Simmonds, calm down. I've found many of your recent posts to be extremely annoying and childish.
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous
The police will say that they ! need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists? These are the on! es you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be
for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough! reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]Simmonds, calm down. I've found many of your recent posts to be extremely annoying and childish.
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's
got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel,
don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he
is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them
that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But
that's simply ridiculous
.
The police will say that they ! need evidence of a crime with which to
charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and
wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be
secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it
clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in
and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is
the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one
certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US
or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
Th! at's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is
that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much
justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has
for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating
'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because
how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every
single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once
he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists? These are the on! es you really want to
eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have
already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future
terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every
Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might
convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be
for Mr
Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of
the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't
like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will really
safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far
but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the
United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough! reason
for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's
just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to
what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. [/B][/QUOTE]
Excelent post...
And that would lead to more Terrorist Attacks. On you..... And whos the Mass Murder now
I think I better take out those town Houses Down the street. Those people are nothing But Bad news.
Yes I have been acting Childish, Generaly Becuase I have been under alot of stress. And I dont realy Respect ppl changing the names of the posts
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]So you have "only" the second biggest arsenal of WMD's then. So what? Like it made any difference? That was not the point.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well it was pointing out a flaw in your argument, but it was bordering being off topic. The point of my argument is that saying its unfair for the US to have nuclear weapons and the Iraqi's to not have them is a bit suspect, after all, weve managed to not detonate them in a inhabbited area since 1945, I think my nation can be trusted with them.
[QUOTE][B]
So what?
[/B][/QUOTE]
weve shown we have cheap oil prices, without Iraqi middle east oil, frankly the people interested in perserving the status quo are you europeans for the health of your economies, but your cloaking it in moralistic posturing and have gotten alot of other people to buy into it. Of course thats how I view the money angle
We may profit from invading Iraq, Europe also will profit from either maintaining the status quo or for letting Sadam go free.
[QUOTE][B]
Broken how? Who did the agreement? What's in that agreement? To justify resuming an armed conflict would require a very severe breach of an agreement, such as a new attack against someone.
And btw, FYI the "no fly zones" established after the Gulf War were never accepted by UN.
[/QUOTE][/B]
Actualy the Secruity council discussed the matter and no formal resolution was drafted but they were accepted, and I wish people would wake up and realize the SECURITY COUNCIL IS THE UN, the GA doesnt mean diddly. The UN through and through is an institution that all 180 members are using for their own interest.
The agreement broken how? by some intercepted Uranium (not alot but there was some) Plus the earlier EVICTION of the inspectors that occured previously , (ooh how short peoples memmories are) and frustration of UN mandates, frankly 1440 isnt the only resolution on this you know? SC resolutions 678 and 687 back in 1991 demanded the removal of Iraq and its full cooperation with UN resolutions and those both DO authorize war.
Frankly this mess started happening in 94 and built up, with the original head of the inspection teams claiming he was being decieved. It wasnt till 2000 that he changed his tune. Whats going on now is were finaly doing what should have DEFINATLY been done in 98 after the expulsion of the arms inspectors the first time, and Saddams attempts to assasinate Bush the elder, which definatly did violate the conditions of the two security council resolutions I listed.
[QUOTE][B]
Oh come one. You can't compare those. And Iraq was not re-arming to our knowledge. Inspectors did not find any proof which would suggest that. And now they don't have a change to find any proof anymore. Besides US had decided to attack Iraq anyway, because Bush & co. want's to get rid of Saddam and safe the oil, not destroy Iraq's possible WMD's.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ive seen evidence that it was, however it is based on the arrival of ALOT of dual use gear however and precursers, however we will know the truth shortly.
Secondly that argument was used against the FIRST gulf war, and in the end it didnt bear out did it? the US still only gets about 12-15% of its oil from that region (mostly from Saudi Arabia at that) And thats the same percentage as BEFORE the war. And the Kuwaiti's control their own oilfields STILL. So how was the first war all for oil?
