Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on February 14, 2003, 08:30:34 PM
-
Dammit.. I gotta be blinded to reason or something.
So reason with me.. give it a try; I won't bite..
Convince me.
Convince me that allowing saddam to stay in power is the right course of action. Convince me we should wait for the UN to ok an attack. Convince me that the French are right, and the U.S. is wrong.
C'mon, I took off the damn suit.. Convince me!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Dammit.. I gotta be blinded to reason or something.
So reason with me.. give it a try; I won't bite..
Convince me.
Convince me that allowing saddam to stay in power is the right course of action. Convince me we should wait for the UN to ok an attack. Convince me that the French are right, and the U.S. is wrong.
C'mon, I took off the damn suit.. Convince me!
Why should anyone convince you? It's not as if you wield any power. Face it, your opinion (or mine, or anyone elses opinion on this board) counts for jack toejam in the Real World.
-
>>C'mon, I took off the damn suit..
Does this mean you are naked now?
-
Heres the reason:
Saddam is not a threat to the U.S. He can barely attack neighboring countries. The U.S. has huge economic problems here in the states and waging a war would cost way too much. Our national defecit is already huge. Also, there are no ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. If there were, we would have been in Iraq a year ago. 15 of the 18 (or whatever) hi-jackers were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi.
-
Well yeah, except for the pasties. Hang loves his pasties!
SOB
-
Have to agree with Hangtime.
Wipe that sucker off the face of the earth & all his high level command structure along with him.
You saw what happened on 9/11 with a few small cells ,a willingness to die for their cause, & a few box cutters.
All Saddam has to do is tell Osama
"hey goofball, over here, take this stuff to the godless heathen in the USA & spread it around"
Saddam wins, we lose. Just because there is no proven ties now doesn't mean it won't happen. Frankly I'm suprised it hasn't happend already.
Remember "the enemy of my enemy = my friend"????
-
It's also better to have an enemy you know than to have one you don't.
The real question is, "Will the removal of Hussein make the U.S. safer?"
I certainly don't think so. I do not believe he's a threat.
-
Hang, it's the other way around - the onus of proof is on the claimant.
Other than that, convince me too. Of anything. Just try.
PTTFFH Hangtime, just teasin'.
-
Osama bin Laden hates Saddam.
Why?
Because Saddam runs a secular government (we all know that secular governments are not always nice {Stalin}) and Osama is opposed to anything non-fundi Islamic. Even in his recent missive to fundi-Muslims to use suicide bombings to defend Iraq he attacked Saddam. Osama tried tto get permission from the Saudi government to go after Saddam in the early '90s and was denied.
Saddam's vested interest is in keeping Saddam alive and in power. We have mede it more than clear that we are both willing and able to get him if we have any inclination at all to do so. If he were to actually attack the USA he knows he would be signing his own death warrant. Because of this, and the capabilities of our inteligence gathering, he can't risk even indirect attacks by funding terrorists.
Saddam is a dedicated foe of the Wahabists that attacked us on 9/11.
Why?
Because they want all secular Arab governments overthrown, including his.
Attacking Iraq will not incease our security, it will weaken it greatly as we confirm the fears of many (most?) Middle Eastern Muslims that we are not waging a war on terror, but rather a war on Islam. By attacking an Arab nation that has no terrorist ties (CIA says there are no credible links between Saddam and terrorists) we would merely be confirming for them what Osama bin Laden has been telling them. Once we have done our bit to confirm the worst to many of the fence sitters the funds and volunteer floodgates will open for Osama bin Laden's networks.
Pre-emptive strikes on a nation that does not pose any current risk to our country sets a very dangerous precedent and fundamentally breaks the accepted international standard from the post WWII period. To do this opens up all sorts of possible actions by nations that have thus far been contained by international law. What is to stop a country from attacking a smaller country if all it must do is state that the smaller country will be a real threat to it at some point in the future? The USA has presented no evidence that Iraq has WMD, let alone that Iraq has any intentions to attack the USA. What is the controling factor here? Power? If so, what will we do if 50 years down the line a resurgent Russia or EU decide to do something that is decidedly against our interests? Will their power make it all fine and dandy?
Why play directly into Osama bin Laden's hands by destroying, the admittedly nasty piece of work, Saddam who is his foe and simultaneously proving to millions of Muslims (in their view at least) that Osama bin Laden was telling the truth when he stated that the USA was anti-Muslim. We are doing his work for him. We are diverting our attention from the WoT to a side issue and giving him what he needs to get propaganda, troops and funds. We are being out manuvered politically by a provincial ex-Saudi billionaire.
Why drive away all of our Allies over something as minor as Saddam Hussein? After 9/11 we had tremendous international political capital due to the sympathy other nations had for us. In just over a year we have not only lost that political capital, we have decended to levels lower than at any time in my life. Why? Because we have been running around like a brat in a candy store thinking that we should get anything we want because a hornet stung us earlier. We have turned from stopping terrorists to attacking, with little evidence, a nation that we have a long standing grudge with.
Why? I don't see any gain here, all I see is us losing. Sure, Saddam will be gone (dead most likely), but the world we wake in will be far more dangerous and far more hostile. We aren't the only nation in the world and we should act like we are or that we have a universal right to do anything just because we are so powerful. It isn't a matter of kowtowing to other nations (something we're currently demanding of them {look at the harsh reactions against France, Germany and Belgium when they didn't kowtow to us}), it is a matter of respect and diplomacy.
If we are going in we MUST have iron clad and devastating evidence of Iraqi ill intentions. We MUST allow for the time to get this information. Saddam isn't going anywhere. We MUST make it absolutely clear to the world (and to American citizens) that this must be done. This has not yet been accomplished.
-
If you think Islamic extremists hate the West generally and the US specifically now, it's going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the depth of feeling that will be engendered after an invasion.
For me, the Israel-Palestinian conflict (which Bush has sidelined and ignored) is the biggest obstacle to world peace today. It's like a 24 hour advertisement campaign for why America is the root of all evil.
There should be an immediate effort to bring the Palestinians and Israelis to the discussion table.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's also better to have an enemy you know than to have one you don't.
The real question is, "Will the removal of Hussein make the U.S. safer?"
I certainly don't think so. I do not believe he's a threat.
Very well said Sandman. The problem is that if we start a war Mr. Hussein would become a martyr - something that Mr. Bin Laden needs to increase the hate between the islam and the western countries.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Very well said Sandman. The problem is that if we start a war Mr. Hussein would become a martyr - something that Mr. Bin Laden needs to increase the hate between the islam and the western countries.
I doubt Hussein would become anyones martyr in the arabic world, however I would think much would become of any civilian casualties especially if there are repeats of the Amiriyah bomb shelter.
Tronsky
-
You people make me sick. Seriously, I have no respect whatsoever for you anti war pukes. You are a f*cking disgrace.
Hang. Do you really need for me to tell you this?
Try to recall exactly how much these guys hate us. I had forgotten about that too. Do you remember watching 9-11 on tv (or however you experienced it, you might even have been there if you live in NY) do you remember the feelings you felt realizing that those aircraft were filled with ordinary people, just like you and me...women and children. That image has haunted me since 9-11, what the inside of those aircraft must have been like.
Which brings me to the hijackers. Exactly how much do you think they hate us? Could you phantom up a scenario that would make you hijack an Iraqi airlined filled with women and children, and then crash that airliner into a Mosque or whatever? Because I cant. Personally I cannot understand how a person can be capable of such hate. Even if I had OBL himself at my mercy, I would shoot him, sure, but not his 5yr old daughter.
Since 9-11, most people have forgotten alot about what they felt when 9-11 happened. After that we got to watch the war in Afghanistan, where the frightful terrorists was transformed into pathetic small running dots on a videoscreen as the LBUs came zooming down at them. Then we get to watch pictures of Guantanamo bay prisoners. They are not dangerous, heck they are pathetic at best. We have been lulled into a false sense of security.
Sometimes it is good to be reminded exactly who we are fighting and why.
Why there is a war (it takes a while to load, but it is well worth it):
http://www.politicsandprotest.org/
Why Iraq is a target:
Iraqi WMD (http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/W37CIA_ReportIraqWMD.htm)
Some details from the page:
Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons, Number is fatalities only.
