Its interesting to me that I have only heard Iraqis who arent Iraq talking in favor of the war.
I have no idea what this sentence means. This is the point I was making about checking your posts.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[/i]
I think i meant "its interesting to me th at i have only heard Iraqis who arent in Iraq talking in favor of the war" Meaning the ones in Iraq say they hate the US or they get shot. My apologies for bad gramar
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
Re:
by Guest on Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:12 am
Cain,
Those are intelligence reports on how Saddam is hiding some of his weapons, the exact whereabouts may not be known. This information wasn’t hard to find. I don’t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq.
You stating, “I'm not denying that Iraq probably has weapons. But the US wanted to prove so, and they haven't.” leads me to one question. Do you read a newspaper, pick up a magazine or watch the news???? What are Al Samaad missiles? They only found a couple hundred of them….. What about the thousands of vials of toxic agents that had been documented by the UN inspectors and are now missing. Furthermore, you state that you believe Saddam has these weapons, so I ask you again. How do we get him to disarm?
Congratulations on being another liberal who could do nothing more than bash the US/Bush and provide no real solution.
Those are intelligence reports on how Saddam is hiding some of his weapons, the exact whereabouts may not be known. This information wasn’t hard to find. I don’t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq.
You stating, “I'm not denying that Iraq probably has weapons. But the US wanted to prove so, and they haven't.” leads me to one question. Do you read a newspaper, pick up a magazine or watch the news???? What are Al Samaad missiles? They only found a couple hundred of them….. What about the thousands of vials of toxic agents that had been documented by the UN inspectors and are now missing. Furthermore, you state that you believe Saddam has these weapons, so I ask you again. How do we get him to disarm?
Congratulations on being another liberal who could do nothing more than bash the US/Bush and provide no real solution.
-
Guest
-
Emma
Re:
by kensson on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:03 am
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 01:56, 10th Mar 2003:
What are Al Samaad missiles?
I don't know. Are they like al-Samoud missiles?
How do we get him to disarm?
My question is why? Or rather, why the rush? If Hans Blix says 'OK, they're misleading us and not co-operating' then maybe there's a case to impose ultimata. For me, as long as the UN teams say 'It's working, although slowly', then we should carry on by peaceful means. If the US has intelligence (stop sniggering at the back) that could be helpful to the inspectors, why does it not give it to them rather than punt it straight out as an excuse for war?
I'm also quite confused about the logic behind singling out Saddam Hussein, who - evil man though he is - isn't acting aggressively towards anyone; neither is he likely to do anything to provoke a war that would lead to his downfall.
More logical would be to be putting real pressure on North Korea, which is acting belligerently and which we're pretty sure has nuclear weapons.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
What are Al Samaad missiles?
I don't know. Are they like al-Samoud missiles?
How do we get him to disarm?
My question is why? Or rather, why the rush? If Hans Blix says 'OK, they're misleading us and not co-operating' then maybe there's a case to impose ultimata. For me, as long as the UN teams say 'It's working, although slowly', then we should carry on by peaceful means. If the US has intelligence (stop sniggering at the back) that could be helpful to the inspectors, why does it not give it to them rather than punt it straight out as an excuse for war?
I'm also quite confused about the logic behind singling out Saddam Hussein, who - evil man though he is - isn't acting aggressively towards anyone; neither is he likely to do anything to provoke a war that would lead to his downfall.
More logical would be to be putting real pressure on North Korea, which is acting belligerently and which we're pretty sure has nuclear weapons.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Re:
by Cain on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:29 am
Unregistered User said
"I don’t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq."
And I don't know why you have to take completely different conclusions from my posts.
The putting words in your mouth,would that have been where you said
"Saddam refuses to disarm, he continues to play games with the UN, and lets face it… He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past"
and I said
"so arrogance is a reason for wanting to bomb a country into submission"
or would that be me bashing the US? they're so similar.
"I don’t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq."
And I don't know why you have to take completely different conclusions from my posts.
The putting words in your mouth,would that have been where you said
"Saddam refuses to disarm, he continues to play games with the UN, and lets face it… He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past"
and I said
"so arrogance
or would that be me bashing the US? they're so similar.
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:01 pm
[s]Cain wrote on 11:29, 10th Mar 2003:
Unregistered User said
"I don?t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq."
And I don't know why you have to take completely different conclusions from my posts.
The putting words in your mouth,would that have been where you said
"Saddam refuses to disarm, he continues to play games with the UN, and lets face it? He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past"
and I said
"so arrogance is a reason for wanting to bomb a country into submission"
or would that be me bashing the US? they're so similar.
The fact that you people dodge the issues and then critique spelling as a way to avoid points brought it up is what hes talkign about.
Theres a report out today Hans Blix put just one line in his 161 page report about a remote controlled airplane that was found, which by the way is not allowed since it dispenses poison gas. They also found some cluster bombs, you guessed it capable of dispensing poison gas, the interesting thing about these they werent even mentioned in 1991. So either they were never declared or they were made after either way these are smoking guns that werent mentioned in front of the UN.
Thats just one example, how could anyone argue Saddam doesnt have these weapons is beyond me. If he doesnt have these weapons what is he hiding? Why is he killing off people in charge of his weapons program? Why will no scientist in Iraq agree to interviews out of the country? And my favoite Saddam is promising to Gas the Kurds if we go to war with Iraq, where is the gas coming from? Unless he meant laughing gas.
Unregistered User said
"I don?t quit know why you felt the need to put words in my mouth by saying arrogance is the reason for invading Iraq."
And I don't know why you have to take completely different conclusions from my posts.
The putting words in your mouth,would that have been where you said
"Saddam refuses to disarm, he continues to play games with the UN, and lets face it? He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past"
and I said
"so arrogance
or would that be me bashing the US? they're so similar.
