G
Guest
Guest
Just want to know how much guy here support the war (perhaps we should made a poll! heh...heh...heh)
I said: NOOO!!!!!!!!
I said: NOOO!!!!!!!!
J
jimmyjay86
Guest
This American says no. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that Saddam is out to destroy America and take over the world I'm totally against it. If we started war with every nation that had weapons of mass destruction, had a crazy leader, funded terrorists, and hated what America stands for then we would be busy for a long, long time. Hell, we'd be bombing Washington DC.
S
SoNR
Guest
of course not!!!!!!and the us just wanna attack iraq for the oil and other riches of the country....if they need to attack they can rather use a SEAL team or sumthin and assasinate important ppl like Saddam and the supposed nuclear experts he has in the country
G
Guest
Guest
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-03 AT 02:51PM (GMT)]This Norwegian says: Hell Yeah
If we wait 5years and he got nukes then what ? He ( Saddam) will be all that harder to stop...
And I would sincerely voulenteer to fight for Nato and or USA if this was not for Spec Ops only...
hmmm... why did my posted message count go down to 1 ?!
If we wait 5years and he got nukes then what ? He ( Saddam) will be all that harder to stop...
And I would sincerely voulenteer to fight for Nato and or USA if this was not for Spec Ops only...
hmmm... why did my posted message count go down to 1 ?!
J
jimmyjay86
Guest
I'm not saying he shouldn't be demilitarized. We don't have to go to war with him to take all his toys away.
welsh
Junkmaster
I can't make up my mind on this-
On the down side, I don't like the US preempting a war. Even if that asshole has weapons of mass destruction, has invaded two countries, etc. Franky that bastard ain't worth the human life, and I don' like the idea of civilian casualties. I also get the idea that this might be seen (whether correctly or not) as the beginning of a new form of imperialism. It's one thing for the French to maintain an imperialistic policy in Africa, but for the US to go invading people that we don't like? Ok, so why not- the US invaded Grenada and Panama because it wanted to.
On the otherhand, if we do invade and remove this guy.
(1) he's an asshole
(2) he's got to have one of the worst human rights records out there.
(3) Better keep him out of weapons of mass destruction.
(4) how bad would it be if the US removed a dictator and set up a democracy in the Persian Gulf. Think about it, an islamic middle eastern state with a democracy (not counting Turkey).
(5) if not now, then when? Because he's been a consistent pain in the ass anyway.
(6) WOuld this possibly break the back of OPEC?
If we don't do anything, than we have more sanctions, which means more suffering for the Iraqi's while Saddam utilizes his oil profits to either keep himself in power. To be honest the sanctions aren't working and the longer they go on the harder they are to sustain.
I can understand why we didn't remove him in 12 years ago, so I am wondering if this isn't just unfinished business.
What would be curious is, once the invasion takes place, how many "Made in France," and "Made in Germany" labels we are likely to on Iraqi weapons.
On the down side, I don't like the US preempting a war. Even if that asshole has weapons of mass destruction, has invaded two countries, etc. Franky that bastard ain't worth the human life, and I don' like the idea of civilian casualties. I also get the idea that this might be seen (whether correctly or not) as the beginning of a new form of imperialism. It's one thing for the French to maintain an imperialistic policy in Africa, but for the US to go invading people that we don't like? Ok, so why not- the US invaded Grenada and Panama because it wanted to.
On the otherhand, if we do invade and remove this guy.
(1) he's an asshole
(2) he's got to have one of the worst human rights records out there.
(3) Better keep him out of weapons of mass destruction.
(4) how bad would it be if the US removed a dictator and set up a democracy in the Persian Gulf. Think about it, an islamic middle eastern state with a democracy (not counting Turkey).
(5) if not now, then when? Because he's been a consistent pain in the ass anyway.
(6) WOuld this possibly break the back of OPEC?
If we don't do anything, than we have more sanctions, which means more suffering for the Iraqi's while Saddam utilizes his oil profits to either keep himself in power. To be honest the sanctions aren't working and the longer they go on the harder they are to sustain.
I can understand why we didn't remove him in 12 years ago, so I am wondering if this isn't just unfinished business.