That argument has also been used against Kosovo (Im still not sure where the hell any oil is in Kosovo) and Afghanistan (which despite the claims has ZILCHO known reserves, just some "theoretical" oil)
The guy next door might play that new stereo of his too loud.... Maybe I should break into his house and destroy it?
Watch out for misleading poll numbers about this. The news stations are claiming around 75% are in favor of military action to oust Hussein. What they don't say (and what is on the Gallup site) is that the number is only 47% if we go without UN Security Council approval.
Ignore us at your peril, Shrub! We will speak our minds at the voting booths in '04! (If we still actually have elections in '04)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]Iran and North Korea didn't gas thousands of members of an ethnic minority in their own country. If we were going through the a like situation now with North Korea the same people would be saying, "Why not Iraq? Why not Iran?"
And how have we kept a close eye on the WMDs that they DO have(chemical weapons are a WMD) when the inspectors, until last november, hadn't even been in the country since the late 90's. And remember, the airstrike that got them kicked out was a result of Iraq preventing those same inspectors from doing their job. [/B][/QUOTE]
Alright, Im going to admit they got a good point, problem is they are not thinking calculaingly
Iraq most likely wont be to difficult of a prospect. Going directly into NK and Iran at this point is a very, very bloody proposition, no matter how you cut it.
Frankly the Bush adminstration has them on the list, just like Reagan took charge knowing he was going to destroy the USSR. But its going to take time
The operation in Iraq is a precurser to activities in Lebanon, which will weaken the Iranian postion, plus between Iraq, Iran and Lebanon were going to show the "arab street" that the "US street" ISNT weak and ISNT scared. (and actualy the US IS slighly in favor of the war, depends on how people word the questions, god Ive taken CLASSES in how to manipulate poll results!)
North Korea, as ugly as this sounds is going to be starved out, the US isnt going to budge its position an inch, were going to not be blackmailed, and if somebody wants to fix that mess its going to have to be the Russians and the Chinese, they created it, they should fix it... kinda like were doing with Sadam actualy..
If I remeber correcty, According to small CBC Presenation on North Korea, That they claim that the US has used Chemical Weapons on them during the Korean War. And They seem to be saying the Same stuff about the US, As the US is saying about them.
Just a few Random Facts I found in the CIA World Fact Book on North Korea.
99% of the Population Can Read and wright.
Suffrage:
17 years of age; universal
Political parties and leaders:
Chondoist Chongu Party [YU Mi-yong, chairwoman]; Korean Social Democratic Party [KIM Yong-tae, chairman]; major party - Korean Workers' Party or KWP [KIM Chong-il, General Secretary]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]If I remeber correcty, According to small CBC Presenation on North Korea, That they claim that the US has used Chemical Weapons on them during the Korean War. And They seem to be saying the Same stuff about the US, As the US is saying about them.
Just a few Random Facts I found in the CIA World Fact Book on North Korea.
99% of the Population Can Read and wright.
Suffrage:
17 years of age; universal
Political parties and leaders:
Chondoist Chongu Party [YU Mi-yong, chairwoman]; Korean Social Democratic Party [KIM Yong-tae, chairman]; major party - Korean Workers' Party or KWP [KIM Chong-il, General Secretary] [/B][/QUOTE]
the CCP and KSDP are fronts for the KWP, the elections, much like elections in most communist countries, is very, very carefully scripted. You want to know more about Korea, try looking into the row between Japan and the PDRK over the PDRK using special forces to kidnap Japanese citizens right out of japan.
Whenever I hear that neighbor analogy I can't help but think how naive and idealistic it sounds. Be practical. If your neighbor is sitting in his house or standing in front of a window and pointing a shotgun at your house and family members of course you have every right to use the police to take legal remedies. Of course you can't just shoot them, but thats because you have the police. In the absence of a Police force that can go arrest Saddam, we are using military force. Simple as that.
Also, consider that your typical neighbor doesn't have the means to not only kill you but gas or infect millions in addition to the thousands of Kurds already dead. The doves don't seem to ever mention them. We rather take action now then sit on our hands and one day say at least [I]we[/I] didn't hurt anyone as we mourn potentially thousands.
Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.
Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Ive got a question, how would "international police" force a nation state to submit to their demands? [/B][/QUOTE]
They couldn't, thats why their is no such force and military action is necessary.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.[/b][/quote]
Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait and security has been maintained in the region. No further conflicts have been there since the 1991 war, except now that the [b]US[/b] is starting a military conflict there.
[quote][b]Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now. [/B][/QUOTE]
As far as we know Iraq GOT rid of the WMD, because there's been NO evidence found showing the opposite! US is now breaking that resolution!
[b]Tyvar[/b], a little more about the oil. Yeah sure the US might get only about 12% of their oil from middle east region [b]currently[/b], but world's oil resources are fast getting low and in the future the Iraqi oil will be what everybody wants. And that situation won't be all that far in the future in fact. Iraq has the biggest oil resources in the world and only a very small percent of them are currently utilized. There's no doubt that the US and it's oil companies are doing everything they can to be first in line to get their fair share of it and secure that they will have access to it in the future when that time comes.
Sure the "liberating" of the Iraqi people might be one of the reasons as well, but I have no doubt in my mind that US would not be starting a war only because of that reason and without the oil interest.
As far as we know Iraq GOT rid of the WMD, because there's been NO evidence found showing the opposite! US is now breaking that resolution!
[/QUOTE]
Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has used them. If you want to just assume that Iraq got rid of them and wait till we are absolutly sure(a realization that might not come in a pleasant way) thats your choice, but I disagree.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has used them. If you want to just assume that Iraq got rid of them and wait till we are absolutly sure(a realization that might not come in a pleasant way) thats your choice, but I disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]
There is NO proof and you are complitely ignoring that. That's a very strange logic you're telling me.
It's same as giving a sentence in court to someone even though you don't have a definite proof! Would you do that?
Comments
- PJH
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous
The police will say that they ! need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists? These are the on! es you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be
for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough! reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
[B]Simmonds, calm down. I've found many of your recent posts to be extremely annoying and childish.
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's
got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel,
don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he
is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them
that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But
that's simply ridiculous
.
The police will say that they ! need evidence of a crime with which to
charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and
wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be
secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it
clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in
and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is
the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one
certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US
or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
Th! at's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is
that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much
justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has
for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating
'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because
how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every
single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once
he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists? These are the on! es you really want to
eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have
already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future
terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every
Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might
convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be
for Mr
Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of
the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't
like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will really
safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far
but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the
United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough! reason
for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's
just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to
what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. [/B][/QUOTE]
Excelent post...
And that would lead to more Terrorist Attacks. On you..... And whos the Mass Murder now
I think I better take out those town Houses Down the street. Those people are nothing But Bad news.
Yes I have been acting Childish, Generaly Becuase I have been under alot of stress. And I dont realy Respect ppl changing the names of the posts
I just merged the ones that sounded the same. I'll fix the title. What was it supposed to be?
While I don't agree with the point of the story, I do find it witty and well written.
Jake
And very will written, Jambo.
Those guys down the street do suck. Kill them before they become a problem!
[B]So you have "only" the second biggest arsenal of WMD's then. So what? Like it made any difference? That was not the point.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well it was pointing out a flaw in your argument, but it was bordering being off topic. The point of my argument is that saying its unfair for the US to have nuclear weapons and the Iraqi's to not have them is a bit suspect, after all, weve managed to not detonate them in a inhabbited area since 1945, I think my nation can be trusted with them.
[QUOTE][B]
So what?
[/B][/QUOTE]
weve shown we have cheap oil prices, without Iraqi middle east oil, frankly the people interested in perserving the status quo are you europeans for the health of your economies, but your cloaking it in moralistic posturing and have gotten alot of other people to buy into it. Of course thats how I view the money angle
We may profit from invading Iraq, Europe also will profit from either maintaining the status quo or for letting Sadam go free.
[QUOTE][B]
Broken how? Who did the agreement? What's in that agreement? To justify resuming an armed conflict would require a very severe breach of an agreement, such as a new attack against someone.
