VeeshanVault

Posted: **November 10, 2002, 6:06 pm**

Iraq has seven days to accept the resolution's terms
Within 30 days, Iraq must send the U.N. a list of its weapons
Within 45 days, Iraq must allow inspections to begin

Pretty clear, we'll see what happens. Although I did not agree with getting UN approval, I am glad we did at this point.

Posted: **November 10, 2002, 10:42 pm**

And the U.S. is still telling the whole world that if the U.N. doesn't disarm Iraq, we will. And they keep ranting about not needing U.N. approval to do it too.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 10:27 am**

Correct me if Im wrong. But the U.S is part of the U.N and the entire part of the fucking U.N is to make sure that one country doesnt fuck up life for the rest of us, by plunging us into a nice little war.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 10:35 am**

Have fun blowing em up USA! /yawn.

Back to Sportsdesk now.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 10:50 am**

The U.S. isn't going to blow up shit. Dubya really, really, really wants to, but it's not going to happen. You see, Iraq dosen't have anything to hide. They know this. They are playing the U.S. It's true world politics laid out for everyone to see. Iraq, by not allowing U.S. inspecters into their country, have forced America to take a stance that flaunts our negetive stereotypes to the world. The whole time, Iraq has never had squat. They have drawn the whole thing out into a worldwide debate, where we look more like the aggressor then them. When we finally do strong-arm the UN into agreeing with us, and eventually get into Iraq to inspect anything we want, what do you think we'll find? Nothing. Saddam will be looking at America and the rest of the world with a big, shit eating grin on his face, while saying "I told you so". The US will look like war mongering fools, eager to take our vengence out against anyone for Sept. 11th. We will end up validating Saddam to his people, as well as all the others that already dislike us. Like it or not, Saddamn knows what he is doing. He cannot beat us with military might, so he's doing it the old fashioned way and forcing a standoff, much like Castro has.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 1:12 pm**

and you know they dont have squat how?

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 1:25 pm**

i was happy to see the Arab League voted unanimously in support of the UN resolution.

We will see if the UN has any teeth. this is a big test for them, and if they fail to have the resolve to tackle this obstacle, this will hurt their credibilty in these matters greatly i think.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 1:43 pm**

It's a technicality. We aren't sending over 200K+ troops for show. If the US wants to find Iraq noncompliant with the resolutions, they will find a way.

"The U.S. isn't going to blow up shit. Dubya really, really, really wants to, but it's not going to happen. You see, Iraq dosen't have anything to hide. They know this. They are playing the U.S."

-Fairweather

I highly doubt that although at this point I have as few facts as you do. While wars help our economy and there's certainly financial gain being factored into the decisions, Saddam does have to go. His past actions and laundry list of threats are plenty to desire his removal. It would be nice if the US could just say their plan was to install a puppet government to stabilize oil flow from Iraq to the west. I'm no politician though and my straight forward approach would get me booted out of the presidency even though it's being honest...imagine that : )

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 1:56 pm**

OK , now if the UN does actualy get to go in , do you Saddam is stupid enough to let them have Cart Blanc to see whatever they want , HELL no he isnt. If the current gov has been rebuilding their "war machine" do you really think he will point the UN inspectors to it ? NO , if he has been rebuilding all the things he has will be very well hidden. Unlike the " Baby Milk Factory" which looked like a bunch of 3rd graders drew the sign in crayon. Just my 2cp worth , but I have seen how countries can and wil hide things first hand. When in Honduras we took a little flight in ElSalvador and saw just how well they can hide things from thier enemies.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 5:37 pm**

We don't give a damn about whether or not Iraq has weapons, or what they're doing to their people, or to other people. We want oil. That's the reason we care. We already have the zealous Israeli's on our side because of our fervent support of "their cause", which just happens to be the genocide of all local non-israelis. Once we use the piss-poor excuse of "disarmament" to invade and occupy Iraq we'll have a stronghold that just happens to sit atop one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. Strange how these things work out.
Remember what we did to Afghanistan? We basically said "Let us occupy your country or we'll occupy it by force" and it took force to do it. In my opinion this is scarily similar to German expansionism during the months and years before WW2, who also claimed to be occupying countries to free their opressed people, or to overthrow destructive governments, but we don't read about that. We read that they simply brutally invaded these other countries, when in fact they used the same excuses to their citizens that we are.
In the future, what will people read about us?

