Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on September 24, 2003, 06:25:23 AM
-
Anyone else find Bush's speech to the UN ironic and laughable? I certinly did. How things can change in just a few months.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
I love the parts about UNICEF and the World Food Programme especially. I was under the impression that the UN was pointless and irrelevant and 'did no good'. How things have changed.
A cynic might argue that since the costs of Iraq are not diminishing at any appreciable rate, and since US soldiers as peace-keepers for any length of time has rarely been a popular strategy for US administrations to adopt, Bush is simply trying to get 'blue-hats' and cash from the UN to carry some of the burden. The switch in policy from 'to hell with the UN, we'll do it ourselves' to 'the United Nations can contribute greatly' is more than a little transparent.
Personally I welcome more UN involvement, but the position of the 'Coalition of the willing' in all this has been inconsistent to the point of being embarrassing. What happened to all that bravado? In the cold light of a post-war day it seems to have vanished.
Interesting times. I wonder how Iraq will look in a years time.
-
It was strange to see Mr Bush talk of acting to preserve the credibilty of the UN when his actions called that credibilty into question in the first place.
-
That speech was mostly aimed at the domestic audience, it went something like this.
Blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror.
Blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, terror, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, terror.
After Bush said "terror" for the umpteenth time I lost interest in listening to anymore of his fearmongering and changed the channel.
-
Originally posted by TigerStolly
It was strange to see Mr Bush talk of acting to preserve the credibilty of the UN when his actions called that credibilty into question in the first place.
Excuse me, but the credibility of the UN was called into question by THE UN.
12 years, 14 resolutions, and a dictator laughed in the face of the world body.
What did the UN do when SH kicked the inspectors out in..was it '98? Answer..nothing.
The UN proved itself a dog with no teeth. There were no negotiations with Iraq worth mentioning about inspections until we started rattling our sabre.
And let's talk abotu Koffi Annan. There he is speaking about countries conducting unilateral actions without the approval of the Security Council.
The recent war in Iraq was predicated by Iraq's violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. Once that violation occurred, we reverted back to our previous state of hostilities with Iraq. Plain and simple and he should know that. We never had a peace treaty.
Now, if you Bush bashers want to start you little tirade, please feel free.
Just remember, every night when you go to bed, you've got one less dictator developing WMD's. You've got one less anti-christ talking with terrorists, plotting the death and destruction of your family and your hometown. When your done with you little rant, remember to say thanks to GWB and the coalition of the willing. They went and did what the UN could only threaten for the past 12 years.
-
Bush v UN
history will prove Bush won
-
Just remember, every night when you go to bed, you've got one less dictator developing WMD's. You've got one less anti-christ talking with terrorists, plotting the death and destruction of your family and your hometown. When your done with you little rant, remember to say thanks to GWB and the coalition of the willing. They went and did what the UN could only threaten for the past 12 years.
I'd like to see the evidence that so definitively proves that Iraq was developing or in the possession of WMD immediately prior to March 2003. To my knowledge, it doesn't (yet) exist. Until it does, save us the sermon, father.
If we want to talk about politicians aiding and abetting terrorists let's take a look at the US's stance towards the Real IRA post Omagh. GWB considers the lack of any action against known members of a terrorist organisation as collusion. I'd say that particularly case fits his bill nicely.
The sword you're wielding cuts both ways and is very sharp. Remember that as you kneel before Bush's altar.
-
Get US out of the UN.
-
Except that Saddam had no active WMD program or any WMD's or any active links to Al-Queda and Mr Bush now claiming that he was doing it all in the interest of the UN is disengenuous.
Iraq is a better place than it was and will continue to improve but a little humility would have gone a long way in his speech since he is now asking for help.
-
Heh funny now the US has found out how bad terrorism is they draft laws to prevent US citizens from funding terrorist groups.
Shame they didn't prevent Americans funding the IRA. Guess those Irish votes were more important than British lives.
-
man is a painfuly bad liar. amazing he keeps at it with such fervor.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Excuse me, but the credibility of the UN was called into question by THE UN.
12 years, 14 resolutions, and a dictator laughed in the face of the world body.
What did the UN do when SH kicked the inspectors out in..was it '98? Answer..nothing.
The UN proved itself a dog with no teeth. There were no negotiations with Iraq worth mentioning about inspections until we started rattling our sabre.
