Moderator: TheMachine
Crav is worth one million of you.Fallanthas wrote:**notes the appearance of a new poster who doesn't read, has no knowledge of wolrd politics and doesn't give a shit about anything but the four people who actually speak to him**
Thank you so much for demonstrating the apathy that has made the American public famous.
So now we can't be for a war unless we join the military? It's amazing how many people speak out against the war but don't do anything...your point is...?You know it's funny that so many people are supporting this war on the boards yet I don't see a surge of enrollment in any of the branches of the military.
Look, I'll make a little equation, ok? If there's part of the equation you don't believe in point it out.Personally I don't support the war because the government hasn't come out and said why we are so gun ho about changing governments in Iraq.
This IS the final option. Or do you think we should leave Iraq alone?Wars are the final option in politics and if politics demand that war must be conducted then it will.
Hence my use of 250,000 investigators and why I stated 70 years (300 x 12 x 69.44). Based on 1 month war, a bit optimistic.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Atok, I believe Pyro was being facetious with the communist comments. With the likes of Miir, Kyoukan, and company posting, Canada looks like a breeding ground for hatred of the U.S.
Forthe, I believe there are going to be 250,000 inspectors in Iraq at some point in the next couple months. on the downside for Iraq, I expect they may be heavily armed.
Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. There's no way an intelligent person could argue against this. Even Al Gore said he had these!! The Ny Times is even admitting it now! Everyone knows he has these!
). Your posts of intellectual englighenment astound me. Grats on missing the pointROFL!!!
You, sir, are an idiot.
. Now, go back to jacking off to sound bytes of Bush mis pronouncing words you don't know the meaning of, then come back when you have a point to make, k?Yeah and they liberated France and Belgium, noone said the USA was perfect.Estrosiath wrote:
PS : I think it's also very ironical how the US government has a tradition of supporting countries that later turn against them
Fallanthas has resorted to using the language of a UN resolution as an argument to support an invasion that would break international law.Fallanthas wrote:For those of you asking for evidence, I once again direct you to read United Nations resolution 1441.
Note that nowhere does the resolution call for inspections to prove Saddam owns WMDs. Every single mention is of inspections to prove he has DESTROYED his WMDs.
Now, why would the U.N. be calling for the destruction of weapons if they weren't convinced he has them?
Pull your goddamned head out of the sand and pay attention, people!
Had I can agree with, has is a matter of speculation. These things don't last forever.Brotha wrote:A=Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. There's no way an intelligent person could argue against this. Even Al Gore said he had these!! The Ny Times is even admitting it now! Everyone knows he has these!
Debatable, he hasn't shown much willingness to support things he cannot directly control, to do so would be out of character for him.Brotha wrote:C=He supports terrorism. His ties to and support of many terrorists groups have been documented in the past, including yes some fundamentalist Muslim terror groups. I'm not mentioning Al Qaeda b/c no evidence is out yet, but when the evidence does come out it will be damning.
If compelling evidence of an active nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons program can be produced I've no real problem with going to war and removing him. I'm reasonably sure France, Germany and China would back action in that case also. Unfortunately, the administration has yet to produce any such evidence, they apparently want other nations to take it on faith. That's not going to happen, especially by those nations with ongoing financial interests in Iraq (primarily Russia).Brotha wrote:Now, to the equation. I believe that A+B+C=a threat to the US and a threat to world peace that is very real and immediate. If there's a part of what I just said that you don't believe in, or if you believe with all those factored in that he should not be removed and isn't a threat to us or our allies, please let me know why and what your thoughts are.
Had is precisly the issue IMO, that he needs to show he destroyed them and the means to deploy them I'll agree. He doesn't (apparently) have the facilties to maintain what he had though, making the point moot really as the nasty stuff he was known to have is no longer useful.Fallanthas wrote:Aabidano, the UN resolution demanding proff of destruction was drafted just a few months ago. This is not a case of HAD.
andNoticeably absent from the declaration were Germany and France
Both from the CNN lead story on this.The Bush administration is threatening military action if Iraq does not account for weapons of mass destruction and fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Are you kidding?I had forgotten was a liberal propaganda machine CNN was until I saw this.
Yes it's all a plot to make the black secretary general look bad. What freaking stupid thing to say."Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations [Ghanaian Kofi Annan] is now a black man? They never did that when secretary generals were white," he said.
In my opinion if you truly believe in a fight or a war, you should join the fight not just stand off to the side and let others die for your beliefs. I do not believe in this war so I post here I write to my congressmen, although being from Texas the letters to my senators will be worthless. That is what you are suppose to do if you oppose a fight. Do you suggest that I take other actions? Perhaps I should form a militia and try to overthrow the government? Or maybe you suggest that I join the naive people from Human Shield? Some how I doubt that causing another fight or going to a place that I support even less will change the outcome of this situation. If my country needed me for a cause that I supported then I would be more than happy to join the armed forces and fight for my beliefs and country. All I ask is for people to stop being hypocrites and do the same.So now we can't be for a war unless we join the military? It's amazing how many people speak out against the war but don't do anything...your point is...?
