, ten years... whatever. Best thing to do is sit on your hands and wait for the axe to fall lads. :)
Odds are overwhelming that it will be NYC or DC... LA may earn a "favorable mention" since it puts out all those horrible films that actually show women's ankles and thus destroy the Islamic paradises created by the folks who hate us so.
Even so, my money's on NYC or DC.
After it happens, there'll still be people in denial about how to deal with... what did Clancy call it? "Clear and Present Danger"?
-
10Bears, you seem to ignore the fact that Saddam has already offered a reward for any surviving family members of martyrs that kill Americans. It's obvious that the first death this causes will give us reason to attack Iraq. No, it doesn't matter what the U.N. says THIS week, when they'll only change their position after such an attack takes place. I say we don't wait. We have the provocation already.
Obviously, I wasn't clear on my statement of dislike for people of the region. I have worked with some of these amazinhunks in the past. Even in school in America, and working for American dollars, the people I met were talking up trash about killing Americans that violated their lands just by setting foot there. They want our aid, but they want to be able to say where ELSE we give aid. They want to be able to have someone like Saddam as their leader, a bully, a tryrant, a dictator that chooses to attack, kill, maim, and destroy whoever he pleases, and yet deny us the ability to strike back. The one thing that absolutely drives these fanatics crazy is when we install leaders in their country, like we did the Shah in Iran. It drives them so crazy they will come to our country, work for our money (taking a job from real Americans), and then use that money against us. I suppose some twisted ideal could be used to legitimize their reasoning, but it still goes against Americans. If you feel so driven as to side with them, to legitimize their actions, then wait until it's over and then pay reparations to the survivors.
It's not a question of finishing what we started ten years ago (not really). It's about preemptively eliminating any threat that could make the WTC pale in comparison. You don't seem to recall the horror of people leaping from one-hundred stories, or the absolute revulsion of helpless individuals in the airliners that struck the WTC. Have you forgotten the civil service personnel that dies just trying to do their job? Those were AMERICANS pal. I was born not even fifteen miles from ground zero. Two graduates from my high school senior class died in that attack against American soil. How many others have to die before you liberal punks see the light?
G.W. is not king. He is the Commander in Chief of our military. When he says "Go here, and attack there" then you can bet your bottom dollar the military will do so. This is a war against terrorism, and Saddam just made his entire country a terrorist training camp. So, let's open our hearts and cry a river about what a financial burden this war will be. Wars cost money. You might have to go without a few things. I think ending terrorism will be worth it, especially if American kids can grow up without fear of being gassed, nuked, or poisoned.
You tell us who else has made threats like Saddam (of those 15 other nations) and you can bet they'll make the list, too. Terrorism is going down, and not for a Lewinski.
Hiding nukes in the sand? Man, you really have no idea what you're talking about. If, he has nukes in the sand, we can find them. If he's hidden anything in the sand you can bet we already know where they are. Don't be stupid.
Yeah, I'm real worried about sanctions against the U.S. NOT!
Saddam fancies himself to be a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. The reincarnation of Nebudchadnezzar, actually. If, you don't know anything about Nebuchadnezzar, you need to read up on it. Ol' Neb' was a real turd! He sacked Israel, for one thing, but he also murdered millions. He destroyed Solomon's temple, and was so troubled by his own conscience that he needed his dreams interpreted (what he really needed was psychiatric care) as these nightmares were making rest impossible. When he could not find anyone to do as he asked, he had anyone of wisdom and education killed. He forbid the practice of religion except the worship of him. Well, in the end ol' Neb' was deposed, and was driven from his people to live with the wild donkeys in the area. Persia (Iran) took half his kingdom. "The Great Babylon" that he built was eventually destroyed, but today Saddam is rebuilding it.
That's about all the proof you need to confirm that Saddam is insane. Ironic though, that his reign may end the same way, if he survives it at all. Oh wait, do liberals believe in reincarnation? Damn, no wonder Clinton left this one alone.
Oh, and 10Bears, I live in Arkansas. That doesn't make me a redneck. You wanna come down here I'll show you some rednecks. I consider that term to be the equal of love muffin, so watch it bud!
-
Theres a big difference between china having wmd's and Iraq.
1st the Us and most of the west are engaged in massive trade with China. They are making money large sums of it off of us.
We are engaged with them politically. They are an oppressive communist government but far more stable then Iraq.
But to the point of the matter Iraq has used wmd's against its own. Its not hard to imagin Iraq trying to develope such weapons to be used else where. Couple this with the Iraqi goverments ties with the worlds terror networks and you can see where we might be in trouble.
We need to hit so they cant hit us.
The problem I see though is what next? Sadams gone Iraqs in a mess. Do we occupy? Set up a puppet government? Divide up Iraq? etc...........
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
" Take your anti-Capitalism diatribe and "not one more death" nonsense and stuff it.......
Cabby
LOL Cabby, as much as I love a great flame war I'm not biting, bud. Anti-Capitalism? I am a crass consumer and am self-employeed because I love the fact our system here allows me unlimited earning potential. Catch me on a thread that's either silly or redundant and we can play there.
Voss, please, this isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" isssue, and anyway if being branded a "liberal" for paraphrasing articles from the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, and you label yourself a conservative because you choose to reject the statements issued at the Arab League Summit while deciding who we should attack next, then kewl.
Toad hits the nail on the head concerning our stretched-too-thin military and the liklihood we will be attacked in the future with WMDs should we do nothing to help stabilize the region. My only question is, what's the best way to remove Iraq, Iran, et. al., as threats to our national security?
The Arabs consider the attacks in Afghanistan as an attack against Islam. Unless we're willing to kill the vast majority of Arabs I don't see how we have a reasonable hope of stopping terrorism by an invasion of Iraq. Don't expect cheering crowds waving American flags as we enter Baghdad. Instead expect a long, brutal conflict that has no guarantee of achieving stability, and indeed may only serve to convert rven more Arabs to terrorism.
I have no answers... hell, I'm not even sure of all the questions. I'm simply not convinced we can actually win a conflict against the entire Arab world without using nukes against them is all. One thing we can all agree on though- the world is different since 9-11.
-
Yeah, split iraq up and give parts of it to our "allies". part to Kuwait, part to Saudi Arabia, and part to Iran.
That should be nifty ;)
-
Give it to the Palestinians-it worked for Jordan.