What would be curious is, once the invasion takes place, how many "Made in France," and "Made in Germany" labels we are likely to on Iraqi weapons.
Ugly John
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
This Cannuck says Yes
UJ
UJ
G
Guest
Guest
Personally, I don't care about any of the moral issues or whatever, I just don't want to pay for the war. At a minimum, the war will cost us about $60 billion. Already Bush has pushed the dollar below the Euro and has made us look bad. If this war promises to drop oil prices for us and boost the economy, I say go ahead with it. Hussein isn't exactly a nice guy and quite frankly we could do without him and his regime.
Hussein isn't as crazy as Kim Jong II and his bad hair perm. If North Korea does have WMD, Jong does have the brains to use it to his political advantage other than being the kid with the biggest stick on the playground. Hussein on the other hand is a master of political craft. The last thing we want is for Hussein to have any kind of upper hand. Already he's been playing with the weapons inspectors and the USA by leading them to those empty chemical weapon shells in order to buy more time, while at the same time making himself look good by having no chemicals actually in the shells.
While there is no smoking gun, there isn't a body either. Iraq hasn't shown what ever did happen to the WMD weapons it did possess at one time. Why do we know they have/had them? We gave them to Iraq and so did many other western nations. I'm guessing Hussein hasn't revealed any of them because he probably fears that we'll (probably correctly) attack using the excuse that he was holding out on us and must be disarmed because of what he might've done. Hell, he might just need them if we attack.
As for France and Germany not wanting war, France at least has one ulterior motive: their massive investments in Iraqi oil and refineries. France doesn't want to lose its investments and oil it receives from Iraq, so they are fighting war. I'm not so sure about Germany, they're the leaders of the mainland European economy and perhaps they have some stake in Iraq as well.
-Xotor-
Hussein isn't as crazy as Kim Jong II and his bad hair perm. If North Korea does have WMD, Jong does have the brains to use it to his political advantage other than being the kid with the biggest stick on the playground. Hussein on the other hand is a master of political craft. The last thing we want is for Hussein to have any kind of upper hand. Already he's been playing with the weapons inspectors and the USA by leading them to those empty chemical weapon shells in order to buy more time, while at the same time making himself look good by having no chemicals actually in the shells.
While there is no smoking gun, there isn't a body either. Iraq hasn't shown what ever did happen to the WMD weapons it did possess at one time. Why do we know they have/had them? We gave them to Iraq and so did many other western nations. I'm guessing Hussein hasn't revealed any of them because he probably fears that we'll (probably correctly) attack using the excuse that he was holding out on us and must be disarmed because of what he might've done. Hell, he might just need them if we attack.
As for France and Germany not wanting war, France at least has one ulterior motive: their massive investments in Iraqi oil and refineries. France doesn't want to lose its investments and oil it receives from Iraq, so they are fighting war. I'm not so sure about Germany, they're the leaders of the mainland European economy and perhaps they have some stake in Iraq as well.
-Xotor-
G
Guest
Guest
This Brazilian says No,we dont need more wars,bush just want's the control of the petrol all over the world,i say fuck it,the world dont need more wars,this is peace time,USa already is the fucking strongest country anyway,they dont need to conquer the world,let evebody lives their fucking lives!!
G
Guest
Guest
One day,I caught a dog at street.I shake it hardly asking:"You son of bitch!!Why are you wielding sharped teeth!!You want to bite some one?I won't let it happen!"Actually,it bite me with its damned teeth,then run away.
No one me praised me for my great justice action but laughed at me.
What's wrong?Perhaps I should find another sharp-teethed dog?
No one me praised me for my great justice action but laughed at me.
What's wrong?Perhaps I should find another sharp-teethed dog?
J
jimmyjay86
Guest
I like how Powell uses satellite pictures of trucks as proof that Iraq is hiding their WMD. Maybe I'm missing something or am not using my incredible powers of deductive reasoning but how does truck movement prove without a doubt that this is the case. And if it is the case, the satellite surveillance is realtime so why can't they just have the weapons inspectors follow the trucks?