The fact that you people dodge the issues and then critique spelling as a way to avoid points brought it up is what hes talkign about.
Theres a report out today Hans Blix put just one line in his 161 page report about a remote controlled airplane that was found, which by the way is not allowed since it dispenses poison gas. They also found some cluster bombs, you guessed it capable of dispensing poison gas, the interesting thing about these they werent even mentioned in 1991. So either they were never declared or they were made after either way these are smoking guns that werent mentioned in front of the UN.
Thats just one example, how could anyone argue Saddam doesnt have these weapons is beyond me. If he doesnt have these weapons what is he hiding? Why is he killing off people in charge of his weapons program? Why will no scientist in Iraq agree to interviews out of the country? And my favoite Saddam is promising to Gas the Kurds if we go to war with Iraq, where is the gas coming from? Unless he meant laughing gas.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Emma on Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:13 pm
MARCH 07, 2003
13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked
At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night
By Ari Berman
NEW YORK -- Updated at 3:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
1. You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? Have you calculated how many U.S. troops might die in such an attack?
2. Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them (as you announced tonight) while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam?
3. You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in even the best invastion scenario? And how many civilians might die if Saddam, indeed, uses chemical weapons to defend himself?
4. Why do you think Turkey's parliament voted against hosting U.S. troops after being offered such a large aid package, especially since they are on Iraq's border?
5. With the economy skaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq?
6. You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism?
7. Why have you threatened "retribution" against Mexico if it votes against our U.N. resolution? And do you think it is wise to warn that Mexicans could face the same reaction as the "backlash against the French" from our public (as you recently said) when this might be directed at some of the tens of millions of Hispanics living in the U.S.?
8. Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it, and its aftermath, will cost, don't you think the American people (who will pay the bill) deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact?
9. Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past?
10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions?
11. You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now?
12. How do you respond to reporter Daniel Schorr's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing?"
13. Why is the U.S. threatening a non-U.N.-backed war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll?
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Berman (aberman@editorandpublisher.com)
I really hope this doesn't post itself twice, apologies if it does.
[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked
At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night
By Ari Berman
NEW YORK -- Updated at 3:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
1. You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? Have you calculated how many U.S. troops might die in such an attack?
2. Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them (as you announced tonight) while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam?
3. You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in even the best invastion scenario? And how many civilians might die if Saddam, indeed, uses chemical weapons to defend himself?
4. Why do you think Turkey's parliament voted against hosting U.S. troops after being offered such a large aid package, especially since they are on Iraq's border?
5. With the economy skaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq?
6. You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism?
7. Why have you threatened "retribution" against Mexico if it votes against our U.N. resolution? And do you think it is wise to warn that Mexicans could face the same reaction as the "backlash against the French" from our public (as you recently said) when this might be directed at some of the tens of millions of Hispanics living in the U.S.?
8. Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it, and its aftermath, will cost, don't you think the American people (who will pay the bill) deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact?
9. Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past?
10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions?
11. You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now?
12. How do you respond to reporter Daniel Schorr's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing?"
13. Why is the U.S. threatening a non-U.N.-backed war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll?
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Berman (aberman@editorandpublisher.com)
I really hope this doesn't post itself twice, apologies if it does.
[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
-
Emma
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:02 am
[s]Emma wrote on 19:13, 10th Mar 2003:
MARCH 07, 2003
13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked
At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night
By Ari Berman
NEW YORK -- Updated at 3:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
1. You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? Have you calculated how many U.S. troops might die in such an attack?
2. Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them (as you announced tonight) while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam?
3. You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in even the best invastion scenario? And how many civilians might die if Saddam, indeed, uses chemical weapons to defend himself?
4. Why do you think Turkey's parliament voted against hosting U.S. troops after being offered such a large aid package, especially since they are on Iraq's border?
5. With the economy skaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq?
6. You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism?
7. Why have you threatened "retribution" against Mexico if it votes against our U.N. resolution? And do you think it is wise to warn that Mexicans could face the same reaction as the "backlash against the French" from our public (as you recently said) when this might be directed at some of the tens of millions of Hispanics living in the U.S.?
8. Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it, and its aftermath, will cost, don't you think the American people (who will pay the bill) deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact?
9. Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past?
10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions?
11. You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now?
12. How do you respond to reporter Daniel Schorr's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing?"
13. Why is the U.S. threatening a non-U.N.-backed war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll?
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Berman (aberman@editorandpublisher.com)
I really hope this doesn't post itself twice, apologies if it does.
[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
Bush doesnt answer those kind of question pundits do. Ill answer for him.
1.It is a real possibility that he will use them now but what if 5 years from now he can do much much more.
2. Theres many answers to this question. War is the last option all else has failed with Iraq. The administration will give Diplomacy more time in N. Korea. Also we will handle one threat at a time. No sense ingetting bogged down with two conflicts. And finally intent also plays a part in the decision of a threat. N Korea wouldnt nuke us but they could proliferate weapons. As long as we put up a blockade we can deal with N. Korea diplomatically.
3. Saddam is responsible for over a million deaths unfortionately for us to stop him from causing a million more some civillians will be killed.
4. Turkey is a democracy, with 95 percent of its population muslim. It is they're right to not participate. This question was asked btw.
5. He's not his economic stimulus bill is tied up in the senate. You can blame Tom "puff" Daschle for that.
6. It could increase terrorism for a short while but in the long run it will destablize the terrorist structure.
7. I dont even think this one is true. Ill answer that question when i see a credible source quoting bush threatening mexico.
8. bush answered this one and added a good line at the end can you really put a price on freedom. And pointing out how much september 11th had costed us.