And let's talk abotu Koffi Annan. There he is speaking about countries conducting unilateral actions without the approval of the Security Council.
The recent war in Iraq was predicated by Iraq's violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. Once that violation occurred, we reverted back to our previous state of hostilities with Iraq. Plain and simple and he should know that. We never had a peace treaty.
Now, if you Bush bashers want to start you little tirade, please feel free.
Just remember, every night when you go to bed, you've got one less dictator developing WMD's. You've got one less anti-christ talking with terrorists, plotting the death and destruction of your family and your hometown. When your done with you little rant, remember to say thanks to GWB and the coalition of the willing. They went and did what the UN could only threaten for the past 12 years.
Wow, I actually agree with muckmaw on this one. What's this world coming to! :D
-
He has a bridge he is trying to rebuild.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
What did the UN do when SH kicked the inspectors out in..was it '98? Answer..nothing.
you are wrong (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00203.htm)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Get US out of the UN.
and
Get the UN out of the US....
-
Originally posted by Virage
you are wrong (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00203.htm)
huh?
Saddam "kicked them out" by not abiding by the UN resolutions
the UN pulled the inspectors because the weak UN (US really) at the time was to busy with their admin zippers and a bubble poppin dow to care ...
-
That would be a great victory, as he's been doing an incredibly bad job ever since 9/11. And the growing polls against his actions reflects this.
Have you read anything on the Hutton Inquiry in the UK recently (if at all) Eagler? Makes bad reading for the British government. And the polls there are something like 2/3 against for Blair and the worst is yet to come.
We'll see if Bush's popularity is any better in another 6 months.
...-Gixer
Originally posted by Eagler
Bush v UN
history will prove Bush won
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Saddam "kicked them out" by not abiding by the UN resolutions
you mean those resolutions that told him to cease his WMD program? Yeah he didn't abide by those. We will find them any day now. :rolleyes:
-
The UN is the US's to use, abuse, and exploit as she sees fit. I don't know why the rest of you earthlings can't understand that. :)
Personally, I think we should extract ourselves from that miserable assemblage, but until we do, you should expect more use, abuse, and exploitation.
-
muckmaw: 12 years, 14 resolutions, and a dictator laughed in the face of the world body.
What, have you found the weapons?
Bush, after having engaged the UN and having it demonstrate its effectiveness[/i] in resolving the issues his administration raised, brushed it aside anyway. No wonder US is pissed with Bush.
It seems to me the Resolution #1441 (by a unanimous 15-to-0 vote) - warning Iraq of “serious consequences” if it did not cooperate with the UN inspection teams: UNMOVIK responsible for chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for nuclear weapons - was a resounding success.
Bush was advised by congressional leaders that he could not get authorization from Congress to use force unless he demonstrated that diplomacy had failed to achieve the disarmament of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Secretary Powell believed on this go-round the UNMOVIK and IAEA inspectors would find Iraq un-cooperative, or would actually find hidden weapons of mass destruction, and that Bush could then activate the authority given him by Congress. It did not turn out that way.[/i]
In fact, Resolution #1441 was working like a charm. UNMOVIK inspectors were crawling all over Iraq. They had gone to the several hundred places where they were most likely to find illegal activities and found not a scrap of evidence that could hold up to even casual questioning. Muhammed ElBaradei, chief of the IAEA, said that Iraq had no nukes and could not acquire them without being discovered. Hans Blix of UNMOVIK said his team was interviewing Iraqi scientists in private and that ALL THAT REMAINED was to clear up some of the discrepancies in how Iraq disposed of CW and BW in 1991. Blix said this would take perhaps two more months at most and that Iraq was cooperating to expedite the process! Because of constant hints from the US administration that UNMOVIK was not quick enough to spot WMD, Iraq invited US to send CIA teams into the country to swoop down at a moment’s notice on sites they suspect. How much clearer could it be that multinational diplomatic action by the United Nations was working?
miko
-
Bush gave a speech?
Oh well, I missed another one.
-
My simple proposal:
Since the U.N. is reluctant to assist in Iraq. We should divert all the funds we are currently paying to the U.N. and use them in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Drftr
-
Don't let facts get in the way:
(VX)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
(Mustard Gas)
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Biological weapons:
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
Hans Blix, in his report to THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Bush v UN
history will prove Bush won
Ironic.
Yeah, history will prove many things. I've got a feeling you wont like history in 10 years.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Ironic.
