Let's Talk Politics

[gekko]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iraq_15

The head of the U.N. nuclear agency will tell the Security Council on Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) has done a "quite satisfactory" job of cooperating with inspectors in some areas but that they need more time to complete their search.

"Their report card will be a `B' ? quite satisfactory," he said.

Later, seeking to qualify his comments, Gwozdecky said the "B" is only for responding to inspectors' questions and requests for information.

"We're not in the position of issuing grades ? that's for the Security Council to do," he said. "We just report the facts, and our goal is the disarmament of Iraq. They're not coming forward to help us. They're not bringing forward original documentation."

Give me a break here. A "B" grade? The powerless UN is afriad to say anything bad about Hussein. Are they forgetting that Iraq has barred inspectors from searching military bases? They can't search the most obvious location of the weapons! They can't get interviews with the scientists outside of Iraq, and we all know about Sadaam's torture, these guys will be killed if Sadaam thinks they squealed. Of course they won't talk. Give them US citizenship, then bring them back and they'll spill their guts. And then again, this "cooperation" includes all these chemical warheads they "forgot" were there, and they still won't say where the ton of VX gas, and numerous other unacounted-for biological agents are. That deserves a B? Closer to a D.

The White House dismissed the favorable assessment, but a senior U.S. official said the Bush administration was considering agreeing to let the inspections go on longer as a means of reassuring anxious European allies following a rift that broke out this week with France and Germany.

Welcome to Europe. When push comes to shove, Germany and France will jump on board. And you know the second the US has won the war France will jump in and try to get good oil prices.

Bush needs to push this in his State of the Union, action needs to be taken soon. Iraq has a decade of practice avoiding weapons detectors, you don't think they know how to hide their weapons? They've done it for years! It isn't the best time for a war with Iraq, considering the oil problem in Venezuela, but the more Bush waits, the more people are afriad to invest and it's hurting our economy. We have more than enough reasons to go to war with Iraq, just go already.

[ZebraRampage]

I just finished my World Cultures class and now you just reminded me of it. I'm sick of politics.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Heh, I don't see what the hesitation to attack Saddam is. Just because we had attacked him before and stopped half way, doesn't mean we should give him a break just because he "went silent" for a bit...

The government is lacking tact... and lots of it! We need to slip out deals to all who support us, stating that they'll get the best oil prices.

Wars aren't fun and games, they aren't little talent shows to flash your shiny toys and weaponry. What ever happened to strategy (and dear God, what of this "strategerie"?). The United States of America is THE powerhouse nation, no matter how hard politicians and little outsiders try to get around it.

I know, you're thinking I'm some patriotic fanboy who jumped off onto a tangent... so I'll get to the point:

Saddam is a threat. He was about 12 years ago, he is now, and he will be even larger of a threat in years to come if someone doesn't act now. Alliances like the UN are too large... it's why the United States has become static in growth, and why countries separate in the first place. Due to little disagreements for personal welfare, someone like Saddam is going to be permitted to be the next Adolph Hitler. And... Hitler didn't need "weapons of mass destruction" to do some damage. The threat is not the opponents weapons, but rather our self-caution.

As for the inspections, I find them completely unnecessary. *shrugs* I find it all quite ridiculous. We're just buying more time for Saddam while pushing positive messages through the press.

In World War II, the world's threat was Isolationism... and Japan saved us all by giving the States an eye-opener.

In World War III, it will be the UN. For all the good in the world, I hope Japan does something. Heheh, their oil prices are so high, I could see it happen.


Well, that be my opinion. May I only need to speak it once.

[Joeiss]

Comparing Hitler and Hussein is a joke. Please do not every make that comparison again.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Comparing Hitler and Hussein is a joke. Please do not every make that comparison again.
I guess you don't know how Hussein treats his people then? They are starving. Babies can't get milk, children barely have enough food to live the day. He bombs his own people and kills them, just because they are different from him. Hussein lives in a 100 room palace, while some of his people have no shelter. He's a cruel dictator that controls his entire country. That is reason enough to eradicate him from the face of the earth.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Comparing Hitler and Hussein is a joke. Please do not every make that comparison again.

Yea, i agree with this one, Umm, Saddam, is just....a dictator, who has a reputation of being a "terrorist" Hitler, began to wipe out an entire race of people without thinking twice.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Comparing Hitler and Hussein is a joke. Please do not every make that comparison again.

Oh, I'm sorry... I was completely wrong. Saddam has the potential to be worse than Hitler.

Of course, Saddam is nothing like Hitler as of now. But, was not Hitler also seen as a reliable leader before his large plans of racial extermination? Hitler was one of the most charismatic men of the world's history. Why, he was even a spokesperson for the Olympics, and the first voice on radio which extended past Earth's limits. Hitler's "goal" was quite noble in his mind.

What makes Saddam so different? Is it because he hasn't hurt you or anyone you know? Is it because you haven't read about him attempting to wipe out an entire race?

*shrugs* Well, let's see. Let all the world leave Saddam to his plans. Perhaps he won't turn out to be anything like Hitler. Maybe he's just performing his "experiments" not to test out the power of his weaponry, but rather to discover some peculiar cure to cancer!

Yea, i agree with this one, Umm, Saddam, is just....a dictator, who has a reputation of being a "terrorist" Hitler, began to wipe out an entire race of people without thinking twice.

Ooooh boy... "just a dictator". I suppose Hitler's start was that dramatically different. As well, I presume being highlighted as a "terrorist" isn't too bad as being highlighted as a "military and political genius".

It's not what Saddam has done. It's what Saddam can do. And... inspecting palaces isn't going to give anybody the heads up.


Personally, I believe the word "terrorist" has been far over-used by the press. Heh, they should try "alarmist" or "horrorist" *gasps*.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection

Ooooh boy... "just a dictator". I suppose Hitler's start was that dramatically different. As well, I presume being highlighted as a "terrorist" isn't too bad as being highlighted as a "military and political genius".

Hitler was elected by the German people.

I'm not trying to justify his cause, but the German people did democratically elect him into office.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Bond
Hitler was elected by the German people.

So was Sadaam ;) Well... technically at least :D

And attached, for Joeiss, British intelligence report on Sadaam's crimes against humanity.

[Kitana85]

I couldn't get my computer to read the dossier (I need to uninstall and reinstall Acrobat, but am unmotivated to do so), but at any rate, as all of you are trying to defend why Hussain is like Hitler, you are ALL using one phrase that emphasizes the vast differences between the two: you keep saying what inhumanities Hussain is doing to the PEOPLE OF HIS COUNTRY. Hitler did things to people NOT ONLY in his counrty, but to people all over Europe. He killed people in Africa, in other Europian and Asain nations, he killed people everywhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bond
Hitler was elected by the German people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, by his people, but not by those whom he was brutally murdering, and those whose lives he was otherwise destroying

Yes, I do believe we need to go to war. The UN is getting nothing done, aside from possibly giving Hussain more time, but we CANNOT act alone. We are the powerhouse, but we will fall if we have the ENTIRE world against us. I am for a just war, and though in some ways this idea seems like a crusade, there are few other options. I say few as I belive there must be some left, but it is a time to act.
However, as I said, we CANNOT afford to invade without other nations behind us. Bush seems war hungry, eager to fight, and that is not a safe state for the commander in chief to reside.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Kitana85

Yes, by his people, but not by those whom he was brutally murdering, and those whose lives he was otherwise destroying

I never said he was elected by whom he brutally murdered.

[Jason1]

Why dont we go to war blah blah blah...?

The answer to that question is simple...thousands of American lives will be lost. Is it really worth it? You guys wouldnt be saying ''oh just go to war allready!'' if you were being drafted or had to fight.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Kitana85
Hussain is doing to the PEOPLE OF HIS COUNTRY. Hitler did things to people NOT ONLY in his counrty, but to people all over Europe. He killed people in Africa, in other Europian and Asain nations, he killed people everywhere.

It's Hussein, with an "e." Anyway, what's your point with this? They're different? Or one is worse than the other?

we CANNOT act alone. We are the powerhouse, but we will fall if we have the ENTIRE world against us. I am for a just war, and though in some ways this idea seems like a crusade, there are few other options. I say few as I belive there must be some left, but it is a time to act.
However, as I said, we CANNOT afford to invade without other nations behind us. Bush seems war hungry, eager to fight, and that is not a safe state for the commander in chief to reside.

Of course we have the entire world against us. Until the day comes when Sadaam kills million of Americans, we will have people against us. Most people don't think Sadaam's a threat to Americans. I guess we're forgetting that there's more ways to spread chemical weapons than through warheads. All you need is a small bag, about the size of a lunchbag full of chemicals. Sneak it into the country, hit the water supply of a major city, and there will be millions dead. But I'd rather have some people not like the US than see the piles of bodies.

There are many reasons the other nations aren't behind us, other than they're pussies. Russia and China have been trading on the black market with Iraq. And when the war is over, we will probably figure out France is selling them stuff they shouldn't be. No one wants Sadaam in power, but no one has the balls to say so. By saying so they would become a target of Sadaam's, and perhaps lose some deals on oil.

Originally posted by Jason1
You guys wouldnt be saying ''oh just go to war allready!'' if you were being drafted or had to fight.

I am enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. I ship out August 11th, MOS 0300 Infantry option. Oh, and go to war already!

[Joeiss]

How long has Hussein been in power in Iraq? Hmm... Too long. And guess what? Hitler was only in power for what... 10 years? And he came so close to killing off the Jews, conquering Europe and conquering Russia. Hmm.... Saddam has killed his own people, and umm... Went to war with Kuwait, then got defeated by America... hmm... what else?

[Professor S]

The reason why Hussein hasn't killed millions so far isn't because he hasn't had the inclination, its because he hasn't had the opportunity. He already tried his hand at genocide by gassing the Kurds. Now should we wait until he kills millions before we finally come to the conclusion that he could very well be the next Hitler? Your logic is flawed to say the least...

Hussein attempted to kill his own son, gets sexual pleasure from torturing prisoners (according to his former mistresses), his heads of state retire and then "vanish", his own people took over the southern portion of Iraq after the Gulf war only to be crushed and then systematically murdered, he a flagrantly ignored U.N. resolutions on inspections for over 7 years and oh yeah, there's the whole genocide thing I mentioned earlier.

But no, you're right, there's no way he could be the next Hitler... :rolleyes:

Here's a little history lesson for you: After WWI the world forces decreed that Germany could not have a standing Army of over 80,000 troops. Once Hitler was voted Chancellor he began forming the SS, which was technically a "political" group even though they trained as soldiers. There numbers were over 1 million strong. The world knew about the SS, knew that they were really an army, but sat around and hoped nothing would come of it. Look what happened there. World apathy allowed millions to be killed. Maybe we should start taking out lessons from history, instead of constantly being forced to relive it.