9. I could pull up a long list of ongoing deals with China, Russia, France, and Germany if you want to turn this into a war over who supported saddam the most. I would also like to see your source on this one as I cant see what affect the US editing the 12000 page report would have.
10. Once again wheres your source on this one.
11. They wouldnt be able to just crank out a new missle type in a day they would have to do lots of testing and figuring before they just start manufacturing a weapon that would fit the guidelines.
12. The true coalition of the willing is US, UK, and austrailia. As well as spain, bulgaria, and Italy to name a few. Theres no need to respond to that because thats how these third world countries play ball if you want to blame somebody blame them for being willing to be bought instead of voting with thier heart. Africa couldnt care at all about Iraq for them getting on the security council is like winning the lottery.
13. Bush already got his resolution in september. Also some times you have to be a leader and stand up for whats right like bush and blair are doing.
I didnt answer most of those questions very presidential like but most were either asked at the press conference in a round about way, questions with no proof, or loaded questions only meant to make a political statement.
MARCH 07, 2003
13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked
At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night
By Ari Berman
NEW YORK -- Updated at 3:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
1. You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? Have you calculated how many U.S. troops might die in such an attack?
2. Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them (as you announced tonight) while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam?
3. You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in even the best invastion scenario? And how many civilians might die if Saddam, indeed, uses chemical weapons to defend himself?
4. Why do you think Turkey's parliament voted against hosting U.S. troops after being offered such a large aid package, especially since they are on Iraq's border?
5. With the economy skaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq?
6. You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism?
7. Why have you threatened "retribution" against Mexico if it votes against our U.N. resolution? And do you think it is wise to warn that Mexicans could face the same reaction as the "backlash against the French" from our public (as you recently said) when this might be directed at some of the tens of millions of Hispanics living in the U.S.?
8. Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it, and its aftermath, will cost, don't you think the American people (who will pay the bill) deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact?
9. Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past?
10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions?
11. You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now?
12. How do you respond to reporter Daniel Schorr's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing?"
13. Why is the U.S. threatening a non-U.N.-backed war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll?
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Berman (aberman@editorandpublisher.com)
I really hope this doesn't post itself twice, apologies if it does.
[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
Bush doesnt answer those kind of question pundits do. Ill answer for him.
1.It is a real possibility that he will use them now but what if 5 years from now he can do much much more.
2. Theres many answers to this question. War is the last option all else has failed with Iraq. The administration will give Diplomacy more time in N. Korea. Also we will handle one threat at a time. No sense ingetting bogged down with two conflicts. And finally intent also plays a part in the decision of a threat. N Korea wouldnt nuke us but they could proliferate weapons. As long as we put up a blockade we can deal with N. Korea diplomatically.
3. Saddam is responsible for over a million deaths unfortionately for us to stop him from causing a million more some civillians will be killed.
4. Turkey is a democracy, with 95 percent of its population muslim. It is they're right to not participate. This question was asked btw.
5. He's not his economic stimulus bill is tied up in the senate. You can blame Tom "puff" Daschle for that.
6. It could increase terrorism for a short while but in the long run it will destablize the terrorist structure.
7. I dont even think this one is true. Ill answer that question when i see a credible source quoting bush threatening mexico.
8. bush answered this one and added a good line at the end can you really put a price on freedom. And pointing out how much september 11th had costed us.
9. I could pull up a long list of ongoing deals with China, Russia, France, and Germany if you want to turn this into a war over who supported saddam the most. I would also like to see your source on this one as I cant see what affect the US editing the 12000 page report would have.
10. Once again wheres your source on this one.
11. They wouldnt be able to just crank out a new missle type in a day they would have to do lots of testing and figuring before they just start manufacturing a weapon that would fit the guidelines.
12. The true coalition of the willing is US, UK, and austrailia. As well as spain, bulgaria, and Italy to name a few. Theres no need to respond to that because thats how these third world countries play ball if you want to blame somebody blame them for being willing to be bought instead of voting with thier heart. Africa couldnt care at all about Iraq for them getting on the security council is like winning the lottery.
13. Bush already got his resolution in september. Also some times you have to be a leader and stand up for whats right like bush and blair are doing.
I didnt answer most of those questions very presidential like but most were either asked at the press conference in a round about way, questions with no proof, or loaded questions only meant to make a political statement.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by kensson on Tue Mar 11, 2003 2:51 pm
The source for question 7:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexi ... exico.html
(I'd say this wasn't a direct threat, but it's certainly implicit.)
The source for question 10:
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0, ... 36,00.html
I thought Andy answered the questions quite presidentially. Evasively, with total disregard for logic, consistency and grammar, and certainly not to my satisfaction. Perhaps later I'll explain my dissatisfaction, but for now I'll leave it to others.
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexi ... exico.html
(I'd say this wasn't a direct threat, but it's certainly implicit.)
The source for question 10:
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0, ... 36,00.html
I thought Andy answered the questions quite presidentially. Evasively, with total disregard for logic, consistency and grammar, and certainly not to my satisfaction. Perhaps later I'll explain my dissatisfaction, but for now I'll leave it to others.
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
just a point....
by harmless loony on Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:23 pm
the carpet bombing of afghanistan was supposed to get rid of osama bin laden and Mullah omar - and yet it clearly hasnt.
So to all those pro war people - wot makes u think that carpet bombing iraq will get rid of Saddam?? Like the 2 mentioned before - he'll probably go into hiding and then emerge again at a later date - therefore doesnt bombing iraq then become a pointless exercise. Just like the bombing in Afgahnistan has so far proved to be???
So to all those pro war people - wot makes u think that carpet bombing iraq will get rid of Saddam?? Like the 2 mentioned before - he'll probably go into hiding and then emerge again at a later date - therefore doesnt bombing iraq then become a pointless exercise. Just like the bombing in Afgahnistan has so far proved to be???
