Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on February 16, 2003, 04:22:35 AM
-
Springfield,IL 1980: ”So I figure the best thing we can do right now is to get on in there and get him outta there!”
Those were the words my surgeon used to sum up my condition the day I went to hospital with abdominal pain. I had acute appendicitis. I could have taken the view that the appendix is in no way connected to the heart, the lungs, the brain, and therefore of no real threat to my general health. That would be the kind of blinkered thinking that we saw on the streets of London and other major cities yesterday. However, the abdominal pain had reached such intensity that there was no decision to be made. Of course I didn't enjoy being prodded, poked, injected, tube shoved up nose and down throat, anaesthetised, cut open, stitched up, deprived of food & shower for 5 days. Small price to pay. The fact is that I had only about two hours left before unpleasant things would start to happen, and without surgery I would almost certainly have died – do your own Google search for peritonitis.
I find it almost unbelievable that so many people, including large segments of the media, fail to see the writing on the wall. One “newspaper”, The Daily Mirror, published this picture of a young Iraqi boy on its front page.
(http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/feb2003/0/4/00015F41-F449-1E4D-B44980BFB6FA0000.jpg)
FFS!!!! Do they REALLY believe that this young boy’s best interests lie with a continuation of Saddam’s vile regime? I wonder how many people on the streets of London have ever sat down and talked to Iraqis about what it’s like to live with Saddam in control. How many of us here have done that? I am not disdainful of the marchers, but I feel they are uninformed to say the least. Most of them have no clue about the extent of Saddam’s tyranny. Here is a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people – either directly by means of nerve gas, or indirectly by starvation owing to the way he has reacted to sanctions imposed as a result of his own hostility. Many have been tortured and executed. But oh! The Daily Mirror feels that it’s in everyone’s best interests for Saddam to remain in power. :rolleyes:
The anti-war protesters think that millions will die in an armed conflict. I disagree, but the Public has a short memory. In 1991 when Saddam was tackled, there were bombs, there were missiles... but I never heard of any incidents involving “millions of civilian casualties”. One cruise missile did go astray, and seven civilians died. This and other incidents like it are unfortunate, but that is war. These casualties are far fewer than the numbers that will die if Saddam remains in power. There was an unfortunate “friendly fire” incident, and about 30 service personnel died when their dining area was hit by a Scud missile.
I said the Public has a short memory. They do not remember 1991, and it seems some struggle to recall Sept. 11th, 2001. One could take the view that this happened in America, and was not connected with the rest of the world in any way. :rolleyes:
The Powell speech and other texts are free for all to see and do not need to be repeated here. The objective of al qaeda is to kill as many Americans and other westerners as possible. We will not lessen their resolve by appeasement, or by not going to war with Iraq. Saddam and OBL (if he is still alive) have their differences, but that would not stop them from doing business together in the fullness of time. Maybe Saddam hates OBL, but he hates us more.
So I figure the best thing we can do right now is to get on in there and get him outta there!
-
That's the Daily Mirror, Beetle, edited by the famous Piers Moron... err Morgan. No-one with half a brain takes him or his rag seriously and there are far more truthful reasons for not going to war than he inaccurately portrays.
Your arguments stem from humanitarian concern. Frankly, who gives a shreck. To use humanitarian concern for a reason to go to war is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. AFTER Saddam was gassing the Kurds, AFTER Saddam was using chemical weapons daily against the Iranians, we still sold him chemical weapon precursors and the means to make those weapons. We knew precisely what he was capable of but couldn't care less about humanitarian concerns because it was politically expedient to do so.
The anti-war protesters think that millions will die in an armed conflict.
And you can distill it all down to that one particular statement? There are many reasons why people think war is a bad move.
The objective of al qaeda is to kill as many Americans and other westerners as possible. We will not lessen their resolve by appeasement, or by not going to war with Iraq.
What is the connection between Al Queda and Iraq? In comparison, I can bet it is stronger between Saudi and AQ. There are camps in Saudi used for training AQ operatives, but we hear little about this. I wonder why.
-
Dowding, try to argue the points instead.
-
Hats off to those who crowded London to express their feelings about an upcomin war that is decided a year ago in pentagon.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What is the connection between Al Queda and Iraq? In comparison, I can bet it is stronger between Saudi and AQ. There are camps in Saudi used for training AQ operatives, but we hear little about this. I wonder why.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the Saudi link is being overlooked. I'm not suprised we hear little about this.