I recommend all those who don't believe we should go to war should get their heads out of the sand or whatever other dark holes they have them stuck into.

As for thousands of Americans being killed in the war with Iraq, did you even pay attention to the first Gulf war?

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Here's a little history lesson for you: After WWI the world forces decreed that Germany could not have a standing Army of over 80,000 troops. Once Hitler was voted Chancellor he began forming the SS, which was technically a "political" group even though they trained as soldiers. There numbers were over 1 million strong. The world knew about the SS, knew that they were really an army, but sat around and hoped nothing would come of it. Look what happened there. World apathy allowed millions to be killed. Maybe we should start taking out lessons from history, instead of constantly being forced to relive it.



Actually, the SS wasn't a political party, it was a Police force put into place by hitler, to get rid of the original members of police " stormtroopers", anywho, the Nazi party itself was the political party you were speaking of.

please, and the world didn't sit around hoping nothing would happen, the allies had tried several times to appease hitler with Land, ( the Czech state for one) but he took there gifts, and then just kept taking more land, until eventually he invaded poland and well you know the rest

[Joeiss]

My original statement was made intending on what Saddam has done allready, not what he could do.


I see your point, but I still do not think that Saddamn is THAT big of a problem on the world scale.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by The Ibrox Fox
Actually, the SS wasn't a political party, it was a Police force put into place by hitler"

Who was the head of the Nazi party. Kind of splitting hairs there, aren't we? :D

please, and the world didn't sit around hoping nothing would happen, the allies had tried several times to appease hitler with Land, ( the Czech state for one) but he took there gifts, and then just kept taking more land, until eventually he invaded poland and well you know the rest

The Czech state wasn't the whole of Europe's to give in the first place. Thats like the U.S. having problems with North Korea, so we "give" them South Korea. Letting something happen does not a "gift" make. The whole of Europe, and yes the U.S., just let Germany take it and did nothing about it. They let the Germans annex Austria and did nothing about it. I consider this doing nothing. The world can't afford to do nothing again.

And Joeiss, Saddam is a huge problem on a world scale. Exactly who do you think funds terrorism? All the poor people who are recruited? Yeah, right. Iraq is a large, wealthy hostile state that controls much of the world's oil and will not hesitate to attack us conventionally or with guerilla/terrorist tactics once the get the opportunity. Sitting around and waiting for it to happen is silly.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
The whole of Europe, and yes the U.S., just let Germany take it and did nothing about it.

LOL. You think that the US cared what was happening in Europe at this time? Haha... Your a comedian.




And I just think that North Korea is a bigger problem right now.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Joeiss
My original statement was made intending on what Saddam has done allready, not what he could do.


I see your point, but I still do not think that Saddamn is THAT big of a problem on the world scale.



And as for my original post...


Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
Due to little disagreements for personal welfare, someone like Saddam is going to be permitted to be the next Adolph Hitler. And... Hitler didn't need "weapons of mass destruction" to do some damage. The threat is not the opponents weapons, but rather our self-caution.


Take note that what I said was not in past-tense. That is, I never claimed that Saddam's actions were equal to that of Hitler's. Instead, I claimed that his potential could lead him to be equal or greater of a threat.



As for that little statement:

Originally posted by Jason1
Why dont we go to war blah blah blah...?

The answer to that question is simple...thousands of American lives will be lost. Is it really worth it? You guys wouldnt be saying ''oh just go to war allready!'' if you were being drafted or had to fight.

Hah... that's just the "self-caution" that would end up costing more lives than necessary! People who think that way are people who act after multiple warnings. What, must Saddam hit home to you personally before you feel he should be dealt with?

American lives is a small price to pay to get rid of a global threat. And yes, he does indeed have the potential to become a global threat.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Joeiss
And I just think that North Korea is a bigger problem right now.

Why? North Korea is just mad that they were part of the axis of evil and aren't getting any publicity. If we cut off aid to North Korea, the country is done for. Iraq on the other hand, still has oil.

Korea is doing is for blackmail. They're already trying for a peaceful solution to this.

Korea: We want more aid
US: Good for you
Korea: We're making nukes!
US: So?
Korea: We'll stop if you help us, pretty please?
US: Will you shut up?
Korea: Yes
US: Fine

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Joeiss
LOL. You think that the US cared what was happening in Europe at this time? Haha... Your a comedian.

Ok, I know you read what I wrote before you quoted it, but I'm not sure you're completely literate. The point of my post was the WE DIDN'T CARE. Europe didn't care either. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. We let Germany become a global threat.

When Germany marched over the Lorrain, he knew quite well that he could not support a full invasion of France at the time. he gave his officers strict instructions that if they were to face ANY resistance to turn around and leave. They received NONE.

Europe and the U.S. let Germany become a global threat and therefore we all have a part in the millions of lives that were lost. If we let it happen again, there will be no excuse. A great man once said "Evil is doing nothing in the face of need." We may walk down old roads if we do not respond.

[Joeiss]

No, you misunderstood me. US was not involved at all with European interests at this time. Yet, you said that US let Germany become a global threat... But no... They didn't really let them, because they weren't even like... I don't know how to say it... Umm....


Lets just put it like this. Britain let Germany become a global threat, not America.


Oh.... And on a modern subject, I was just wondering what will happen with France and Germany. Since they are both against military force against Iraq, what do you think US will do about them? Do you think that US will say that since Iraq was supporting terrorists, and that France and Germany was not with US, that they are with the terrorists? I mean... You know how Bush said "You are either with us or against us"... Will America attack Germany and France?!?!?!?


Sorry, these are just my random thoughts. I haven't put too much thought in them.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Joeiss
No, you misunderstood me. US was not involved at all with European interests at this time. Yet, you said that US let Germany become a global threat... But no... They didn't really let them, because they weren't even like... I don't know how to say it... Umm....


Lets just put it like this. Britain let Germany become a global threat, not America.

It's just more of the same old "We weren't involved, so we can't take the blame" talk. By doing nothing, and by having no relations with Europe; by practicing isolationism, America did, too, "let it happen".

I could easily go around and say "Africa let it happen too"... but that wouldn't seem right for only one reason. Africa didn't have the ability to do anything about Germany.


*shrugs* Korea is like a child with a new toy. Their threat could result in one of many outcomes... and I doubt that one of the outcomes would be bombing their supplies. Maybe Korea will bomb one of our allies... that'd start up mass cooperation/retaliation.

But, I feel that if all attention is put on Korea, and Saddam is ignored... then Saddam will have the free time to plan what he so desires to.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
But, I feel that if all attention is put on Korea, and Saddam is ignored... then Saddam will have the free time to plan what he so desires to.

Saddam has had since 1997 "to plan what he so desires to."

[gekko]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Saddam has had since 1997 "to plan what he so desires to."

So let's give him another decade, that's real smart :rolleyes:

[Joeiss]

I did not mean it like that. I just wanted to inform Rndm Perfection that Saddam could have planned stuff allready.

[Professor S]

Joeiss, who is to say he HASN'T? Should we just wait until he does poison our water or gas us? By your logic we'll have to live though another 911 before you'll feel comfortable about acting on anything.

[Joeiss]

Strangler... I have not once said in this post that I do not want America to go to war with Saddam. Saddam is a problem, I just do not think he is the biggest.

[Professor S]

NJorth Korea is not stupid. They just want more aid. Its a card game and they're playing their hand as best they can. Meanwhile Hussein is a few cards short of a deck. I wouldn't put anything beyond him, even if he knows it will be self-destructive.

[Cyrax9]

Hitler NOT Like Saddam? That's incorrect if you ask me.

When Hitler came to power in Nazi Germany, he was "just a Dictator" he was a speaker, and elected by the German People. It was only after he began racial extermination that people REALIZED he was a threat. It was only after Japan gave us in the USA a Wake-Up calll that we were NOT immortal, and that we had become complacent!

Hitler moved into other coutnires and started mass-genocide the way he had already done in Germany, had the US not been attacked on 12/07/42 we'd all be under Opressive rule right now.

What happened after WW2? The USA, over time, became Complacent again. We iugnored MAJOR Terrorist threats and look what happened, Osama Bin Laden killed 1000's destroyed the Twin Towers, and tried to wipe out the Whitehouse!

Saddam is "Just a Dictator"?

A man who was 'Just a Dictator" was elected to Nazi germany, he became more than "Justa Dictator"< he becmae a fanatic, a Genocidal, racist fool who killed millions in many countires.

If we leave Saddam alone long enough, he'll have gased mre than the Kurds, he'll attack the USA again and other countires, and we could get into WW3 because of him!

He needs to be removed from power, BEFORE he can achive the type of Genocide that Hitler achived, he's not there yet, but he's definitley close, and if we leave him alone and treat him a s'Just a Dictator", we'll find ourselves on the verge of Mass-Genocide, just like we did in the 1940's.

What's that saying about ontlearning form history... Oh YEAH! THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FORM HISTORY, ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT, TIME AND AGAIN.

My Point: Remove Saddam from Power, before he LAUNCHES any Nukes and Chemical weapons he has, BEFORE he becomes as bad as, or worrse than hitler was in 1942.

We can NOT become complacent again, look where it got us, Pearl harbor, 9/11, it's because we were too complacent. We felt immortal, and now we're relaizng we AREN'T again and THAT is what hurts as and helps us at the same time.

If you want to avoid another World War, Saddam needs to go, North Korea needs to go afterwards or crumble the way Russia did.

Once we can get UN support, maybe FULL PROOF of Saddam's WMD's, and sedn it to the UN we'll ahve it.

The UK Supports us, but Russia and Germany don't, if we go in with only UK Support, maybe the Russians and Germans will follow, maybe they won't.

Keep in mind Russia has NO MONEY, ffer them a US Greenback and they'll join us, Germany may be harder to convice, but they MUST be in ful support of an attack on Iraq and it MUST be soon, or we WILL face problems of mass genocide.

Just becasue Saddam isn't broadcasting threats through the UN the way North Korea is, doesn't mean he's not a threat.

In fact, Bin Laden has stated he'd back Saddam and vice-versa, what if North Korea Joins them? Is THAT enough fo a threat to warrant an attack?

MY point is this, we may have to have the world hate us until 2004, becasue if we don't do anything about Saddam, who will?

There was a famous quote, I can't remerb how it goes, but it was based on the people who did nothing during WW2 until it was too late, Pika knows it by heart, he should post it.

What if Saddam gets a few people into the USA? What if he slips them something WORSE than Anthrax to send through the mail? What then? Do we sit around and say "We're working on it?", I think not!

I belive supportis needed, but we may only need the UK on our side to start, once we go in with ICBM's exploding in Saddam's face, France and germany will follow.

Do you think the average German Citizen is AGAINST war with Iraq? Of course not! They hate their leaders as much as we hate ours.