Aug 1983 Hajj Umran Mustard fewer than 100 Iranians/Kurds
Oct-Nov 1983 Panjwin Mustard 3,000 Iranian/Kurds
Feb-Mar 1984 Majnoon Island Mustard 2,500 Iranians
Mar 1984 al-Basrah Tabun 50 to 100 Iranians
Mar 1985 Hawizah Marsh Mustard/Tabun 3,000 Iranians
Feb 1986 al-Faw Mustard/Tabun 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Dec 1986 Umm ar Rasas Mustard thousands Iranians
Apr 1987 al-Basrah Mustard/Tabun 5,000 Iranians
Oct 1987 Sumar/Mehran Mustard/nerve agents 3,000 Iranians
Mar 1988 Halabjah Mustard/nerve agents hundreds Iranians/Kurds
Iraqi-Acknowledged Open-Air Testing of Biological Weapons
Location-Date Agent Munition
Al Muhammadiyat Mar 1988 Bacillus subtilis[5] 250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Mar 1988 Botulinum toxin 250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Bacillus subtilis 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Botulinum toxin 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Aflatoxin 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Khan Bani Saad Aug 1988 Bacillus subtilis aerosol generator Mi-2 helicopter with modified agricultural spray equipment
Al Muhammadiyat Dec 1989 Bacillus subtilis R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Botulinum toxin R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Aflatoxin R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Jurf al-Sakr Firing Range Sep 1989 Ricin 155mm artillery shell (cap. 3 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Dec 1990 Water Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Dec 1990 Water/potassium permanganate Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Jan 1991 Water/glycerine Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Jan 1991 Bacillus subtilis/Glycerine Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
-
hortland that made no sense at all
"Try to recall exactly how much these guys hate us. I had forgotten about that too. Do you remember watching 9-11"
hortland
did you skip the part about iraq not being the party that did 9/11. ? or that the party that did 9/11 hates and dispises saddam more that we do.
then you launch into a patriotic song and danch about how we have forgoten our hate for them ( the iraqis that didnt do it?) so you make a ridiculus statment and then go off on a sill tangent.
almost delusional dude.
-
As I said, you anti war pukes make me sick with your incredible desire to put your head in the sand and wish your problems away. Riddle me this amazinhunk:
Is Saddam capable of using WMD's against his enemies?
Is the US the enemy of Saddam?
Did OBL support Iraq, and call for his minions to attack US targets in support of Iraq in his latest speech?
Do you think Saddam hates the US any less than OBL does?
Does Iraq support, finance and arm terrorists? (there are other terrorist organizations than AlQueida you know)
Why are you trying to make a difference between Al Queida and Iraq just because they dont like eachother. They have a common enemy now, they are both fundamental moslem extremists who basically wants to kill us all, and Iraq is used as a safehaven for Al Queida.
-
Invading another country without provocation? The US used to defend the world against this type of thing. You have to ask?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Very well said Sandman. The problem is that if we start a war Mr. Hussein would become a martyr - something that Mr. Bin Laden needs to increase the hate between the islam and the western countries.
So what do we do Duedel? I'm also curious, if the US said today, "Hey we need some help against NK" how many of these Iraq nay sayers would be onboard.
-
""peace in our time""
-
Why dont you pro-attack soldiers focus on the true threats.
Pakistan which funds and supports terrorists. Has Al-quackies running in and out of its borders.
Korea which has commited armed agression and threatens Nukes (include India and Pakistan in that)Has a real horrid human rights problem.
Saudi Arabia which has a HUGE Al-quackie and other orginizations in its boundries. Has a real horrid human rights problem. Provided the most Manpower behind 9/11. Talking about having the US leave its land.
Turkey which is guilty of genocide and abuse of the Kurds. Horrid violater of Human rights.
Israel which is guilty of the worst record of violating UN resolutions and is also guilty of war crimes as well as Humans Rights. (check out the UN site for confirmation).
The list goes on and on and on. But the problem is that most on the list I gave is hampered by the minor detail of being a US ally.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why are you trying to make a difference between Al Queida and Iraq just because they dont like eachother. They have a common enemy now, they are both fundamental moslem extremists who basically wants to kill us all, and Iraq is used as a safehaven for Al Queida.
There is a HUGE difference between AlQueida and Iraq.
AlQueida is a criminal-terrorist organization.
Iraq is a nation, a state, with people living in it, people not different of those aircraft passengers.
But it's better to forget it, uh?
Selective memories.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Very well said Sandman. The problem is that if we start a war Mr. Hussein would become a martyr - something that Mr. Bin Laden needs to increase the hate between the islam and the western countries.
you are going on the notion that the iraq people like saddam.
I say they will be happy after we boot saddam.
(in a few weeks)
-
Originally posted by Virage
Invading another country without provocation? The US used to defend the world against this type of thing. You have to ask?
Another farkin idjit.
We are defending the world.
Saddam is the enemy of babies and innocent children in iraq.
Are you nerds blind or just pusses?
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
We are defending the world.
The World doesn't seem to agree. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134634985_antiwar150.html)
-
Originally posted by Naso
There is a HUGE difference between AlQueida and Iraq.
AlQueida is a criminal-terrorist organization.
Iraq is a nation, a state, with people living in it, people not different of those aircraft passengers.
But it's better to forget it, uh?
Selective memories.
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Nazi Germany was a nation, a state, with people living in it, people not different from those aircraft passengers. That doesnt mean that it was wrong to fight ww2 against them now does it, Hippie?
-
Originally posted by Virage
The World doesn't seem to agree. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134634985_antiwar150.html)
Hey retard, if you want to argue like that, why dont you take the population in the word, subtract the number of anti war demonstrators. Apparently the silent majority agrees with Bush...
-
Why should anyone convince you? It's not as if you wield any power. Face it, your opinion (or mine, or anyone elses opinion on this board) counts for jack toejam in the Real World.
this is exactly why things don't change..this sort of attitude.
-
The FACT of the matter is that Sadaam has not complied with UN resolutions since the Gulf War. He continues to ammas or attempt to ammass an arsenal that includes WMD.
This isn't about Sadaam being a threat RIGHT NOW...it is about him being a threat in the future. We need to remove that threat NOW before he accomplishes his goals. It will be too late when he sends a biological warhead into Israel killing millions, who in turn will respond with their nukes.
So..the UN either has to say "Enough is enough...we will use force if you don't disarm", or the UN is simply a toothless tiger. Sadaam has made fools of the UN for 12 years...and he is making fools of you anti-war people who are playing into his hands.
Get rid of him NOW...he is not only a direct threat to the US and its citizens at home AND abroad, but he is a direct threat to Israel and anyone else he dislikes, such as the Kurds, the Iranians etc etc. We all know that the mid-east is a violence ridden nightmare of a threat to World Peace. It is time that problem is looked at and and resolved.
Frankly, this anti-war sentiment is PRECISELY what stopped the US in 1991 from doing the job. The US could have toppled the Iraqi government with ease back then, they had the men, equipment, and the enemy backed into a corner....and to top it off they were RIGHT THERE!
Deal with it now, or else we are going to have to deal with it over and over again in the future. By my reckoning...every 12 years or so.
-
Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons, Number is fatalities only.
Aug 1983 Hajj Umran Mustard fewer than 100 Iranians/Kurds
Oct-Nov 1983 Panjwin Mustard 3,000 Iranian/Kurds
Feb-Mar 1984 Majnoon Island Mustard 2,500 Iranians
Mar 1984 al-Basrah Tabun 50 to 100 Iranians
Mar 1985 Hawizah Marsh Mustard/Tabun 3,000 Iranians
Feb 1986 al-Faw Mustard/Tabun 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Dec 1986 Umm ar Rasas Mustard thousands Iranians
Apr 1987 al-Basrah Mustard/Tabun 5,000 Iranians
Oct 1987 Sumar/Mehran Mustard/nerve agents 3,000 Iranians
Mar 1988 Halabjah Mustard/nerve agents hundreds Iranians/Kurds
Iraqi-Acknowledged Open-Air Testing of Biological Weapons
Location-Date Agent Munition
Al Muhammadiyat Mar 1988 Bacillus subtilis[5] 250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Mar 1988 Botulinum toxin 250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Bacillus subtilis 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Botulinum toxin 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Aflatoxin 122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)
Khan Bani Saad Aug 1988 Bacillus subtilis aerosol generator Mi-2 helicopter with modified agricultural spray equipment
Al Muhammadiyat Dec 1989 Bacillus subtilis R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Botulinum toxin R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Al Muhammadiyat Nov 1989 Aflatoxin R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)
Jurf al-Sakr Firing Range Sep 1989 Ricin 155mm artillery shell (cap. 3 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Dec 1990 Water Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Dec 1990 Water/potassium permanganate Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Jan 1991 Water/glycerine Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
Abu Obeydi Airfield Jan 1991 Bacillus subtilis/Glycerine Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)
__________________
so tell my where's the NYC 9/11 entry.
he's our enemy, mostly because we say he's our enemy.
