Freedom Fries?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 1:36 pm

"Quote:
this guy has proven he can not be trusted

Who?
The guy who said that the US only wanted to disarm Iraq then a few weeks later, when Iraq starts to show complaince makes an about face and says it's not just about disarming, it's about a regeime change?

Prove to me that he has disarmed.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 1:36 pm

If Iraq proves that they have disarmed and provide documentation that the bio/chem agents (VX/Anthrax) have been destroyed... you still think that the US should invade Iraq without UN backing and assassinate Saddam?

I don't care if he is assasinated or retired to the French Riveria, as long as he is not in a position to control weapons.

As for providing documentation proving the destruction of the VX and Anthrax stores, I highly doubt that is what is going to be released. If such documentation existed, it could have been provided years ago and the entire premise for the Bush initiative avoided.

As for UN approval, as soon as that body of august leaders shows they can decide on the Chicken Kiev or the veal before starvind to death, I will worry about their support. Until that time I could really care less.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 1:41 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Kelshara wrote:And the irony there is of course that Pakistan has WMDs and along with India is the country closest to using nuclear weapons..

There is no Irony here there is no war against Pakistan or India and hence a treaty signed saying they were not allowed to have WMD's

Niether country has signed of the Nuclear NPT.
Both Pakistan and India are home to a large number of radical, militant Islamic groups.
Many Al Qaeda members have taken haven in Pakistan as many Pakistanis are sympathetic with their cause.

Terrorist links in India and Pakistan are much stonger than Iraq.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » March 13, 2003, 1:42 pm

I prefer my FREEDOM FRIES with some fry sauce.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 1:45 pm

miir wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Kelshara wrote:And the irony there is of course that Pakistan has WMDs and along with India is the country closest to using nuclear weapons..

There is no Irony here there is no war against Pakistan or India and hence a treaty signed saying they were not allowed to have WMD's
Niether country has signed of the Nuclear NPT.
Both Pakistan and India are home to a large number of radical, militant Islamic groups.
Many Al Qaeda members have taken haven in Pakistan as many Pakistanis are sympathetic with their cause.

Terrorist links in India and Pakistan are much stonger than Iraq.

I,Me,Myself wants Saddam out of office not becuase of terrorist threats but because of what he stands for, Murder,Torture,Human rights violations and 2 ugly fucking sons.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 13, 2003, 1:45 pm

There is no Irony here there is no war against Pakistan or India and hence a treaty signed saying they were not allowed to have WMD's

The irony lies in the fact that our reasoning for waging war against Iraq is because they suppossedly represent a sufficient and immediate to the US, when it could be easily argued that the various other countries in the region already have nukes and could be an even bigger problem in the long run.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 13, 2003, 1:47 pm

long run or short run.

iraq is an opponent who is impotent, that is an important distinction as well.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 1:49 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
There is no Irony here there is no war against Pakistan or India and hence a treaty signed saying they were not allowed to have WMD's
The irony lies in the fact that our reasoning for waging war against Iraq is because they suppossedly represent a sufficient and immediate to the US, when it could be easily argued that the various other countries in the region already have nukes and could be an even bigger problem in the long run.

The Irony is your argument is full of Ifs,Ands, and Buts.

Iraq has proven to be a agressive world power they lost a war they signed a treaty ( Live by it).

Pakistan and India has not attacked anyone but each other.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 1:53 pm

As for providing documentation proving the destruction of the VX and Anthrax stores, I highly doubt that is what is going to be released. If such documentation existed, it could have been provided years ago and the entire premise for the Bush initiative avoided.

If Iraq can provide irrefutable proof that the bio/chem agents have been destroyed, are the US still justified in initiating military action against Iraq without the backing of the UN?

Prove to me that he has disarmed.

It doesn't really matter if he has disarmed or not.
It makes no difference if he is showing initiative to comply with the UN resolutions, does it?
It makes no difference if he was to provide full and unfettered access to the entire country, does it?