Bush has a policy in place "YOu gas us, we Nuke you!" I think that's a good idea, Saddam Gases us, we Nuke him, support r no support, it would show we're willing to win any war with him.

As for what to do with Saddam if we catch him? Don't kill him, exile him, and leave him out of the rest of the world.

If Saddam is left a s"Just a Dictaor' he will become more than such, he won't just gas Kurds, he'll gas US citizens, then UK Citizens then German and French and the rest of the world.

I beg you not to become complacent again, after 9/11 we should be goign after Saddam,e specially if we belive he may be harboring Bin Laden!

Gekko is right, we may have to look like fools before we can say "I told ya so!" to the rest fo the world.

As for not comparing Saddam to Hitler, look at how Hitler gradually started his mass-genocide campiegn, it started in germany, than it moved to the rest of the world, look at Sadddam's Campaign, he'll kill anyone who doesn't kiss is ass. Look at who he's killeed so far. It's the MINOIRTY in his country! Who did Hitler Kill first? The Jews, the Minority!

This is no differnt than WW2, the names have changed, that's it! Saddam is ggoing to be just as bad, if not worse, than Hilter if he gains more power, and we can't allow thatto hapen.

Who would want a textboook that reads "Just as with Pearl-Harbor showing the USA they needed to enter WW2 when they did, an attack from Saddam Hussein had shown the USA they needed to enter a third world war before peace could be achive."

I wouldn't want that in our textbooks or any others. Saddam may be "Just a dictator" right now, but leave him alone and he will be the worst enemy the USA and the rets of the world has faced.

North Korea is just being stupid right now, they'll get theirs if we go to war as well, and everybody knows that, but right now Saddam has been in power FAR too long, and he's going to only get worse until we say it's time to remove him, the USA may not be able to declare war, but this doesn't ahve to be offical, there is no OFFICAL war on Terrorism, there is aa "War on terrorism" in the sense that we are going to fight it with Bombs and guns, but not in the sense of a formal declaration.

Whatever we have to do to stop Saddam is what is nessecary, the Draft will help, and if we go to war with North Korea they'll probably follow Saddam.

Right now North Korea has only started to show defiance, but Saddam has done it for years, it's time ot remove him form pwoer, I'm with Gekko on this one, Saddam has to go before the world does

[gekko]

Originally posted by Cyrax9
Gekko is right, we may have to look like fools before we can say "I told ya so!" to the rest fo the world.

It's not that as much as we'll never get to say "I told you so." Anyone who denies that Sadaam is a threat is being completely ignorant, the¥ just don't want to do something about it. Ignorence is bliss. Stay out of things, and it'll all be fine.

The records are there. We know Sadaam's history, and we know he has weapons now. As Powell said, we have 15 countries with us, however, there are still those who oppose. There are some people like that, who don't think anything is worth war. Why can't a chemical warhead ever land on the anti-war protests?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he will fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

Now, the problem with attacking Iraq is tha we will never know what would have come. Those who understand Sadaam Hussein know that it's probably a good thing. But those Anti-Americans that oppose the war will always be there saying the war was for oil, and to finish Daddy's job. Idiots. Either way, I'd rather have to listen to some damn liberals bitch than see the destruction that would come from Sadaam.

Blix:

"The (Iraqi weapons report) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Doesn't that bring happy thoughts.

[Professor S]

So citing that Blix has stated that weapons are unnaccounted for and Iraq has been extremely uncoorperative, exactly what evidence do we need to find?

People are looking at this wrong. Iraq had sanctions and terms of surrender placed ON THEM, which they have blatantly ignored for years. Its Iraq's responsibility to prove their innocence, not ours to prove their guilt. They are guilty and have been since they violated their terms of surrender, we just do not know exactly to what extent.

[gekko]

I like Oliver North's view of Germany and France. The Axis of Irrelevance :)

Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance

January 23, 2003

Washington, D.C. - On January 28, the President will deliver the 2003 State of the Union address, the day after Hans Blix delivers the "Interim Report" of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to the Security Council. On Wednesday, Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair will sit down to map out "next steps" for dealing with Iraq. By Friday, every pundit with an inkwell and pollster with a telephone will be taking pot shots at the President.

Last year, the snipers in the "punditocracy" decided that the President's description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" during his State of the Union remarks gave them enough ammunition for a turkey shoot. In retrospect, "axis of evil" seems to be an understatement.

Since then, North Korea has admitted to an illegal nuclear weapons program, withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and demonstrated the efficacy of totalitarian rule by ordering a million starving people to march around in the cold waving signs vowing to "smash U.S. nuclear maniacs." Iran has stepped up its support for the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah terrorist organizations, promised more rockets for them to fire at Israel from Syrian-occupied Lebanon and announced plans to test long-range missiles. And Iraq's Saddam Hussein has delivered a false declaration about his weapons of mass destruction to the UN, openly defied and deceived UNMOVIC inspectors, hidden chemical warheads and refused access to Iraqi scientists working on these weapons.

So what's President Bush to do for an encore when he addresses Congress and the nation this year? How about a new axis - the Axis of Irrelevance? And the nominees are:

France. During the last century, hundreds of thousands of American boys died in two World Wars freeing Frenchmen from invaders. The French re-paid us in 1986 by refusing over-flight rights for attacking Libya's terrorist bases. And last week this pathetic, third-rate power, with a government that has allegedly taken cash from Saddam Hussein, repaid us again. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proclaimed in New York that France would not allow a UN vote for war against Iraq, "while we can still improve the path of cooperation." In words reminiscent of Marshal Petain, Villepin added that France would oppose "victory for the law of the strongest." President Bush wants a line in the sand. France wants sand in our eyes and a Maginot Line.

Germany. "Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions," German foreign minister Joschka Fischer declared last week. Now, the nation whose companies have done the most to help Iraq re-start their biological and chemical weapons programs wants to delay even the "interim" UNMOVIC report, and has invited "all interested parties" to Berlin on February 5 for talks. The Schroeder government, which once likened President Bush to Adolf Hitler, would also like to have a second inspection "assessment" on February 14 - Valentine's Day - after which we can expect a Rodney King-like press conference urging all involved parties to hold hands and ask "can't we all just get along?"

The European Union. The EU, which desperately wants the world to take it seriously, announced last week that member states categorically reject war on Iraq without the backing of the UN and insisted that weapons inspectors needed "more time" to do their job. EU President Costas Simitis of Greece said that a war in Iraq would "harm peace and stability in the Middle East." As if there was either.

The United Nations. In his September 12 address to the United Nations last year, President Bush challenged the UN to "serve the purpose of its founding," or face the prospect of irrelevance. Too late.

Last week, Libya, a state-sponsor of terror, whose civil liberties abuses are described by Human Rights Watch as "appalling," was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission - a 53-member body that also includes Sudan and Algeria. Only the United States, Canada and Guatemala opposed Libya's election. The seven European members of the commission abstained from casting ballots. After the vote, Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji chortled, "I don't think any country is free of human rights violations." That should soothe the grieving survivors of the 270 civilians who died in the Libyan-sponsored 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

And, as if to validate the UN place of honor in the Axis of Irrelevancy, Hans Blix described last week's discovery of a dozen undeclared and illicit, 122-millimeter chemical warheads hidden outside Baghdad as "not something that's so important." After four more warheads were "found," Mr. Blix (the word means "Blind" in Urdu) confidently reassured the world that, "The Iraqis claimed it was an oversight, and they are looking for more of them." Odds makers should take bets that O.J. Simpson will find the "real" killer before Saddam unearths the hidden components of his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing."

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by gekko but taken from:
Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance
Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing."


Wooh... thank you for posting that. Heh, I liked the comedic touch to the whole report. And, best of all, that last bit reaaally ties into this debate we've been having.

[gekko]

Someone grab me my gun, I got my hit list! :mad:

More stupid Anti-American bastards decided to publish their list of names going against President Bush. Stupid bastards are also supporting the draft dodgers :mad: Here's an idea, let's not kill Sadaam, let's kill these ****ers first :mad:

Just saw the poor dumb bastard running the show on the O'Reilly Factor. Runs again at 11PM EST on Fox News, fairly early on in the show. Argh... watch the show, then give these dumb ****s a piece of your mind :mad:

NION :minigun:

:usa:

[The Duggler]

Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance
Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing." Oh and it was a real act of honnor to bomb civilians twice with nukes after a military base was attacked.

[Joeiss]

Not only military places were bombed at Pearl Harbor. There were also some civilian targets that the Japanese hit. This is why you didn't see USA being charged with War Crimes, because once Japan did it to USA, it was an open playing field.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Ranzid
Oh and it was a real act of honnor to bomb civilians twice with nukes after a military base was attacked.

Shut up, go back to Canada you damn communist.

:sneaky:

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Strangler... I have not once said in this post that I do not want America to go to war with Saddam. Saddam is a problem, I just do not think he is the biggest.

I wonder what happened to the War in Afghanistan. It suddenly dissapeared of our TV screens, infact it was never much on the news after the initial months.

There is more that meets the eye.

[gekko]

Hmm... let's see. The US defeaed the Taliban, and the al Qaeda members ran into Pakistan and are hiding. Now Afghanistan has a new government in place, and we're just around for mostly humanitarian crap. Not something to put in the news, just someone for the damn liberals to ramble on about.

You know, the war with Germany isn't on TV either. Oh ya, we helped establish new governments, and now the country can operate just fine on its own.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by gekko
Hmm... let's see. The US defeaed the Taliban, and the al Qaeda members ran into Pakistan and are hiding. Now Afghanistan has a new government in place, and we're just around for mostly humanitarian crap. Not something to put in the news, just someone for the damn liberals to ramble on about.

You know, the war with Germany isn't on TV either. Oh ya, we helped establish new governments, and now the country can operate just fine on its own.

You forgot to mention one thing, Guerilla warfare, Afghans aren't that soft a group to allow Americans to roam about, just look at the history of the country. Read the news about what really is happening there, and not just the censored news you listen to.

:rolleyes:

Even in the Jang newspaper [Pakistani newspaper] which is normally censored to a large extent carried many reports of what is really happening in Afghanistan. But it's funny, these reports never tend to be reported out here.

[gekko]

Oh no, there's still armed people in Afghanistan. Please, cry me a river.

The US fought against the Taliban, the Afghan government. They took them out of power, and they established a new government. Afghanistan has guerillas, oh no, whoopie! Welcome to the middle east!

Pakistan covers Afghanistan news, I never would've guessed. I mean, they're only right next to each other, and terrorists must get their news. I mean, what would bin Laden do without his trusty Jang? He would feel so out of touch.