There isn't a "one size fits all" approach to the various countries for numerous valid reasons.
We hear little about it because the work, instead of going on in the world media like Iraq, is being done quietly and secretly through diplomatic channels.
IMO.
As I mentioned in another thread, I think the greatest fear in the Middle East region is a "free" Iraq with a democratic election process. It has to make the unelected rulers squirm.
Note to Blitz:
Iraq has been in violation of the disarmament agreement for 12 years. So what does a war planning date have to do with anything at all?
-
Originally posted by blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous.
yeah...yer right. Iraq prolly doesnt have the capability to hit the US with any type of weapon right now. Ever stop to think that maybe the US has the interest of other nations and the world in mind?
Nah...I guess its easier to just bash 'em
-
Originally posted by sling322
yeah...yer right. Iraq prolly doesnt have the capability to hit the US with any type of weapon right now. Ever stop to think that maybe the US has the interest of other nations and the world in mind?
Nah...I guess its easier to just bash 'em
That's it, it's no hot situation at all. No need to let the bombs rain at this point. Iraq is on it's knees. It isn't even able to feed his people.
Military strengh is very weak after Desert Storm.
That's the reason why some people don't want a war at this point.
We can still do a lot of things before.
France showed the way in UN Sicherheitsrat.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
"That's it, it's no hot situation at all. No need to let the bombs rain at this point. Iraq is on it's knees. It isn't even able to feed his people"
What does not feeding your people have to do with being a military threat or manufacturing WMD?
-
Beetle,
I'd hope few, very few Brits are ignorant of the fact the Saddam is a pox on his nation, and well past his sell by date.
As are many, many other regimes our Government has supported through the years.
I think you'd even find a surprising number cognisant of the fact that he should be removed.
I think you miss the point.
The point is there's a huge wave of feeling that refuses to follow Bush into war, on his time table, to his agenda.
I think the Americans are missing that point too; they tend to think it's an anti-American movement, when it's an anti-Bush movement.
We were told Al quadah was responsible for WTC; and we understood and supported the Americans need to lash out at the perpetrators of an outrage; especialy when they said they have proof.
But they've never shown us the proof.
Then it shifted to "a war on Terrorism"; at the same time Bush was fermenting a coup in Venezuala.
Then it shifted to a war on Iraq; though no one's ever shown how Saddam was responsible for WTC.
Now any one who doesn't support Bush is a "world traitor".
Now some are calling for the return of the House unAmerican affairs comitee.
Doesn't that worry you at all?
What makes you think a million marchers are less informed than yourself?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
What makes you think a million marchers are less informed than yourself?
The fact that they were out there marching is evidence enough...
As for arguments like that, let me just say this:
Millions of flies eat toejam...can they all be wrong?
-
Originally posted by blitz
Iraq is on it's knees. It isn't even able to feed his people.
You just can't grasp the obvious. Iraq is totaly able to feed it's people. Saddam WON"T feed them. Take a look at the picture of that starving child at the top of this thread. THAT"S why this must be done you whoopeeed ignorant appeaser. That's what saddam gives his people. How many pallaces has he built with the "oil for food" money that FRANCE gives him, knowing that he takes it for himself and starves his people.
You people make me sick....
-
Originally posted by Seeker
at the same time Bush was fermenting a coup in Venezuala.
Your support for this accusation please?
Chavez himself first came to power via a coup, did he not?
Looks to me that right now the population is pretty evenly divided....... hard to believe Bush managed that.
You don't suppose half the Venezualans have just decided "it's time for a change" again? It's not like tossing out the leadership isn't somewhat common there.
-
Originally posted by Udie
You just can't grasp the obvious. Iraq is totaly able to feed it's people. Saddam WON"T feed them. Take a look at the picture of that starving child at the top of this thread. THAT"S why this must be done you whoopeeed ignorant appeaser. That's what saddam gives his people. How many pallaces has he built with the "oil for food" money that FRANCE gives him, knowing that he takes it for himself and starves his people.
You people make me sick....
Sorry udie can't buy that.
Bush wants to go to war with iraq abusing UN, abusin Nato, that's not the right way.
Doesn't help to calling me or my country names or theathen it, it's just my opinion whether ya like it or not.