The Bush administration has made it clear that they intended to force a regieme change on Iraq irrespective of any Iraq compliance.

I have resigned to the fact that Bush is going to invade Iraq.
I accept that fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are going to die.
I accept the fact that thousands more are going to die when the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians start murdering each other after Bush installs his puppet government.
I accept the fact that terrorists are going to increase their efforts tenfold against the US and their allies for their crimes against the nation of Islam.
I also accept that fact that the hatred against the USA will become overwhelming in the middle east.

I'm just glad I'm not American at this point in time.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 1:54 pm

Voronwë wrote:iraq is an opponent who is impotent

Truer words have never been spoken.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 1:57 pm

Actually Vor, I would put that another way.

Iraq is an opponent stupid enough to show their ass and paint a target in redd and yellow over their country by defying a very public UN resolution over and over.

When you give people an excuse like that, you have no right to complain when action is taken.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 13, 2003, 1:59 pm

i would say North Korea is more fitting of that characterization than Iraq. i think Iraq has been trying to be fairly low key the last couple of years, but maybe i'm wrong.

i sure as hell am not in favor of war with NK, and amazingly they realize that we dont want any part of them, which is why they are acting like a bunch of crazed maniacs. that and the fact that their leader is a crazed maniac.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:02 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Actually Vor, I would put that another way.

Iraq is an opponent stupid enough to show their ass and paint a target in redd and yellow over their country by defying a very public UN resolution over and over.

When you give people an excuse like that, you have no right to complain when action is taken.

Indeed, Iraq has been very low key in the past 5 years.
Since Desert Fox, there's has been very little in the way of newsworthy content coming out of Iraq.

On the other hand, North Korea has been very provocative and beligerent in the past year towards the US and the UN.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 13, 2003, 2:11 pm

Cart, we've reached the point of an almost circular argument. The whole American reason for going to war is nothing but Ifs, Ands, and Buts. Just look at the smoking gun that is the drone for an example.

As Voro said, Iraq is flaccid. I stand by the belief that Iraq is not an immediat threat to the US. Furthermore, I don't forsee them even rebuilding their country and military to a respectable level withing the next 50+ years. I have seen no form of evidence from the UN Inspectors, nor our own government that shows any sort of justification that necessitates putting American and civilian lives at risk. Furthermore, I have seen absolutely no mention of what we intend to do once Saddam is removed from power, how long we plan on occupying Iraq, or how much this is all going to end up costing the American people at a time of financial downfall for our country.

I have 10x more questions than answers. I feel the current administration headed down the path of war long ago, and there is absolutely nothing that is going to change that course, whether it is the UN, our closest allies, or popular public and worldwide opinion. That makes me very uneasy. What little trust I have in our government has been breached once again, and once again, the great big machine rumbles forward, heedless to the consequences of it's actions.

I could go on and on. I feel I have a very good idea of your stance as well, and I understand how you could come to such conclusions, however, I do not share your opinion. War can easily be avoided. It's an odd thing that avoiding war should be looked down upon by so many.

I feel the current situation is going to haunt us far beyond my lifetime. I empathize with the young Americans of the Vietnam area. These are trying times we live in.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 13, 2003, 2:23 pm

It doesn't really matter if he has disarmed or not.
It makes no difference if he is showing initiative to comply with the UN resolutions, does it?
It makes no difference if he was to provide full and unfettered access to the entire country, does it?

The Bush administration has made it clear that they intended to force a regieme change on Iraq irrespective of any Iraq compliance.

I have resigned to the fact that Bush is going to invade Iraq.
I accept that fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are going to die.
I accept the fact that thousands more are going to die when the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians start murdering each other after Bush installs his puppet government.
I accept the fact that terrorists are going to increase their efforts tenfold against the US and their allies for their crimes against the nation of Islam.
I also accept that fact that the hatred against the USA will become overwhelming in the middle east.

I'm just glad I'm not American at this point in time.