There are alot of unanswered questions in this whole debacle and I'm really not one to believe wholeheartedly what Bush or his crew is selling without seeing the goods in plain sight. I mean why all of a sudden 1.5 years after 9/11 does he make a link of al Quaeda with Hussein and decide that now is the time for war? Remember directly after there was knowledge of the hijackers meeting with Iraqi agents. Hussein's track record was known then and he hasn't really done anything really bad since. Frankly I see no new intelligence that tells us something we didn't know ten years ago. So why now?
There are alot of unanswered questions in this whole debacle and I'm really not one to believe wholeheartedly what Bush or his crew is selling without seeing the goods in plain sight. I mean why all of a sudden 1.5 years after 9/11 does he make a link of al Quaeda with Hussein and decide that now is the time for war? Remember directly after there was knowledge of the hijackers meeting with Iraqi agents. Hussein's track record was known then and he hasn't really done anything really bad since. Frankly I see no new intelligence that tells us something we didn't know ten years ago. So why now?
G
Guest
Guest
I from a military stadpoint can see why he needs to be eliminated, but to all of those civ's who don't here is a little info...
The areas around Iraq is a accident waiting to happen, the tension is far to high to be solved by diplomacy, it may ease it, but in a few years the conflict will be at the same point again, therefore it is better to remove the regimes that can and will use nuclear/bio/chem weapons of mass destruction.. That way we will eventually ensure peace....
Offcource that Bush is willing to use bacterial weapons himself make it kind of controversial.... Why use weapons of mass destruction to get rid of WOMD
The happy Rifleman logging off..
The areas around Iraq is a accident waiting to happen, the tension is far to high to be solved by diplomacy, it may ease it, but in a few years the conflict will be at the same point again, therefore it is better to remove the regimes that can and will use nuclear/bio/chem weapons of mass destruction.. That way we will eventually ensure peace....
Offcource that Bush is willing to use bacterial weapons himself make it kind of controversial.... Why use weapons of mass destruction to get rid of WOMD
The happy Rifleman logging off..
G
Guest
Guest
Sorry about my english
I have some arguments right now here:
1- 1.800.000 companies were broken in the last year in the USA,and the congress didnt want to give money to bush for him build that defense that he wants,so he just trow some airplanes in the WTC,then after that the congress give i think about 20 billion dollars for him to buy his defense
2- Bush created the menace that Bin Laden was going to attack more times the USA and now his going to build an oil duct inside afeganistan
3- Now he wants to attack Iraq,Iraq produces a lot of oil and export all over the world.
4- USA dont use the oil that they have in their lands,they buy from the world,then when the world have no oil USA still will have,and will sell for evebody.
5- USA sold a lot of weapons to Iraq and a lot of countries all over the world,and now he wants to attack Iraq with Nuclear Bombs,the people of Iraq havent done anything to USA,either Hussein.Hussein have the same weapons that he had 10 years ago.
6- USA just wants to show that he's the strongest country in the world,but think,if Germany,France,and some other countries attack USA it will destroy the world,so why USA dont make peace instead of war?
7- When the attack to the afegans over,5 soldiers of USA army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same time,its something to we think about it...
Thats what i think and that informations are true.
NO MORE WARS!
I have some arguments right now here:
1- 1.800.000 companies were broken in the last year in the USA,and the congress didnt want to give money to bush for him build that defense that he wants,so he just trow some airplanes in the WTC,then after that the congress give i think about 20 billion dollars for him to buy his defense
2- Bush created the menace that Bin Laden was going to attack more times the USA and now his going to build an oil duct inside afeganistan
3- Now he wants to attack Iraq,Iraq produces a lot of oil and export all over the world.
4- USA dont use the oil that they have in their lands,they buy from the world,then when the world have no oil USA still will have,and will sell for evebody.
5- USA sold a lot of weapons to Iraq and a lot of countries all over the world,and now he wants to attack Iraq with Nuclear Bombs,the people of Iraq havent done anything to USA,either Hussein.Hussein have the same weapons that he had 10 years ago.
6- USA just wants to show that he's the strongest country in the world,but think,if Germany,France,and some other countries attack USA it will destroy the world,so why USA dont make peace instead of war?