Guess what? News on Pakistan's economy and crime doesn't make it over here either. You know why? IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE REGION! But I guess it's asking too much to expect you, of all people, to understand that.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by gekko
Oh no, there's still armed people in Afghanistan. Please, cry me a river.

The US fought against the Taliban, the Afghan government. They took them out of power, and they established a new government. Afghanistan has guerillas, oh no, whoopie! Welcome to the middle east!

Pakistan covers Afghanistan news, I never would've guessed. I mean, they're only right next to each other, and terrorists must get their news. I mean, what would bin Laden do without his trusty Jang? He would feel so out of touch.

Guess what? News on Pakistan's economy and crime doesn't make it over here either. You know why? IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE REGION! But I guess it's asking too much to expect you, of all people, to understand that.


Poor Soul, Another victim of American propaganda.

Please read up on the issues, and if you dont believe in them, up to you.

[The Duggler]

Originally posted by gekko
Shut up, go back to Canada you damn communist.

:sneaky:

hehe

capitalism all the way huh?

North American lifestyle is certainly not an example of living for the rest of the planet. If the entire world population would be living like we are doing here in north america, it would take 5 planet earth to supply us. Yes we might be better than some others, but we are far from perfect, and we should try to fix our own problems before solving everybody else's problems.

[gekko]

You know what the problem is? You're a complete idiot, reading news from Pakistan, now running your little terrorist cell from Europe.

Do the world a favor, shut up.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by gekko
You know what the problem is? You're a complete idiot, reading news from Pakistan, now running your little terrorist cell from Europe.

Do the world a favor, shut up.

Calm down...

You're getting completely off-topic and turning a debate into a "My display of the various reasons why many hate the 'average American citizen', parade".


To utilize the timeline:

First, Ranzid gave naive, but appropriate opinion. Then, Joeiss returned with a reasonable reply using a bit of facts and some opinion. Buuut, then came Gekko with his off-topic outburst toward an opposing opinion.

Come on now, debates are supposed to get heated, but all respect and validity seem to be lost when one steps over that line.


But, to give my own replies:

1)
Originally posted by Ranzid
Oh and it was a real act of honnor to bomb civilians twice with nukes after a military base was attacked.

Joiess' response was quite true, but I originally was thinking of... the irrelivance. It's not like the statement I highlighted was claiming that any act of war is honorable. Rather, it was showing how; before Hitler was "too big of a threat"; Europe chose not to act upon the actions of the Nazis immediately, and therefor received a dishonorable aura surrounding their nations for a period of time in exchange.

The United States too, however, chose the dishonor of remaining in isolationism. That is, until they were bombed and ol' Roosevelt dropped the bomb in retaliation. Did he think about it? I'd assume so... Why, the threat was immediate. No longer could the States hide from the rest of the world... and he felt they had to act fast.

I think the decision could have been better... but I can't blame the President; it got the job done. Civilians died, women and children too... but not much more happened afterward. While it was not an honorable choice (he definatley wouldn't be a candidate of mine for a medale), I would not see it as a dishonorable act.


2)
Originally posted by Almansurah
I wonder what happened to the War in Afghanistan. It suddenly dissapeared of our TV screens, infact it was never much on the news after the initial months.

There is more that meets the eye.


Y'know... I was wondering the same thing. According to what us Americans saw, we just went over, blasted a few rocks and "accidently" a few Canadians, and then all was over and Taliban was crushed under the iron fist of justice. Bah, it couldn't have been that easy. I can't tell why the media is spilling too many plans over the radio waves at one moment... and not willing to share the rest at another.

The media goes crazy with this new "War". It's not just a "war on terrorism"... no, it's a true war this time. I guess it just produces higher ratings than what really happened over in the land of Afghan. *scratches his head* And why, oh why are they reporting such information as the weaponry we plan on using, the location of assumed hidden Iraqi armory, and the alleged attack coordination. I've read up and heard the term "Freedom of the Press" time and time again, but this is a wee bit much.

Then, on the contrary, very little information is given about what happened in the past. Heh, I never thought it'd happen, but the name "bin Laden" has vanished from American Broadcast. I dunno, maybe to find the truth, one must order Al-Jazeera (or the many other translated names of it).


and

You forgot to mention one thing, Guerilla warfare, Afghans aren't that soft a group to allow Americans to roam about, just look at the history of the country. Read the news about what really is happening there, and not just the censored news you listen to.

:rolleyes:

Even in the Jang newspaper [Pakistani newspaper] which is normally censored to a large extent carried many reports of what is really happening in Afghanistan. But it's funny, these reports never tend to be reported out here.


Yes... there's already plenty negative thoughts toward American military and politics. Whether or not the States "saved" Afghanistan from the Taliban, I'm sure less than half (and yes, I'm being generous in my assumptions) would want an American militant anywhere near his or her home over in the Middle-East. More reason why I want more than just the Yuppies over at CNN... I want real news that I can "use"!


3) And finally... I know, this is a long post O_o.

Originally posted by Ranzid
North American lifestyle is certainly not an example of living for the rest of the planet. If the entire world population would be living like we are doing here in north america, it would take 5 planet earth to supply us. Yes we might be better than some others, but we are far from perfect, and we should try to fix our own problems before solving everybody else's problems.

If everyone in the world was taking up as much space and raw materials as the average Northern American? Yeah, I can see how Earth would be depleted before Pee Wee Herman could think up an original word of the day ("G-rated", that is). "AAaaaaah"

Anywho, if the population of the world STARTED in North America... expanded, and kept the "culture" (or lack-thereof) of Northern American lifestyle, then I think Earth could handle us. First off, technology would be spitting out plenty of new ways to handle resources. The only problem, of course, would be seeing the technology put to use (take, for example, the "fabled" Electric Car). However, I believe that the world population would be small enough to live a comfortable life in the world; families comprised mostly of the annoyingly "cozy" 2.5 children.

Buuut, that's not the case, so let's not dream about it. Equally, the world does not live like North America, so let's not worry about it.


OK, if you had noticed, I underlined my favorite little part in that statement. The old "Me before you" idealism. Personally, I think that's how the world's cogs should turn. "Let the working man earn his pay," I say. But, y'see, it's that attitude that gets so many negative... anti-American attitudes. Because there are many "unfortunate" humans out there born into poor families in Third World Countries, it is a natural act to assume help from those more fortunate.

My basic instinct is to say "Go find a job..." but it's not that easy.


Meh, since I have nowhere else to go with this thought, I'll end this post here. Beware though... if you catch my attention with a comment, I might dare reply again! *gasps*


AFTER EDIT:
Oh, I just needed to add this last bit in... food for thought, y'know.

"He has poisoned our water for ever. Nixon will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man ****ting in his own nest, but he also **** in our nest and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory as a brand. By disgracing and degrading the presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream..."

Kinda irrelivant... but I just liked it.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
Buuut, then came Gekko with his off-topic outburst toward an opposing opinion.Want to explain how it was off-topic? Wait, don't bother, it wasn't. Of all things, inappropriate, not called for, etc., it was hardly off-topic. I choose to "speak" about him, rather than ban him.

The WWII thing was not dishonorable, be careful how you use that word. The United States, and even Europe were not wrong in their decision to wait things out. Looking back on it, it may have been a bad decision. But looking back on it, we know of everything that Nazi Germany did. At that time, they had no clue, they couldn't see the future. They didn't want war, and Germany wasn't this big superpower who was killing off entire races of people and trying to take over the world. And we weren't alive back then, we don't know what it was like. It may have turned out to be the wrong decision, but it wasn't dishonorable.

Just don't make the same mistake twice.

And on Afghanistan, they kinda handed over Kabul. It wasn't a long, drawn-out war. This wasn't WWII, and a lot of our attacks were done from the air. And recently, not much has happened. Battle happened very recently, one happened last spring, and there hasn't been too much for a while now. You guys are expecting 24/7 coverage from the front lines.

The media goes crazy with this new "War". It's not just a "war on terrorism"... no, it's a true war this time. I guess it just produces higher ratings than what really happened over in the land of Afghan.We have troops in Afghanistan, if anything breaks out, they fight, its over. A war with Iraq currently has 92,000 troops deployed, and is currently a huge issue in the US, and it's having a major effect on the economy. Major issue, with new information coming regularely, versus Afghanistan war which has small battles happening, nothing really ground breaking, just doing the dirty work. Which do you think Americans want to hear?

And why, oh why are they reporting such information as the weaponry we plan on using, the location of assumed hidden Iraqi armory, and the alleged attack coordination.Because the media is too ****ing stupid to realize that lives are comprimised by their ****ing ratings.

"Freedom of the Press"That's relating to publishing what you want, of course, there are some restrictions. I think part of the blame should be put on our government for revealing this information to the greedy journalists. Unless that is, they're feeding them lies like they have before. I find that funny :)

but the name "bin Laden" has vanished from American Broadcast.The man has vanished too. Hope he dies in that cave.

I dunno, maybe to find the truth, one must order Al-Jazeera (or the many other translated names of it).Al-Jazeera? Truth? ROFLMGDMFAO! :lol: Good one.

Yes... there's already plenty negative thoughts toward American military and politics.You're right, we need more pro-America movements.

Whether or not the States "saved" Afghanistan from the TalibanNo man (or woman may be more appropriate) in their right mind would want to live under Taliban rule. Then again, look how many over there are brainwashed.

[Professor S]

Almansurah, you constantly talk about the "real" news that all of us poor Americans never get to see because it is constantly filtered through the propaganda that is the American media. Yeah... RIGHT. Have you ever listened to the American media? Do you realize that if any major outlet was to find out about attrocities committed in Afghanistan OUR media would be the first to report it. Why? It equals ratings and we have the right of free speech, unlike most of the countries that you are so quick to defend. You speak out against America without realizing that if you were to reverse your opinions and put yourself in Iraq, you would most likely be DEAD now. Yes, America truly is the great satan. :rolleyes:

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please enlighten us with the "truth".

As for the crack about dropping 2 nuclear weapons against Japan... DAMN STRAIGHT. A ground war against Japan would have cost us far toom much in the way of American blood, we warned Japan and even showed them what would happen if they didn't surrender, they didn't and we dropped the bomb.

The fact that we had to drop another bomb more than justifies that action in my mind. And Ranzid, I alsoi notice you failed to mention the Japanese torture camps during the war where hundreds of American soldeirs were uthlessly killed. But I wouldn't expect you to, its not in your character.

[gekko]

Damn, someone give this guy a medal!

Strangler for President! :usa:

[The Duggler]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
Buuut, that's not the case, so let's not dream about it. Equally, the world does not live like North America, so let's not worry about it.
But isn't that what you want? Look, if a country is communist, or doesn't want to do things YOUR way then you won't do business with it or you will try to convert it to capitalism.