I think you're 100% right.
I'm a little depressed that UK citizens are being led by our politicians into becoming the red-9pt-band around the golden bullseye. That and the fact that to a terrorist just having white skin will probably be enough.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:24 pm

I seem to recall reading a White House spokesman stating that US occupation of Iraq would not have to be very intensive after the regieme change and that the situaiton in Iraq would not be as volitile as in (the former) Yugoslavia.

I thought that was awfully naive.
Either that or they don't give the American people much credit for being aware of the political/religious situation in the middle east.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 2:26 pm

Showing initiative to comply?

What the hell planet are you on? he isn't 'showing initiative' to do anydamnthing.

Hussein is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance, if he makes it that far.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:35 pm

Fallanthas wrote: What the hell planet are you on? he isn't 'showing initiative' to do anydamnthing.

I'll just overlook the fact that you ignored my entire point and took one comment out of context.

Destroying 65 El Samoud 2 missles indicates initiative to comply.

Hussein is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance, if he makes it that far.

The White House has made it perfectly clear that complaince isn't even an option. Their main goal at this point is a regieme change.

If someone holds a gun to your head and demands you drop your pocket-knife before they empty their clip into your skull, wouldn't you be a little reluctant to comply?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 2:43 pm

Not if I wanted to live, no.

Destroying missles you should never have built at the end of a gun barrel is not initiative.

- on one's own initiative : at one's own discretion : independently of outside influence or control

Initiative means doing something on your own, not being forced into it.

Time and time again, Hussein has proven he will not do anything without compelling force. That is the antithesis of 'initiative'.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:46 pm

Typical.
Ignore all other possible definitions of the word initiative and only list the one that serves your needs.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 2:47 pm

Find one that means "When I am dragged into it".

Go ahead, give it a shot.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:49 pm

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 13, 2003, 2:50 pm

Typical, try to divert attention fromt he fact that you just fucked up and lost an argument.

/pharm

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 2:53 pm

I lost nothing.

I'm not arguing word definitions while you completely ignore the discussion.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 2:56 pm

miir wrote:I lost nothing.

I'm not arguing word definitions while you completely ignore the discussion.

I dont think anyone here is capable of losing a argument, Why because we all have our beliefs and we all think our beliefs are right and the others is wrong. We have all spent OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of time trying to beat something into each others heads that wont take.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 13, 2003, 2:59 pm

According to the Bush Administration's own criteria, the most dangerous states are those run by leaders who:

1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;
2) ignore due process at the United Nations;
3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and
4) have come to power through illegitimate means.

I wonder when the UN is going to inspect us? If did, how much we'd be willing to comply. Once we complied, how confident are you that we wouldn't be breaking any treaties? I sure wouldn't bet my life on it.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 3:05 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:According to the Bush Administration's own criteria, the most dangerous states are those run by leaders who:

1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;

Yes the United States Does and thank god for that What do you think this world would be like if we didint.

2) ignore due process at the United Nations;

I would agree with you on this one but the UN itself is ignoring Due Process. Iraq Violated the treaty do you not get this and by violating said treaty they are open to be punished.

3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and

Hmm you mean like IRAQ

4) have come to power through illegitimate means.

Oh yea those fair elections in Iraq are the answer.

I wonder when the UN is going to inspect us? If did, how much we'd be willing to comply. Once we complied, how confident are you that we wouldn't be breaking any treaties? I sure wouldn't bet my life on it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 13, 2003, 3:06 pm

Destroying missles you should never have built at the end of a gun barrel is not initiative.

The missile issue is iffy. They were barely above the limited range without warhead and guidance system, would be under with them. They were listed as a legal weapon by Iraq if I recall.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 3:21 pm

I would agree with you on this one but the UN itself is ignoring Due Process. Iraq Violated the treaty do you not get this and by violating said treaty they are open to be punished.

I don't recall seeing the part of the treaty that authorises a full scale military assault/invasion and a forced regieme change if Saddam doesn't offer 100% compliance.

