Author Topic: Bush v UN (Read 1473 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:48:59 PM »

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?

Sandman · « **Reply #46 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:51:12 PM »

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.

Sixpence · « **Reply #47 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:56:46 PM »

Quote

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.

Sandman · « **Reply #48 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:00:47 PM »

Quote

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.

Quote

...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.

Tumor · « **Reply #49 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:16:28 PM »

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".

....much entertainment to be had here.

Udie · « **Reply #50 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:16:46 PM »

No Sandy, OBL changed it on 9/11.

Eagler · « **Reply #51 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:20:17 PM »

Quote

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

Torque · « **Reply #52 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:08:58 PM »

Quote

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

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:14:44 PM »

So now you are saying Saddam would not have developed WMD illegally after the UN inspections ended?

Sandman · « **Reply #54 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:33:17 PM »

Quote

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.

Dowding · « **Reply #55 on:** September 25, 2003, 03:09:55 AM »

Agree completely Sandman. Afghanistan had my support - Iraq was the opportunistic first step in a long term agenda conceived before Sept. 11th.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #56 on:** September 25, 2003, 04:41:44 AM »

You mean the fear that Saddam would develop WMD illegally? Like you addmited he would after the Un sanctions and inspaections were dropped.

crabofix · « **Reply #57 on:** September 25, 2003, 05:29:33 AM »

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.

SaRCaP · « **Reply #58 on:** September 25, 2003, 08:03:53 AM »

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.

Maniac · « **Reply #59 on:** September 25, 2003, 08:21:45 AM »

Quote

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...