-
Karnak is spot on IMO.
Hortlund I seriously believe you aren't what you're claiming (a judge). Because:
1 your only occupation seems to be posting on this board all day long
2 you're racist to the bone
Besides, I'm not anti-war at all. Give me real proofs of the AQ-Saddam ties, or bring the troops to NK, and I'll sing another song...
-
Originally posted by Curval
...This isn't about Sadaam being a threat RIGHT NOW...it is about him being a threat in the future....
Then why don't you let more time to the inspectors. Frankly, will a couple of months make such a difference?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Then why don't you let more time to the inspectors. Frankly, will a couple of months make such a difference?
Why, 12 years have not made a difference.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Then why don't you let more time to the inspectors. Frankly, will a couple of months make such a difference?
Yes, after end of April, the weather makes any war a pretty bad idea. The alternatives is go now or go next year.
*edit
and with the way N Korea is moving right now, waiting a year is really a bad idea...not to mention the costs of having 135 000 men stationed on the borders of Iraq...
-
Karnak.. thanks for the reasoned reply!
(CIA says there are no credible links between Saddam and terrorists)
I suppose Powell was just pulling this rabbit outta his ass...
Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
(Picture of camp shown.)
The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch image a pinch of salt less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.
Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.
During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
So much for 'no ties w/terrorists' argument.
Do we show the world we can declare war on terror, describe the ground rules.. and then forget to prosecute it?
GWB, 20 Sept 2001
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.[/b]
Last time I checked.. this was our Foriegn Policy.. what's changed since 9/11?
The French?
-
we've waited this long, why not wait for a declaration of war from congress? we haven't really done so well at war since we stopped getting those. (yes we 'won' the gulf war but now we are having to go back. job not inished?)
it seems to me without a congressional declaration of war our goals are often unclear. this makes the war much harder for the guys doing the fighting and dying.
Bush has been at this gulf build up and preparing for war for quite a while. he never asked congress for a declaration.
yes they would argue it for a while and it could take a bit of time but as I said earlier we've been on this track for awhile. he could have asked for one early on and we would have a decision by now. why doesn't (didn't) he ask?
maybe he doesn't think they will go for it. maybe he doesn't care what the american people think (they are the people we elected to represent us to gov't, right?).
or maybe he want's to get us into this thing and settle it in the best interest of big $ oil. and doesn't want any leagal documents from congress getting in the way of goals of his own.
-
Why does OBL hate the USA?
Because we used arab land to attack Saddam in the first place!!!
All you guys who want the USA to stand down are right, Saddam is no threat to us here. So lets turn back time to the 1940's Hitler is no threat to us so after pearl harbor we only take out the
Jap's. Then sign no agreesion agreement with hitler (which he probably may or not ignore). So where would you all be now. infact 2 times we came over and saved your sorry collective asses. So I agree let us american stay over here and quit feeding the whole damn planet, quit fighting other countries battles.
And besides if we attack Iraq what is everyone else going to do put sanctions on us, whoop de doo force us to close our border were sick and tired of sending our hard earned money out of this country anyway.
So all you foriegnors who hate us remember who saved you from the germans!!! We may not like war either but we would perfer to fight our own not yours!!
-
Gentlemen,
IMHO,
1. I am a citizen of the United States.
2. We have been attacked, and we ARE in a state of war.
3. When they are called, I WILL support my troops.
4. I have a belief that our country's leaders have information that "we the people" don't.
5. France has placed such a strict interpretation on the UN resolutions, that they will never agree to agression.
6. The French ambassador to the UN stated that "the inspectors must state that inspections will never work". This won't happen, politicians never use the word never or any interpretation of it. BTW, tres bien Clintonian backtalking there France, salute.
7. France has a multibillion dollor contract with Iraq and it's not in thier interest to agree to the UN resolutions.
In any case, if Sadam was gone and a democratic institution was placed in Iraq, they may recieve the brunt of the islamic extremist punishment. I believe there would be mutiple arab governments supporting the extremist due to the destabilizing effect of a democratic republic close to thier own soil.
There are a number of factors which are at play here, and no one can predict the outcome other then a great many people will die.
Too many interest and no one wants to loose face, who will be the one to step back first. Forever the caution, the one who steps back first will be overun by the interest's of the others.
-
Quote:"7. France has a multibillion dollor contract with Iraq and it's not in thier interest to agree to the UN resolutions. "
8. Saddam still owes billions to Russia and China for all the military equipment we blew away the last time.
Small wonder they don't want him (Saddam) taken out.:rolleyes:
-
Very well written Karnak.. I agree 100% esp liked the middle paragraph:
Pre-emptive strikes on a nation that does not pose any current risk to our country sets a very dangerous precedent and fundamentally breaks the accepted international standard from the post WWII period. To do this opens up all sorts of possible actions by nations that have thus far been contained by international law. What is to stop a country from attacking a smaller country if all it must do is state that the smaller country will be a real threat to it at some point in the future? The USA has presented no evidence that Iraq has WMD, let alone that Iraq has any intentions to attack the USA. What is the controling factor here? Power? If so, what will we do if 50 years down the line a resurgent Russia or EU decide to do something that is decidedly against our interests? Will their power make it all fine and dandy?
Hortland writes:
Hey retard
As I said, you anti war pukes make me sick
X2Lee writes:
Another farkin idjit.
Hortland you know, or should know that calling people names degenerates your argument. It means you really have no logical bases for debate... Tell me, has calling entire countries names helped or hurt your cause?
One of the problems here is the Bushies don't lie effectivly. All their evidence to date seems to be refuted within minutes of it's release. Even by the CIA! .The smoking gun evidence Powell presented to the security council turns out to be plagerized graduate student papers from 12 years ago... Sheesh if you want to get people on your side you might start by treating them with respect instead of compempt.
deSelys Writes:
Karnak is spot on IMO.
Hortlund I seriously believe you aren't what you're claiming (a judge). Because:
1 your only occupation seems to be posting on this board all day long
2 you're racist to the bone
I tend to agree with you deSelys, he's made several comments on this board that betray him... "It's up to Iraq to prove their innocents"-- that sort of thing.. stuff no real judge would ever say..
-
You people make me sick. Seriously, I have no respect whatsoever for you anti war pukes. You are a f*cking disgrace.
Tell that to the ex-Para and veteran of Arnhem who was marching in London today.
I think he has more courage, integrity and honour in his little finger than you have in your entire body.
But then he must be an anti-war puke, complete with red Para beret.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hortland you know, or should know that calling people names degenerates your argument. It means you really have no logical bases for debate...
So does that mean we won't be seeing any more posts of yours, 10Bears, from that "journalist" who does nothing but call people names?
Sorry, this comment of yours was just to ironic to let pass.
-
The good news is...Hortland is or will soon be leaving his judge position. He stated so himself on another board. It's hard to imagine how such a hateful and prejudiced individual could have managed to conduct himself with any objectivity at all. Not that I really care...the Swedish Judiciary is the real winner.
kbman
-
Guys, just for your info, I am so not getting into some "prove that you are a judge"-discussion with you right now. Believe what the he** you want, I dont care one bit.
If you want then ask skuzzy for the IP I'm posting from during weekdays, that IP should lead to a Swedish government server (a court to be exact). If you are really desperate then shoot me an email and I'll give you my phone nr to my office.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Tell that to the ex-Para and veteran of Arnhem who was marching in London today.
I think he has more courage, integrity and honour in his little finger than you have in your entire body.
But then he must be an anti-war puke, complete with red Para beret.
Well, get him here on this board and I'll type one post up just for him.
-
A few points:
1) I sincerely doubt that anyone cares enough to trouble Skuzzy, who has many better things to do, with such a request.
2) Skuzzy has far too much integrity to give out priveledged information to settle a grudge match on this board. It's not in his or HTCs best interest to do so.
3) It doesn't matter. It's only important to your own overblown ego.
kbman
-
With all due respect, I'm not the one with something to prove. I'm just tired of all the tards saying they dont believe me when I tell them what I work with. The offer still stands, shoot me an email and I'll give you my work phone nr.
And you, mr "I saw him on another BB" do you think for one second I care what you think about me and my abilities as a judge? You dont know me, that makes any opinion you express about me about as irrelevant as my opinions on your choice of cars.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hortland you know, or should know that calling people names degenerates your argument. It means you really have no logical bases for debate... Tell me, has calling entire countries names helped or hurt your cause?
One of the problems here is the Bushies don't lie effectivly. All their evidence to date seems to be refuted within minutes of it's release. Even by the CIA! .The smoking gun evidence Powell presented to the security council turns out to be plagerized graduate student papers from 12 years ago... Sheesh if you want to get people on your side you might start by treating them with respect instead of compempt.