Yeah, history will prove many things. I've got a feeling you wont like history in 10 years.
I think I will \\if I don't - it will not be due to the Bush vs the UN argument
you think the UN will even be around in another 10 years?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Just remember, every night when you go to bed, you've got one less dictator developing WMD's. You've got one less anti-christ talking with terrorists, plotting the death and destruction of your family and your hometown. When your done with you little rant, remember to say thanks to GWB and the coalition of the willing. They went and did what the UN could only threaten for the past 12 years.
By the look of things, we had one less dictator developing WMD before we showed up.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'd like to see the evidence that so definitively proves that Iraq was developing or in the possession of WMD immediately prior to March 2003. To my knowledge, it doesn't (yet) exist. Until it does, save us the sermon, father.
If we want to talk about politicians aiding and abetting terrorists let's take a look at the US's stance towards the Real IRA post Omagh. GWB considers the lack of any action against known members of a terrorist organisation as collusion. I'd say that particularly case fits his bill nicely.
The sword you're wielding cuts both ways and is very sharp. Remember that as you kneel before Bush's altar.
Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas. You know as well as anyone, once a person like Saddam gets the taste of WMDs, he'd never let go. If there was no evidence of him having WMD's, why the resolutions? Why all the interest from the UN, and not just the US. Where the smoke, there's fire Dowding. Don't play coy, you know the minute the UN and the world turned it's back, Saddam would have continued his WMD program. Whether or not it was active when we went in, though a smoking gun, is not the only gun. Remember what they say about a smoking gun...it's already gone off.
Come on, guys. Admit it. We needed this guy gone. If he did not have active WMDs in his arsenal, he had the capability to make them. He has before. Worse, he had the propensity to use 'em. We all know he would have got them going again the minute we turned our back.
I'll admit it would have been great if we found WMD's, but we did'nt. I don't thin we're going to either. This alone made us look bad, and GWB worse. I admit this. But I don't hold GWB and the US as the sole conspirator. The UN believed this guy had WMDs for gods sake.
As for the terrorists link, Saddam had no links to Al Quaida, as far as we know. I never thought he did. But you can not sit there and tell me he had no links to any terroist group, not withsatanding the 25K he gave to Hammas Suicide bombers. You can not tell me he would not have given a terror group a WMD if he knew they were going to detonate it in a US city, and he thought he could get away with it. You simply cannot tell me he would not have sold some Sarin to the highest bidder.
Some on guys. I know it's fun to debate, but let's be honest here.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
By the look of things, we had one less dictator developing WMD before we showed up.
Now GWB is a dictator?
Unbelievable.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Now GWB is a dictator?
Unbelievable.
:rolleyes:
Hussein... no WMD to be found... :rolleyes:
-
muckmaw: Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas.
That is a lie long since refuted. Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds but the dead kurds were mostly the victims of Iranian gas.
Human Rights Watch, CIA and United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that. Just read the papers.
United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.
miko
-
The IRA were not terrorists, they were glorious freedom fighters battling for their liberty against the tyrannical rule of Margaret Thatcher!!!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hussein... no WMD to be found... :rolleyes:
Hussein... no evil dictator to be found... :rolleyes:
You think just because they haven't been found that neither existed? You must to be consistant.
Neither.... niether... let's see i before e except after c or in sounding like a as in neighbor and weigh, on weekends and holidays and all through May....
-
I still like nice boobs better than plowing snow.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hussein... no evil dictator to be found... :rolleyes:
You think just because they haven't been found that neither existed? You must to be consistant.
Neither.... niether... let's see i before e except after c or in sounding like a as in neighbor and weigh, on weekends and holidays and all through May....
Hussein = evil dictator - okay
Hussein = evil dictator developing WMD - prove it.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas.
That is a lie long since refuted. Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds but the dead kurds were mostly the victims of Iranian gas.
Human Rights Watch, CIA and United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that. Just read the papers.
United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.
miko
Miko-
I stand corrected, and for this I thank you.
However, the point of my message remains the same, as you quoted:
"Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds"
"The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja."
Sandman-
There can be no proof for you. You know as well as I do that Iraq HAD Wmds before 1991. We both know there was an active weapons program up until 1998. Whether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is doubtful. You see, this is the difference between you and I. I can and will admit when my beliefs are wrong, and proved so. I have no problem conceding a debate. You on the other hand remind me of the kid who would run around with his fingers in his ears going "La la la la I cannot hear you" whenever something is said to dispute what you believe.