-
harmless loony
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 10:42 pm
Re:
by Oddball on Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:45 pm
10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions?
I fail to see what is wrong with spying upon foreign representatives? Surely we should be congradulating those involved and punishing the cretin that leaked the story. That would have been valuable information, now wasted.
I fail to see what is wrong with spying upon foreign representatives? Surely we should be congradulating those involved and punishing the cretin that leaked the story. That would have been valuable information, now wasted.
-
Oddball
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:11 am
[s]harmless loony wrote on 15:23, 11th Mar 2003:
the carpet bombing of afghanistan was supposed to get rid of osama bin laden and Mullah omar - and yet it clearly hasnt.
So to all those pro war people - wot makes u think that carpet bombing iraq will get rid of Saddam?? Like the 2 mentioned before - he'll probably go into hiding and then emerge again at a later date - therefore doesnt bombing iraq then become a pointless exercise. Just like the bombing in Afgahnistan has so far proved to be???
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
Also to Kenneson, I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN. Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism. The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful. Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant. You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
the carpet bombing of afghanistan was supposed to get rid of osama bin laden and Mullah omar - and yet it clearly hasnt.
So to all those pro war people - wot makes u think that carpet bombing iraq will get rid of Saddam?? Like the 2 mentioned before - he'll probably go into hiding and then emerge again at a later date - therefore doesnt bombing iraq then become a pointless exercise. Just like the bombing in Afgahnistan has so far proved to be???
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
Also to Kenneson, I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN. Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism. The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful. Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant. You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by kensson on Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:41 am
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 22:28, 11th Mar 2003:
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
And so bombing Afghanistan made the world a safer place? I suspect the victims of the Bali bombing would disagree with you. And Kenya. Would somebody just give me one piece of evidence that even suggests that Saddam Hussein, who has been struggling for many years to get weapons, would simply give them away to terrorist organisations he doesn't control? The CIA has more concrete links with al-Qa'eda than Iraq does.
Also to Kenneson (sic - perhaps, one day, someone will spell my name properly. K-E-N-double S-O-N, as in Ken's son. Dead easy.), I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN.
It looked like a veiled threat to me - he talked about 'no significant government retribution' but went on immediately to talk about the consumer backlash against France, apparently condoning it. The subtext is that 'this could happen to Mexico too.'
Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
... although not to spell. I'd suggest that evading difficult questions about your position tends to suggest you have no real answers to them.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism.
What, the countries of the UN - an organisation set up "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" - should be trying to, um, avoid a war? A war massively unpopular in this country, more so in continental Europe, and still more so in most of the countries nearby which would be affected by any escalation? Somehow an organisation upholding its charter is obstructionist?
The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful.
Um, also that 80% of the French people are oppsed to a war, and that he feels he cannot conscionably support a war at this time.
Perhaps there is no way to stop this war. But we can at least make it uncomfortable for the leaders and remind them that, in a democracy, it's the people that lead. If it doesn't prevent this war, then perhaps it will prevent future ones.
Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant.
Blahdeblahde rhetoric. Breaking news: terrorism won't go away once Saddam Hussein is removed. You seem to be saying we should attack now, while it's easy to win, rather than wait for a reason. Or autumn, whichever comes first.
You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
I don't owe anything to the armed forces of my country unless they're defending it. If the voice of the people can be totally ignored on an issue as important as this - 52% of Americans (CBS survey, as reported in Le Monde) favour giving UNSCOM more time - then we ought to be fighting for democracy in our countries rather than abroad.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
And so bombing Afghanistan made the world a safer place? I suspect the victims of the Bali bombing would disagree with you. And Kenya. Would somebody just give me one piece of evidence that even suggests that Saddam Hussein, who has been struggling for many years to get weapons, would simply give them away to terrorist organisations he doesn't control? The CIA has more concrete links with al-Qa'eda than Iraq does.
Also to Kenneson (sic - perhaps, one day, someone will spell my name properly. K-E-N-double S-O-N, as in Ken's son. Dead easy.), I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN.
It looked like a veiled threat to me - he talked about 'no significant government retribution' but went on immediately to talk about the consumer backlash against France, apparently condoning it. The subtext is that 'this could happen to Mexico too.'
Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
... although not to spell. I'd suggest that evading difficult questions about your position tends to suggest you have no real answers to them.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism.
What, the countries of the UN - an organisation set up "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" - should be trying to, um, avoid a war? A war massively unpopular in this country, more so in continental Europe, and still more so in most of the countries nearby which would be affected by any escalation? Somehow an organisation upholding its charter is obstructionist?
The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful.
Um, also that 80% of the French people are oppsed to a war, and that he feels he cannot conscionably support a war at this time.
Perhaps there is no way to stop this war. But we can at least make it uncomfortable for the leaders and remind them that, in a democracy, it's the people that lead. If it doesn't prevent this war, then perhaps it will prevent future ones.
Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant.
Blahdeblahde rhetoric. Breaking news: terrorism won't go away once Saddam Hussein is removed. You seem to be saying we should attack now, while it's easy to win, rather than wait for a reason. Or autumn, whichever comes first.
You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
I don't owe anything to the armed forces of my country unless they're defending it. If the voice of the people can be totally ignored on an issue as important as this - 52% of Americans (CBS survey, as reported in Le Monde) favour giving UNSCOM more time - then we ought to be fighting for democracy in our countries rather than abroad.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Re:
by harmless loony on Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:55 am
there is no proven link between saddam and al qaeda. History shows that bin laden and saddam dont get on - so why would saddam feel inclined to give his enemy weapons? trying to make a link between them is just trying to make the situation sound worse then it is. If bombing afghanistan made the world a better place - why is there very little support for the women and children of afghanistan?? Incidents of male and female rape have risen rapidly - somethings which the Taliban were able to keep in check.