I have decided to take a stand on this issue. Normally when I argue with you or weazel, your mindless lies and distortions drives me away after a while...because it feels about as productive to argue with you two as banging your head against a brick wall. Not now.
The reason Im calling people names is because Im sick and diddlying tired of their stupidity. Normally it doesnt really matter, because hey...just another stupid sob that I dont have to deal with. This time their stupidity is dangerous.
The graduate stutent paper you are talking about is a british issue. It has got nothing to do with Powell and his evidence against Iraq. Not one of Powells evidence has been refuted. In a couple of cases certain aspects of the evidence has been questioned (do we know what the trucks were loaded with, etc) but no evidence has been defunked. That is a LIE.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Nazi Germany was a nation, a state, with people living in it, people not different from those aircraft passengers. That doesnt mean that it was wrong to fight ww2 against them now does it, Hippie?
Remind me again of Sweden's glorious fight against Germany.... I seem to have forgotten the details.
-
c'mon guys.. this slid into a personality debate. lets get back to the key points..
1. CIA and The State department have laid out that there are terrorist cells curently operating in Iraq. There is a AQ WMD training facility in N.E. Iraq. The CIA/State department have laid out clear links between the Iraqis and AQ as well as Hammas.
2. WMD have clearly been shown to exist in Iraq. The possibility of these materials getting intoi the hands of terrorists remains a REAL threat to american national security.
Dispute these points, please.. convince me by means of believable documentation that they either do not exist, or are outright lies. I'd like to see documentation and sources at least as credible as the State Departments.
Please.. can anybody point me to contradictory evidence that points 1 and 2 above are false.. because without convincing evidence that points 1 and 2 are false, it seems to me that a real threat to this nation exists, and the reasons to invade Iraq remain valid.
Please.. I hate monkey boys administration probably more than the average american does.. I'm trying to look outside the personalites behind the decisions our administration is making and instead I'm trying to focus on the issues the admistration is acting upon.
In other words, just because bush comes off as a cowboy does not mean our foriegn policy stance is invalid.
Now, Karnak has spent the time to honestly and as unlaced with bitter diatribe as posible lay out why he feels our course is not correct.. but in Karnacks debating points he fails to address points 1 and 2 above.. key to his position is this statement:
"Pre-emptive strikes on a nation that does not pose any current risk to our country sets a very dangerous precedent and fundamentally breaks the accepted international standard from the post WWII period. ..
..which does not wash with what I see as a clear and present threat.. WMD in the hands of terrorist factions that have free access to Iraq.
Thanks for all reasoned replys!!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
If you think Islamic extremists hate the West generally and the US specifically now, it's going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the depth of feeling that will be engendered after an invasion.
For me, the Israel-Palestinian conflict (which Bush has sidelined and ignored) is the biggest obstacle to world peace today. It's like a 24 hour advertisement campaign for why America is the root of all evil.
There should be an immediate effort to bring the Palestinians and Israelis to the discussion table.
I think that the Palestine leadership wants that greatly. It is their way of getting what they want and of having Israel humiliated.
But when there is not chance of an outsider with a big stick coming to force Israel to do anything then they must realize that it is up to them to negotiate in good faith and make a real peace (like Anwar Sadat did). Even though his peace treaty was viewed as an act of betrayal for many of his countrymen, every govenment since his has honored it.
Once they do that then I believe that there will be a real peace. But it is not going to happen with this current generation of Palestine leaders.
Knowing that the more unrest they cause will likely lead the US involvement will only embolden them. They could have had an autonomous state and all of the West Bank and Gaza years ago if that had been enough. It was not at that time. But that is the fault of their leaders. Now 5 years later what do they have?
Also as long as coutries like Saudia Arabia and Iraq and Iran fund the terrorists that are attacking Israel there will be no peace. The love the Isreal Palestine conflict as it gives their populations a distraction to vent their anger at. Without that conflict their own power would be under threat.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not one of Powells evidence has been refuted. In a couple of cases certain aspects of the evidence has been questioned (do we know what the trucks were loaded with, etc) but no evidence has been defunked. That is a LIE.
Well, when Hans Blix is directly denying the evidence, that's about as close to debunking as you can get.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html
Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.
In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."
Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production.
He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/873237.asp?0cl=c1
Referring to the suspected bio-chem site of which Powell had shown detailed before-and-after satellite photos, Blix dismissed the idea that the supposed presence of a decontamination truck was meaningful. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been routine activity, he said.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Dammit.. I gotta be blinded to reason or something.
So reason with me.. give it a try; I won't bite..
Convince me.
Convince me that allowing saddam to stay in power is the right course of action. Convince me we should wait for the UN to ok an attack. Convince me that the French are right, and the U.S. is wrong.
C'mon, I took off the damn suit.. Convince me!
Why? Ya don't want to think it all over.
Regards Blitz
America is theathened in no way by Iraq, it's justn plain rediculous.and ya know it in ya hearts.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
c'mon guys.. this slid into a personality debate. lets get back to the key points..
1. CIA and The State department have laid out that there are terrorist cells curently operating in Iraq. There is a AQ WMD training facility in N.E. Iraq. The CIA/State department have laid out clear links between the Iraqis and AQ as well as Hammas.
...
Dispute these points, please.. convince me by means of believable documentation that they either do not exist, or are outright lies. I'd like to see documentation and sources at least as credible as the State Departments.
The NY Times had an article that you might find interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html
...
Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.
...
At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.
...
"It's more than just skepticism," said one official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being politicized."
I think we have good reason to be skeptical of puported evidence that could be coming from intelligence agencies who's leaders are more concerned with their careers than the truth.
-
You're welcome Hangtime. I normally don't address this issue here because I know many people on this board are idealogical reactionaries like Hortland has demostrated himself to be. Your post seemed reasoned, so I gave my honest take on the situation.
If the inspectors find WMDs, I'm OK going into Iraq. I am not anti-war, I'm against an action that I see costing us way too much for no visible gain and vast potential losses. I would like to see far more evidence that there is a link between Al-Quada and Iraq before I believe it. Saddam and Bin Laden are simply to far apart to co-operate. Bin Laden even made negative statements about Saddam while he was telling Muslims to use suicide tactics against the USA and UK to defend Iraq. I can see Al-Quada cells in Iraq, but I'm very skeptical of any connection to Saddam or the Iraqi government.
I'm not sure of Powell's sources, he used a 12 year old report done by a British grad student who had no access to intelligence data and was just spouting hypotheticals as evidence.
I do believe I misrepresented the CIA's statement though. What I believe they said was that there was no credible evidence of links between Al-Quada and Iraq (meaning the Iraqi government as Al-Quada has groups and training going on in many countries, including the USA until pre-9/11).
I'm not saying that we should not go in no matter what, I'm say lets keep applying preasure via the existing international framework and see what shakes out. If we can avoid a war, great, but if we find real, hard evidence we can go in with international support rather than try to convice dubious nations with shadowy, slender evidence. I see no reason why we need to lock ourselves into attacking this year and not next.
-
Thank you Erlkonig!! That was an interesting read.
Doubt exists, some bickering seems to be going on between CIA, FBI and State.. that seems normal. ;) .. yet it would seem that this we can all agree on:
Neither George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, nor the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, have publicly engaged in the debate about the evidence on Iraq in recent weeks, even as the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to build the case for a possible war.
The last time Mr. Tenet found himself at the center of the public debate over intelligence concerning Iraq was in October, when the Senate declassified a brief letter Mr. Tenet wrote describing some of the C.I.A.'s assessments about Iraq.
His letter stated that the C.I.A. believed that Iraq had, for the time being, probably decided not to conduct terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, but the letter added that Mr. Hussein might resort to terrorism if he believed that an American-led attack was about to begin.
Only the NY Times would call him "Mr. Hussein" Hehehhee
Saddam and Bin Laden are simply to far apart to co-operate. Bin Laden even made negative statements about Saddam while he was telling Muslims to use suicide tactics against the USA and UK to defend Iraq. I can see Al-Quada cells in Iraq, but I'm very skeptical of any connection to Saddam or the Iraqi government.
Karnak.. I've seen some interviews with the Mujahadeen leaders.. they made it pretty clear they were accepting aid from the CIA to oust the Russians.. knowing full well that their next target would be the "Great Satan". CIA operatives reported that it was apparent that the Rebel Leaders agendas, including Osama's, did not include doing the US any favors. Didn't stop them from accepting arms and materials to hammer the russians with. AQ has a history of accepting assistance from folks they hate enough to kill.