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
First off, technology would be spitting out plenty of new ways to handle resources Why aren't we doing it now? You see, our way of living don't give a **** about ressources, it's all about money. We'll do something allright but that's when there will be no more ressources. And then you can use all the technology you want to handle it, but if there is none to handle then we're ****ed.

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
Because there are many "unfortunate" humans out there born into poor families in Third World Countries, it is a natural act to assume help from those more fortunate.
And what do we do with them? We exploit them as cheap labor and say that we are helping them by giving them jobs.


And The Stangler, I won't start arguing with you for "who has done the worst to whom" because it will never end. But here's a few things that Americans should be proud of:

Source: www.bowlingforcolumbine.com

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".

September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

[Joeiss]

Is that all true?

[Professor S]

Ranzid, the fact that you would quote Michal Moore as legitimate mews says it all. He is the next coming of Leni Reifenstahl. He pushes one libera view without ever attemping to show an alternative view or extenuating circumstances withour making sure he has the last word through commentary or creative editing. He has an agenda and makes sure that his agenda is completed no matter what information or opinions he conveniently omits from his propoganda. Its called yellow journalism and its very obvious.

The facts you mentioned may be true in his eyes, but don't think that they tell the whole story.

[The Duggler]

The facts you mentioned may be true in his eyes, but don't think that they tell the whole story

The same could be said for everything you said about Iraq and the other US oppenents in this thread, don't you think?

[Joeiss]

Oh, Miacheal Moore... That guy is funny.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by gekko
You know what the problem is? You're a complete idiot, reading news from Pakistan, now running your little terrorist cell from Europe.

Do the world a favor, shut up.

When I stated I read the Pakistani newspapers, that was when I visited there, and the news I saw there was very different from the news I saw here in UK. It never stated that everything was peaceful as it seems to you, and if you think it's gonna be all peaceful in Afghanistan, then you're very wrong, research the history of Afghanistan, and you will find out what kind of people they are. The news was far from complete, infact it was only dedicated a minute little space in the newspaper [around the back pages] to try prevent people from seeing it, but at the end the truth always comes out anyways.......

Rndm_Perfection, thanks for your reply. You made good points.

Then, on the contrary, very little information is given about what happened in the past. Heh, I never thought it'd happen, but the name "bin Laden" has vanished from American Broadcast. I dunno, maybe to find the truth, one must order Al-Jazeera (or the many other translated names of it).

lol. First the aim was to find Bin Laden, and 'smoke him out of his cave', but then it was stated it doesn't matter even if the leadership isn't caught. Quite a strange turn of events.

And on Afghanistan, they kinda handed over Kabul. It wasn't a long, drawn-out war. This wasn't WWII, and a lot of our attacks were done from the air. And recently, not much has happened. Battle happened very recently, one happened last spring, and there hasn't been too much for a while now. You guys are expecting 24/7 coverage from the front lines.

Yes they handed over Kabul, and the other areas. The Soviets also had quick control over the whole of Afghanistan, i.e. occupied it fully, but look at what happened to them. And yes, you're right a lot of attacks were done from the air, but you're wrong about one thing, that nothing is happening, a guerilla war is going on, with hit and run tactics, read up on reliable news.

The Russians are keenly following the America progress in Afghanistan, and well they're finding that more or less, Americans are doing the same or worse as the Russians were during their initial years of the invasion.

Originally posted by The Strangler
Almansurah, you constantly talk about the "real" news that all of us poor Americans never get to see because it is constantly filtered through the propaganda that is the American media. Yeah... RIGHT. Have you ever listened to the American media? Do you realize that if any major outlet was to find out about attrocities committed in Afghanistan OUR media would be the first to report it. Why? It equals ratings and we have the right of free speech, unlike most of the countries that you are so quick to defend. You speak out against America without realizing that if you were to reverse your opinions and put yourself in Iraq, you would most likely be DEAD now. Yes, America truly is the great satan. :rolleyes:

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please enlighten us with the "truth".



Yes, I do listen to the American media.

Down here in UK, we get to watch Fox News, CNN, and sometimes NBC. And there's also CNBC available.

Yeh Yeh about free speech, that is just a joke. If only the world cares about free speech that much. There is so much propaganda on your news stations, and even on many news stations, I could just keep on listing it.

[Professor S]

Well lets see... CNN leans to the left, MSNBC is basically liberal, and Fox leans to the right. Oh yes, propoganda abounds. Please try and make valid points and back them up with facts and example.

Just saying our news is all propoganda doesn't do much to prove your case. Using Pakistani news and the like does even less. Why not try the Daily Babel in Iraq ( I LOVE the play on words with that name). I mean its only run by Saddam's kid, so it must be true.

Calling free speech a joke? LOL!! Your logic skills, or lack there of, continue to astound me. Do you even realize that you are using your rights to free speech right now? Do you realize that in other countries you would be put to death for merely mentioning a dissenting opinion? The contradictions between your actions and rhetoric are mind boggling. Free speec a joke? No.

You are the joke.

[Joeiss]

After September 11th, I remember reading in the paper that a couple writers in America got fired because of some negative things that they said about America in the newspapers a couple days after the attacks. I know this is a little example, but when times get rough, some of us have to watch what we say, unless we want to get fired.

[gekko]

Free speech doesn't mean you can write whatever you want, for whatever you want. If you're from Pakistan and thinks the US is the cause of all evil in this world, you can freely say that in the US. If you're Iraq and say Saddam is a fool, you will be killed.

In a job, you are restricted in what you can say. You think a journalist can just say what he wants? Think again, the reputation of the entire company is not going to be lost because someone chooses to go anti-America. He has rules to follow, if he breaks them, he gets fired. That has nothing to do with free speech. No one is stopping them from starting their own newspaper and writing whatever they want.

[ZebraRampage]

You people are so funny sometimes. This debate is so crazy.

[Joeiss]

OK gekko.


And did you guys see the briefing today? There was some combat in Afganistan. No US soldiers died, and they captured a Taliban guy too.

[gekko]

That was actually yesterday :p

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Joeiss
OK gekko.


And did you guys see the briefing today? There was some combat in Afganistan. No US soldiers died, and they captured a Taliban guy too.

So are you saying that report was propoganda or something? I'm not accusing you, I'm just not sure what you're getting at.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Joeiss
OK gekko.


And did you guys see the briefing today? There was some combat in Afganistan. No US soldiers died, and they captured a Taliban guy too.

That was mentioned, eh? *thinks* There truly must not be much going on there, if that's the best the media could dig up for ratings.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
So are you saying that report was propoganda or something? I'm not accusing you, I'm just not sure what you're getting at.


LOL. No man, I just thought that was new news, and you guys are talking about war and stuff, so I said it. LOL./



AND IT IS PROPOGANDA!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!









;)

[Professor S]

LOL! Ok, I just wanted to make sure. If that was propoganda, its the worst I've ever seen. I mean, at least the Daily Babel talks about "rivers of blood" and such. NOW THATS SOME GOOD PROPOGANDA!

[gekko]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
That was mentioned, eh? *thinks* There truly must not be much going on there, if that's the best the media could dig up for ratings.

It's the biggest battle since Operation Anaconda last spring.

[Almansurah]

Many things are happening in Afghanistan....things which dont get discussed openly in the media here.

Infact, there was a Black down which 'fell down' due to mechanical reasons stated on CNN on the 30th, a day before this, islamic news stated a helicopter was down....and this came out.

Its an amazing wonder how, after USA invaded Afghanistan, all of a sudden the rate of aircraft crashes due to reasons like weather conditions, or malfunctioining equipment, huan error, all of a sudden the rate has skyrocketed and gone high.

What happened? Did all the US Army engineers and maintenance crews go on vacation or what?

[gekko]

Originally posted by Almansurah
What happened? Did all the US Army engineers and maintenance crews go on vacation or what?

The beauty of unintelligence.

To continue out Iraq topic. Iraq now threatens to use suicide bombers in the US if we attack.

Iraq threatens U.S. with 'suicide attackers'

Iraqi vice president predicts 'a fire in the whole region'

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told a German newsmagazine published Saturday that Iraq is prepared to deploy "thousands of suicide attackers" against the United States if Iraq is bombed.

That report came one day after President Bush said a new United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing war would be welcome, but not necessary if Iraq fails to prove it has disarmed itself of weapons of mass destruction. He also said the issue needs to be solved in "weeks, not months."

In an interview published Saturday on the Web site of Der Spiegel, Ramadan was asked how long Iraq would be able "to fight the biggest military machine in the world."

"As long as it takes," he responded, "but why don't you ask the other side how long they will be able to endure. We will be happy when they start their air bombardments against our ground troops. They will meet hard resistance everywhere.

"We don't have long-distance missiles or many bombers, but we will deploy thousands of suicide attackers ... the martyrs," Ramadan said. "... Those are our new weapons and they will not only be deployed within Iraq.

"The Arab people will stand by the people of Iraq in the fight for its independence and freedom. This will be a fire in the whole region."

On Friday, Bush addressed the threat of attacks against the United States after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Bush said the attacks of September 11, 2001 showed that containment of terrorism was not an appropriate policy "because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us; that we're vulnerable to attack.

"And the worst form of attack could come through somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people [or] on our friends in Great Britain."

Bush said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will present evidence to the Security Council on Wednesday that the Iraqi regime has ties to al Qaeda.

"Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind," Bush said.

Before the meeting with Bush, Blair told CNN that he supported a second U.N. resolution before launching military action. Bush said he would agree if it would put additional pressure on Iraq.

"It would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we are intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

The Bush administration is debating how much intelligence from electronic intercepts the secretary of state should disclose Wednesday when he tries to convince the Security Council that Iraq is not complying with disarmament resolutions.

U.S. officials had said previously that Powell was to present such information. The debate centers on how to reveal enough information to make the U.S. case while still protecting methods and sources of intelligence.

Only a terrorist nation would threaten to use terrorism against another country. And we found the checks Iraq wrote to Suicide Bombers in Palestine.

Best way to get rid of our nuclear weapons? Use them on Iraq! :usa:

[Bond]

I'm kind of wondering why Mr. Almansurah lives in the UK, rather than other countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia that he seems so connected to. Maybe it has something to do with how they treat their citizens? Their form of government? Your rights in those countries? Just food for thought...

[gekko]

?Inside? details about Iraq

by Gordon Thomas
globe-intel.net

Saddam's senior bodyguard has fled from Iraq with details of Saddam's secret arsenal. His revelations come the day the UN inspectors report to the Security Council whether they have found a smoking gun that will trigger war. Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided a list of sites that so far the UN inspectors have not visited.

They include:

An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

A Scud assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western desert. These contain bio weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, described Mahmoud's information as "the smoking gun. Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam".

Tierney still has high level contacts in Washington that reach into the White House. He said that the information we publish today on Mahmoud's revelations "checks out, absolutely checks out".