-
harmless loony
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 10:42 pm
Re:
by Cain on Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:21 pm
Get your war on!
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
Caution: contains continuous swearing and harmful ideas
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
Caution: contains continuous swearing and harmful ideas
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
the reasons for war
by Mario Santos on Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:46 pm
It is time for a reflection on the situation that the US government is leading us, the citizens of the world. I admire the United States by many of the amazing achievements that this big nation has provided to the world. However, I am becoming increasingly worried with the main path of behaviour that this amazing country is developing, that in my point of view, could bring serious consequences to our same world. It is sad to realize the greed of power that is growing from this country that has so much to offer, and the way that it is conducting its attitudes to fulfil its demands. Lately with the Iraq issue, I am sad to have concluded the main reasons for this war, that, unfortunately is eminent:
The Weapons Issue: The US is a major weapons manufacturer therefore the US Needs to test newly developed weapons, which is done so whenever there is a war. Remember all the video footage of the desert storm operation back in the early 90´s… We could even see the bombs view while it descended to its target… Amazing wasn´t it ? How does the US Sell their weapons? Thorough its main media channels, being CNN its main weapon of mass manipulation and also the way they sell their main ideas as well as how they want the world to perceive that are in benefit to US interests.
Oil. Of course… Good old oil… Being a major potential world oil supplier the US foresees all the dollars it can provide to its economy once they control it. It seems irresistible no?
The Middle East. The US sees also Iraq as a potential menace to Israel. Most of the mentors that dominate and manipulate US politics are all pro – Israel… Conclusion: Stuff the Arabs which seem to be only a burden on their way. This is rather sad… but true. Otherwise, the unfair Israel-Palestine situation would have been solved ages ago.
The United Nation is an organization that should be respected, as well as the ideas of other member states…. How childish it is to see some people on CNN making fun of the French, pouring french wine down the drain… It is amazing that when some government opposes a “great, vital and fantastic US-generated idea – such as: Lets Bomb Iraq” we get all these childish revenge that seems more like the reaction of a spoiled kid not getting his ice cream... Come on… The world deserves to have their own opinion about the way the world is evolving: Free speech….It makes me laugh when US refers itself as the free world!!! How come such a free world have death penalties? Is this a free world? Big Brother type of governments and systems only raise frustrated citizens that freak out and shoot fellow colleagues at schools… It could be a free world only if everyone would have the “Good - Evil” type of mentality such as that of the “Brilliant” US president.
Solutions…. Well I think that the Middle East situation should have a clear deadline so that the Israeli situation and its neighbouring “occupied” territories could come to a fair agreement for all the parties involved.
I am of the opinion that if US decides to go to war with Iraq, going against the UN approval, the United Nations headquarters should move from New York to some other world Capital, where different opinions are respected and not rejected.
The Weapons Issue: The US is a major weapons manufacturer therefore the US Needs to test newly developed weapons, which is done so whenever there is a war. Remember all the video footage of the desert storm operation back in the early 90´s… We could even see the bombs view while it descended to its target… Amazing wasn´t it ? How does the US Sell their weapons? Thorough its main media channels, being CNN its main weapon of mass manipulation and also the way they sell their main ideas as well as how they want the world to perceive that are in benefit to US interests.
Oil. Of course… Good old oil… Being a major potential world oil supplier the US foresees all the dollars it can provide to its economy once they control it. It seems irresistible no?
The Middle East. The US sees also Iraq as a potential menace to Israel. Most of the mentors that dominate and manipulate US politics are all pro – Israel… Conclusion: Stuff the Arabs which seem to be only a burden on their way. This is rather sad… but true. Otherwise, the unfair Israel-Palestine situation would have been solved ages ago.
The United Nation is an organization that should be respected, as well as the ideas of other member states…. How childish it is to see some people on CNN making fun of the French, pouring french wine down the drain… It is amazing that when some government opposes a “great, vital and fantastic US-generated idea – such as: Lets Bomb Iraq” we get all these childish revenge that seems more like the reaction of a spoiled kid not getting his ice cream... Come on… The world deserves to have their own opinion about the way the world is evolving: Free speech….It makes me laugh when US refers itself as the free world!!! How come such a free world have death penalties? Is this a free world? Big Brother type of governments and systems only raise frustrated citizens that freak out and shoot fellow colleagues at schools… It could be a free world only if everyone would have the “Good - Evil” type of mentality such as that of the “Brilliant” US president.
Solutions…. Well I think that the Middle East situation should have a clear deadline so that the Israeli situation and its neighbouring “occupied” territories could come to a fair agreement for all the parties involved.
I am of the opinion that if US decides to go to war with Iraq, going against the UN approval, the United Nations headquarters should move from New York to some other world Capital, where different opinions are respected and not rejected.
-
Mario Santos
War and the Guidlines for which America Follows!