If you cannot see the truth in what I've written above, you truly have the right name. You live with your head in the sand.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.
miko
The US did not fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Calling us allies is a stretch.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
There can be no proof for you. You know as well as I do that Iraq HAD Wmds before 1991. We both know there was an active weapons program up until 1998. Whether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is doubtful. You see, this is the difference between you and I. I can and will admit when my beliefs are wrong, and proved so. I have no problem conceding a debate. You on the other hand remind me of the kid who would run around with his fingers in his ears going "La la la la I cannot hear you" whenever something is said to dispute what you believe.
If you cannot see the truth in what I've written above, you truly have the right name. You live with your head in the sand.
I guess I'll just leave it to you adults to keep on changing the subject. Hussein was a purported threat to the United States, capable of striking U.S. forces in the region with WMD within minutes. This has yet to be proven. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only relevant issue. The rest is just noise and attempted justification after the fact.
If the Iraqi people wanted liberation, they should have been willing to fight and die for it before we sacrificed the life of a single U.S. soldier.
From my view in the sand, I see nothing but body bags (http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html).
-
Hmmm ... what I think about Mr. Bush and what he tells and what he does (over all, not only regarding Iraq) is best explained by a song Blink 182 wrote. The title is "Family reunion".
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess I'll just leave it to you adults to keep on changing the subject. Hussein was a purported threat to the United States, capable of striking U.S. forces in the region with WMD within minutes. This has yet to be proven. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only relevant issue. The rest is just noise and attempted justification after the fact.
If the Iraqi people wanted liberation, they should have been willing to fight and die for it before we sacrificed the life of a single U.S. soldier.
From my view in the sand, I see nothing but body bags (http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html).
I agree that the prime motive for war in the US was the threat we were told existed from Iraq.
I also agree that WMD's have not and probably will not be found in Iraq.
Where are paths diverge is that I believe even without ACTIVE WMDs in his possession, SH showed he had the capability to produce them, and no qualms about using them on his enemies. The US was a mortal enemy of SH.
I firmly believe if left unchecked, SH would have developed WMDs if he NO LONGER had them, or would have given/sold WMDs to any terrorist group looking to use them against Israel or the west.
As for you opinion of the Iraqi people rising up, we all know any attampt to overthrow SH would be squelched with an iron fist. He was unbeatable by a popular uprising.
Though it is not the US job to police the world, we have numerous interests in the Middle East and it's stability. Freeing the Iraqi people was not the main reason for our involvement, but it's a wonderful bonus.
-
That's where we diverge. IMHO, Hussein was effectively contained. The region was probably more stable than it is right now.
I have my doubts about future stability. Israel isn't stable. I hardly expect that Iraq will be either.
-
I think he was contained as long as he wanted to be.
Look how porous the Iraqi border is with Syria, the Terrorist mecca.
If given the right price/cause SH would have driven a Bio Bomb across that border in his land rover and handed it over.
You know he HAD wmds. We both know he would have made 'em again if he did'nt have 'em anymore.
Stability? No much in Israel. Very little in Iraq. But can you call living under a genocidal maniac stability? I think not. I also think Iraq has a much brighter future than it ever has.
We'll have this discussion again in 5 years, and see.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
We both know he would have made 'em again if he did'nt have 'em anymore.
Well, if the U.S. ever pulled out and the UN lifted the sanctions, maybe so. There was some noise in this direction, but that all died under the "axis of evil" roar.
Hussein wasn't stupid. He may have attempted to play the UN against the U.S. and gained some benefit from it, but I truly doubt he would have taken a shot at the U.S. It would have amounted to nothing but a largely symbolic attack resulting in the complete and undivided attention of our military.
This policy of pre-emption is going to be hellish if it catches on.
-
One should remember why the UN was formed in the first place. Do you really think world security,peace,economic and social development and human rights would be better without it?
It would be a great loss for all the above reasons if the UN was ever abolished, though hopefully cooler minds would prevail.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
Originally posted by Eagler
I think I will \\if I don't - it will not be due to the Bush vs the UN argument
you think the UN will even be around in another 10 years?
-
I dont know why I bother asking, but do any you honestly belive there is any chance that Saddam would not have fully restarted his WMD quest after UN sanctions and inspections, and also the overflights were halted?