Tierney believes it is "inevitable" that we will go to war. Globe-Intel has independently obtained documents smuggled out of Iraq which show he goes have weapons of mass destruction that have eluded discovery by UN inspectors.

The weapons include motorized underwater mines capable of creeping along the sea bed and then surfacing beneath a battleship or carrier. Each mine is filled with chemicals that upon explosion can envelop the ship in a deadly cloud of poison. The documents show that the mines and other weapons of mass destruction have been secretly developed at sites the UN inspectors have also not visited.

These are:

Al-Qaqa's State Establishment. Sixty miles south of Baghdad, it has produced what the documents describe as "self-detonating precise guided missiles". Near State Establishment. It is on the western side of the Baghdad-Mosul road. It has produced "artillery rounds and other machined metal parts" for the mines. The mines have been m achine-finished at Hateen State Establishment, to the north of Baghdad. In the past weeks, they have been moved to Basra - ready to be launched against the naval armada assembling in the Gulf.

One document reveals:

"The mines use a special camera to distinguish the target above it. The mines then stop under the target. Once in place they produce chemical materials which generates huge amounts of oxygen that guides the mine to the surface. When the amount of oxygen reaches a specific level, the pressure of the oxygen triggers the detonator which results in a tremendous explosion".

The documents reveal that test firings of the mine were carried out on Lake Tharthar on June 5 last year. The tests are described as "completely successful". Mahmoud's revelations have also enabled both George Bush and Tony Blair to take an even stronger stand against antiwar protesters when they meet in Washington this week.

Mahmoud was a member of the elitist unit charged with protecting Saddam. It is called the Murasiq Qun - the "Inner Circle". He was known as "The Gatekeeper". Mahmoud is the muscular Saddam lookalike who is always photographed standing either behind Saddam when he is seated - or to his left when on the move. He was trained to spot the slightest threat to Saddam. To deal with it, he had a throwing knife up his right sleeve.

"In any threat my first job was to throw myself over Saddam to protect his body and then use my knife", he has told his Mossad debriefers.

Now he's at the top of Saddam's kill list. But there is no way Saddam's own assassination unit - the Hamaya Khasa - can get to Mahmoud. He is now protected by a team of Israeli agents. For weeks he was in secret negotiation with a Mossad agent in Baghdad. With the promise he could not be charged with any crimes he committed on behalf of Saddam, and he would be given a new identity - including having his appearance changed by surgery - Mahmoud agreed to desert. Last week he was being debriefed in a high security base in Israel's Negev Desert.

Ariel Sharon, the country's hard-line prime minister has so far only allowed snippets of Mahmoud's sensational claims to be shared with the CIA and MI6. But a source close to Sharon says he wants to use the revelations when, as expected, he returns to power after the country's election (tomorrow, Monday). "Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement. He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering to let them know how Saddam has continued to fool Hans Blix and his inspectors", said the source.

Mahmoud's revelations include:

Locations of five bunkers buried beneath purposely made sand dunes.

Stockpiled in the bunkers are warheads identical to the empty shell cases found two weeks ago by the UN inspectors. Mahmoud has claimed those shells were on their way to be refilled and stored in the bunkers.

A portion of a transcript from his debriefing includes:

"Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. The complex was build five years ago with help from Chinese engineers.

"The actual entrance to the site is through a house in Tikrit. It is the home of one of Saddam's cousins. The entrance is over half a mile from where the weapons are stored". Mahmoud has also provided the first really detailed insights into how Saddam lives and is protected. Mahmoud says since the Gulf War there have been nine assassination attempts on Saddam. The most recent was in February last year.

(Let's not search houses :rolleyes: )

Mahmoud has described how he was selected. "I was on gate duty at one of Saddam's palaces. One night he arrived in a 10-car convoy. I checked all the vehicles and Saddam stepped out of one car and asked why I inspected them all and not just his. I told him I was not sure in which car he was travelling and that it was in his honour that I checked all the cars. He replied, 'from now on you will be at my side all the time'. He also doubled my salary".

Joining the "Inner Circle", Mahmoud found himself in a world far removed from the life of the starving population of Iraq. He received the finest food and had the best weapons. He had access to top level intelligence - so that he could help to plan Saddam's protection.

In another excerpt from his debriefing, Mahmoud boasts: "I was inside the innermost circle where Saddam eats and sleeps. I was among the handful of bodyguards closest to him". The bodyguard has given a rare glimpse of what life is like with Saddam.

"Very few people are allowed close to Saddam. Many of the TV images you see of him were taken years ago. Most people now only speak to him over the phone. He usually calls them. If they have to call him back with information he wants, it is passed through his sons, Quasy or Tariq Aziz.

"All those close to him have codes, which they use to access the outer circle. But even they can only come so close to Saddam before there is a cut-off point - the Inner Circle. Even Tariq Aziz is checked to see if he is carrying weapons. Saddam knows fortunes are being offered to have him assassinated", Mahmoud has revealed.

The most protected of all Saddam's palaces is the Qesser al-Quwwa Sitta'shar in Tikrit - close to his birthplace. Mahmoud has described how the palace has four main entrances - and has the latest Chinese-manufactured surveillance equipment.

"There are sensors and matchbox sized cameras everywhere. There are doors which can only be opened by placing your face on a key pad.

"The palace has a number of escape routes that are outside the palace walls. At each escape point there are cars. A car is always parked at each exit. No one knows what exit Saddam will use. On the way to one he can change his mind and go to another. I have know him change his mind several times over thirty feet.

"Saddam's own living quarters in the palace are a labyrinth of doors. To even enter the private sanctum requires having the separate codes to open four doors. On the reverse side of each door is a monitor which shows the Special Guard on duty who is entering".

Saddam's paranoia has increased after his son, Uday, narrowly escaped assassination. He is now wheelchair bound.

To avoid even his own bodyguards being tempted to kill him, Saddam himself is, according to Mahmoud, a walking arsenal. "He has concealed guns all over his body. He also has panic buttons to press if he even suspects somebody is about to attack him", the former bodyguard has said.

Israeli intelligence sources have hinted that part of the deal with Mahmoud was to smuggle out his family from Iraq. Mossad have done this before. At the start of Saddam's reign of terror they persuaded an Iraqi pilot to fly his Russian Mirage to Israel - after Mossad had spirited his wife and children there.

[manasecret]

Originally posted by gekko
?Inside? details about Iraq

by Gordon Thomas
globe-intel.net

...


Can we trust this source, gekko? Nothing about this has appeared on CNN.com or FoxNews.com.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Bond
I'm kind of wondering why Mr. Almansurah lives in the UK, rather than other countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia that he seems so connected to. Maybe it has something to do with how they treat their citizens? Their form of government? Your rights in those countries? Just food for thought...

The impression that I have is that if a nation is run by Islam or those who are Islamic, Almansurah will defend them no matter what their policies. Thats just my impression, though.

[The Duggler]

The Strangler just made me realize something. It's very obvious that I was standing against the US in this thread, but you have to understand that I'm in no way defending Islam or any other country (Irak) I'm neutral. I'm just against the way the US is trying to control (at least economically) the rest of the world.

[gekko]

Originally posted by manasecret
Can we trust this source, gekko? Nothing about this has appeared on CNN.com or FoxNews.com. It's appeared a couple places today.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Ranzid
The Strangler just made me realize something. It's very obvious that I was standing against the US in this thread, but you have to understand that I'm in no way defending Islam or any other country (Irak) I'm neutral. I'm just against the way the US is trying to control (at least economically) the rest of the world.

There is no problem with defending Islam as 99% of Muslims are most likely wonderful people, but defending horrific people and regimes merely because they are Islamic is flawed reasoning. This is what I believe is Almansurah's leaning.

[The Germanator]

well, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) gave a speech at my school today. He claimed he spent the most time with the president of any other senator, and I basically agreed with his stance on the war. He said that we need support from the rest of the world, otherwise the backlash will be more than we can handle. When we try to re-build the government of Iraq, we don't just want American soldiers there, we want Turkish soldiers, German soliders, etc. He also disagreed with the idea of a pre-emptive strike, as other countries may take advantage of a doctrine like that i.e India nuking Pakistan for what they think would be future harm)...I don't know much about politics, so I probably don't remember all of the important things he said, but he had some good things to say...And is there some big deal on Thursday? He said that some more evidence of Iraq hiding weapons was going to come out on Thursday, some taped phone messages or something...anyway, this probably doesn't even make sense, it was an assembly at 8:00 on Monday! It's hard to pay attention!

He also told an amusing anecdote about president Bush, apparently Bush didn't even know that Sweden had an army recently, despite them having the 2nd most powerful in Europe...He continued to argue that Bush wasn't untintelligent...just uninformed, which not many of us bought. ha...this isn't trying to diss Bush, just Biden's argument wasn't all that endearing.

[Bond]

And look what Sadaam Hussein has done against Muslims:

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) resulted in an estimated 1 million Muslim casualties, dead and wounded. Iranian casualties were estimated at between 450,000 and 730,00. Iraqi casualties were estimated at between 150,000 and 340,000.

During the 1988 Anfal campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iraqi troops were responsible for the death or disappearance of up to 100,000 Muslim Kurds.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi troops killed up to 5,000 and injured some 10,000 Muslim Kurds in a single day in a chemical weapon attack on the town of Halabja in northern Iraq.

The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait led to the death of some 1,000 Kuwaiti Muslim nationals.

605 prisoners of war remain unaccounted for since 1991, including nationals of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, India, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Bahrain, and Oman.

Between 3 and 4 million Muslim Iraqis have abandoned their homes and sought refuge outside of Iraq.

Many hundreds of thousands of Iraq's Muslims have been displaced internally. Estimates of 900,000 may be conservative. In the north, towns and villages were systematically destroyed by the regime during the war with Iran. Further south, non-Arabs in the region of Kirkuk have been relocated to other parts of the Iraq and Arabs induced to occupy their homes and lands. And in the south, between 300,000 and 500,000 Muslim citizens have been forced from their traditional homes in Iraq's marsh lands.

Thousands of Muslims have been arbitrarily arrested, ill-treated, tortured and executed in Iraq in recent years. Because of their suspected opposition political activities, or because they are relatives of people sought by the authorities.

Sources: US Committee for Refugees Report 2002


Also, if you were wondering of some of the forms of torture that Iraq uses, here you go:

Eye gouging

Piercing of hands with electric drill

Suspension from the ceiling

Electric shock

Sexual abuse
Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken bottles being forced into the victim's anus.

"Falaga"
Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often losing consciousness.

Other physical torture
Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common.

Mock executions

Acid baths

I would also like you to know that male inmates in the Iraqi jails are beaten daily, and women are also raped daily by their guards.

Source: Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London

Now maybe we all know why Almansurah lives in a Democratic country rather than one of the friendly and generous Islamic states.