Regards Blitz
I don't say we're the better people, were just 6 millions people demonstratin that they really feel uncomfortable with bush politics.
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Bush wants to go to war with iraq abusing UN, abusin Nato, that's not the right way.
So now its the US abusing UN sanctions and not Iraq?
I sure am glad we have you to set us all straight blitz. :rolleyes:
How hard is it to understand that we need to disarm Iraq? Period. Until that is done, nothing can be done for the starving people there. If disarming them includes removing Saddam then that is what has to be done. Nobody wants war to happen, but if something isnt done about Saddam thumbing his nose at UN sanctions then its just a matter of time until he decides to use a chemical weapon on someone again.....the only question then is will it be on his own people or on some other people of the world?
-
Ok, I surrender.
Give me the same terms France is giving Saddam, please.
I'd rather be a rich apologist, swapping Arms for oil, than a poor Iraqi dictator idealist, supplying oil for food.
-
Originally posted by sling322
So now its the US abusing UN sanctions and not Iraq?
I sure am glad we have you to set us all straight blitz. :rolleyes:
How hard is it to understand that we need to disarm Iraq? Period. Until that is done, nothing can be done for the starving people there. If disarming them includes removing Saddam then that is what has to be done. Nobody wants war to happen, but if something isnt done about Saddam thumbing his nose at UN sanctions then its just a matter of time until he decides to use a chemical weapon on someone again.....the only question then is will it be on his own people or on some other people of the world?
It's not the the destination that is different, it's the way George & Tony tryin to reach it with all tricks.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Seeker -
The point is there's a huge wave of feeling that refuses to follow Bush into war, on his time table, to his agenda.
Ah, I see you're one of the ones for whom 911 is a fading memory. What actually happened was that al qa'eda orchestrated the destruction of the WTC and damage to the Pentagon. Immediately afterwards, GWB announced that the US was going into Afghanistan to disable the Taliban and to try to root out OBL. The first part was successful, and Afghanistan was liberated. The second is a work in progress. In Sept. 2001, GWB also said that he was declaring war on terror, and that this would not be limited to al qa'eda, but would extend to other terror groups. In the time since, the CIA has been gathering intelligence on Iraq, weapons inspectors have returned, and a large military force has been deployed to the Gulf region.
So please advise me how GWB's timetabling had anything to do with it. It was the terrorists who chose 911, and all other events have unfolded naturally in the time since. But they've never shown us the proof.
Al qa'eda was definitely behind the WTC attacks - both on 911, and the earlier attack in 1993. I will post in another thread how the US revealed the identity of Ramsey Youssef - 1993 WTC bomber. Then it shifted to "a war on Terrorism";
See above. I thought GWB made it plain in Sept 2001, so when did this shift occur? What makes you think a million marchers are less informed than yourself?
I don't have and cannot have access to sensitive information pertaining to national security any more than you or the marchers. That's why we have governments to do it for us. How do you suggest our governments should promulgate this information to the general public? Newspapers? Saddam and al qa'eda read the papers too. :rolleyes: As to holding a balanced view - I HAVE sat down and talked about this whole Iraq thing with a couple of Iraqis - perhaps not a representative sample, I hear you say - but most probably two more than most people. And there was the somewhat convincing message from an Iraqi woman interviewed on Ch4 News yesterday.
We are told that Saddam, out of the kindness of his heart, donated $25,000 to each of the families of the 911 suicide pilots. That is enough to tell me that despite differences between Saddam & OBL, the day might come when Iraqi oil wealth would be channelled into al qa'eda coffers. The purpose of this war, or one purpose at least, is to do what we can to ensure that day never arrives.
Seeker, I can't prove that Iraqis hate Saddam. Let's wait for the day of liberation, and the TV pictures that appear, and then we'll know.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Hats off to those who crowded London to express their feelings about an upcomin war that is decided a year ago in pentagon.
Regards Blitz
Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.
It stopped nothing.
-
To me, the CIA and British intelligence are distancing themselves from the path the governments are taking and are resentful of the data they have being used to prop up a case for war. They seem to leak reports whenever other intelligence is used to back up the pro-War argument. Strangely, they reach completely different conclusions compared to our elected officials - and that seems to revolve around that the Iraq-AQ link in not a threat.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The point is there's a huge wave of feeling that refuses to follow Bush into war, on his time table, to his agenda.