by A word from the confused! on Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:47 pm
Ok i don't think that anyone in American will say that Sadaam isnt insame or anyone in the world for that matter. So why not go to war. Unless theres some peaceful way that i dont know about (which there isnt) why cant America go against the UN's advice and do whatever the hell we want. Im sure that if we go to war in Iraq that our sole purpose it to take of the country and start up the 52nd state. So being confused and random like i am i pose another question u gives a fuck what france says and why do they have power in the UN in the first place, i mean in WWII they were a bunch of fucking panzies that we saved from the Nazi's. And guess who's gonna be like oh yea we supported the US after we win the war with Irag...France. Anways is it just me or is Russia being extremly nuetral during this conflict i mean geez they could be a great help to us just by haveing bulk or personnel. And me being pro-war and everything i cant go without bashing the people against the way. Honestly people why wait for these terror groups etc to think up of another plan as we wait another 6yrs or so and have 9/11 all over again i think people have to stop being so goddamn anal about pro-life and poor iragi people. What does war=? hmm death. I mean honestly do u think we or any nation could have a war without civilian caulties? No! I'll leave with a little story to ponder and then hopefully u anti-war people can respond on why we shouldnt go to war...It sorta goes like this: Sadaam and his group of advisors are talking about whether to go to war a years ago (1st dessert Storm) And one of his most highly ranked advisors and "friends" gets up and says Sadaam why now are we going to war? Sadaam responds by saying "jim" (dont know the guys name) can we talk in private. Well as the other Iragi leaders look at each other and wonder what Sadaam is saying to "Jim" They here a loud crack and Sadaam walks back in to the confrence room wipes his face covered in blood and says anyone to think that im wrong speak up now otherwise we are going to war! So how do we defeat this evil man again? oh yea war! Thanks for your time people that read this and i do appriate other view points and would love a response to my message. Well until later im out!
-
A word from the confused!
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:49 pm
[s]kensson wrote on 10:41, 12th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 22:28, 11th Mar 2003:[i]
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
And so bombing Afghanistan made the world a safer place? I suspect the victims of the Bali bombing would disagree with you. And Kenya. Would somebody just give me one piece of evidence that even suggests that Saddam Hussein, who has been struggling for many years to get weapons, would simply give them away to terrorist organisations he doesn't control? The CIA has more concrete links with al-Qa'eda than Iraq does.
Also to Kenneson (sic - perhaps, one day, someone will spell my name properly. K-E-N-double S-O-N, as in Ken's son. Dead easy.), I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN.
It looked like a veiled threat to me - he talked about 'no significant government retribution' but went on immediately to talk about the consumer backlash against France, apparently condoning it. The subtext is that 'this could happen to Mexico too.'
Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
... although not to spell. I'd suggest that evading difficult questions about your position tends to suggest you have no real answers to them.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism.
What, the countries of the UN - an organisation set up "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" - should be trying to, um, avoid a war? A war massively unpopular in this country, more so in continental Europe, and still more so in most of the countries nearby which would be affected by any escalation? Somehow an organisation upholding its charter is obstructionist?
The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful.
Um, also that 80% of the French people are oppsed to a war, and that he feels he cannot conscionably support a war at this time.
Perhaps there is no way to stop this war. But we can at least make it uncomfortable for the leaders and remind them that, in a democracy, it's the people that lead. If it doesn't prevent this war, then perhaps it will prevent future ones.
Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant.
Blahdeblahde rhetoric. Breaking news: terrorism won't go away once Saddam Hussein is removed. You seem to be saying we should attack now, while it's easy to win, rather than wait for a reason. Or autumn, whichever comes first.
You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
I don't owe anything to the armed forces of my country unless they're defending it. If the voice of the people can be totally ignored on an issue as important as this - 52% of Americans (CBS survey, as reported in Le Monde) favour giving UNSCOM more time - then we ought to be fighting for democracy in our countries rather than abroad.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[/i]
You people look for a magic end to terrorism. To you its like either it ends all world suffering and terrorism or it isnt worth it. Afghanistan is a step in the right direction. Iraq will be another step.
Regardless of rather Iraq supports Al Qu'eda ( which he probably does) he supports terrorism we know that for a fact. This is a war on terror, all terrorism even your beloved hamas.
Chirac can vote no but if he knows the war will happen anyway he doesnt need to stand in our way. There will not be boycotts against Mexico but france will get hit hard. France has a 22% favorable rating in the US, boycotting them into a recession will not be hard.
This wont prevent any wars what your doing by protecting a tyrant is destroying the security council, because you can bet we wont go there for North Korea.
You may call it rhetoric but its true every day you delay the inevitable the more you put your troops at risk.
If I was a member of your army I would probably kick your ass for your in gratitude for soldiers risking thier life for you.
Also that same poll that you quote says 58 % of Americans are sick of the UN. And that 52% is down from 60% last week.
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 22:28, 11th Mar 2003:[i]
I personally could not care what happens to bin laden, mullah omar, or Saddam. I hope and pray saddam takes the exile option to avoid war. I dont care about revenge I care about eliminating the threat these people pose, thats what matters in the end. We didnt carpet bomb Afghanistan, but what we did there took away the safe harbor for the terrorists, now we are going to take out a potential weapons supplier of theirs. Thats what matters, not revenge on evil doers.
And so bombing Afghanistan made the world a safer place? I suspect the victims of the Bali bombing would disagree with you. And Kenya. Would somebody just give me one piece of evidence that even suggests that Saddam Hussein, who has been struggling for many years to get weapons, would simply give them away to terrorist organisations he doesn't control? The CIA has more concrete links with al-Qa'eda than Iraq does.
Also to Kenneson (sic - perhaps, one day, someone will spell my name properly. K-E-N-double S-O-N, as in Ken's son. Dead easy.), I wouldnt call that a threat about the thing of mexico, The one about the bugging the UN was interesting, but even if its true thats how to play the game, if the UN doesnt like it they can move the UN.
It looked like a veiled threat to me - he talked about 'no significant government retribution' but went on immediately to talk about the consumer backlash against France, apparently condoning it. The subtext is that 'this could happen to Mexico too.'
Also thank you on complimenting me on how I answered the question. Im working under a congressman right now and have learned how to speak politcally, when needed.
... although not to spell. I'd suggest that evading difficult questions about your position tends to suggest you have no real answers to them.
Also since it takes me two days to post, Im going to give a quick rant. In the beginning I said going the way of the UN is fine because Blair needs the support. But im starting to get pissed off at all this obstructionism.