7- When the attack to the afegans over,5 soldiers of USA army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same time,its something to we think about it...
Thats what i think and that informations are true.
NO MORE WARS!
J
jimmyjay86
Guest
>Sorry about my english
>I have some arguments right now here:
>1- 1.800.000 companies were broken in the last year in the
>USA,and the congress didnt want to give money to bush for
>him build that defense that he wants,so he just trow some
>airplanes in the WTC,then after that the congress give i
>think about 20 billion dollars for him to buy his defense
I think we can forgive your english but not some weird-ass rumor like that. That borders on funny but lets not bring it into a serious discussion. Make sure you get your facts straight and back it up with links from reliable sources!!
>2- Bush created the menace that Bin Laden was going to
>attack more times the USA and now his going to build an oil
>duct inside afeganistan
>3- Now he wants to attack Iraq,Iraq produces a lot of oil
>and export all over the world.
>4- USA dont use the oil that they have in their lands,they
>buy from the world,then when the world have no oil USA still
>will have,and will sell for evebody.
Oil may be part of the reason for the whole Iraq thing. You notice that we are not too interested in going to war with Chuck Taylor in Liberia. The whole west of Africa could be thrown into turmoil because of that. But the biggest factor with the Iraq conflict isn't oil it is stupidity on all sides.
>5- USA sold a lot of weapons to Iraq and a lot of countries
>all over the world,and now he wants to attack Iraq with
>Nuclear Bombs,the people of Iraq havent done anything to
>USA,either Hussein.Hussein have the same weapons that he had
>10 years ago.
Actually Iraq has mostly Soviet and Chinese weapons. I haven't heard any threats of using nuclear weapons against Iraq. Lots and lots of conventional bombs but no nuclear weapons.
>6- USA just wants to show that he's the strongest country in
>the world,but think,if Germany,France,and some other
>countries attack USA it will destroy the world,so why USA
>dont make peace instead of war?
It's part of Bush's attitude not necessarily America's attitude. Remember that. I'm against Bush's war but not against war when it is absolutely necessary.
>7- When the attack to the afegans over,5 soldiers of USA
>army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same
>time,its something to we think about it...
>
>Thats what i think and that informations are true.
>NO MORE WARS!
I don't know if the suicide info is true or what it means if it was true. People kill themselves for lots of reasons. I'd find it difficult to make any assumptions on that.
War or any military action should only be used as an extreme last resort. Sometimes the show of strength can make a difference and hopefully that is all that Bush is doing.
>I have some arguments right now here:
>1- 1.800.000 companies were broken in the last year in the
>USA,and the congress didnt want to give money to bush for
>him build that defense that he wants,so he just trow some
>airplanes in the WTC,then after that the congress give i
>think about 20 billion dollars for him to buy his defense
I think we can forgive your english but not some weird-ass rumor like that. That borders on funny but lets not bring it into a serious discussion. Make sure you get your facts straight and back it up with links from reliable sources!!
>2- Bush created the menace that Bin Laden was going to
>attack more times the USA and now his going to build an oil
>duct inside afeganistan
>3- Now he wants to attack Iraq,Iraq produces a lot of oil
>and export all over the world.
>4- USA dont use the oil that they have in their lands,they
>buy from the world,then when the world have no oil USA still
>will have,and will sell for evebody.
Oil may be part of the reason for the whole Iraq thing. You notice that we are not too interested in going to war with Chuck Taylor in Liberia. The whole west of Africa could be thrown into turmoil because of that. But the biggest factor with the Iraq conflict isn't oil it is stupidity on all sides.
>5- USA sold a lot of weapons to Iraq and a lot of countries
>all over the world,and now he wants to attack Iraq with
>Nuclear Bombs,the people of Iraq havent done anything to
>USA,either Hussein.Hussein have the same weapons that he had
>10 years ago.
Actually Iraq has mostly Soviet and Chinese weapons. I haven't heard any threats of using nuclear weapons against Iraq. Lots and lots of conventional bombs but no nuclear weapons.