Yup its all about euro not letting us call the shots on when to go to war.
Guess what? Bush is the commander in chief of the USA,
his finger is on the trigger and none others need to be.
GHo ahead and debate among yourselfs, it wont change the fact we fixing to boot sodoms arse out of power.
Take it to the bank.
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.
It stopped nothing.
Never thought it would my friend :)
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
It isn't even able to feed his people.
Right Blitz, but Iraq still continues to build its military and remains in "material breach" of the UN mandated ban on weapons.
That should tell you something about his priorities.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Right Blitz, but Iraq still continues to build its military and remains in "material breach" of the UN mandated ban on weapons.
That should tell you something about his priorities.
Ahoi curval,
i have absolutely no doubts about his priorities.
He's a powerhungry bloody amazinhunk and i would like to know him dead.
But this 'Kanonenbootpolitik' and 'Who's not with us is against us'
makes me scarry.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Seeker - Ah, I see you're one of the ones for whom 911 is a fading memory.
Not at all. It's the biggest single act of terrorism I've ever seen.
But it's not the only one. I've seen terrorists, American backed terrorists, attack Britain's aremed forces and civilians for years.
GWB announced that the US was going into Afghanistan to disable the Taliban
And pretty much the whole world was with him.
In Sept. 2001, GWB also said that he was declaring war on terror, and that this would not be limited to al qa'eda, but would extend to other terror groups
And this is where it goes wrong.
As far as I know:
1) GWB can't declare war on anybody. The American Congress does, and they haven't.
2) Should the Americans declare war, that is binding on thier people alone, I fail to see why you are quoting the American President as a pretext for the commitment of HM armed forces; or any one elses. Should any one go along, it's a result of diplomacy, not superpower bullying. Frankly, this whole march thing is the world telling the Whitehouse "Your courtship sucks, cowboy". I've not heard one of the chattering classes it's so popular to villefy right now actually propose the Saddam should be kept in power in any way. It's not what's being done, it's the preposterous way it's being marketed.
3) Who is "terrorism"; and where does he live? I can accept a thousand different reasons of striking out at tens of nations, but I expect a clear game plan from our leaders. So far, this "war" has been a war led by politicians, and not by warriors. This, in my experience; has always gone badly. I want to hear generals tell me how war is won, not draft dodgers. Why are the generals silent? What's the plan?; other than the apparant picking out of targets easy to sell to the American home public? What of the very real questions being raised right now by Belgium about formerly suposed "good guys" such as Pinochet and Sharon? Who's terrorist are the SAS being committed to in our name, terrorists that would liberate some of our former client states such as Brunei?
4) Has GWB given a public commitment not to sponsor terrorism himself? To remove protection from the promotors of terrorism? Will Gerry Adams still enjoy American patronage? And if the Whitehouse thinks (quite possible correctly, after all) that the British Government must have a policy of dialog with the Northern Island terrorists rather than a policy or eradication, why is it wrong for we to ask the Americans to open dialog rather than eradication?
So far, it's been the Americans telling this world:
"This is our war. We're gonna fight it wiether you like it or not; wiether you're with us or not. But you'd better be with us. Or else; Allies".
And this from a nation that thinks it knows how to sell?
Where's the "me" value in that?
-
Great! We now have German tree huggers telling us we are wrong for wanting to protect ourselfs!
Doesn't really matter what you say or do we will still do what WE think is right.
So go ahead with all your gay protest for all the good it will do.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Not at all. It's the biggest single act of terrorism I've ever seen.
But it's not the only one. I've seen terrorists, American backed terrorists, attack Britain's aremed forces and civilians for years.
And pretty much the whole world was with him.
And this is where it goes wrong.
As far as I know:
1) GWB can't declare war on anybody. The American Congress does, and they haven't.
2) Should the Americans declare war, that is binding on thier people alone, I fail to see why you are quoting the American President as a pretext for the commitment of HM armed forces; or any one elses. Should any one go along, it's a result of diplomacy, not superpower bullying. Frankly, this whole march thing is the world telling the Whitehouse "Your courtship sucks, cowboy". I've not heard one of the chattering classes it's so popular to villefy right now actually propose the Saddam should be kept in power in any way. It's not what's being done, it's the preposterous way it's being marketed.