-
Of course not... a healthy nuclear weapons program is the best defense against U.S. aggression.
-
So youre saying no matter what the USA would have had to invade Iraq and remove Saddam because of his WMD program?
I concur. :)
So with that agreement between us at hand I ask you, why put off for tommorow something that you can do today?
-
If the U.S. intends to invade every country with a WMD program, I'm going to need a second job.
...and no, we don't agree.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The US did not fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Calling us allies is a stretch.
Why? , didn't we sell them arms? You know, the ones Reagan didn't know, or couldn't remember about? Fate can be ironic eh?
Sorry, I got that backwards.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
why put off for tommorow something that you can do today?
You may not like the two messengers, but this message has merit, and I agree with it.
...in two speeches that bracketed the president's address, Annan and French President Jacques Chirac suggested that it is the administration's doctrine of "preemption" -- the promise to strike against emerging threats -- that threatens to spread chaos across the globe. Both men bluntly said that the Bush administration is undermining the collective security arrangements that have governed the world since World War II.
-
You guys do realize your debating your opinions right? lol... none of ya have a clue as to whats going on in Iraq.. then or now, let alone the war on terror.
It's especially fun watching the cut'n-paste evidence and "opinions" presented as "fact". :rofl
....much entertainment to be had here.
-
No Sandy, OBL changed it on 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You may not like the two messengers, but this message has merit, and I agree with it.
"collective security arrangements that have governed the world since World War II." what exactly is that? The UN is full of itself if it thinks it is anything with the US & GB & the other allies which freed Iraq
Jacques is mad we pissed on his "france is a world power" dream
and Annan is mad we let the air outa his UN balloon
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas.
That is a lie long since refuted. Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds but the dead kurds were mostly the victims of Iranian gas.
Human Rights Watch, CIA and United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that. Just read the papers.
United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.
miko
Have you actually read the Human Rights Watch report on Halabja?
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm
-
So now you are saying Saddam would not have developed WMD illegally after the UN inspections ended?
-
Originally posted by Udie
No Sandy, OBL changed it on 9/11.
I think that this justification is a load of hooey... Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and was incapable of harming the U.S. When we hit Afghanistan, I was all for it but Iraq is the result of a policy based on fear.
-
Agree completely Sandman. Afghanistan had my support - Iraq was the opportunistic first step in a long term agenda conceived before Sept. 11th.
-
You mean the fear that Saddam would develop WMD illegally? Like you addmited he would after the Un sanctions and inspaections were dropped.
-
Many good $ already spent on IRAQ.
Question is: can US afford this?
I don´t really care: It is your tax money that is wasted, not mine.
In about 10 years the Bush administrations low down game will be condemed even by the US.
The only thing you guys can do to stop this clown, is to see to that he does´nt get re-elected.
-
blah blah blah blah is it right or not to invade Iraq? Yes it was..period. He needed to be booted even if he did not have WMD Iraq was in ruins during his rule..and the people didnt rise up and overthrow him.why? they were scared so everything is peachy..let leave them alone let him kill his own people its not our concern is it? They needed help the people of Iraq and we answerd when NO ONE would even when the U.N said they would come and help. Now the majority of the people are happy..they can make their own lives and live happily.
I have come to the conclusion that the U.N was a mistake.
The U.N.'s only use is to delay the inevitable
Before the U.N. the world goverd itself and the one with the most force prevailed it was also a deturent.
Nazi Germany had allies and lost them , why because of their actions and those actions eventually lost them the war..fronts from russia and allied forces because of their descicions..This is what the U.S saw with Iraq..The U.S had the most power and expected Iraq to comply they did not so the leadership was overthrown...
I think Bush is doing the U.N a favor by asking for help if they do help it will give the U.N better footing in the world opinion because after the resolution they passed 15-0 and decided not to act on it that has made the U.N unrelavent they basically told all those who oppose the un "Dont worry we will only talk and do nothing, we are not serious..its only a scare tactic to get you to do what we want but if you dont no big deal we are not gonna do what we said".
My OPINION on the matter is if the U.N does not help then all funds to the U.N from American and Britian should stop for the war effort and the Oil in Iraq should be used aswell and that would piss of the Iraqis ofcourse but this finger would point to the U.N once again so it is fitting.
-
So now you are saying Saddam would not have developed WMD illegally after the UN inspections ended?
Can you define "Legal WMD"
And
"Non legal WMD"
Djust curious...