The UN isn't a war machine.
Due process involves exploring every option to acieve a peacable end to a confrontation.

A common concensus worldwide is that military action is not needed to bring Iraq into complaince with the UN resolutions. The implied threat of 250k soldiers amassing in the middle east should be motivation enough for Saddam.

Do you think the death of tens of thousand of Iraqis and possibly thousands of American soldiers is preferable to peaceful disarmament?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 3:23 pm

"A common concensus worldwide is that military action is not needed to bring Iraq into complaince with the UN resolutions. The implied threat of 250k soldiers amassing in the middle east should be motivation enough for Saddam"

Who is going to pay for these 250k of troops and supplies on their borders?

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 3:32 pm

Cartalas wrote: Who is going to pay for these 250k of troops and supplies on their borders?

The same people who sends them into invade Iraq and assassinate Saddam.

I got some questions for ya....

Did you feel threatened by Iraq for the past 12 years?
When the US/UN coalition invaded Afghanistan forcing the Taliban out of power and killing/capturing AlQaeda operatives, were you worried about a possible attack on US soil by Saddam Hussein?
Did you think Iraq was a threat to US national security 6 moths ago?
When those planes rammed the WTC, did you suspect Iraq had anything to do with it?
When Saddam quelled the Kurd rebellion with the heinous use of chemical weapons were you screaming about human rights violations?
At what point after the Gulf War did you start thinking that Saddam was a major threat to the security of the USA?

If your govenrment hadn't force-fed all this Iraq propaganda into your empty head, would you still be so gung-ho about suppoting an essentially pointless military action?

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 3:37 pm

One last question...

Has Iraq ever participated in any aggressive action (words or deeds) towards any western country?

I'm not saying Iraq is clean, but their aggresive actions have been isolated to Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. Nearly every country in the middle east has taken part in some sort of military dispute with their neighbours...

think about it

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 3:40 pm

miir wrote:
Cartalas wrote: Who is going to pay for these 250k of troops and supplies on their borders?
The same people who sends them into invade Iraq and assassinate Saddam.

So your saying its ok for the United States to Foot the bill and station 250K in troops and supplies over there to get Sadaam to disarm?
I got some questions for ya....

Did you feel threatened by Iraq for the past 12 years?

Before 9-11 No After 9-11 yes But let me explain not because I think Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 but because it shows how easy it has become.

When the US/UN coalition invaded Afghanistan forcing the Taliban out of power and killing/capturing AlQaeda operatives, were you worried about a possible attack on US soil by Saddam Hussein?

Not just Iraq no but you got to start somewhere.

Did you think Iraq was a threat to US national security 6 moths ago?
When those planes rammed the WTC, did you suspect Iraq had anything to do with it?

I was so upset I blamed OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people but mostly Liberals were the reason that happened that and the AFLCIO oh and Al Sharpton.

When Saddam quelled the Kurd rebellion with the heinous use of chemical weapons were you screaming about human rights violations?

When I heard about it yes I was upset, Im not saying we live in a perfect world but in my opinion we should of finished the job the first time.

If your govenrment hadn't force-fed all this Iraq propaganda into your empty head, would you still be so gung-ho about suppoting an essentially pointless military action?

As your government has forced fed you all the liberal bullshit the spoon feed you with. The media gives you 2 sides you have to chose what you believe.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 3:43 pm

miir wrote:One last question...

Has Iraq ever participated in any aggressive action (words or deeds) towards any western country?

So your saying in order for the US or UN to help anyone they have to attack a western country.

I'm not saying Iraq is clean, but their aggresive actions have been isolated to Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. Nearly every country in the middle east has taken part in some sort of military dispute with their neighbours...

think about it

And as I said Iraq is a starting point

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » March 13, 2003, 3:54 pm

miir wrote:
Cartalas wrote: Who is going to pay for these 250k of troops and supplies on their borders?
The same people who sends them into invade Iraq and assassinate Saddam.