You're right, this really was a poor example. I was simply trying to reach the liberals of this board. However, I don't see you contending anywhere that he does have these weapons, even later on in what you wrote, so the point still stands.do not entirely agree with this. You seem to be citing Al Gore and the New York Times as evidence that the left is coming around and accepting Bush's contention that Iraq possesses WMD's. The problem is that Al Gore and the New York Times do not speak for the left. Both are far more moderate than anything. The problem is that most political players within the public eye fall within a far narrower range of beliefs than the American political spectrum as a whole. Just as I wouldn't cite Arlen Specter or the New York Post to prove that conservatives were accepting a liberal idea, please don't cite Al Gore and the NY Times to prove the counter. Regardless, I don't particularly care to argue this premise, although I feel I could make a strong case against it.
Here's a list of people Saddam has been linked to (he supports them):I could again debate this point. Al Qaeda and Hussein have been at each others throat's before, although I will not rule out the possibility that they have also cooperated. In regards to other terrorist groups, one common example is Hussein's payouts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We could argue about whether or not these suicide bombers are terrorists, and whether Hussein's support of their families amounts to supporting terrorism all day, but again, this isn't what I particularly care to argue right now.
Now, imagine any of those terrorists (some of whom DID directly attack the United States) with weapons of mass desctruction. It would be devasting. I don't care if it's Al Qaeda or some 15 year old kid- the WMD would still be a catastrophe nonetheless.What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
And Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq announced that it had increased the amount it pays to such families from $10,000 to $25,000. (Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may hope to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.)
The point is that WMD are the great equalizer. With nuclear weapons and sufficient delivery means of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam could blackmail, threaten, or even invade his neighbors, and we'd have to tread very lightly. This is especially true if Saddam ever achieves nuclear capablities, as his ex top science official has said he could in roughly 5 years. I do concede your point that Saddam hasn't shown any aggression since the Gulf War, but people do not just change. The second Saddam has an advantage, he WILL use it.He has certainly not invaded any other countries, and I have a feeling that if he were to launch missiles at Israel, his country would soon be a sheet of glass. I could be mistaken on this, but I believe that the closest thing to aggression that Hussein has displayed is firing on US and UK spyplanes flying above his country. On the basis of this information, I fail to see how you can make the claim that Saddam is a danger to the surrounding countries.
That's what has changed. The U.S. used to believe that Saddam could be contained, that even he was not stupid enough to use WMD. Now we are starting to realize that Saddam could hand a caseful of Anthrax to an Al Qaeda member or a member of any terrorist organization and not leave a single finger print to be traced back to him and Iraq.Hussein must be aware that all of these countries have considerably greater military capability than he, and that all would quickly band together in case of an attack on any one of them. It's the very reason we justify having nuclear weapons- mutually assured destruction, except in this case, there's a slight alteration- hussein's assured destruction.
The point is that Saddam CAN do this. I'm glad that you have enough faith in the CIA and the other branches of our government to successfully repel any attempt made by Saddam backed terrorists to enter our country. I, however, think that the source of the problem should be eliminated rather than us hoping to catch every terrorist. It's a game of Russian roulette that potentially involves thousands and thousands of american's lives; a game that we've eventually bound to loss.While he could conceivably attack through unconventional means, I feel that the time that has passed since 9/11 has proved that attacking us in such a fashion is far more difficult than it may seem. We have not been successfuly attacked since, and I'm sure it's not for lack of trying on the part of our actual enemies.
Very true but destroying Iraq in the name of ousting Hussein won't elimate the cause and this is the biggest mistake the US is making IMO. It will move it, change it and spread it.I, however, think that the source of the problem should be eliminated rather than us hoping to catch every terrorist
Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.
I'm going to take a bath in radioactive waste to protest nuclear hazards. On second thought, that's too fucking dangerous, I'm going home.kyoukan type-R wrote:they did a lot more to support their cause than you cowardly assholes will ever do for yours.
Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting "No war" but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.
Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.
Um Winnow, anti-war protesters have been advocating weapon inspections as an alternative to war.If you bitch about something, have a fucking solution....and "give peace a chance" is NOT a fucking solution! Anti war demonstrators are ignored for that very reason.
Inspections? rofl. Oh yeah. They've worked great the past 10 years. I'd say a good 20 years from now, the UN might decide to give Iraq an ultimatum that they will give him only 5 more years to comply or they will increase their inspections a little more...or about the time Saddam nukes Israel.miir wrote:
Um Winnow, anti-war protesters have been advocating weapon inspections as an alternative to war.
the UN! This is my solution! No war! No war!"