What, the countries of the UN - an organisation set up "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" - should be trying to, um, avoid a war? A war massively unpopular in this country, more so in continental Europe, and still more so in most of the countries nearby which would be affected by any escalation? Somehow an organisation upholding its charter is obstructionist?
The war will happen no matter what. Chirac knows this why must he try to hinder us, he knows he won't be successful.
Um, also that 80% of the French people are oppsed to a war, and that he feels he cannot conscionably support a war at this time.
Perhaps there is no way to stop this war. But we can at least make it uncomfortable for the leaders and remind them that, in a democracy, it's the people that lead. If it doesn't prevent this war, then perhaps it will prevent future ones.
Everyday we wait, is a day that our bravest citizens (UK and US) risk a terrorist attack, everyday we wait is a day saddam fortifies his position, everyday we wait is a day where it gets hotter and hotter, the hotter it gets the more our troops will have to deal with heat exhaustion from the suits they have to wear, which will cause more deaths, and everyday we wait is another day Iraqis suffer under a cruel tyrant.
Blahdeblahde rhetoric. Breaking news: terrorism won't go away once Saddam Hussein is removed. You seem to be saying we should attack now, while it's easy to win, rather than wait for a reason. Or autumn, whichever comes first.
You people cant stop the war theres no chance of it so just support your prime minister until this is over, you owe it to the armed forces of your own country to do so.
I don't owe anything to the armed forces of my country unless they're defending it. If the voice of the people can be totally ignored on an issue as important as this - 52% of Americans (CBS survey, as reported in Le Monde) favour giving UNSCOM more time - then we ought to be fighting for democracy in our countries rather than abroad.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[/i]
You people look for a magic end to terrorism. To you its like either it ends all world suffering and terrorism or it isnt worth it. Afghanistan is a step in the right direction. Iraq will be another step.
Regardless of rather Iraq supports Al Qu'eda ( which he probably does) he supports terrorism we know that for a fact. This is a war on terror, all terrorism even your beloved hamas.
Chirac can vote no but if he knows the war will happen anyway he doesnt need to stand in our way. There will not be boycotts against Mexico but france will get hit hard. France has a 22% favorable rating in the US, boycotting them into a recession will not be hard.
This wont prevent any wars what your doing by protecting a tyrant is destroying the security council, because you can bet we wont go there for North Korea.
You may call it rhetoric but its true every day you delay the inevitable the more you put your troops at risk.
If I was a member of your army I would probably kick your ass for your in gratitude for soldiers risking thier life for you.
Also that same poll that you quote says 58 % of Americans are sick of the UN. And that 52% is down from 60% last week.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:49 pm
[s]harmless loony wrote on 10:55, 12th Mar 2003:
there is no proven link between saddam and al qaeda. History shows that bin laden and saddam dont get on - so why would saddam feel inclined to give his enemy weapons? trying to make a link between them is just trying to make the situation sound worse then it is. If bombing afghanistan made the world a better place - why is there very little support for the women and children of afghanistan?? Incidents of male and female rape have risen rapidly - somethings which the Taliban were able to keep in check.
Let me point out unlike your European friends i will not dodge the question by correcting your grammar or spelling.
Your greatest leader Winston Churchhill (or was Thatcher your greatest?) once said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend
" History has shown enemies working together for a common goal over time. I wouldnt be surprised if Husayn would give or sell weapons to UBL. In fact Bin Laden has called for muslims to support the infadel Saddam.
But even if its true that Al Qu'eda and Saddam dont get along. Saddam still supports terrorists, we know this that should be enough.
Perhaps we should give Afghanistan more money, but actually I think that should fall more on countries in Europe who wont be involved in this liberation of Iraq, they have more money to spare.
Rape is on the rise? Give me a fucking break because now thier laws are looser where you dont get your head lopped off for rape thats proof afghanistan is failing. So if rape is on the rise, public executions, mass graves, and over all descrimination against women are on a very steady downfall.
there is no proven link between saddam and al qaeda. History shows that bin laden and saddam dont get on - so why would saddam feel inclined to give his enemy weapons? trying to make a link between them is just trying to make the situation sound worse then it is. If bombing afghanistan made the world a better place - why is there very little support for the women and children of afghanistan?? Incidents of male and female rape have risen rapidly - somethings which the Taliban were able to keep in check.
Let me point out unlike your European friends i will not dodge the question by correcting your grammar or spelling.
Your greatest leader Winston Churchhill (or was Thatcher your greatest?) once said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend
" History has shown enemies working together for a common goal over time. I wouldnt be surprised if Husayn would give or sell weapons to UBL. In fact Bin Laden has called for muslims to support the infadel Saddam.
But even if its true that Al Qu'eda and Saddam dont get along. Saddam still supports terrorists, we know this that should be enough.
Perhaps we should give Afghanistan more money, but actually I think that should fall more on countries in Europe who wont be involved in this liberation of Iraq, they have more money to spare.
Rape is on the rise? Give me a fucking break because now thier laws are looser where you dont get your head lopped off for rape thats proof afghanistan is failing. So if rape is on the rise, public executions, mass graves, and over all descrimination against women are on a very steady downfall.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:51 pm
"The Weapons Issue: The US is a major weapons manufacturer therefore the US Needs to test newly developed weapons, which is done so whenever there is a war. Remember all the video footage of the desert storm operation back in the early 90´s… We could even see the bombs view while it descended to its target… Amazing wasn´t it ? How does the US Sell their weapons? Thorough its main media channels, being CNN its main weapon of mass manipulation and also the way they sell their main ideas as well as how they want the world to perceive that are in benefit to US interests."