And btw, FYI the "no fly zones" established after the Gulf War were never accepted by UN.
[/QUOTE][/B]
Actualy the Secruity council discussed the matter and no formal resolution was drafted but they were accepted, and I wish people would wake up and realize the SECURITY COUNCIL IS THE UN, the GA doesnt mean diddly. The UN through and through is an institution that all 180 members are using for their own interest.
The agreement broken how? by some intercepted Uranium (not alot but there was some) Plus the earlier EVICTION of the inspectors that occured previously , (ooh how short peoples memmories are) and frustration of UN mandates, frankly 1440 isnt the only resolution on this you know? SC resolutions 678 and 687 back in 1991 demanded the removal of Iraq and its full cooperation with UN resolutions and those both DO authorize war.
Frankly this mess started happening in 94 and built up, with the original head of the inspection teams claiming he was being decieved. It wasnt till 2000 that he changed his tune. Whats going on now is were finaly doing what should have DEFINATLY been done in 98 after the expulsion of the arms inspectors the first time, and Saddams attempts to assasinate Bush the elder, which definatly did violate the conditions of the two security council resolutions I listed.
[QUOTE][B]
Oh come one. You can't compare those. And Iraq was not re-arming to our knowledge. Inspectors did not find any proof which would suggest that. And now they don't have a change to find any proof anymore. Besides US had decided to attack Iraq anyway, because Bush & co. want's to get rid of Saddam and safe the oil, not destroy Iraq's possible WMD's.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ive seen evidence that it was, however it is based on the arrival of ALOT of dual use gear however and precursers, however we will know the truth shortly.
Secondly that argument was used against the FIRST gulf war, and in the end it didnt bear out did it? the US still only gets about 12-15% of its oil from that region (mostly from Saudi Arabia at that) And thats the same percentage as BEFORE the war. And the Kuwaiti's control their own oilfields STILL. So how was the first war all for oil?
That argument has also been used against Kosovo (Im still not sure where the hell any oil is in Kosovo) and Afghanistan (which despite the claims has ZILCHO known reserves, just some "theoretical" oil)
Watch out for misleading poll numbers about this. The news stations are claiming around 75% are in favor of military action to oust Hussein. What they don't say (and what is on the Gallup site) is that the number is only 47% if we go without UN Security Council approval.
Ignore us at your peril, Shrub! We will speak our minds at the voting booths in '04! (If we still actually have elections in '04)
[B]Iran and North Korea didn't gas thousands of members of an ethnic minority in their own country. If we were going through the a like situation now with North Korea the same people would be saying, "Why not Iraq? Why not Iran?"
And how have we kept a close eye on the WMDs that they DO have(chemical weapons are a WMD) when the inspectors, until last november, hadn't even been in the country since the late 90's. And remember, the airstrike that got them kicked out was a result of Iraq preventing those same inspectors from doing their job. [/B][/QUOTE]
Alright, Im going to admit they got a good point, problem is they are not thinking calculaingly
Iraq most likely wont be to difficult of a prospect. Going directly into NK and Iran at this point is a very, very bloody proposition, no matter how you cut it.
Frankly the Bush adminstration has them on the list, just like Reagan took charge knowing he was going to destroy the USSR. But its going to take time
The operation in Iraq is a precurser to activities in Lebanon, which will weaken the Iranian postion, plus between Iraq, Iran and Lebanon were going to show the "arab street" that the "US street" ISNT weak and ISNT scared. (and actualy the US IS slighly in favor of the war, depends on how people word the questions, god Ive taken CLASSES in how to manipulate poll results!)
North Korea, as ugly as this sounds is going to be starved out, the US isnt going to budge its position an inch, were going to not be blackmailed, and if somebody wants to fix that mess its going to have to be the Russians and the Chinese, they created it, they should fix it... kinda like were doing with Sadam actualy..
Just a few Random Facts I found in the CIA World Fact Book on North Korea.
99% of the Population Can Read and wright.