The recent recording released from AQ purported to Osama with regard to supporting Iraq was not inconsistent with previous AQ behavior.
Damn.. I'm gettin antsy here. Some of the data MAY be tainted, and AQ MIGHT not be fully operational in Iraq.. just enough questionable data surfacing to give a skeptic a stiffie.
J.J. Angleton would be having a field day. ;)
Thanks for the info, guys!!
-
1000 years after the Crusades whe get our stupid western aggression for the new Millenium!
The reasons for that one were as stupid as this one. The same stupid people are going to participate in it and cheer for it.
History will judge it just as harshly.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
1000 years after the Crusades whe get our stupid western aggression for the new Millenium!
The reasons for that one were as stupid as this one. The same stupid people are going to participate in it and cheer for it.
History will judge it just as harshly.
Self defence is never stupid, nor is it an agression.
The "Crusades" part of this war (the fact that we will be going to war on dictators and install democracies when we are done) is a side effect that will benefit everyone. In fact, personally I think that is reason enough to go to war. To remove mad murdering dictators and install democracies.
Apparently you think we should leave things the way they are...or do you want us to send in inspectors who can document the suffering of the opressed civilians? Or maybe we should try economic sanctions for another 12 years first?
-
They could have had an autonomous state and all of the West Bank and Gaza years ago if that had been enough.
The State offered Palestinians was a joke. It didn't recognise any equality in water rights, it was divided into 4 zones and the Israelis would have had control over movement between them. You call that a decent offer?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vicious cycle and both leaderships are to blame.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Well, when Hans Blix is directly denying the evidence, that's about as close to debunking as you can get.
No, what he is saying is that Powell has not been able to prove anything. That is expected when you are only relying on intelligence assets that you cannot reveal. Strictly speaking nothing in Powells presentation can be proven in a court of law. That does not make it untrue however. For example the taped conversation between the two Iraqis discussing how to hide their chemical weapons...any court would throw that "evidence" right out the window. That does not make the conversation any less true.It is just an example of how little your evidence is worth if you wont reveal your sources.
Blix on the other hand is operating under completely different parameters. He is in Iraq for one reason only, to find proof. The kind of proof that would hold in court. That is why he cannot use Powells material...not because it is not true, but because Powell wont give up his sources and with that follows the "no evidence"-part.
-
Hortlund is clearly just pointing his rage on all muslims in general. Just the thing Al-Qaeda wants to prove.
If there are AQ training camps in iraq, there are similar camps in Saudi-Arabia (which gives most of the funding to AQ btw.)
Why not bully the Saudis at all, even though they're implicated TENFOLD compared to Iraq?
:)
Think about it.
As a personal sidenote I think Iraq will be FAR better off without Saddam if US manages to set up a strong government post-war. The only bad thing is that there will be huge civillian casualties on the road.
If that fails, the country may become overwhelmed by fundamentalists, and that is NOT what this small ball needs. It can backfire bigtime.. If you think Saddam is bad, just wait untill they get a fundamentalist leader that thinks 100% alike with Al-Qaeda.. lol.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The State offered Palestinians was a joke. It didn't recognise any equality in water rights, it was divided into 4 zones and the Israelis would have had control over movement between them. You call that a decent offer?
Well, the Palestinians should ask themselves this question:
"Are we better off now, or would we be in a better situation if we would have accepted the proposal?"
The Palestinians are not, and were never, in any position where they can make demands. The sooner they realize this the better.
-
Hortlund, why are they not in a position to make demands?
Afterall, the country of Israel was built on Palestine. The land was taken from them by force, Israel is occupying thier country.
They actually have the right be there, not Israeli's. I'm often wondering why they bother with the constant war there.. I guess they're counting the Palestinians will be holocausted slowly but surely.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Hortlund, why are they not in a position to make demands?
Afterall, the country of Israel was built on Palestine. The land was taken from them by force, Israel is occupying thier country.
They actually have the right be there, not Israeli's. I'm often wondering why they bother with the constant war there.. I guess they're counting the Palestinians will be holocausted slowly but surely.
I am so not getting into this one right now. Do a search on my username and the key words "Israel", "International law" or "West bank" and you will find out why you are wrong and why they are in no position to make any demands.
What you should remember is this:
1) There never were any nation called Palestine
2) The land was never taken from the "Palestinians" (technically there are no Palestinians either..they are "arabs") parts of current Israel was "given" by the UK, other parts were conquered by Jordan, abandoned and then occupied by Israel.
-
Hortlund if nobody would have taken away anything from anyone, nobody would be fighting for the living space there daily as it happens.
Even if there was no country of 'Palestine' the people were actually living there. They were pushed out of the area when Israel was created, and this is simply the root of the whole problem.
If you live in a piece of land someone else owns, but you have no choice than stay there.. And the land owner suddenly chooses to give your house away to someone else, who then repeatedly evicts you away from your new homes in order to grab more space.. Well you can figure out your emotions, can't you?
Then when you get po'd and fight back, you get closed to a small confinement under military guard and you can't even take a crap without having to pass several body searches on the way.. Nobody would accept that.
-
As I said, I dont want to get into this, at least not in this thread. If you feel strongly about this then start another thread, I'll answer you there.
-
I don't believe you could even if you tried Hortlund, but thanks for the offer anyway.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I don't believe you could even if you tried Hortlund, but thanks for the offer anyway.
LOL...do the search man. Trust me...Hortlund can argue that issue.
-
Ok, back on topic. I think it can be summed up in this one sentence:
The appeasement of dictators to have "peace now" leads to a much worse war in the future.
-
Well, the Palestinians should ask themselves this question:
"Are we better off now, or would we be in a better situation if we would have accepted the proposal?"
They'd be in the same position.
The Barak deal left too much opportunity for extremists on both sides to escalate the conflict. They would have done so by now.
The Palestinians are not, and were never, in any position where they can make demands. The sooner they realize this the better.
They are, just as much as Israel is.
There will be no peace until Israel and the Palestinians agree a compromise deal.
The current situation is not sustainable for Israel. Their economy is in practical freefall, their international standing has been heavily damaged, and they are having to go cap in hand to America to keep the country going.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You people make me sick. Seriously, I have no respect whatsoever for you anti war pukes. You are a f*cking disgrace.
This sentence show obviously that you never owned a mirror.
Do you smell funny too ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Do you smell funny too ?
No, Im not french...sorry.
-
Strange ...
you're an bellybutton hole without smell ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Strange ...
you're an bellybutton hole without smell ?
An amazinhunk without smell is strange to you?
Once again we get a little insight into the French attitude on personal hygien.
If you want to insult me or something Straffo, mail me instead so we can spare the rest of the board members this childish behavior.
-
I prefer using this BBS as it will show how inane you are mister "judge".
Don't make me laught about childish behaviour I've spent countless of hour arguing you didn't show any form of intelligence at any point ...
And looking at way you are regressing you will be soon unable to power on your computer.
-
Well, as I said, I dont want to get into some childish mudslinging contest with you on this BBS, so you will excuse me if I dont reply to posts like that one.
-
I won.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, Im not french...sorry.
I'm not french, but I find this statement uncalled for. If it was meant as a joke, then state that as such in your reponse. If it was serious, seek professional help.
-
Originally posted by Nomde
I'm not french, but I find this statement uncalled for. If it was meant as a joke, then state that as such in your reponse. If it was serious, seek professional help.
LOL Frenchy trained you good. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL Frenchy trained you good. :D
You tard, where you at, i'm hunting you personally :D
-
hehe
-
Heh Curval, I don't have to do the search or argue about it. Hortlund is best off explaining the palestinians why they should leave thier homes..
If he manages to convince THEM there's no problem, hat's off to him.
-
I am against war with Iraq, here is why.
Iraq is not a threat to the U.S. They have not attacked us, and the only evidence Powell presented for their ties to terrorism is an Al Qaeda cell operating in their country, which can be said about many other countries on the globe, inlcuding ours. Their are no money trails, no arms deals, nothing at all concrete. We have no evidence of when a weapon is made in Iraq, it winds up in a terrorists hands.
The monetary cost is huge, at a time when our economy can't afford it. $100 to $200 billion dollars on top of the largest deficit increase in history.
We are expending a huge amount of world political clout to take down a non-threat to us. Even in many of the countries that support us, public opinion of the war is low. It is very possible that the next series of elections are won or lost based on support for this war, and that there are many more anti-American governments in the world because of it. It will be tougher to align the world with us after this when its time to take on legitimate threats.
We are going to help Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups rather than hurt them with this war. Iraq is not a breeding ground of terrorism, like Afganistan was. No terrorists groups are going to be at all disrupted by this war. They will instead be aided. More people will turn to their cause when the bodies start to drop for no good reason.
Finally, people are going to die. A whole toejampotfull of Iraqi's, and too many Americans, Brits and whoever else comes along with us.
To sum it up, the costs outweigh the gains, imo. For the end of taking down a government that we have no links to an attack on the U.S., we pay billions of dollars, have less influence in the world, convert more people to our enemies cause, and get some of our folks killed. These costs are only justifiable against a real, concrete U.S. threat, imo.
-
Hiya Gordo!
Hey, you look pretty good dressed in logic! ;)
WWI.. we were not directly threatened. We went.
WWII, ditto.
Korea.. those lil chink salamanders eat dogs and cats. Now THATS a gawdamned threat!!
Vietnam.. damn we really had to get those gooks before they overran chicago.
Panama, Greneda, Gulf War.. why; those sonsasqueakes flipped us off! Bastids! Gawdammit all ta hell, they need to have their women spanked!
Afganistan.. now THAT was heluva threat. Long-range camels slippin under our radar were responsible for widespread panic at NORAD. Damn good thing we hit 'em first.
Since none of these folks were direct threats either, we shoulda stayed home and minded our own damn tomatoes.
-
Vietnam.. damn we really had to get those gooks before they overran chicago.
Since none of these folks were direct threats either, we shoulda stayed home and minded our own damn tomatoes. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your'e godamn right with Vietnam, would have been much better if ya would have stayed home. Cost to many american and vietnamese lives.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Your'e godamn right with Vietnam, would have been much better if ya would have stayed home. Cost to many american and vietnamese lives.
You know Blitz, for every post like this you are loosing more and more respect. To be perfectly honest, I dont know if it is a combination of naive peace-desire and ignorance when it comes to history or just some pure US hatred that motivates you.
Khmere Rouges. Direct result of the US pulling out of the region. Good or bad for Cambodia?
Laos...has anyone even heard about that nation since 75? (Communist dictatorship)
Vietnam...yeah, that sure turned out well after the commies won. How many wars have they been involved in since 75? Two I think, China and Cambodia.
If the US had stayed in Vietnam, none of that would have happened.
-
Not quite true, Hangtime. Germany declared war on the US in WW2. Had Hitler not made that blunder, the Soviet Union might have been conquered and Britain would have had to sue for peace. I really doubt the US would have declared war on Hitler and come to Europe's aid, at that time.
Korea, Vietnam and the last Gulf War revolved around direct military invasions of friendly nations and US interests.
Saddam, OTOH is contained.
Everything you wrote rung true, Lance.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Had Hitler not made that blunder, the Soviet Union might have been conquered and Britain would have had to sue for peace.
Not to worry Dowding. Straffo's new signature assures us all that the Russians would have ultimately triumphed.
;)
-
That would have been a shame - Russian looks like a squeak to learn. ;)
-
LOL!
I dunno.. I guess it boils down to our individual takes on the Iraq threat... some think there is no credible threat, and I have to admit, the case laid out by Gordo is as concise and un-peppered with anti-anything rational points as any I've seen yet.
We are all looking at the same info, and we're all comming to differing conclusions as to the severity of the situation.
So, I guess I have to consider my personal motives for my stance as being those that color my arguments here.
And my motives are far from pure... I detest the French Policy of Appeasement and Support for Saddam. I despise all traitors to western democracy. I hate to the very center of my being Hussein and what he stands for... I think the guys Hitler in a new suit. And, I think that he's gonna hand AQ the keys to armegeddon. And I fear the French will give him what he needs to do it, gleefully, in the hope of forming a new european alliance brefit of an america that gives a damn about what happens more than 200 miles off our coast. IMHO, France wants an isolationist america, and is willing to sponsor as many WTC's as it takes to make us give up and go home.
Thats just me, I could be wrong. I don't think I am.
But hey; at the end of the day, determining what is right and what is wrong is only a matter of who's left to tell the story when the killing stops.
-
:::chuckles::: I know I look good in logic, Hang. You would too!
Some of those we were directly attacked/threatened, some we weren't. Some were justified, some weren't.
Now, logically explain to me how we are justified in:
A) Overthrowing a government that has not attacked us or invaded anyone since the last time we squeak slapped them, and which we have no credible evidence of supporting terrorism?
B) Spending 100-200 billion dollars to overthrow said government in the current economic climate
C) Calling in tons of favors and expending almost all of the world's 9/11 sympathy on overthrowing said government.
D) Sending American's to die to overthrow said government.
E) Plotting a course that will send people to our enemies cause when that action does nothing to weaken or dismantle those enemies as a trade off.
EDIT: Just read your last post, Hang, and you are right. It is all how much of a threat you view Iraq. If I felt their existence threatened the U.S., well, its us or them, so lets make sure its us. But I don't think they do.
Saddam is no more a threat now than he was 3 years ago. What has changed since then is us, because of 9/11. I think we're (understandably)pissed off and scared, and its clouding our judgement as to what is legitimate justification for war.
Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That would have been a shame - Russian looks like a squeak to learn. ;)
Has seen on some comment here in the O'club we french are pretty goood learner as we all started to speak german fluently after may 1940.
And btw it's not that Russian is a difficult language but more that English is pretty simple compared to some others :p
-
A) Overthrowing a government that has not attacked us or invaded anyone since the last time we squeak slapped them, and which we have no credible evidence of supporting terrorism?
Iraq IS a proven documented sponsor of terror.. (hammas, PLO, others) lotsa evidence in fact exists. Problem is, what evidence is belivable, and whats the standard by which the evidence is to be judged. That they are a credible threat to the U.S. is the bigget hurdle.. the world seems to think they are not a large enough terror sponor to justify U.S. retaliation in force. "Backing terror groups hitting Israel is not reason enough".
B) Spending 100-200 billion dollars to overthrow said government in the current economic climate
Nothin like a lil war to pump up the economy.... ;) Bush managed to find the way clear to hand a massive tax cut for the rich.. he'll find ways for us poor folks to pay for another gulf war. The last one didn't leave a lasting dent in the economy, doubt this one will either. Kinda a stinky policy, IMHO.. no better than the French position. "We'll lose money if we take out Saddam".
C) Calling in tons of favors and expending almost all of the world's 9/11 sympathy on overthrowing said government.
This one made me smile. diddly 'em. We're doin this for ourselves. This ain't no 'for the good of the world' campaign.. this is the US defending it's self from a regime that sponsors terror attacks. We Declared a WAR on Terrorist sponsoring regimes. A pre*emptive snuff is called for, and it's expected to be a clear signal that we ain't gonna let anybody, any nation anywhere tell us we're gonna be meat on their table at their convienience. "sponsor terror against americans intrests, we'll pull yer courtry apart, piece by piece untill you are either dead or in hiding." Afganistan was stage one.. we're going into stage two now.
D) Sending American's to die to overthrow said government
This one hurts the most. Americans will die. And, I'm certain, more will die if we don't back up our brave rehtoric post 9/11 with continued determinition and force of arms to stop it from being a 'national sport' to support anti-US terror activities.
Our troops, or our civilian non combatants. The ratio of losses will be reflected in what we do regarding terror from now on. Whats certain: Casualties. In our out, at war or not.. Americans are dying, and there will be more american fatalities, regardless of our decision to fight here and now or not.
E) Plotting a course that will send people to our enemies cause when that action does nothing to weaken or dismantle those enemies as a trade off.
Feeding the world has not worked. Handing Europe back to the Europeans made us no points now when we grid ourselves to un-seat a murdring dictator.
If our action against Saddam forces the maggots of the world out into the light, good. It'll be cheaper and in the long run far less annoying than feeding and educating the people that intend to kill us..
-
I said logic, Hang, not emotion:D
A) Where is this evidence? Where are the money trails, the arms deals, the passports, the training grounds, the safehouses, etc... that Iraq provides for terrorists to strike at us? We have such evidence for Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Where is this evidence where Iraq is concerned? Where was it in Powell's presentation?
B) It is still a cost of the war that must be paid at some point in time. If you could prove to me that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., I would agree that its justified. As it is, I can't agree.
C) Its easy to say diddly the world, you're with us or against us. But it is not the smartest thing to do. In our war on terror, the rest of the world can aid us, or they can hinder us. If we go out and turn world opinion against us, it will be that much harder to get other governments to cooperate in the future when we're going after more legitimate threats. I don't agree that we should be making such a stand in order to topple Saddam Hussein. Again, if you could convince me that Saddam Hussein equals terrorists equals dead Americans, I might be persuaded.