3) Who is "terrorism"; and where does he live? I can accept a thousand different reasons of striking out at tens of nations, but I expect a clear game plan from our leaders. So far, this "war" has been a war led by politicians, and not by warriors. This, in my experience; has always gone badly. I want to hear generals tell me how war is won, not draft dodgers. Why are the generals silent? What's the plan?; other than the apparant picking out of targets easy to sell to the American home public? What of the very real questions being raised right now by Belgium about formerly suposed "good guys" such as Pinochet and Sharon? Who's terrorist are the SAS being committed to in our name, terrorists that would liberate some of our former client states such as Brunei?
4) Has GWB given a public commitment not to sponsor terrorism himself? To remove protection from the promotors of terrorism? Will Gerry Adams still enjoy American patronage? And if the Whitehouse thinks (quite possible correctly, after all) that the British Government must have a policy of dialog with the Northern Island terrorists rather than a policy or eradication, why is it wrong for we to ask the Americans to open dialog rather than eradication?
So far, it's been the Americans telling this world:
"This is our war. We're gonna fight it wiether you like it or not; wiether you're with us or not. But you'd better be with us. Or else; Allies".
And this from a nation that thinks it knows how to sell?
Where's the "me" value in that?
100 points on this.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The fact that they were out there marching is evidence enough...
As for arguments like that, let me just say this:
Millions of flies eat toejam...can they all be wrong?
Well, if you happen to be a fly they actually have a very good point, toejam is nutritous and delicious. Cheapo BK/MacD burgers have toejam in them too you know, so it's not only flies.
But to skin that arguemnt, it reads
'Just because lots of people do something doesn't mean it's right'
- which is absolutely true.
But just because millions of people do something doesn't mean it's wrong either.
All it means is that there are millions of people who hold a broadly similar view, and are prepared to go to some trouble and expense to make their views known to a government that is not currently accounting for their opinions. And this from a government that pathologically devises policy from opinion polls tells me that Blair is in a very dicey position. He's banking on a short clean war, rather than a messy long drawn out one; so he can ride through Bagdhad on Georges shoulder being garlanded by grateful dusky eastern maidens.
We have made our views known. It won't stop a war if the US and the UK administrations want one, since that is out of my hands and yours.
But it should clearly underline for Tony Blair the feelings of his electorate that swept him to power on rhetoric about 'ethical foreign policy' and 'sowing harmony (a direct quote from thatcher no less).
And yeah, whatever happened to NORAID?
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.
It stopped nothing.
X2Lee, you don't really get the point of a demo do you.
Some people may have believed that they could change the world by standing around listening to Rhymin Man.
Most just wanted to stand up and be counted. I had a great time, certainly not a wasted time.
-
Originally posted by bounder
X2Lee, you don't really get the point of a demo do you.
Some people may have believed that they could change the world by standing around listening to Rhymin Man.
Most just wanted to stand up and be counted. I had a great time, certainly not a wasted time.
Oh I am sorry, it was a big partay!
You are right its never wasted time to partay!
-
Here they are, the anti war protesters...
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2003/02/17/ixd17.gif )
There was a very good opinion page in the Telegraph today. The first three paragraphs are here: The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of Iraqi policy.
These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W Bush and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in that million people there were some bravely asking him to "Leave Iraq and prevent war", but I could not find them.
If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to the conflict - Iraq? Commentators on the march were taken by the good order of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.
My sentiments exactly. No calls for Saddam to stop torturing/murdering/starving. Totally blinkered fools. Sorry Bounder - it's just my opinion, but I feel strongly about it.
Full article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/02/17/do1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/02/17/ixopinion.html).
-
we been had... blitz is airhead.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Here they are, the anti war protesters...
My sentiments exactly. No calls for Saddam to stop torturing/murdering/starving. Totally blinkered fools. Sorry Bounder - it's just my opinion, but I feel strongly about it.
Full article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/02/17/do1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/02/17/ixopinion.html).
Srry beetle,
can't talk of other cities only from Berlin.
And there they were i asure you.
Regards Blitz
-
As much as I would like to join the good fight and argue alongside my "realist" Pro-war BBS buds, I cannot seem to muster anything more than grief after reading more senseless anti-war drivel that fails to make any significant point beyond "trees are good, war is bad, and youre a dumb babykiller."
Im so disgusted by the protests and the roadkill I read on this forum on a daily basis its a wonder Im not calling radio stations in my spare time in hopes of persuading the local population that they are, afterall, almost entirely composed of stupid genes.
This conflict is necessary. We elect officials in this country to act in our bests interests. If you think Bush isnt acting in your best interests, you can speak at the next election and wait for the Republicans to adopt your popular tactic of obstructionist politics. I dont understand why this is even open for debate.
This is what we are trying to avoid.
(http://www.alexmarx.com/photos/9-11-01%201159%203.jpg)
(Now hopefully Dowding will show up and try to get a rise out of me.)
Bomb them.
-
I wonder how many of those marching this weekend also marched in the early 1980's against deployment of American "Pershing" missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet deployment of similar missiles. Instead of following the demonstrators and forfeiting all leverage with the Russians, Reagan got the Russians to remove theirs by a credible threat of deploying ours.
Unfortunately, the stalemate in the Security Council appears to indicate that the chance of a UN use of force resolution is close to zero, which forfeits all leverage against Saddam and might deceive him into thinking that he can stay in power and avoid disarming. That ain't gonna happen, and the U.N. waffling may only encourage resistance by Saddam and result in needless loss of life to soldiers and innocent bystanders. In my view, Saddam has been on probation since '91, and probation is about to be revoked.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
As much as I would like to join the good fight and argue alongside my "realist" Pro-war BBS buds, I cannot seem to muster anything more than grief after reading more senseless anti-war drivel that fails to make any significant point beyond "trees are good, war is bad, and youre a dumb babykiller."
Im so disgusted by the protests and the roadkill I read on this forum on a daily basis its a wonder Im not calling radio stations in my spare time in hopes of persuading the local population that they are, afterall, almost entirely composed of stupid genes.
This conflict is necessary. We elect officials in this country to act in our bests interests. If you think Bush isnt acting in your best interests, you can speak at the next election and wait for the Republicans to adopt your popular tactic of obstructionist politics. I dont understand why this is even open for debate.
This is what we are trying to avoid.
(http://www.alexmarx.com/photos/9-11-01%201159%203.jpg)
(Now hopefully Dowding will show up and try to get a rise out of me.)
Bomb them.
No need to demand, Bush will , whether you like it or not.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way
-
Im so disgusted by the protests and the roadkill I read on this forum...
Yeah, me too. But I suspect for different reasons.
its a wonder Im not calling radio stations in my spare time in hopes of persuading the local population that they are, afterall, almost entirely composed of stupid genes.
Oh, how thoroughly decent of you! How nice! Do please condescend to those of us not blessed with the intrinisic wisdom you apparently have. Although, you've hidden it very well so far, I'm quite prepared to be surprised.
-
Why do you think it's just euro protesting this war..... millions of americans were standing aginst this war on Sat.
Oh ya, we can no longer march .. yet another right they're bleeding away from us. They had protestors pen'd up like 'cattle' in many citys and aressted many who didn't like thier pens... right here in the land of 'free' ::ahem::
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Here they are, the anti war protesters...
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2003/02/17/ixd17.gif )
There was a very good opinion page in the Telegraph today. The first three paragraphs are here:
My sentiments exactly. No calls for Saddam to stop torturing/murdering/starving. Totally blinkered fools. Sorry Bounder - it's just my opinion, but I feel strongly about it.
Full article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/02/17/do1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/02/17/ixopinion.html).
As I do about mine beet1e. The point is we were marching on our parliament, not Bagdhad. We were marching in unprecedented numbers because we believe OUR government is not answering our reservations about committing British forces to war in Iraq.
And most if not all of the speakers condemned Saddam Hussein for his atrocities.
But our aim was to send a message to our government. Because we have a democratically elected government who are bound to listen to our objections as our elected representatives.
I can't understand why you think I am a totally blinkered fool. I believe an unquestioning attitude to our government's determination to send troops into combat for a multitude of undeclared reasons is blinkered.
And now Tony Blair, after once again denying regime change is the objective, is saying that if Saddam Hussein complies with disarmament, then he will be permitted to 'have his conventional weapons, his air force and his navy' and presumably to carry on his atrocities against the Iraqi people.
Tony's message changes every week, he can't get his story straight. There are reasons for war but he is serving up empty platitudes and moral pronouncements that he can't support instead.
I want to know what the real reasons are, and until I get some answers, I will oppose any British involvement in an invasion of Iraq.
And yet he claims this is a moral action. That's not just blinkered, that is utterly self contradictory.
-
1) GWB can't declare war on anybody. The American Congress does, and they haven't. Originally posted by Seeker
I don't think we'll be seeing America declare war on anybody soon, unless it's gonna be a biggie. The reason I think is because the wartime powers given to the president are too powerful and I don't see congress giving anyone that much power.
I want to hear generals tell me how war is won, not draft dodgers. Why are the generals silent? What's the plan?; other than the apparant picking out of targets easy to sell to the American home public? Originally posted by Seeker
You obviously don't have a clue about strategy.
Saddam sued for peace after the Gulf War with terms under the surrender that weapons be catalogued and then proof be shown that those weapons were destroyed. The proof has not been shown and thus Saddam has broken the terms of peace and thus we are at war again. In fact, there is proof he has developed additional weapons. In fact, there is proof he will back terrorists which are clear in their war with the West. Just wait until Saddam can give the terrorists a really neat-O weapon. And if you fear the safety of civilians, I am certain there will be less Iraqi civilian deaths in this war than there has been the past 5-years under Saddam's regime. Saddam has made his bed and now he must lay in it and France and Germany better be frightened about this because when the USA overthrows Saddam, records of the regime will be perused and the world will learn that France and Germany have some very shady business dealings with Iraq. Many of the dealings are already known and which are in direct violation of the UN. It's gonna get very interesting.
-
There are a couple of reasons I believe the US is pursuing the issue of Iraq. We have seen numerous examples in the last ten years of the UN failing to take decisive action to prevent genocides and general racial or political oppression. In case after case, in Yugoslavia, Africa, and the Middle East, dictators and thugs have gone about their criminal and often grizzly tasks of killing and oppression with little fear of intervention by an impotent United Nations. Yes, impotent, and made so by the very diversity of culture, values, and national interests of the nations that belong to it. My own belief is that President Bush decided to push the Iraqi issue to either finally make the UN relevant, or to prove it irrelevant and unworthy of further support by this country. I believe he hoped the UN would just this once say, “Enough is enough,” and act decisively to remove Saddam from power. If the UN could do this, and free the Iraqi people from his tyranny, then perhaps the next time it was challenged by a dictator or ethnic cleansing the mere threat of “decisive action” would actually give the perpetrators pause to reconsider their chosen course of action.
And it almost worked. The US’ pledge to act with or without UN sanction resulted in the unanimous passage of UN resolution no. 1441 last November. This was to be the Iraqi dictator’s last chance for cooperative disarmament, and promised “serious consequences” if he failed to comply fully and eagerly. That, coupled with the US/UK military buildup forced the Iraqi despot to agree to 1441. Does anyone out there believe for a moment that the UN would have enacted 1441 last November, or that Iraq would have accepted it, if George Bush (and PM Blair, who’s own support can not be understated in importance) had not made his speech to the UN…and backed it up by deploying forces to the region? The problem of course is, once you commit to such a course of action you may be required to follow through on your pledge. If you don’t, than no one will ever take you seriously again. Unfortunately, it appears certain member nations of the Security Council don’t understand this. Bush, however, does.
As we have seen, Baghdad immediately began testing the resolve of the Security Council. When Blix made his first report to the Council, which in essence said that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441, that was the point the UN could have averted the war I believe is just weeks away. They could have joined together to declare Iraq in material breach, and passed a second resolution authorizing military action after a certain short deadline passed, giving Iraq only until then to change their attitude in dramatic and meaningful ways. Saddam remembers the last time the UN issued a deadline, and another such decree might just have been taken more seriously than the French, German, and Russian battle cry, “give the inspectors more time.” Saddam instead has seen the UN for what it. He has continued to doll out empty promises and little dribbles of “apparent increases of cooperation” on the eve of each new report deadline. In this way, Blix has been forced to qualify any negative aspects of his reports with words such as “possible change in attitude” and “signs of increased cooperation.” Saddam knows full well that as long as he throws out these little tidbits, countries like France and Russia will greedily seize upon them to prevent the UN from acting.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people continue to suffer at the hands of their own government, and other potential despots and tyrants are emboldened to forsake even the trappings of civilization, for who will stop them?
Why did President Bush choose Iraq for this litmus test of the UN? First, the last ten years of Iraqi defiance of the UN was the firmest bedrock he could find to build a case on. Second, the events of 9/11 woke up the world to what could happen if certain elements got a hold of WMD such as Iraq has most certainly been developing. It highlights the threat Iraq posses to not only its neighbors, but to the world at large. Third, maintaining the sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq, are not only costly in and of themselves, but are also proving ineffective in forcing Iraq to reform itself. How many thousands in Iraq have died at Saddam’s orders, or have suffered deprivations to build his palaces and rebuild his military and WMD arsenals. Finally, both President Bush and to a great extent the American people see the whole Iraqi problem as unfinished business.
Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.
-
Damn good post, Sabre.
I read it twice. Thank you for joining my thread.
:)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Oh, how thoroughly decent of you! How nice! Do please condescend to those of us not blessed with the intrinisic wisdom you apparently have. Although, you've hidden it very well so far, I'm quite prepared to be surprised.
Dowding, as always your posts fail to get any point across aside from those mentioned in the previous exchange.
And true to form, your words take on a sort of "N'Sync-ish" quality to them. They light easily and grab attention from the little ones, but at the end of the day, lack any substance aside from hot air.
I dont think Im alone when I read that post and ask myself what is it, exactly, that you are trying to say?
If you examine the posts you attack, you will see that there are points, ideas, and opinions.
When I read your posts, I see mindless, acidic banter without direction. Sooner or later you will figure out that unless youre a Philosophy student, you cant get away such empty concepts.
Since we all know that you are violently opposed to any defensive action taken by the United States in Iraq or any other threatening power, I ask you to take a few minutes, compose yourself, maybe write out a rough draft first, and then tell us...
Why?
-
I've only ever debated the issues with you Saudaurkar, up until that last post of yours. The part about 'enlightening' everyone through the light of some phone call to a radio station made me chuckle. Thanks.
Moreover, you object to criticism complaining that your posts contain 'points, ideas, and opinions'. Points like these:
"Im so disgusted by the protests and the roadkill I read on this forum on a daily basis..." (sic)
Nice points. Seems to me you have a problem with people disagreeing with your particular point of view. Such disagreement isn't an 'attack' in any way, shape or form. It's also 'roadkill' IN YOUR OPINION, an opinion you aren't prepared to qualify it seems.
Since we all know that you are violently opposed to any defensive action taken by the United States in Iraq or any other threatening power...
Defensive? I think the word your struggling for is 'pre-emptive'. Check their relative definitions - they definitely don't mean the same thing.
I've come to the position of opposing any action without a UN mandate.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Since we all know that you are violently opposed to any defensive action taken by the United States in Iraq
I think the word you wanted was "vehemently". Just a seemingly small point, but perhaps relevant where potential conflict is concerned.
I have just read Sabre's post again (above). Definitely the best post I've ever read on this board, and any nagging doubts I ever had have now been dispelled.
-
Originally posted by bounder
I want to know what the real reasons are, and until I get some answers, I will oppose any British involvement in an invasion of Iraq.
OMG! Anything but that!
We cant do anything without you guys approval...
-
OK, X2Lee, let's bring those 40,000 British soldiers (a third of our army) home from the Gulf right now. And the 120 planes, and 16 warships.
It would seem the Yanks don't need us at all.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I have just read Sabre's post again (above). Definitely the best post I've ever read on this board, and any nagging doubts I ever had have now been dispelled.
I thank you for your kind words, Beetle. I'm glad you found some value in my thoughts.
Respectfully,
Sabre
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I have just read Sabre's post again (above). Definitely the best post I've ever read on this board, and any nagging doubts I ever had have now been dispelled.
Agreed.
Sabre for president.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Agreed.
Sabre for president.
eskimo
"...And may God have mercy on his mortal soul!" Thanks, Eskimo, but I try to avoid any job where you have to take your work home with you;). It's the secret to my eternally youthful looks.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Right Blitz, but Iraq still continues to build its military and remains in "material breach" of the UN mandated ban on weapons.
so is Israel...yet you do nuttin about them....you ignore them....then you ask yourself why most muslims in that region hate ya'z...go figure