And I still would like this question answered by Mr. Almansurah:

How does Islam address democracy, women's rights, and people's freedom to choose their own destiny?

[gekko]

Originally posted by The Germanator (D-DE)

Problem #1. Oh, thinking out loud, sorry :D

He claimed he spent the most time with the president of any other senator, and I basically agreed with his stance on the war.

Great claim, can he back it up? Probably not.

He said that we need support from the rest of the world, otherwise the backlash will be more than we can handle.

We have support, leave it to a Democrat to keep forgetting that everytime he opens his mouth.

When we try to re-build the government of Iraq, we don't just want American soldiers there, we want Turkish soldiers, German soliders, etc.

You mean, we do the fighting, then afterwards the cowards decide to come in with the hopes to benefit from this new country? If they don't help from now on, I say leave them out of it. Last thing I want to see is France getting an oil deal.

He also disagreed with the idea of a pre-emptive strike

Of course, he's a democrat. Unless they're covering their ass because they want to become President, they oppose the idea.

as other countries may take advantage of a doctrine like that i.e India nuking Pakistan for what they think would be future harm)Who said anything about nuking anyone? That's another political debate in itself.

I don't know much about politics, so I probably don't remember all of the important things he said

Don't worry, there was none. It was just a democratic anti-war speech, hoping to get some more people marching in the anti-war protests. By the way, many of those are actually set up by people sent here from Iraq. Agree or disagree, but don't march, it only hurts the country.

And is there some big deal on Thursday?

Wednesday I believe. Powell will adress the United Nations Security Council and show evidence against Iraq. Satellite photos, and tapes of officials saying "I can't believe they missed that," "don't tell them that," "move that," and other things showing them trying to hide from inspectors.

He continued to argue that Bush wasn't untintelligent...

... like Bill Clinton...

which not many of us bought.

He graduated from Yale, did he not?

[The Germanator]

Yeah, well I'm not going to argue anything because I'm uninformed (like Bush I guess. ;-) But, he wasn't all that anti-war. He didn't want to rush into to it too quickly I guess, but it's not like he was utterly opposed. Anyway, he may be a presidential candidate, so watch out.

[gekko]

Good for him. He has no power in the democratic party, he won't make it past the primary.

[Professor S]

Biden is actually pretty pro war with Iraq. I've heard a lot from him living near Delaware, but I think he's slowly moving down the party line.

As for a pre-emtive nuclear strike, well thats just silly. America does not want to open that Pandora's Box again like they did in WW2 that led to a 50 year cold war.

I am all for overthrowing Saddam, and we should soon. The fact that the world seems to trust Iraq over the US absolutely boggles my mind. Saddam is evil, and I do not use that term lightly. There is often a philisophical debate over wheher or not you would kill Hitler before he became a world threat. Well, now we have that chance, and the fact that much of the rest of the world can't see that is astounding.

[The Duggler]

The Strangler and Gekko, the 2 mega pro-americans of the boards. Geez guys you seem to know so much about everything, let me ask you, do you guys work for the FBI, CIA or at the white house or something? :rolleyes:

[Professor S]

No, I actually pay attention to history and try to learn from past mistakes. Its a good idea and I think you should look into it.

But then again you also believe we should keep a maniac in power of a country who beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. I don't even have to go into it anymore its been said so often on this forum.

Ranzid, could you please give me one reason that Saddam should be allowed to keep his office? I mean, God knows all the diplomatic solutions have been working so well...:rolleyes:

[The Duggler]

Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.

[manasecret]

Originally posted by gekko
It's appeared a couple places today.

Mind pointing out where? I still haven't seen it on CNN or FoxNews, and this seems like it would be huge news.

[Bad Religion]

Originally posted by Ranzid
Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.


Ranzid, I'm not pro-mega-american, but even I can see the sense in getting rid of this lunatic (Saddam). Do you really think that this nut building up deadly weapons is a safe thing for the world? If Saddam had nukes at his disposal, I truly believe he would not hesitate to use them on the US or any other of his percieved enemies. What makes you think he wouldn't? Wouldn't you call that a direct threat? The oil thing has been blown out of proportion, I think. Iraq is involved in only 5% of the worlds oil exports, nothing that impressive, and we are not on terms with then now. It seems you are more angry that there might be SOMETHING beneficial in it for the US. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual :cool:

[gekko]

Originally posted by Ranzid
The Strangler and Gekko, the 2 mega pro-americans of the boards. Geez guys you seem to know so much about everything, let me ask you, do you guys work for the FBI, CIA or at the white house or something? :rolleyes:

No, Department of Homeland Security ;) :usa:

Now, time for my speech:

We're all communicating through the internet, at one point referred to as the Information Superhighway. Everything you want to know is right at your fingertips, and searchable. You can quickly and easily find information on any topic. If you don't know about a subject, research it. It's that simple.

As for me, I watch a lot of news channels, which cover the current events every day. For the bigger issues, multiple shows usually bring on people and address the issues from multiple sides. As for Iraq, the Discovery Channel had a 3 hour special on it the other day. If you watch stuff like this, you tend to learn something. After months and years of watching news, you tend to be a little more informed than someone like, well... Ranzid.

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.

It's just so impossible for someone to do a good thing, isn't it? God forbid we learned a lesson from WWII and September 11th, and want to stop this threat now, before he attacks.

Your problem is that you hate Bush, and you're spewing your propaganda hoping that other people side with you. The thing is, you have no way to back up your claims, because you can't. You're completely uninformed on the subject, and it shows. You also hate Bush, and likely America, and that shows. You can be mega anti-American, but you just come off as a fool.

Mind pointing out where? I still haven't seen it on CNN or FoxNews, and this seems like it would be huge news.

It appeared in the Herald Sun, Aussie's best-selling newspaper. I doubt this author would risk his career by making up something like this. But feel free to doubt it, just wait and see if it plays out.

[Xantar]

Ranzid:

Let's set aside for the moment the fact that you don't really know why the Bush administration wants to go to war so much. Maybe it's the oil. Maybe it's because Bush wants to finish his daddy's job. Maybe he really does believe that this would be better for the world. The point is you aren't Bush. You're not even Condoleeza Rice. There's no way you can say with any kind of certainty that Bush is in it for the oil.

Of course, this also applies to the theory about Bush entering the war to do some good for the world. We don't know that's the real reason although I suspect that The Strangler, with all his Discovery Channel watching, might be able to put together a reasonable argument.

That's all beside the point. We don't know why the Bush administration wants to go to war. So what? Why should we care anyway? Maybe we should be worrying more about what going to war will do. If the world ends up being a better place once the war is over, does it really matter why Bush went to war with Iraq?

After all, Microsoft entered the videogame industry for the basest of reasons: make money and try to take over a lucrative industry. But they still got their two competitors hopping, slashing prices, putting out creative games and so on. I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch, but even I can appreciate the good things that have happened for the consumer (i.e. me) as a result.

[The Duggler]

Originally posted by gekko
It's just so impossible for someone to do a good thing, isn't it? God forbid we learned a lesson from WWII and September 11th, and want to stop this threat now, before he attacks.

What do you want him to do? Invade north america :rolleyes:

Lauch a nuke? He has none!

What else? Terrorism? I really don't think that attacking Iraq will diminish the threat of a terrorist attack on the US, I think it will increase it.


Originally posted by gekko
Your problem is that you hate Bush, and you're spewing your propaganda hoping that other people side with you.

Oh come on! We're only discussing here. Do you really think that I want to change the world on a discussion forum :rolleyes:

Originally posted by gekko
The thing is, you have no way to back up your claims, because you can't. You're completely uninformed on the subject, and it shows.
I may not know as much as you but I know what an ordinary person would know, and that is enough to have an opinion. We are not all freaks like you.

Originally posted by gekko
You also hate Bush, and likely America, and that shows. You can be mega anti-American, but you just come off as a fool. Ok man, stop dissing me, we get your point.

Originally posted by gekko
It appeared in the Herald Sun, Aussie's best-selling newspaper. I doubt this author would risk his career by making up something like this. But feel free to doubt it, just wait and see if it plays out.
And such important news wouldn't appear on CNN but it would over there... :rolleyes:

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Ranzid
Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

I think its a little out of column A and a lot out of column B. In either case, its a justifiable course of action.

So by your rationale, the US shouldn't attack Iraq if they are a threat? I think you just argued my point for me :D

And Ranzid, you drill people about not backing upo their opinions, what facts do you have to prove that Iraq DOESN'T have a Nuke. You strike me as naive in that case. Iraq ordered several tons of aluminum dust from North Korea and that has been documented. Aluminum dust is crucial in the development of Nuclear materials. Do your homework.

[Rndm_Perfection]

First off: Strangler, I respect your arguement, your tone, and your passion for this topic. You're giving the right facts and responses... If it was only you speaking for the pro-war, this thread would be over by now.



Originally posted by Ranzid
Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.

What you just claimed tries to exaggerate the American stereotype. Rather, though, your deep-seated bias has uncovered a certain Canadian stereotype. *shrugs* As much as I try to ignore the two, I can’t help but cringe when they are so blatantly displayed.

“What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.”

The old, “I’m going to be pissed at Americans because I believe they live only for themselves, while I’m over in an adjacent country that’s ABSOLUTELY PERFECT,” mindset. Of course, oil is a consideration, but by no means reason enough for war. The United States has Alaska, which remains vastly untapped. There are other various resources for oil.

And… try looking at the oil situation in relation to this… See, back when China was defeated by Japan, the country was split up into the “Spheres of Influence”. That is, China was partially under control by many other countries… similar to what might happen if Iraq where to take conquer the Middle East. After the war, the States requested that no commercial trade would be interfered with between China and other countries. Perhaps this doesn’t make much of an example, but realize that… despite the United States’ desire for maintaining economic health, its success does benefit the progress of the rest of the world. Dare you misinterpret…



“BTW I don't think they are suffering that much”

Aaagh, just because you don’t want to believe the US Government, you’ll toss all reason and empathy for other humans aside. <mode=”sarcasm”> I can’t imagine a single civilian in a Third-World Country is suffering enough under a tyrant’s sadistic iron fist to make a pure enough excuse to overthrow the corrupt dictator. Well… at least, that is… the people can’t be suffering that much! </mode>


The United States of America was under attack on September 11, 2001… as if you haven’t heard it enough. And, because this country (despite its size) could feel enough emotion for those that had lost their innocent kin, the United States retaliated against a known enemy in hopes of preventing more “hurt”. Personally, I can’t imagine another country having the boldness to actually launch an entire “War on Terrorism”. Really, large skirmishes against known terrorist cells should have started long ago.