-
Maniac
A legal WMD, is manufactured in the US and handed over to Dictators to use on their own population. For example:Kurds.
A unlegal WMD, is not manufactured in the US, to use for their own Defence. For example: When someone tryes to steal oil, by invading the country.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Maniac
A legal WMD, is manufactured in the US and handed over to Dictators to use on their own population. For example:Kurds.
A unlegal WMD, is not manufactured in the US, to use for their own Defence. For example: When someone tryes to steal oil, by invading the country.
Thank you, Crabo.
You've just rendered youself moot.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Thank you, Crabo.
You've just rendered youself mute.
Muting everyone who doesn't follow the Party line?
It seems to me I have heard this somewhere before... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Muting everyone who doesn't follow the Party line?
It seems to me I have heard this somewhere before... :rolleyes:
Boroda-
You're a putz.
*smacks Boroda on nose with rolled up copy of Pravda*
I meant his argument is baseless and is therefore moot.
-
probably you meant "moot" ;)
adj.
Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Boroda-
You're a putz.
*smacks Boroda on nose with rolled up copy of Pravda*
I meant his argument is baseless and is therefore mute.
You mean "moot," not "mute," don't you?
-
you need to work on that "draw" Lonestar, beat ya by a minute ;)
-
That's what I said, moot.
*whistles innocently as he slides toward the door*
;)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
That's what I said, moot.
*whistles innocently as he slides toward the door*
;)
Sorry :D
Looks like some people here really love Pravda style :D They are definetly makeing good use of Soviet experience :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hussein = evil dictator - okay
Hussein = evil dictator developing WMD - prove it.
My point is that neither has shown up since the war.
Your "proof" that WMD do not exist is that we have not uncovered WMD's, so to be consistent, you must also believe that SH does not exist.
The same proof exists for both.
Proving the non-existence of WMD is nearly impossible, as all one needs to do is find a few barrels buried in the desert somewhere.
Skepticism is fine, and pretty much required, but skepticism is not the same as coming to the conclusion of non-existence.
The only logical conclusion one can come to regarding WMD at the present time is "I don't know, I need more information."
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My point is that neither has shown up since the war.
Your "proof" that WMD do not exist is that we have not uncovered WMD's, so to be consistent, you must also believe that SH does not exist.
The same proof exists for both.
Proving the non-existence of WMD is nearly impossible, as all one needs to do is find a few barrels buried in the desert somewhere.
Skepticism is fine, and pretty much required, but skepticism is not the same as coming to the conclusion of non-existence.
The only logical conclusion one can come to regarding WMD at the present time is "I don't know, I need more information."
Absolute nonsense WRT existence of Hussein but the rest agrees with:
Hussein = evil dictator - true
Hussein = evil dictator with WMD - no evidence yet
No evidence yet = prove it
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry :D
Looks like some people here really love Pravda style :D They are definetly makeing good use of Soviet experience :D
Great time for the spelling police to flick on the lights and sirens, huh?
You guys know what I meant. Well, everyone but Boroda, and I think English is his second language.
You're still a putz, though.;)
-
Oh NO!!!
Muckmaw muted me, Am I suposed to jump off a bridge now?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No evidence yet = prove it
I am amazed you do not see the parallel logic.
SH: No evidence yet = prove it
I am not advocating that he is dead or never existed, I am just pointing out the flaw in many people's reasoning that because evidence has yet to be found, that none exists.
If I used that logic, my car keys would not exist about once every six weeks. If I look for them long enough, I find them.
Four months is not very long in the grand scheme of things.
[Carl Sagan voice] If the time since the big bang were compressed into a single year, all of human history would exist in the last few seconds before midnight of December 31...[/Carl Sagan voice]
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I used that logic, my car keys would not exist about once every six weeks. If I look for them long enough, I find them.
The analogy really doesn't seem to fit simply because of the massive quantities of weapons that were alleged to exist.
Four months is indeed a long time considering that Bush was unwilling to wait even a few weeks.
But hey... I could be wrong with my doubts of ever finding the WMD, but I'm betting that twelve months from now, they'll still be searching.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am amazed you do not see the parallel logic.
SH: No evidence yet = prove it
All those audio tapes that have come out don't count as evidence?
-
You haven't ever seen Rich Little and Saddam Hussien together have you? ;)
Tapes probably a CIA plant anyway.