>6- USA just wants to show that he's the strongest country in
>the world,but think,if Germany,France,and some other
>countries attack USA it will destroy the world,so why USA
>dont make peace instead of war?
It's part of Bush's attitude not necessarily America's attitude. Remember that. I'm against Bush's war but not against war when it is absolutely necessary.
>7- When the attack to the afegans over,5 soldiers of USA
>army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same
>time,its something to we think about it...
>
>Thats what i think and that informations are true.
>NO MORE WARS!
I don't know if the suicide info is true or what it means if it was true. People kill themselves for lots of reasons. I'd find it difficult to make any assumptions on that.
War or any military action should only be used as an extreme last resort. Sometimes the show of strength can make a difference and hopefully that is all that Bush is doing.
Ugly John
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
>7- When the attack to the afegans over,5 soldiers of USA
>army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same
>time,its something to we think about it...
If you are in the army and can't stand the tought of going to war then you are in the wrong business. That is like a doctor who does not want to operate because he can't stand blood.
Go sell ice cream cones on boardwalk.
>army suicided in the same day,same way and almost same
>time,its something to we think about it...
If you are in the army and can't stand the tought of going to war then you are in the wrong business. That is like a doctor who does not want to operate because he can't stand blood.
Go sell ice cream cones on boardwalk.
While I don't care for war for the sake of it, Hussein's already broken the camel's back so much it's not remotely funny.
>I like how Powell uses satellite pictures of trucks as proof
>that Iraq is hiding their WMD. Maybe I'm missing something
>or am not using my incredible powers of deductive reasoning
>but how does truck movement prove without a doubt that this
>is the case.
Probably because the trucks are moved away from where the inspectors are heading towards. There's also other means to track the trucks that Powell didn't mention that are available to the satellites, but he probably didn't mention so it couldn't be hidden from. The downside of that is it doesn't put it really plain and simple for those observing it, and well...the UN is full of idiots, for certain. Any organization that doesn't have the balls to tell someone to cut out their stalling techniques or else they'll view it in a harsh light is fairly impotent in itself.
>And if it is the case, the satellite
>surveillance is realtime so why can't they just have the
>weapons inspectors follow the trucks?
The inspectors that were originally there over 10 years ago weren't the brightest or most competent, either. They allowed themselves to be delayed, taken to the wrong sites, had blocked intersections back then, etc. Hussein's doing the same game again, and the inspectors/UN must be really stupid to be fooled for over a decade by the same tricks, or even to tolerate them in the first place.
I still hav a printed out version of Hussein's speech he made in his [link:archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/12/07/story79791.asp|"apology for invading Kuwait"]. It made me laugh.
To Kuwait: “What we wish for you is what we wish for your brothers in Iraq – To live free from foreign rule and intervention in your wealth and future and to remain free and faithful and serve your own interests, not align yourselves with aggressors.”
>I like how Powell uses satellite pictures of trucks as proof
>that Iraq is hiding their WMD. Maybe I'm missing something
>or am not using my incredible powers of deductive reasoning
>but how does truck movement prove without a doubt that this
>is the case.
Probably because the trucks are moved away from where the inspectors are heading towards. There's also other means to track the trucks that Powell didn't mention that are available to the satellites, but he probably didn't mention so it couldn't be hidden from. The downside of that is it doesn't put it really plain and simple for those observing it, and well...the UN is full of idiots, for certain. Any organization that doesn't have the balls to tell someone to cut out their stalling techniques or else they'll view it in a harsh light is fairly impotent in itself.
>And if it is the case, the satellite
>surveillance is realtime so why can't they just have the
>weapons inspectors follow the trucks?
The inspectors that were originally there over 10 years ago weren't the brightest or most competent, either. They allowed themselves to be delayed, taken to the wrong sites, had blocked intersections back then, etc. Hussein's doing the same game again, and the inspectors/UN must be really stupid to be fooled for over a decade by the same tricks, or even to tolerate them in the first place.
I still hav a printed out version of Hussein's speech he made in his [link:archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/12/07/story79791.asp|"apology for invading Kuwait"]. It made me laugh.