Now, Iraq has been known to be a threat for a long time. Originally, Iraq tried invading the small Kuwait, but the States prevented that action for more reasons than just maintaining “oil trade”. It just happens to be that economic freedom of Kuwait was a large priority, and that the United States happened to benefit primarily in oil, above other products from the Mid-East. What, should we have let Kuwait to be conquered just because “oil” is not reason enough to intervene?

The United States of America is going to be doing the world a favor… again. The US of A has already given masses of aid to various country, heavily improved the world economy, and grants the ever-so-popular free commerce and civil rights that many foreigners flock to this country for.

Apparently, you’re not respecting the good of America enough. Because you can’t see a positive direct relation between the States and yourself, it’s easy to assume that the country isn’t performing well enough. Before you make another preemptive impression of this country’s actions… and the validity that they are not “arrogant” or “selfish”, try to imagine the world as it would be without the United States’ influence. Canada sure would be different…


And to wrap things up, it matters not the motivations of Bush, nor your feelings toward what you see as a greedy government. Rather, what matters are the outcomes of both options that America has. Act upon reasonable assumptions, or sit back and retaliate after tha damage has been done.

Perhaps, with Saddam, he'll only need one chance.

[The Duggler]

.... let me put that in a simple way

So you say, the US are right to attack Iraq because of some bad things they might have done or they will do. It's hard for me to believe what the US has to say about bad thing done by Irak, because of things like this: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil...s-iraq-lie.html

I guess this story is true and since you are so well educated, that you have all heard of it before, right? That's why I only posted the 1st link to come in my search, there is ton of other references.

And if it's right to attack for future threat, then, it's the begining of a huge war, after Iraq, who will it be? Korea? and on and on... you'll end up blowing half the planet, don't you think?

I will stand on my point that the primary interest in this war is the control of the middle east oil.

[gekko]

Yet again, Ranzid fails to back up any of his claims.

And your link doesn't work, not like it's a good one, but I'm interested to see what propaganda you found.

[The Duggler]

The original link (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html)

some more links (http://www.altavista.com/web/results?pg=q&text=yes&what=web&kl=XX&q=%2Blie+%2Bincubator+%2Biraq+%2Bwar&act=search)

[Professor S]

Oh, the incubator story, back from 1990.

Ok fine, I'll give you that one even though it does come from a public geocities web address (that just screams credibility). How then do you respond the Iraqi rape camps in Kuwait during the occupation, the claims by Saddam's own mistress that he gains sexual pleasure from torturing prisoners, his attempted assassination of his own son, his gassing of his own people, the "disappearances" of "retired" public officials, his threats to use terrorism on the US, the fact that the majority of Iraqi refugees living in the US WANT to depose Saddam Hussein and many have established organizations to that effect (source: 60 Minutes), the fact his own people took up arms against him after the Gulf war and took a large portion of Southern Iraq before being crushed and more resulting "dissappearances".

I have asked you to give me a good reason why Saddam should be tolerated, and you have failed to give one. Good for you.

[The Duggler]

I'm not trying to prove Irak's innocence, I'm just telling you that if the US was able to do such a thing 10 years ago, that it's hard for me to believe anything they say about Iraq now, is that so hard to understand? And if you doubt the story (with the hundreds of links I just posted) than it proves me that you only listen to what you want to listen.

How then do you respond the Iraqi rape camps in Kuwait during the occupation, the claims by Saddam's own mistress that he gains sexual pleasure from torturing prisoners, his attempted assassination of his own son, his gassing of his own people, the "disappearances" of "retired" public officials, his threats to use terrorism on the US Why then if all of this is true, that the US did a set up story like that?

[Professor S]

The story you quoted was from 1990. Not now. Check the dates.

Also, check any major news site now and see how you feel about the photos of mobile chemical and biological weapons facilities and recordings of Iraqi officials talking about removing evidence of "nerve agent".

And Iraq has still refused to provide any information on any of the chemical and biological agents that are STILL unaccounted for. Do you have any geocities websites that account for these "missing" items?

While you claim that I only hear what I want to hear, I contend that you are content to ignore any actual evidence of Iraq's weapons and bring up news thats 10 years old. You are going to be against the war no matter what evidence is found, because you will simply say that it was a "lie"and any information that you quote to back up your statements will be "fact". Hans Blix has repeatedly expressed his displeasure of Iraq's cooperation with the inspections and has even said that its "Five minutes to Midnight" for Iraq and is pleading with them to cooperate.

trying to measure what it will take to convince you that military action is needed in Iraq is irrelevant, because there is no amount of evidence that will sway your opinion.

Just do one thing for me, as I have asked repeatedly, and give me one good reason why a psychotic dictator like Saddam should remain in power, when even his own people who have escaped his country are the most adamant about his removal, and who is a direct threat to the US via supplying terrorist organizations with avenues to kill thousands if not tens of thousands. Just give me ONE GOOD REASON.

[The Duggler]

IT'S NOT YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!

[Professor S]

LOL!!!!!

Ahhhhhhh, I love it.

If your reasons for keeping Iraq in power are none of our business, then the US's reasons for removing him are none of yours.

NEXT

[The Duggler]

Look, we can argue as long as we want, we won't change our idea on the subject. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The US is going to attack we all know that, what the result will be? That's to see. But if you guys stop after Irak, I'll be right (because you will have oil control in that region) but if you continue on with all the other countries that poses a threat, than you will be right. So the countdown begins.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Ranzid
But if you guys stop after Irak, I'll be right (because you will have oil control in that region) but if you continue on with all the other countries that poses a threat, than you will be right.

You really are that naive.

[Professor S]

Once again, only about 20% of US oil comes from the Middle East. Now how much do you suppose comes from Iraq? NONE. ITS CALLED SANCTIONS. We have plenty of places to get oil, we don't need Iraq. Plus, right now the US is one of the cheaper countries to get oil. I'm in Canada now and the price of gas is outrageous, and its even worse in Europe.

So if you are going to continue arguing your points on this thread, at least try and keep them moderately researched and intelligent instead of just trying to convince everyone that the US is only in this for oil. Oil is the least of our concerns when it comes to Iraq.

And I notice you still haven't contended any of my points I illustrated earlier. What do you think about the evidence Powell displayed against Iraq? Do you think those trucks were delivering MILK?

[The Duggler]

Oil is the least of our concerns when it comes to Iraq Humm are you sure?

I researched a bit to get some information about where the US takes its oil, but I didn't find much, do you have some good link about that? I also looked for where the oil is mostly produced. I think that Iraq is 2nd behind Saudi Arabia. But I saw that on 1 site, so i'm not sure. But to say what I just quoted is a little bit exaggerated I think.

And I notice you still haven't contended any of my points I illustrated earlier. What do you think about the evidence Powell displayed against Iraq? Do you think those trucks were delivering MILK? I already told you what I think of what the US has to say about Iraq. The US credebility has taken a big hit with that incubator story of the early 90's. And why, if the US are able to film those mobile laboratories, that they can't guide the UN to them? As long as the UN hasn't confirmed those, I won't believe it.

Like I said earlier, we could argue as long as we can, it won't change our position on the subject, we have to wait and see. So the countdown continues.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Ranzid
Humm are you sure?

Hmm... have you ever taken a minute out of your anti-America BS post to think? If we wanted Iraq's oil, we would've taken it long ago.

I researched

Thank God. Can you do this for your other claims too? Oh, and avoid Geocities, its not any credible information.


The US credebility has taken a big hit with that incubator story of the early 90's.

No, you're trying your very hardest to find a reason why you can not believe the US so you can pretend your argument has some basis, which it doesn't. The US credability didn't fall, only in your mind. And coming from someone who believes Iraq and Geocities over the US, you're not one to talk on credability.

And why, if the US are able to film those mobile laboratories, that they can't guide the UN to them?

You want the US to try to follow a couple semitrucks all over the country which look exactly like the thousands of others traveling of the exact same roads? Please tell me you're joking.

As long as the UN hasn't confirmed those, I won't believe it.

Don't kid yourself, once they prove that you'll claim it's a lie and look for some other reason to go against the US. Hans Blix's report proved a lot of the US claims to be true, and yet you continue to say it's all a lie. Give me a break.

[gekko]

Hmm, ended up clicking edit on your post, instead of quote. Sorry. So it's gone, you can repost it, all your replies are quoted.

Originally posted by Ranzid
That's the right attitude right there man! Right on! He has something I want? I'll just go and get it! And then you will say that the US don't want to control the world :rolleyes:

Wow, you're an idiot. Guess we forgot Iraq already got their ass kicked. We didn't touch the oil. We must really want it :rolleyes:

Are you denying that story? If so than I will stop arguing with you as it's obvious now that you are a bigot.

No, I'm saying you're an idiot and don't understand the story.

If they look exactly like the thousands of others, then tell me, how they were able to tell they were hiding laboratories eh?

Did it look like the pictures showed the trucks on the road? Have you even seen the pictures, or did you just listen to Iraq's response?

Just like you are doing in the opposite wayOh ya, I'm the one running around saying Iraq is innocent and there people are happy and free, as the US and Britain is providing EVIDENCE proving what they are doing.

[Professor S]

The fact is that you have used one 10 year old story which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current situation to try and make people ignore the mountain of evidence against Saddam, which i will not quote as I have quoted it numerous times and you have barely acknowledged. And you still refuse to answer ANY of my questions and continually ignore points that are made against you that you can't defend like they were never stated, which I find astounding.

Its hard to see when you keep a blindfold on, bud.

Your argument is less than weak. Its pathetic.

[The Duggler]

Originally posted by gekko
Hmm, ended up clicking edit on your post, instead of quote. Sorry. So it's gone, you can repost it, all your replies are quoted. Stop playing with my posts

Wow, you're an idiot. Guess we forgot Iraq already got their ass kicked. We didn't touch the oil. We must really want it :rolleyes: Well guess what? Hussein is still there, guess you haven't quite finished the job then.

No, I'm saying you're an idiot and don't understand the story. Definitively a bigot

Did it look like the pictures showed the trucks on the road? Have you even seen the pictures, or did you just listen to Iraq's response? Ok so the states took those pictures before the UN arrived on site, so the trucks are not there anymore and there is no way of knowing where they are. Well thats a bummer, looks like your spy sattelite is not that effective afterall.

Originally posted by The Strangler
The fact is that you have used one 10 year old story which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current situation to try and make people ignore the mountain of evidence against Saddam, which i will not quote as I have quoted it numerous times and you have barely acknowledged. Absolutly nothing to do with the current situation? Yhea and Rocky 2 has nothing to do with Rocky 1 :rolleyes: And that story is the reason why I doubt the mountain of evidence against Saddam.

And you still refuse to answer ANY of my questions and continually ignore points that are made against you that you can't defend like they were never stated, which I find astounding Which are?

[Professor S]

Which are??? Are you kidding me? Try reading the thread. You're hopeless.