Suffrage:
17 years of age; universal
Political parties and leaders:
Chondoist Chongu Party [YU Mi-yong, chairwoman]; Korean Social Democratic Party [KIM Yong-tae, chairman]; major party - Korean Workers' Party or KWP [KIM Chong-il, General Secretary]
- PJH
[B]If I remeber correcty, According to small CBC Presenation on North Korea, That they claim that the US has used Chemical Weapons on them during the Korean War. And They seem to be saying the Same stuff about the US, As the US is saying about them.
Just a few Random Facts I found in the CIA World Fact Book on North Korea.
99% of the Population Can Read and wright.
Suffrage:
17 years of age; universal
Political parties and leaders:
Chondoist Chongu Party [YU Mi-yong, chairwoman]; Korean Social Democratic Party [KIM Yong-tae, chairman]; major party - Korean Workers' Party or KWP [KIM Chong-il, General Secretary] [/B][/QUOTE]
the CCP and KSDP are fronts for the KWP, the elections, much like elections in most communist countries, is very, very carefully scripted. You want to know more about Korea, try looking into the row between Japan and the PDRK over the PDRK using special forces to kidnap Japanese citizens right out of japan.
"Let's go use spurious evidence, much of which has been found to be outright fabrication, and kill us a country that can't fight back!"
Iraq has been ignoring the wishes of the UN, so we must also ignore the wishes of the UN to punish them.
Riiiight.
[B]The logic here seems to be something like this:
Iraq has been ignoring the wishes of the UN, so we must also ignore the wishes of the UN to punish them.
Riiiight. [/B][/QUOTE]
Uh, Has'nt the US Been known Ignor UN The Wishes from time to time,and Incorage other countrys to do, if it meets their wishes?????
Also, consider that your typical neighbor doesn't have the means to not only kill you but gas or infect millions in addition to the thousands of Kurds already dead. The doves don't seem to ever mention them. We rather take action now then sit on our hands and one day say at least [I]we[/I] didn't hurt anyone as we mourn potentially thousands.
Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.
Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now.
[B]Ive got a question, how would "international police" force a nation state to submit to their demands? [/B][/QUOTE]
They couldn't, thats why their is no such force and military action is necessary.
[B]Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.[/b][/quote]
Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait and security has been maintained in the region. No further conflicts have been there since the 1991 war, except now that the [b]US[/b] is starting a military conflict there.
[quote][b]Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now. [/B][/QUOTE]
As far as we know Iraq GOT rid of the WMD, because there's been NO evidence found showing the opposite! US is now breaking that resolution!
[b]Tyvar[/b], a little more about the oil. Yeah sure the US might get only about 12% of their oil from middle east region [b]currently[/b], but world's oil resources are fast getting low and in the future the Iraqi oil will be what everybody wants. And that situation won't be all that far in the future in fact. Iraq has the biggest oil resources in the world and only a very small percent of them are currently utilized. There's no doubt that the US and it's oil companies are doing everything they can to be first in line to get their fair share of it and secure that they will have access to it in the future when that time comes.
Sure the "liberating" of the Iraqi people might be one of the reasons as well, but I have no doubt in my mind that US would not be starting a war only because of that reason and without the oil interest.
- PJH
As far as we know Iraq GOT rid of the WMD, because there's been NO evidence found showing the opposite! US is now breaking that resolution!
[/QUOTE]
Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has used them. If you want to just assume that Iraq got rid of them and wait till we are absolutly sure(a realization that might not come in a pleasant way) thats your choice, but I disagree.
Who Supported Saddam's Take over??
[B]Who Sold them to Iraq
Who Supported Saddam's Take over?? [/B][/QUOTE]
Who bit the hand that fed it.
[B]Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has used them. If you want to just assume that Iraq got rid of them and wait till we are absolutly sure(a realization that might not come in a pleasant way) thats your choice, but I disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]
There is NO proof and you are complitely ignoring that. That's a very strange logic you're telling me.
It's same as giving a sentence in court to someone even though you don't have a definite proof! Would you do that?
- PJH