I got some questions for ya....

Did you feel threatened by Iraq for the past 12 years?

Personally? or as a Country. Personally no. As a country, or rather as a comfortable way of life, yes. Why? Instability in th middle east, which leads to instability of crude prices. This not only affects costs of gas, but also of plastics, and other petroleum based products. Already we are beginning to see the effects, although part of the problem was the strikes in Venezuela. If left to his own devices, Saddam's regime would eventually become the agressor, expanding yet again into Kuwait, and possibly even Turkey. This would draw the whole region into conflict.

When the US/UN coalition invaded Afghanistan forcing the Taliban out of power and killing/capturing AlQaeda operatives, were you worried about a possible attack on US soil by Saddam Hussein?

In a nutshell? Yes. But not in a conventional way. Small terrorist cells, sponsored by a government organization, would cause more havoc.

Did you think Iraq was a threat to US national security 6 moths ago?

Again, yes. See above answer.

When those planes rammed the WTC, did you suspect Iraq had anything to do with it?

Initially, yes. But I was also openminded enough, and educated enough to know that Iraq is not the boogey man.

When Saddam quelled the Kurd rebellion with the heinous use of chemical weapons were you screaming about human rights violations?

Actually yes. I can even forward you a copy of the letter I sent to my congressman about it if you want.

At what point after the Gulf War did you start thinking that Saddam was a major threat to the security of the USA?

Since I was in the Gulf War, I never stopped thinking he was a threat to us. We were hobbled, and not allowed to finish a job.

If your govenrment hadn't force-fed all this Iraq propaganda into your empty head, would you still be so gung-ho about suppoting an essentially pointless military action?

Is it really pointless? Would allowing him to remain in power bring stability to the region, allow numerous people a freedom to run thier government the way the see fit without worry of retribution from said governemnt? Would it allow neighboring kingdoms a tranquil nights sleep, allow them to step down military spending, allow them to not worry about VX/GAS missiles flying into thier lands, rendering it useless for human or animal habitation? Would it bring stability to the world economy?

If you had not been brainwashed by liberal media, by anarchists and in general, sub-cultures that think it is "cool" to hate America, and all things American, would you still feel the same way?

It all boils down to PERSONAL POLITICAL PREFERENCES.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 4:08 pm

As your government has forced fed you all the liberal bullshit the spoon feed you with. The media gives you 2 sides you have to chose what you believe.

Actually, I read news from a lot of different sources and draw my opinions based on what I read. I don't define my opinions based on political stereotypes, or labels that americans like to give them.

I admired Bush and the actions he took post 9-11. I thought he was doing a great job leading the US and supported him 100%. Afghanistan was clearly a military action that needed to take place.

I don't believe what Bush is doing in Iraq is for the good of the American people or good for the political climate in the middle east. His motives are questionable and his support is fading.

I think he still has room to restore his credibility but needs to back down on his vehement pro-war stance.

Peaceful disarmament is starting to work.
The buildup of troops might be necessary and is definately expensive... but far less expensive than launching an all out military action.

I really find it hard to believe that you would prefer military action over peaceful disarmament.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 13, 2003, 4:13 pm

Why must you label everyone who supports peaceful disarmamnet in Iraq 'anti-american'.

I certainly don't hate the USA.
I don't hate Bush.
I don't hate war.

It's entirely possible for one to disagree with how Bush is handling this situation and not be an american hater.

PS: Are you going to boycott Geramn beer just because Germany opposes military action against Iraq? I maen, that must make them america-haters, no?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 13, 2003, 5:55 pm

From the likes of his posting, he obviously drinks Busch.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 13, 2003, 5:59 pm

Nah, they will just change the name of the beer to sound more American and patriotic Miir

Gutterr · Post by **Gutterr** » March 13, 2003, 6:24 pm

I see the whole Iraq deal as something that should have been done 12 years ago but Clinton was too scared to finish the job. It also would make Dubya make his father proud to finish what Dad started.

In all, I'm indifferent...yes its good to remove that sick bastard from power like we should have along time ago, as far as what motives the president has behind this and their hidden agendas, *shrug* we can only speculate.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 13, 2003, 6:33 pm

lol now it's clinton's fault.

I love americans.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 13, 2003, 6:34 pm

Is it just me, or are there 4 other active threads that contain this exact same argument by the exact same people?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 6:35 pm

Vetiria wrote:Is it just me, or are there 4 other active threads that contain this exact same argument by the exact same people?

Its you

Gutterr · Post by **Gutterr** » March 13, 2003, 6:58 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:lol now it's clinton's fault.

I love americans.

Whatever dude, the fact of the matter of what I said on who's to blame doesnt matter. The only fact i was trying to point out is that it this was something that should have been taken care of 12 years ago.

And yes, I do put some of the blame on Clinton as well on not following up on shit.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 13, 2003, 7:02 pm

Gutterr that is funny, i recall Bush, Sr being president when we had the ONLY opportunity for regime change in Iraq, but backed off because of fear of public opinion.

If it should have been solved 12 years ago that would have been before Clinton took office.

but dont let reality or facts get in the way of you making COMPLETELY IGNORANT STATEMENTS.

Albert Einstein wrote:I see the whole Iraq deal as something that should have been done 12 years ago but Clinton was too scared to finish the job. It also would make Dubya make his father proud to finish what Dad started.

2003-12 = 1991

in 1991 Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas

i honestly would be embarrassed if i made such stupid comments.

have some fucking self respect.

Gutterr · Post by **Gutterr** » March 13, 2003, 7:15 pm

Voronwë wrote:Gutterr that is funny, i recall Bush, Sr being president when we had the ONLY opportunity for regime change in Iraq, but backed off because of fear of public opinion.

If it should have been solved 12 years ago that would have been before Clinton took office.

but dont let reality or facts get in the way of you making COMPLETELY IGNORANT STATEMENTS.

Albert Einstein wrote:I see the whole Iraq deal as something that should have been done 12 years ago but Clinton was too scared to finish the job. It also would make Dubya make his father proud to finish what Dad started.
2003-12 = 1991

in 1991 Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas

i honestly would be embarrassed if i made such stupid comments.

have some fucking self respect.

Fine then, I blame the last 2 presidents for not finishing the job. My point was still the fact this was something that should have been taken care of 12 years ago. The statement that I made was supposed to be sarcasm, but since you don't know what that is, go fuck off.

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » March 13, 2003, 7:33 pm

Guys, this thread is about Freaking French Fried Potatoe Sticks. Please stay on track? Yeah, Yeah?

Drakoslay

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 13, 2003, 8:02 pm

Voronwë wrote:Gutterr that is funny, i recall Bush, Sr being president when we had the ONLY opportunity for regime change in Iraq, but backed off because of fear of public opinion.

If it should have been solved 12 years ago that would have been before Clinton took office.

but dont let reality or facts get in the way of you making COMPLETELY IGNORANT STATEMENTS.

Albert Einstein wrote:I see the whole Iraq deal as something that should have been done 12 years ago but Clinton was too scared to finish the job. It also would make Dubya make his father proud to finish what Dad started. [/quo

2003-12 = 1991

in 1991 Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas

i honestly would be embarrassed if i made such stupid comments.

have some fucking self respect.

Back then Arkanasas Governors had more power then the President.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 13, 2003, 8:11 pm

I was so upset I blamed OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people but mostly Liberals were the reason that happened that and the AFLCIO oh and Al Sharpton.

I'm pretty sure that you're joking here. I desperately hope you are. But just on the off chance that you're not, what the fuck do labor unions have to do with Al-Qaeda ramming planes into the World Trade Center to protest our foreign policy? Not that blaming liberals and Al Sharpton makes any more sense, but jesus, that AFLCIO thing really doesn't make sense.

If you're joking, then I found it pretty funny.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 13, 2003, 8:11 pm

miir wrote: I have resigned to the fact that Bush is going to invade Iraq.
I accept that fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are going to die.
I accept the fact that thousands more are going to die when the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians start murdering each other after Bush installs his puppet government.
I accept the fact that terrorists are going to increase their efforts tenfold against the US and their allies for their crimes against the nation of Islam.
I also accept that fact that the hatred against the USA will become overwhelming in the middle east.

I'm just glad I'm not American at this point in time.

I am resigned to the fact that Saddam Hussein is not fully cooperating, and the only way he is going to be disarmed is by force.

I accept the fact that us invading Iraq will stop the torture and oppression of thousands of human beings, and in the long run save more lives.

I accept the fact that the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians will finally have proper representation in the government of Iraq after a democracy is installed.

I accept the fact that in the short term terrorism may increase. But seeing past that, removing a government in Iraq that funds and supports terrorism and may provide weapons that will make sept 11 look insignificant, is for the good of the American people, along with the rest of the world.

I also accept the fact that the people of the middle east already hate America, and that once Saddam's oppressive regime is out and the Iraqi people are thanking us for liberating them, other places in the middle east will still hate us but we will have done the right thing.

I'm just proud to call myself an American at this time.

miir wrote:I don't recall seeing the part of the treaty that authorises a full scale military assault/invasion and a forced regieme change if Saddam doesn't offer 100% compliance.

It calls for Iraq to get rids of ALL WMDs and illegal weaponry. If because of Saddam's actions (or in this case inaction) this is not possible through peaceful means, then he must be disarmed. This disarament is not fully possible and lasting without Saddam and his regime being removed from power- this is common sense.

miir wrote:Do you think the death of tens of thousand of Iraqis and possibly thousands of American soldiers is preferable to peaceful disarmament?

Nope, I do not. If peaceful disarmament were possible, we'd go that route. Unfortunately, those of us living in reality, see that it is not currently possible.

miir wrote:Did you feel threatened by Iraq for the past 12 years?
When the US/UN coalition invaded Afghanistan forcing the Taliban out of power and killing/capturing AlQaeda operatives, were you worried about a possible attack on US soil by Saddam Hussein?
Did you think Iraq was a threat to US national security 6 moths ago?
When those planes rammed the WTC, did you suspect Iraq had anything to do with it?
When Saddam quelled the Kurd rebellion with the heinous use of chemical weapons were you screaming about human rights violations?
At what point after the Gulf War did you start thinking that Saddam was a major threat to the security of the USA?

Before Sept. 11, had I felt threatened by Al Qaeda in the past 12 years? The rest of this is all rationalizing, based on appeasement, and illogical. It's ignoring the here and now.

miir wrote:If your govenrment hadn't force-fed all this Iraq propaganda into your empty head, would you still be so gung-ho about suppoting an essentially pointless military action?

Pointless? How exactly is it pointless?

miir wrote:Has Iraq ever participated in any aggressive action (words or deeds) towards any western country?

I'm not saying Iraq is clean, but their aggresive actions have been isolated to Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. Nearly every country in the middle east has taken part in some sort of military dispute with their neighbours...

Yeah, who gives a shit if they invade Kuwait or slaughter hundreds of thousands of Kurds, they're just expendable Muslims. And Israel...well they're just Jews, worth less than even a muslim!

Iraq is NOT fully complying with the U.N. resolution. Complete disarmament is currently NOT possible with the current situation. If you insist on inspections continuing just say that you support appeasement. It's as simple as that. The fact that you keep pointing out Saddam destroying some missles, while ignoring the rest of the gaping descrapncies, illustrates this.

And the small progress that has been made was soley because of the 300,000 troops breathing down Saddam's neck. The second these troops are removed (we can't keep them there indefinently), no more progess will be made.

VeeshanVault

Freedom Fries?

hmm..