Actually CNN is not the major news network in the ratings Fox gets double the ratings. But to alledge that that CNN is controlled by the government is a pretty heavy charge. Ted Turner, founder of CNN (whose ex wife is our favorite traitor, Jane Fonda) hates replublicans, christians, and Bush.
"Oil. Of course… Good old oil… Being a major potential world oil supplier the US foresees all the dollars it can provide to its economy once they control it. It seems irresistible no?"
The oil charge is an ignorant one. The oil is out there right now through black market sources. Unless your saying we are going to war to take over the oil fields, if so why didnt we do it in 91?
"The Middle East. The US sees also Iraq as a potential menace to Israel. Most of the mentors that dominate and manipulate US politics are all pro – Israel… Conclusion: Stuff the Arabs which seem to be only a burden on their way. This is rather sad… but true. Otherwise, the unfair Israel-Palestine situation would have been solved ages ago."
We have a congressman who thinks like you, along with Pat Buchanon( a former Reagan official, ex presidential canidate who believes the Haulocaust never happened), and proud leader of the National Association for the Advancement of WHITE People (formally KKK) David Duke. Typical antisemitism.
"The United Nation is an organization that should be respected, as well as the ideas of other member states…. How childish it is to see some people on CNN making fun of the French, pouring french wine down the drain… It is amazing that when some government opposes a “great, vital and fantastic US-generated idea – such as: Lets Bomb Iraq” we get all these childish revenge that seems more like the reaction of a spoiled kid not getting his ice cream... Come on… The world deserves to have their own opinion about the way the world is evolving:"
I broke this one in half. Everyone has the right to decent. France has the right to vote no. But when an ally blocks your every move just to get in the way, I wouldnt call them an ally.
"Free speech….It makes me laugh when US refers itself as the free world!!! How come such a free world have death penalties? Is this a free world? Big Brother type of governments and systems only raise frustrated citizens that freak out and shoot fellow colleagues at schools… It could be a free world only if everyone would have the “Good - Evil” type of mentality such as that of the “Brilliant” US president. "
The death penalty arguement was particularly ignorant. Im not for the death penalty but people who are not barbaric like the say Saddam. Believe me ask any inmate if he would rather be charged in America or Iraq, and I think you know the answer. The rest of that paragraph was babbling although believe me im no fan of big government.
"Solutions…. Well I think that the Middle East situation should have a clear deadline so that the Israeli situation and its neighbouring “occupied” territories could come to a fair agreement for all the parties involved."
Great just ask your arab pals to stop the terrorism. Sharon may have blood on his hands to but he doesn't initiate the conflicts. Arafat, Hamas, and the rest of the usual suspects do.
"I am of the opinion that if US decides to go to war with Iraq, going against the UN approval, the United Nations headquarters should move from New York to some other world Capital, where different opinions are respected and not rejected."
Agreed we dont want you guys there so why be there. The UN is nothing without the US, aragont sure but its true.
Actually CNN is not the major news network in the ratings Fox gets double the ratings. But to alledge that that CNN is controlled by the government is a pretty heavy charge. Ted Turner, founder of CNN (whose ex wife is our favorite traitor, Jane Fonda) hates replublicans, christians, and Bush.
"Oil. Of course… Good old oil… Being a major potential world oil supplier the US foresees all the dollars it can provide to its economy once they control it. It seems irresistible no?"
The oil charge is an ignorant one. The oil is out there right now through black market sources. Unless your saying we are going to war to take over the oil fields, if so why didnt we do it in 91?
"The Middle East. The US sees also Iraq as a potential menace to Israel. Most of the mentors that dominate and manipulate US politics are all pro – Israel… Conclusion: Stuff the Arabs which seem to be only a burden on their way. This is rather sad… but true. Otherwise, the unfair Israel-Palestine situation would have been solved ages ago."
We have a congressman who thinks like you, along with Pat Buchanon( a former Reagan official, ex presidential canidate who believes the Haulocaust never happened), and proud leader of the National Association for the Advancement of WHITE People (formally KKK) David Duke. Typical antisemitism.
"The United Nation is an organization that should be respected, as well as the ideas of other member states…. How childish it is to see some people on CNN making fun of the French, pouring french wine down the drain… It is amazing that when some government opposes a “great, vital and fantastic US-generated idea – such as: Lets Bomb Iraq” we get all these childish revenge that seems more like the reaction of a spoiled kid not getting his ice cream... Come on… The world deserves to have their own opinion about the way the world is evolving:"
I broke this one in half. Everyone has the right to decent. France has the right to vote no. But when an ally blocks your every move just to get in the way, I wouldnt call them an ally.
"Free speech….It makes me laugh when US refers itself as the free world!!! How come such a free world have death penalties? Is this a free world? Big Brother type of governments and systems only raise frustrated citizens that freak out and shoot fellow colleagues at schools… It could be a free world only if everyone would have the “Good - Evil” type of mentality such as that of the “Brilliant” US president. "
The death penalty arguement was particularly ignorant. Im not for the death penalty but people who are not barbaric like the say Saddam. Believe me ask any inmate if he would rather be charged in America or Iraq, and I think you know the answer. The rest of that paragraph was babbling although believe me im no fan of big government.
"Solutions…. Well I think that the Middle East situation should have a clear deadline so that the Israeli situation and its neighbouring “occupied” territories could come to a fair agreement for all the parties involved."
Great just ask your arab pals to stop the terrorism. Sharon may have blood on his hands to but he doesn't initiate the conflicts. Arafat, Hamas, and the rest of the usual suspects do.
"I am of the opinion that if US decides to go to war with Iraq, going against the UN approval, the United Nations headquarters should move from New York to some other world Capital, where different opinions are respected and not rejected."
Agreed we dont want you guys there so why be there. The UN is nothing without the US, aragont sure but its true.
-
Andy_Bayley
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests