Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cherlie on March 09, 2003, 08:04:26 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/index.html
what next???
Sigh
CB
-
Next, Blitz will explain to you why it is all the US's fault and that nothing can be done.
So rest easy. The right people will get the blame and no one will have to do anything.
:D
"The world is in no way threatened by Iran, it's plain ridiculous."
-
I dont give humanity much past 2050. Once the cave people get nukes its as good as done.
Sokay...at least some future generation wont have to endure a supernova or comit strike ;)
-
I agree - its all America's fault. If we werent enjoying such a wonderful standard of living the Middle Easterners wouldnt have to resort to blowing up federal buildings, flying airliners into skyscrapers, and trying to build nuclear devices.
-
And Russia is selling Iran centrifuges.
You know, sometimes I believe there is a grain of truth to the anti-Euro stuff.
All about recognizing bad sides of both sides of the continent.
But it poses an interesting question; can the US disarm every nation in the middle east either by political pressure or pre-emptive strikes, or does this trickle-down effect on nuclear proliferation mean the Bush Doctrine is obsolete already?
-
It seems to me Bush knew very well what he was talking about when he named the axis of evil. Something tells me he has known about these nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons programs all along. Meanwhile ignorant media and truly ignorant anti war protestors throw a fit when it is hinted that these nations actually pose a real threat to all of us.
Hehe, can you imagine the outcry from Blitz and Straffo et al when the war on N Korea and Iran comes?
Here Blitz, you can use this sigline in the future. I even added some annoying misspellingings.
"Nations with nuclear, cheimcial and/or biological weapons threatens America in no way it is simply redicoololusous"
-
"If Iran were found to have an operating centrifuge, it would be a direct violation [of the treaty] and is something that would need immediately to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for action,"Jon Wolfstahl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was quoted as saying in the article.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Hehe, can you imagine the outcry from Blitz and Straffo et al when the war on N Korea and Iran comes?
Bis repetita placent
-
I would venture that the word ridiculous is the most commonly misspelled word on this BBS. It comes from the Latin root ridere: to laugh. The number of times that I have seen it spelled correctly I could probably count on one hand. Except for Toad, of course, who couldn't even bring himself to misspell it when making a parody quote of Blitz's sigline. ;)
kbman
-
Comparing Iran and NK to Iraq makes no sense. Iraq is at the end of its rope while the problems with Iran and NK are on going.
But what will happen when Bush gets rid of Saddam is he can then go to Iran and NK and say "look at Iraq if you think we dont mean what we say".
The problems with France Germany Russia and China are transitory and will get better after Iraq. France is owed 60 billion dollars by Suddam and once they come to terms with the fact they aint getting their money or any money from future dealings with Suddam they will be fine.
But if you think about it and say if the UN were formed today France wouldnt have a spot on the security council. There are many countries with more relevance to the world then France. Hell look at the population of India.
But the Bush Doctrine hasnt failed and has yet to be put into practice. But I would suspect that once Saddam falls that the other 2 on the Axis of Evil will be sighted.
But Iran has an under pinning of a pro west middle class. Although they finance a good portion of world terrorism there is a better promise of solving problems with Iran with other means.
If the US handles its cards right after they get rid of Saddam then this may go a long way in gaining influence with Iran. Especially, in regards to the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq.
NK is bit more tricky but we have support from NKs neighboring countries. The US hasnt run out of options in regards to NK, and we are a long way from it.
Iraq otoh is on its last leg.
-
I find it ridiculous when people take the piss out of someone's spelling when they are clearly writing in their second language. As if it's the height of wit and intelligence.
There are plenty of people on this board who have difficulty with English as a first language. There are plenty of high profile politicians who struggle with stringing a coherent sentence together.
-
Spelling is utlimately determined by usage. If enough people misspell a word, that spelling changes. This is why dictionaries are updated every year.
British- Colour
Americans- Color
British- Armour
Americans- Armor
British- Jesus
Americans- Jebus
little simpsons humor.
-
Kb, it's all because of the nuns. If I didn't spell correctly, they slapped my knuckles with a ruler. Man, my hands still suddenly hurt whenever I misssspellll a word.
-
Hortlund: It seems to me Bush knew very well what he was talking about when he named the axis of evil. Something tells me he has known about these nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons programs all along.
Of course he knew. He had acess to the actual text of the 1994 agreement with the North Korea rather than the version fed to us by the media.
The main condition for the N.K. not acquiring nuclear weapons was US recognition of the legitimacy of their government and US had no intention of honoring that, so it was only natural to predict that North Korea would withdraw from that agreement.
P.S. To prevent accusations of being pro-korean - I have no problems with our government not recognising the legitimacy of N.K. or deceiving any foreign regimes when convenient - unless done ineptly. I do have a problem with our government and media deceiving its own citizens though.
miko
-
I'm a recovering Catholic myself Toad ;) My hands still cringe in fear hehe.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Spelling is utlimately determined by usage. If enough people misspell a word, that spelling changes. This is why dictionaries are updated every year.
British- Colour
Americans- Color
British- Armour
Americans- Armor
This was changed in this country thanks to the "U tax of 1762."
Batz, do you have a source on the money owed by Iraq to France (and no, I'm not calling you out, I honestly want to know the details of the sales).
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Toad
Next, Blitz will explain to you why it is all the US's fault and that nothing can be done.
So rest easy. The right people will get the blame and no one will have to do anything.
:D
"The world is in no way threatened by Iran, it's plain ridiculous."
No need to panic Toad, you still have about 20 000 ( in words twentythousand ) Nuclear Weapons, 44 000 Big-Eye-Bombs with binary Sarin, 1,2 Million shells with binary VX and some nice secrets more to defend yourself :D
Oh wait, pre-emtive strike times just arrived as a nice present to our hands!
Don't hesitate,just call Mr. Bush and ask him to pull the trigger and all the evil of the world is gone in 20 minutes (except the evil in everyone) :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
I think it is reasonably likely that Iran and NK are pushing hard for nuclear deterant capability because they were listed on the idiotic "Axis of Evil" and are watching the US' unstoppable march to crushing Iraq.
Both Iran and NK may well feel that they need the security of being able to tell the US what to go do with itself, eg. if the US goes after Iran say byebye to Tel Aviv and if the US goes after NK say byebye to Tokyo.
By having the capability to do that they block the US' capabilty to utterly destroy them in a conventional invasion.
-
Sikboy I have no sources stating exactly what the money is owed for. The 60 billion has been quoted in numerous news reports internationally. I am sure a search will reveal more info.
-
Believe me Blix, I'm not in the least concerned about Iran.
You see, the UN Security Council is on the job, keeping us all safe from harm. Joschka Fischer will save us all from harm. Nukes for everyone is a good policy anyway, as all countries are benevolent and love each other completely, honestly, fully and openly.
Besides,
The world is in no way threatened by Iran, it's plain ridiculous."
-
Originally posted by Toad
Believe me Blix, I'm not in the least concerned about Iran.
You see, the UN Security Council is on the job, keeping us all safe from harm. Joschka Fischer will save us all from harm. Nukes for everyone is a good policy anyway, as all countries are benevolent and love each other completely, honestly, fully and openly.
Besides,
The world is in no way threatened by Iran, it's plain ridiculous."
Glad ya feel safe at last , Toady :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Batz
I am sure a search will reveal more info.
See, that's the problem. I spent a lot of time looking into it about 6 months ago, but came up empty. So I was hoping you had something for me.
-Sik
-
I have never felt unsafe, "Blitzy".
Nor have I ever felt like pretending evil doesn't exist in our present world.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I have never felt unsafe, "Blitzy".
Nor have I ever felt like pretending evil doesn't exist in our present world.
If ya never felt unsafe why all that fuss about Iraq is a threat to the USA?
Regards Blitzy
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Blitz was Osama Bin Laden a threat to the USA on September 10th 2001?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Blitz was Osama Bin Laden a threat to the USA on September 10th 2001?
In no way, its just plain rediculous.
-
GRUNHERZ,
Yes. He had it out for the USA. I have yet to see any indication that Saddam actually has it out for the USA.
bin Laden also had the security of not being in a fixed national power structure that we could easily respond to by anniliating him.
If Saddam were to attack us it would be his death sentence, and Saddam is a secular leader who lives for power, wine and women. He isn't a religious nut who wants to sacrifice himself.
No matter how many times you guys inanely mock the postion that Saddam is not a threat to the US it doesn't generate actuall evidence that he is.
-
Originally posted by kbman
I would venture that the word ridiculous is the most commonly misspelled word on this BBS. It comes from the Latin root ridere: to laugh. The number of times that I have seen it spelled correctly I could probably count on one hand. Except for Toad, of course, who couldn't even bring himself to misspell it when making a parody quote of Blitz's sigline. ;)
kbman
Only thing wrong with blitz's sig line is the tense of the verb, should be "will be" in place of "is." ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No matter how many times you guys inanely mock the postion that Saddam is not a threat to the US it doesn't generate actuall evidence that he is.
However, he is a threat to world peace. Always has been, and always will be.
The fact that he is in utter violation of UN resolutions, and has been persistently for 12 years, guarantees he will always remain as the premier blockade in a world that wants peace.
Until people like Saddam are removed from power, world peace is a complete illusion. Never achievable, and not worth striving for if you can't get the completely diddlyin insane out of power in countries that hold weapons capable of killing thousands with only a single rocket.
The UN is supposedly an organization that is promoting world peace, how they can not be in favor of removing those who stand in the way of world peace is beyond me. Especially when he's explicity done so right in front of their faces for 12 years.
And that shows how completely ridiculous the UN is.
-SW
-
How do we know Osama really had it for the USA until the planes slammed home? So he did a few standard fare mideast style carbomb type attacks and the cole attack- nothing outlandish or particulasrly noteworthy - certainly nobody had an idea that an attack would actually take place on that scale as seen 911 from bin laden.
And its funny how rational bin laden was in fact. After mogadishu, he percieved he could get away with 911 because he thought the usa were cowards and soft and would back down when hurt bad - or at worst launch a few clinton specials into an empty camp of his. I dont think he had any idea that we would invade afghanistan and kick his buddies out of power - no clue.
What does this have to do with saddam? Well like hitler before him he is a risk taker and like bin laden if he thinks he can get away with it he will go forward. The problem is not so much of him actually exploiding a nuclear weapon but the threat of him using it. You see a few hundred thousand dead wont care for a second if saddam just signed his death warrant by using nukes, their families wont get them back if saddam is killed afterwards, his death is less valuable than the lives of hundereds of thousands. If he has these weapons he will threaten their use and blackmail people. He will pose the argument quites simply, yes i saddam understand i will be dead if i use nukes - but so will a few hundred thousand to a million of ur citizens. Thats your choice Israel, USA etc - gimme what I want. How do you know a govermnent wouldnt refuse his "offer" if he somehow smugled a nuclear weapon into lets say an random city new york or chicago, or london or tel aviv? These types are tremendous risk takers, dont underestimate them.
-
blitz, please post your longitude and latitude coordinates.
Thanks, and have a nice day!
Hang
blitz is threatend by hangtime in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
I think Iraq IS a threat to the US.
I think Iraq IS a threat to other countries besides the US.
I think Hussein is a distinct and terrible threat to the population of Iraq.
Doesn't make me feel "unsafe" or "afraid" though.
Que sera, sera.
I've said here on this BBS before that I feel it is inevitable that the US will eventually be hit with a WMD strike. I think the death toll will make Pearl Harbor or the WTC disasters look minimal in comparison.
However, I think the retribution we extract will similarly make that event look minimal.
And don't trouble yourself telling me that we may not have "proof" or a "smoking gun". I seriously doubt we'll be that demanding of our evidence. I think there will be a medium size list of places that we think may have done it and that will be all we need.
Terrifying thought, eh?
This is all just my specualation, however. So don't read too much into it.
Still, I think this is where the failure of the UN to act against dictators like Hussein will lead. I can almost imagine no other ending beside nuclear catclysm.
The "civilized world" can no longer distinguish between "good" and "evil". Everything must be gray. What's black may be white, what's white may well be black.
Therein lies the end of the human race, eventually.
:D
-
I'm sure all the "shades of gray" folks just love Bill O'Reilly. He just wrote a fairly decent column.
And, lucky for you, I've decided to share it with yas!
From billoreilly.com
The New Nazi's
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Mar 06, 2003
It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago.
I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed.
The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.
Back in the 1930's, millions the world over simply did not want to think about the evil that Hitler was brewing up.
France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question.
Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated current UN mandates.
Britain went along with France in the '30's, but now it seems the UK has learned from its historical mistakes.
And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral."
Back in the '30's, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany.
The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against Communism, which the Church greatly feared.
Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns.
Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with.
Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban.
Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq today and millions of us were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler as well.
Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda.
In 1937, SS Chief Henrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time Magazine. I have the issue.
The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no "smoking gun."
The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million human beings in Europe. Millions of jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers.
How could human beings do this?
Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found in the concentration camps.
Most had no idea of what they were really fighting against.
Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so?
So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler?
It continues to astound me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein unless other countries, which do not share our danger, sign on.
I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate, remain a threat to the world?
Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat?
If France, German, China, and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia, and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933 there would have been no World War or Holocaust.
Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people, that's a fact.
And the only way that evil will be stopped, is for just and courageous people to confront it.
-
[edited: need to take my phosphorus pills on time]
-
No he is just saying that Saddam is a disticnt and terrible threat to the population of Iraq.
You say BS...does that mean you think he is wrong? That Saddam is good for his people?
-
[edited: need to take my phosphorus pills on time]
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I think it is reasonably likely that Iran and NK are pushing hard for nuclear deterant capability because they were listed on the idiotic "Axis of Evil" and are watching the US' unstoppable march to crushing Iraq.
Both Iran and NK may well feel that they need the security of being able to tell the US what to go do with itself, eg. if the US goes after Iran say byebye to Tel Aviv and if the US goes after NK say byebye to Tokyo.
By having the capability to do that they block the US' capabilty to utterly destroy them in a conventional invasion.
LOL what an idiotic statement. Fortunately it is easy to prove it wrong.
If N Korea and Iran were actively working on their nuclear capability before Bush made his axis of evil speech, the logic fails.
And guess what...they were. But thanks for trying.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I said BS. about Mr X caring about Iraqi poeple. After all, they're only camelsh*t, right ... why should we care ?
Because we are good Christians.
-
[edited: need to take my phosphorus pills on time]
-
Yes, but the question begs an answer.
Do you think life for the average Iraqi would be better or not if Saddam was removed/killed/abducted?
Because I think it would...so does Mr X.
For me personally that is not the main reason to go to war against Iraq, it is however one of the positive side effects of such a war. We will be liberating the Iraqis from one of the worst dictators since Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot...
Why do you call BS on that?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Because we are good Christians.
ROTLFMAO :)
if you are a good christian I'm the next pope.
-
Do you think life for the average Iraqi would be better or not if Saddam was removed/killed/abducted?
I think the average Iraqi was better off before sanctions. And would be again once their lifted.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I think the average Iraqi was better off before sanctions. And would be again once their lifted.
The only one who can lift those sanctions is Saddam, quite easily too. DO try to remember why the sanctions are in place.
-
You sound like an heretic Tronski !
Beware I'm the next pope :)
-
I see you dont want to answer the question either Straffo...howcome?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The only one who can lift those sanctions is Saddam, quite easily too. DO try to remember why the sanctions are in place.
IF the main reason for war is to elevate the aparent suffering of the Iraqi people, would not lifting the sanctions accomplish that?
Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about the average Iraqi. DO try to remember the context of your question.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by straffo
You sound like an heretic Tronski !
Beware I'm the next pope :)
I have almost been burnt at the odd cross here and there my Gallic friend
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
IF the main reason for war is to elevate the aparent suffering of the Iraqi people, would not lifting the sanctions accomplish that?
Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about the average Iraqi. DO try to remember the context of your question.
Tronsky
It is not the main reason for war. It is one of the positive side effects of the war.
And the "lets lift the sanctions to ease the suffering of the Iraqis"-notion is also wrong. There is an "oil for food" program in place right now that allows Iraq to sell oil to buy food and medicine for its citizens. The food and medicine doesnt seem to filter down to the citizens though...for some reason...and oddly enough, the Iraqis are buying other stuff than food and medicine for those oil money (ask France for example).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I see you dont want to answer the question either Straffo...howcome?
what question ?
-
Do you think life for the average Iraqi would be better or not if Saddam was removed/killed/abducted?
-
with or without blocus ?
-
I think its safe to assume that when Saddam goes, so does the Iraqi WMD program, and with that, the sanctions.
In fact, after the war, when Saddam is gone, the sanctions will not only be lifted, but the US will be pumping in billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is not the main reason for war. It is one of the positive side effects of the war.
And the "lets lift the sanctions to ease the suffering of the Iraqis"-notion is also wrong. There is an "oil for food" program in place right now that allows Iraq to sell oil to buy food and medicine for its citizens. The food and medicine doesnt seem to filter down to the citizens though...for some reason...and oddly enough, the Iraqis are buying other stuff than food and medicine for those oil money (ask France for example).
And yet the obligatory stab at France still manages to make an appearance. Bloody French, they should just sell steel to Iraq...thats apparently far more legitimate.
Hans Van Sponeck, the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq denied any evidence of wharehousing of medicines and food bought by Oil for Food. He blamed the bureaucracy of the oil for food program. Denis Halliday the first UN Co-ordinator blamed contract delays, contract holds, and distribution problems accountable for the medical supplies problem.
A UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights report in 21st June 2000: The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law
Tronsky
-
So we have 3 possibility :
[list=a]
- return to pre-1991 Iraqi status
- statu-quo
- post-sadam pro-american governement
[/list=a]
A : not probable , but living under a dictature when you have enought food is not a major catastrophe lot of people have survived under such circonstances.
My opinion : better living condition , not freedom of thought
B : actual :
bad living condition , no freedom of thought
C : hypothetic :
better living condition , freedom of thought ... perhaps.
As you can notice I restricted living condition to the physiologic
part as I don't know if there is an international definition
-
Originally posted by straffo
So we have 3 possibility :
[list=a]
- return to pre-1991 Iraqi status
- statu-quo
- post-sadam pro-american governement
[/list=a]
A : not probable , but living under a dictature when you have enought food is not a major catastrophe lot of people have survived under such circonstances.
My opinion : better living condition , not freedom of thought
B : actual :
bad living condition , no freedom of thought
C : hypothetic :
better living condition , freedom of thought ... perhaps.
As you can notice I restricted living condition to the physiologic
part as I don't know if there is an international definition [/B]
"No freedom of thought"? Are you joking? Saddam pre 91 is the one gassing his own citizens, the one having a security apparatus using torture, rape and murder to keep the people in line. This is cavalierly reduced to "no freedom of thought" in your opinion?
But ok, leaving that aside. Is your answer yes or no?
Will the average Iraqi have a better life if Saddam is removed?
-
[edited: need to take my phosphorus pills on time]
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
A UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights report in 21st June 2000: The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law
Well obviously they are wrong since the sanctions are ordered by the UNSC in accordance to the UN treaty. It is pretty damn irrelevant what some UN sub committe thought about the sanctions and their relation to international law.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I did not question that fact Hortlund,
What I question is Mr X's supposed interest in the joe shmoe Iraqi's life value. Read again what I said...
I think Mr X and I share a somewhat similar view on this issue. One of the positive side effects of a war with Iraq will be the drastic improvement for the average Iraqi.
I mean think about it:
-No more sanctions.
-No more secret police torturing and murdering people opposed to the current regime.
-No more brainwashing of kids in the schools.
Instead you get:
-Plenty of food
-Plenty of income (Iraq is a very very rich country)
-Basic human rights guaranteed and protected
Now, as I have been saying, this is not the primary reason why we are going to war, but it is a positive side effect.
For the Iraqis, and anyone really caring about their plight, this side effect should be reason enough to support the war.
-
[edited out]
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But ok, leaving that aside. Is your answer yes or no?
Will the average Iraqi have a better life if Saddam is removed?
I already answered.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well obviously they are wrong since the sanctions are ordered by the UNSC in accordance to the UN treaty. It is pretty damn irrelevant what some UN sub committe thought about the sanctions and their relation to international law.
A UN commissioned report in 2001 is wrong purely because of sanctions imposed in 1990?
Wrong because 30% of food for oil monies are taken by the UNCC, not used to buy medical supplies?
Wrong because UNICEF said the number of child deaths has doubled since sanctions?
Or wrong because you just don't agree?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Or wrong because you just don't agree?
Wrong because it says the sanctions are illegal according to international law.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
hmmm... a year or so ago, you called them "ragheads", and now, you're saying you care about Iraqi poeple ?
BS.
I don't remember doing that; it's not really my style.
Beyond that, if I did, it still doesn't change the fact that Saddam is the worst thing to happen to the Iraqi people this century.
I don't have to love them like brothers to realize that everybody would be better off if the Iraqi people had a better life than they do now under Saddam.
Don't miss the point.
Iraq is suffering BECAUSE OF SADDAM. The sanctions, the threat of war..... ALL OF THAT........ is directly because of Saddam. Had he stayed out of Kuwait or retreated when he was ASKED to leave, NONE of this would be going on.
Instead he chose to try and hold Kuwait and finally got the war he was looking for... the "mother of all battles". With it came rapid defeat, UN sanctions and UN weapons inspectors.
NOW, after 12 years of defying the UN again, he's about to cause MORE suffering for the Iraqi people.
Focus. It's SADDAM that's causing the Iraqi people to suffer.
And you don't have to have any emotional attachment to them at all to see that.
-
No more secret police torturing and murdering people...
Torture! They torture people, which is bad if Saddam's henchmen do it, but good if the CIA or their henchmen do it.
This is so confusing. It's almost as if many people on this board are hypocritical or something.
-
My appologies Mr Toad, I mixed you up with some one else on this board (cfr 'raghead' statement).....I know it''s not the 1st time I do this...
Gimme a sec to edit my above posts.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Torture! They torture people, which is bad if Saddam's henchmen do it, but good if the CIA or their henchmen do it.
This is so confusing. It's almost as if many people on this board are hypocritical or something.
LOL nice try Dowding. Now point me to a post by me where I have said that it would be good if CIA tortured people.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Wrong because it says the sanctions are illegal according to international law.
Bah, and you accuse straffo of always dodging questions
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
My appologies Mr Toad, I mixed you up with some one else on this board (cfr 'raghead' statement).....I know it''s not the 1st time I do this...
Gimme a sec to edit my above posts.
Why thank you! I appreciate that!
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Bah, and you accuse straffo of always dodging questions
Tronsky
So what did I dodge?
The report said the sanctions were illegal, I say that is BS. What did I dodge? (serious question)
-
hey "Quotemaster" would you be kind enough to edit your above posts. (see my note for Toad)
Thanks in advance!
-
Again, we need to focus.
How could the sanctions have easily been avoided?
How could the sanctions be quickly and easily ended right now?
It all comes back to the same person, gentlemen. There's ONE person that's screwing up the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein.
-
Is that enough Saw?
-
Thanks!