D) That letting Saddam stay in power will result in more Americans dead is a popular argument with absolutely zero evidence to support it. It would make logical sense only if someone could provide a link between the Iraqi government and terrorist groups. Again, where are the arms deals, the money trails, etc... that provide a foundation for the idea that Saddam uses terrorist groups to strike at America?
E) And misguided force will work? We will not be forcing maggots to light, we will be creating them with no material gain for the U.S. to offset it.
Sorry, still not convinced that Iraq is such a threat to us that this potential war and all of its costs and consequences are justified.
-
Originally posted by Nomde
Gentlemen,
IMHO,
1. I am a citizen of the United States.
2. We have been attacked, and we ARE in a state of war.
3. When they are called, I WILL support my troops.
4. I have a belief that our country's leaders have information that "we the people" don't.
5. France has placed such a strict interpretation on the UN resolutions, that they will never agree to agression.
6. The French ambassador to the UN stated that "the inspectors must state that inspections will never work". This won't happen, politicians never use the word never or any interpretation of it. BTW, tres bien Clintonian backtalking there France, salute.
7. France has a multibillion dollor contract with Iraq and it's not in thier interest to agree to the UN resolutions.
1. You're a citizen of USA, where you have the right to vote and try to affect politics - but you don't have a single right to tell the other countries what to do.
2. War with whom? terrorists? sorry, thats not a country to declare war on and no country has acknowledged september 11th hijackers as their soldiers, nor did they wear a uniform of any country.
However, if you feel like fault some country, then look at Saudi-arabia, thats where from most hijackers were - even from egypt.
but not from Iraq and theres hardly any, if at all, al qaeda influence, whos told to have trained these hijackers and supported their goals.
3. I'm sure you know wheres the closest recruiter.
4. Like the nazi germany's leaders did from 1930's till 1945.
Why do you bother with democracy, if you don't practice your rights, but rather live like under facism and wait for the jump command from your leader?
5. USA is real cooperative with the other nations... not.
6. Theres lots of interesting stories from US ambassadors in the history.
7. USA has supported dictators and coups...
-
I said logic, Hang, not emotion
You suck. Yer mom's a man. You have a french dog.
I hate it when yer right.
bastard.
i'll getcha fer this, gordo.
Sorry, still not convinced that Iraq is such a threat to us that this potential war and all of its costs and consequences are justified.
And yer mom swims after troop ships.
..and gawddamit; neither am I as SURE as I was before.
Thanks fer yankin the stick outta my ass.
you still suck.
;)
-
Fishu,
I understand your concern for the reply I posted above. There's not enough time here to explain the reasoning of my beliefs, so I kept it short and simple. I've posted other replies on the bbs which go into a little more detail, but I will address some of your comments.
"you don't have a single right to tell the other countries what to do"
you're right, I don't, never said I did
"War with whom?"
Good point.
A.) To this date, I don't recall congress passing the war powers act, so we arn't technically at war. We are currently in a high state of alert/readiness to protect our interests, at home and abroad.
B.) As I understand it, AQ had amassed numerous training camps in Afganistan and our military worked with the Northern Alliance, to bring about the closures of those bases and the removal of an oppressive government.
C.) We are currently working with the governments of numerous nations to bring about the arrest of AQ terrorist believed to be actively seeking to harm civilians, foriegn and domestic.
"I'm sure you know wheres the closest recruiter."
Yes, I do
"Why do you bother with democracy, if you don't practice your rights."
Very ignorent and contencious of you to imply I don't. It may be that a steriotyped view of US citizens was read into my statement, in which I never implied I didn't practice my rights.
BTW Fishu, don't ever associate me and the National Socialist government of the Third Riech in the same sentence again. The Germanic people didn't all support that governement, and many paid with thier lives.
"USA is real cooperative with the other nations... not"
I'm disappointed you feel this way. I'll be sure to contact my congressional representatives and enact a couple resolutions removing all economic and developmental aid to all those countries we don't co-operate with.
We can then use my tax dollars to help those at home here living in the streets, because those same nations have under age children slaving in sweat shops which took away the jobs that our own citizens were working to help pay the rent.
"Theres lots of interesting stories from US ambassadors in the history."
A great number more from foriegn ambassadors
"USA has supported dictators and coups"
Yes we have, and I haven't agreed with all of them, and have stated such to my representatives.
There are a great many more instances in which our men have had to lay down thier lives in order to help free an oppressed people.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Self defence is never stupid, nor is it an agression.
The "Crusades" part of this war (the fact that we will be going to war on dictators and install democracies when we are done) is a side effect that will benefit everyone. In fact, personally I think that is reason enough to go to war. To remove mad murdering dictators and install democracies.
Apparently you think we should leave things the way they are...or do you want us to send in inspectors who can document the suffering of the opressed civilians? Or maybe we should try economic sanctions for another 12 years first?
No.
I just think the US is a bit selective in its support or oppostition to dictators. Some dictators are trained by the US to torture and kill and oppress. Those guys are OK. Especially if they have a banana crop that the US wants to preserve.
The only reason that Iraq is under threat of invasion is because its sitting on a wack of oil and wont do what the US wants. Period. Its nothing to do with peace or freedom or terrorism or anything else at all. The US is aiding(or orchistating) the destabilization of the popular goverment of Guatemala right now to regain direct control of that coutries oil supply.
Not 30 years ago. Not 20 years ago...right now.
If that would work agianst Hussien they would do that. But it doenst so lots of Iraqis must die.
Go ahead and do it. Thats what the strong do in this world. But do it and dont make believe its for anything but the greed of the few. The troops lives and the lives of a few hundered thousand Iraqis mean nothing to the 50.00000000000001 % president of the US.
He is seriosly damaging the US with this war. Spirtitually damaging it.
My point about the Crusade was no that this is a crusade. But that its as stupid as the reasons behind the Crusades. And if it has initial success it will have ultimate failure like the crusades. Not that I think for a minute that the US will fail to defeat and occupy Irag. And then demand that Iraq pay for the invasion with reperations. But in the end. This will be a failed policy and a discredited aggression that will have to be reinforced with further aggression.
-
(http://dogoftheday.com/archive/2001/December/27.jpg)
Dammit, Hang, talking about my Mom is one thing, but leave Fluffy out of it!
Btw, I am not 100% sure I am right, and don't really care. If this stops short of war, I hope I am right. If we go to war, I hope like hell I was wrong.
-
Pongo, you piqued my interest in Guatemala. What have you got?
First overview I found with some independent sourcing:
Latin Business Chronicle: Guatemala (http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/countries/guatemala/)
Politics: 2001 followed another weak year, affected by uncertainty surrounding the policies of the new president Alfonso Portillo.
In addition to mixed signals on macro-economic policy (including a fiscal reform), the Portillo government also raised questions about the privatizations of the preceding government of Alvaro Arzu (1996-2000). As a result, private investment slowed down.
Corruption remains a major problem. Transparency International gave the country a score of 2.9 (with 10 being best) on its latest survey of corruption perception. As a result, Guatemala ranked sixth on a list of the 17 worst countries in Latin America.
In March, the United States revoked the visa of Francisco Ortega, a close aide of President Portillo, due to money laundering charges. Portillo himself and his vice president have been accused of having Panama bank accounts with illegal funds. They deny any wrongdoing.
The lack of any significant government progress to curtail corruption, a weak judiciary and growing crime and violence, resulted in Guatemala being classified as "Partly Free" in the latest Freedom House survey of Freedom in the World.
Now where's the stuff on US "destabilization"?
-
Originally posted by Lance
I said logic, Hang, not emotion:D
A) Where is this evidence? Where are the money trails, the arms deals, the passports, the training grounds, the safehouses, etc... that Iraq provides for terrorists to strike at us? We have such evidence for Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Where is this evidence where Iraq is concerned? Where was it in Powell's presentation?
You mean evidence like the US$25000 Saddam promises families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
You mean evidence like the Al Ansar (spelling?) training camps in Northern Iraq?
You mean evidence like the Al Ansar training video showing testing of VX on a dog?
-
Where is the evidence that these camps are sanctioned by the Iraqi government? Afterall, there are such camps in Saudi, Yemen, Algeria etc etc. They are also in a part of the country that is very unaccessible.
There were IRA cells operating in the US, but I wouldn't say the US government is neccessarily responsible for their existance (except maybe giving visas to known terrorists).
The £25,000 per hijacker smacks of a petulant attempt to piss off Americans, not some serious funding link.
-
Originally posted by Lance
I said logic, Hang, not emotion:D
A) Where is this evidence? Where are the money trails, the arms deals, the passports, the training grounds, the safehouses, etc... that Iraq provides for terrorists to strike at us? We have such evidence for Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Where is this evidence where Iraq is concerned? Where was it in Powell's presentation?