To Kuwait: “What we wish for you is what we wish for your brothers in Iraq – To live free from foreign rule and intervention in your wealth and future and to remain free and faithful and serve your own interests, not align yourselves with aggressors.”
G
Guest
Guest
Nice analogy Gauss. Chinese always got the best moral story.
BTW, I watch the interview with British Ambassador and he simply ran out of word. It seems the Brits don't have enough proof or simply he didn't know any proof and started blabbering like an idiot. Especially when the press ask him the question: "So, Which one English obey? US or UN? Are the Brits just follow US order and obey them?" well, and he answered: "Well, saddam got 2000 liter of Chemical bla...bla...bla..." When the news reader ask him again (a smart girl I should say....) "Any proof?" the answer still "Saddam got 2000 liter of bla...bla...bla..." and questioning again "So why we should attack Iraq." the answer are (Guess your self.... 2000 liters of bla...bla...bla... again?)
I must say this guy is a bad diplomat.... Or simply there were really no reason for that.
The Solution just remove the Saddam, and send him to exile. And our country trying to do that (and so all of Arabic country). Besides, with the whole world behind him, Saddam won't fool enough to launch his Scud (IF HE REALLY HAVE!!) and perhaps sent them elsewhere (Iran or Libya) or simply destroy them (IF HE REALLY HAVE THAT!!).
Saddam not an idiot guy. He won't do open warfare with US like in the first Gulf War. He'll just let US soldiers came to Baghdad, then attack them there.
In Berlin, ragtag German Volkssturm and Hitler Youth equipped with ill weaponry (only 1/3 carry Gun with average 5 round ammo per gun) killed 100.000 Zhukov and Koniev's Troops armed with state of!
BTW, I watch the interview with British Ambassador and he simply ran out of word. It seems the Brits don't have enough proof or simply he didn't know any proof and started blabbering like an idiot. Especially when the press ask him the question: "So, Which one English obey? US or UN? Are the Brits just follow US order and obey them?" well, and he answered: "Well, saddam got 2000 liter of Chemical bla...bla...bla..." When the news reader ask him again (a smart girl I should say....) "Any proof?" the answer still "Saddam got 2000 liter of bla...bla...bla..." and questioning again "So why we should attack Iraq." the answer are (Guess your self.... 2000 liters of bla...bla...bla... again?)
I must say this guy is a bad diplomat.... Or simply there were really no reason for that.
The Solution just remove the Saddam, and send him to exile. And our country trying to do that (and so all of Arabic country). Besides, with the whole world behind him, Saddam won't fool enough to launch his Scud (IF HE REALLY HAVE!!) and perhaps sent them elsewhere (Iran or Libya) or simply destroy them (IF HE REALLY HAVE THAT!!).
Saddam not an idiot guy. He won't do open warfare with US like in the first Gulf War. He'll just let US soldiers came to Baghdad, then attack them there.
In Berlin, ragtag German Volkssturm and Hitler Youth equipped with ill weaponry (only 1/3 carry Gun with average 5 round ammo per gun) killed 100.000 Zhukov and Koniev's Troops armed with state of!
G
Guest
Guest
Thats true,Saddan isn't stupid enought to attack USA today.
Another thing,Iraq cares more about water than oil that they have,because the people there are dying of low food and water suplyes.
Another thing,Iraq cares more about water than oil that they have,because the people there are dying of low food and water suplyes.
G
Guest
Guest
Perhaps I'm just being naive, but I've lived in America my whole life, and we sort of tend to blow things out of proportion. I don't think the whole war threat itself is being misconstrued, just certain aspects of it. Personally, I think this may be somewhat reminiscent of The Cold War. Though Iraq isn't as much of a threat as Russia was, they are being equally as pesky and uncompliant. Either something HUGE is gonna go down, or most likely nothing at all.
Some rumors I've heard:
Switzerland is supplying Iraq w/ some sort of silver-tipped detonators for its bombs
North Korea has some sort of mean missle which will be able to reach the US West Coast
Some rumors I've heard:
Switzerland is supplying Iraq w/ some sort of silver-tipped detonators for its bombs
North Korea has some sort of mean missle which will be able to reach the US West Coast