[/b]
OK, there are two ways to reply to this one. Neither is really watertight, but bare with me ok.
1) The US government say that they have evidence. Problem is this evidence cannot really be used to convince the masses, simply because it would be really dumb to waste those intel sources. For example, suppose Mossad has an agent deep inside Al Queida who travels with one of the top leaders. This agent has reported that roughly 50 Al Queida operatives are currently in Northern Iraq preparing the defence against the Americans. Now, would it be a good idea to let this kind of info get out into the media? "Yes, we have a spy in an Al Queida cell in northern Iraq, and he tells us there are 50 terrorists there". First it would only get your spy killed, second no one would believe you anyway "where is the proof" the french would cry, while a Mossad agent is being tortured to death in the sands of N Iraq.
My point here is that sometimes we have to trust our government. Now this might be easier for some to accept than others, but the simple fact of the matter is that a Government cannot let the people take part in every single desicion, nor can a government explain every single action it takes. Simply because the people can not, and must not, know everything the government does.
2) If we are to build a case against Iraq using only open sources, I think the following is damaging for Iraq:
- The fact that Al Queida members are hiding and working in Iraq, and not being persued by Iraqi security forces
-source Powells speech.
-The fact that said Al Queida cell is specialized in the use of B&C weapons.
-same source
- The fact that Saddam pays $25 000 to the family of any suicide bomber attacking US or Israel
-plenty of sources, can provide exact quotes if you will from MSNBC, CNN or Time.com
- Iraq have probably already given nerve gas substance to Islamic extremists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A42876-2002Dec11.html
-Bin Laden openly declaring support for Iraq in speech. Calling on all moslems to fight for Iraq etc
-OBL speech, here taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59551-2003Feb11.html
-Iraq training terrorists.
-Not a web source, but a newspaper article. NY times Oct 14th 2001. Here is a quote. If you doubt the source, let me know and I'll see what more I can dig up on the web:
Interview with Sabah Khodada, defected Iraqi army captain, was member of "Division of special operations". (questions bolded)
[SNIP]
What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?
Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.
...
Non-Iraqis were trained separately from us. There were strict orders not to meet with them and not to talk to them. And even when they conduct their training, their training has to occur at times different from the times when we, the Iraqis, conduct our own training.
So you were training Iraqis, Saddam's fedayeen [Saddam's Fighters], members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis?
They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. ...
And the foreign nationals, the Arabs who are there, but who are not Iraqis -- what were they like? Were they Egyptians, Saudis? Do you know where they came from?
They look like they're mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin and short bodies. And they also are Muslims. ...
...
And the training also included how to prepare for suicidal operations. For example, they will train them how to belt themselves around with explosives, and jump in a place and explode themselves out as part of the suicidal training. I think the training of the Arabs was much harsher, and much stricter, than the training of the Iraqis.
Why?
Because we know that Arabs, non-Iraqis who come to train in these kind of camps, are going to be sent to very dangerous and important operations outside Iraq; not inside Iraq. ...
They trained people to hijack airplanes?
Yes.
For what purpose?
... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's Fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.
All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.
Who controlled this operation?
In terms of training, they will train in this special camp. But after this training, they will go in small groups. These small groups are directly connected with Saddam, or to Saddam's son.
[SNIP]
B) It is still a cost of the war that must be paid at some point in time. If you could prove to me that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., I would agree that its justified. As it is, I can't agree.
[/b]
I think the best way to answer this question is to take a look at Saddams track record when it comes to dealing with his enemies.
From 1983 to 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons an estimated 195 times, killing about 50,000 Iranian troops.
In 1987-88, Iraq conducted a campaign known as the Anfal, killing an estimated 100,000 Iraqi Kurds. Many were executed or killed by shells. But many also died by having poison gas dropped on them, including mustard gas, which burns, mutates DNA and causes cancer; the nerve gases sarin and tabun, which can kill, paralyze or cause nerve damage; and possibly VX gas and the biological agent atafloxin.
The most famous attack was the gassing of Halabja, a mostly Kurdish city near the Iranian border, on March 16, 1988. Rebel Kurds, working with Iranian troops, had taken the town a few days earlier. The gassing, which killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds, was part of the successful Iraqi counterattack.
During the Gulf War, He launched Scuds at civilian targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
As part of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and a U.N. resolution, Saddam agreed to give up biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to submit to inspections. In 91-95, the inspectors oversaw the destruction of all Iraqi wmd's...or so they thought.
When Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan in 1995, he told inspectors about large hidden quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqi explanation was that Kamel had been hiding the materials himself.
Saddam publicly promised his errant son-in-law a pardon if he would return to Iraq. Kamel returned on Feb. 20, 1996. He was gunned down Feb. 23.
Ok...so we have this mad dictator who is capable of murdering his own family, gassing civilians and torturing his own people. In what way is he a threat to the US? He is a threat because he hates you, with all the passion a man is capable of hating really. The only thing holding him back is the knowledge that if any attack on the US can be traced back to Iraq, its buh bye Baghdad. That is why he is working through proxy's. One example: Iraq is working together with Hamas in the terror war against Israel (training/funding/equipment). Al Queida is recruiting from Hamas (Hamas is focused on Israel, there are no known Hamas attacks on US interests) or more specifically, Al Queida are recruiting Hamas members that wants to hit the US instead of Israel. That way Iraq can support Al Queida with training and funding indirectly.
C) Its easy to say diddly the world, you're with us or against us. But it is not the smartest thing to do. In our war on terror, the rest of the world can aid us, or they can hinder us. If we go out and turn world opinion against us, it will be that much harder to get other governments to cooperate in the future when we're going after more legitimate threats. I don't agree that we should be making such a stand in order to topple Saddam Hussein. Again, if you could convince me that Saddam Hussein equals terrorists equals dead Americans, I might be persuaded.
[/b]
I'm working on that (see above) :)
-
Hortlund you forgot to add to the list of Sadam's crime the chiites in the south of Iraq.
-
Well Hang...are you convinced?
-
is it only 1 man so why som much big fire about ? all you say is it a wery wery bad guy and all hiz people hate him :D and IRAK the only arab country where religious have no word to say , but they got cheap petrol ,about chemical and bio weapons, tell my nation ,army who dont own any ? tell me a country who have the bigest reserves of this ?
take him out but no WAR !
-
The inscrutable wisdom of minus shines like a beacon through the fog of war. :D
kbman
-
Hiya Steve!
Am I convinced?
The tough questions are always the short ones.
Am I convinced Saddams a threat? Oh yah.
Am I convinced we should go to war? Yup. With the French.
Am I convinced we're doing the right thing?
No.
Nobody ever mentioned a third alternative. ;)
How 'bout we make ourselves harder targets.. Saddam will go for the Isralis, the isralis take out saddam, the arabs try to take out the isralis, the mid east turns into a glow in the dark amusement park for sceintists.
everybodys happy.
I suspect we don't have to do a damn thing. We sure as hell don't have to guard the worlds oil.. we can invade canada instead.
Lets save the bullets for France. ;)
I'm getting selfish in my old age. And succeptible to strong reasoned arguments that deal less with emotion and more with cause-effect and rational application of power and resources.
Which is all entriely un-fun. I happen to enjoy the emotional plea, replete with waving flags and amazing grace playing in the background. I'm a sap. I've always been a patriotic emotional sap, the suit is warm, comfy, fits the shape of my soul.
I think Toad's postion in Rudes thread is the finest application of pique and power and rational swordwork I've ever read.
And, I think your case shows up all the reasons why I think we oughta go snuff saddam asap.
But at the end of the day, the little voice in the back of my mind screams "smoke a fattie hang, and let the world go diddly itself into oblivion".
That little voice keeps me sane.
All! and thanks for the reasoned debate!
-
Don't bogart that fattie hang...it just aint right.
kbman
-
kbman ,you know a big nice ...... and all around, and only what you know is a big shiny ...... and like < you can stop at the moment when you feel UBER >
andif i live in France , repeating AGAIN im em NOT french and dont have french citizenship :p
-
minus,
I am well aware that you aren't French and my post was a joke. I always enjoy reading your posts because of your unique use of language and imagery. I have never bashed the French on this BB or anywhere else and, in fact, I actually agree with your position in your post above, that is, if I understood it correctly. ;)
I have total respect for anyone's earnest efforts to communicate their ideas in a language which is not their native tongue. Most people wouldn't be able to even make the most rudimentary attempt at doing so. So relax...OK? :)
kbman
-
Peace, ok ;)