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 5:45 pm**

Are you kidding me? Germany TOOK countries, for keeps...as in, it's now Germany.....when is the last time we TOOK a country from someone by force and made it a state?

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 5:53 pm**

When did the british land on North America again? sometime around then

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 5:59 pm**

My point exactly, case closed.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:04 pm**

My ancestors were here first if you want to get technical. Britain invaded what is now the US. Fuck Britain!

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:06 pm**

I was just proving a point that we have not taken a country, or land from someone in over two hundred years. Was trying to figure out how that made us like Germany.......drawing a blank still...

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:10 pm**

Argh!! My Eyes!!!

I wasn't sure you had a point but seeing it in bold made it much more clear to me. It really helped!

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:25 pm**

Heh, was thinking wtf, my print is not in bold?!?

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:43 pm**

U.S. not taken anybody over in the last 200 years? Well, at the maximum its 105 (Spanish American War took Guam/Philippines/Puerto Rico). Also, around 50 years ago we did it again (WWII took many Pacific Islands including Saipan, Chuuk, Palau, etc.). Also, one could argue that the Korean War did the same... although its a little bit more slippery there. Vietnam we tried to, but failed.

While I don't agree with the conspiracy theorist large font fellow, the rationalization for having another war with Iraq is weak at best, outright criminal at worst. I believe its a case of winning the battle but losing the war if we kick Saddam out with military force. The repurcussions of doing this are, I feel, grossly underestimated by the current administration.

I think the U.N. is going about it the right way, and if good ol' Dubya gets impatient by its machinations and goes ahead with the fire and lightning, we are in big trouble.

Animale

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 6:51 pm**

Wait, we have states I did not know about now? Sweet!

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 7:13 pm**

I want to say we took Hawaii by force in the early 1880s?

I don't remember the story exactly but there are some locals there that still have resentment.

This whole deal isn't about a direct grab of oil. I'm sure its the cool thing to say as you sip your cappachino and talk about Che and global warming, but it's not factual.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 7:18 pm**

Ok, found it

http://www.state.hi.us/about/history.htm

Threatened constantly by European nations eager to add Hawaii to their empires, sugar planters and American businessmen began to seek annexation by the United State. This, too, would give them the advantages of a sugar market free of tariff duties. Finally, a treaty of reciprocity was negotiated in 1875 and this brought new prosperity to Hawaii. American wealth poured into the islands seeking investment.

Political control by Hawaiian royalty and the growing influence of Americans began to cause conflict. In 1889, there was an uprising of the native islanders against the constitution which had been forced on King Kalakaua two years earlier. The rebellion was suppressed.

In 1893, with Queen Liliuokalani on the throne, the Americans formed a Committee of Safety and declared the monarchy ended. In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was established. On August 12, 1898, the government of the Republic transferred sovereignty to the United States. Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1900.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 7:59 pm**

Man, so it has been over 100 years since we took a country and made it a state? We have been slacking. Annex IRAQ NOW!!!

/sarcasm off

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 8:47 pm**

No way we could take a country in todays time, the price would be too great. If we took Iraq, oil fields would get sabotaged over and over and over. Good article Adex.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 9:34 pm**

There are no need for the US to take over countries anymore.
US will jut have control of the resources and then exploit the country.

Other words, control the oil and have US supported government to deal with people and keep them in debt.

Posted: **November 11, 2002, 11:38 pm**

There is no need to annex anymore. We simply do it in another fashion. Let's pretend, for example, that a small country exists, lets call it ... 'Afghanistan', and this coutry has an anti-US government. We invade afghanistan under the notion that we are looking for a terrorist. We set up a pro-US government. Let's take another small country, lets call it....'Iraq' which also happens to have an anti-US government. We invade iraq under the premice that they are stockpiling "Weapons of mass destruction", which is ironic considering where the largest stockpile of these weapons is....Right here in the United States. Anyways, so we have already begun to invade Iraq because they may have weapons, and what is our intentions? To overthrow the anti-US government and to install a pro-Democracy one there. What does that give us? A new ally that owes its existance to us, and that has lots and lots and lots of oil. This is not annexation, it's the next step above annexation.
>.<

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 12:16 am**

Trying to make up for something here? lol, like a lack of debate points?

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 1:25 am**

Krimson...

Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth (one step from statehood). Guam is an unincorporated US territory (everybody born there is a US citizen). Saipan and the rest of the northern mariana islands are also a US commonwealth. No, its not a state, but that doesn't mean its not US. I know most statesiders don't give two shits about non-state places, but that doesn't mean that the people who live in those places aren't US citizens with supposedly every right and priviledge that you get as a US citizen (well, except the right to vote for President due to our outdated electoral college system for the election of said President, but I digress).

In short... the modern U.S. imperial movement (arguably began by the Spanish American war, continued in Panama, and brought into full force, for good or ill, by WWII and the beginning of the cold war) is far from over, especially in the eyes of nations outside of the U.S. fold. No matter what our true motives are for invading Iraq, it will be seen by many as an extension of this imperial movement. Thus, we would win the battle but lose the war of international opinion if we go in without the auspices of a U.N. action.

The mention of a "war for oil" may be true, but it is not the point that people need to be thinking about within the U.S. Instead, we need to take a long, deep think about which direction we want to move our nation. Back to "Cold war" mentality of us vs. them, or into, to borrow a term from former Pres. Bush, a "kinder, gentler nation" when it comes to dealing with those we disagree with.

True victory lies at the bargaining table, not on the field of battle.
Animale Vicioso

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 4:57 am**

Animale,

Noone makes deals like the United States. There isn't a country int he world that has more and varied trade with the world.

Problem is, some people don't want to talk. They don't want to deal on any sort of terms with the rest of the world. Saddam is one of these.

He has over and over, for eleven years now, refused to make any sort of compensation to the collective peace of mind of the rest of the planet. He has thrown his middle finger in the air and proven very conclusively that he is willing to use and vehicle, including biological weapons to further his personal goals and to oppress his own people.

He needs to go, plain and simple. I am not anxious to see the regional turmoil this is going to cause. Whoever tries to run that shithole next is going to have a lifetime of very serious trouble.

I wish there were another solution. Unfortunately, Saddam himself has burned every last bridge. Now he gets to walk off the cliff he so wisely put himself at the edge of.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 5:16 am**

Cheers Drewno, I didnt need my eyeballs anyway

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 5:53 am**

*takes Drewno's crayons away and sits him in the corner*

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:24 am**

Hehe sorry about the colors. In any event, I just wished people would look at things from a different perspective. A lot of people trust the news as the holy bible and take their views from it when, in fact, the news is just another television show, fighting for ratings - willing to twist, skew, and extort facts to any end to get viewers. Good example that you can all relate to: What 48 hours portrayed Everquest as. Just think, we were ALL angry (Or just entertained) at how piss poor the journalism was. We knew that what they said was blown WAY out of proportion...How did we know? We play the fucking game and we know the facts. Now think about what we know about Iraq and Afghanistan - it ALL comes from the same people. Just think if we knew the REAL facts behind Iraq and Afghanistan and then saw the news - How many things do you think you hear that are undistorted truths?

The mention of a "war for oil" may be true, but it is not the point that people need to be thinking about

I really do wish we could not be complete dumbasses as a collective whole and think of this as something other then a war for oil, but that's exactly what it is. Do you think we gave a damn about Kuwait when Iraq invaded there? Not at all. Our country is completely dependent on oil much like the human body is dependant upon water. Without our supply of cheap (or not so cheap nowadays, thanks OPEC!) oil our country would completely collapse. We may have a population and military advantage over the entire middle east. But like it or not, they've got us by the balls.

As far as saying we need to invade Iraq because they refuse to negotiate with us - they have a damn good reason. I wasn't alive for this particular moment of history so my details are sketchy at best but from what I know Iraq and the US weren't at odds with each other a short while ago. Then came a fight between Iraq and Iran, and we claimed to Iraq that we were neutral. That we would not take sides in this fight. Unfortunately for us Iraq found out that we were secretly funding and selling weapons to Iran- Hussein was pissed. It was called the Iran-Contra(awesome game btw) Scandal, and that's *probly* why Iraq doesn't really like us anymore.

If you want to learn more about the Iran-Contra scandal click here:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/icintro.htm

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 7:27 am**

I don't think this war will be about getting access to oil because of the lurching of Saudi Arabia towards muslim fundamentalism.
I don't think this war will be about distracting the US population from the parlous state of their economy, stocks and government policies on all things non-war-related.
I certainly don't think it's about the US's altruistic concern for the safety of 'civilisation' (damn those hairy barbarians!).

I think it will be all three at once and will have all the factions in Dubya's administration in a foaming frenzy. Especially when the war does kick off and all those billions of tax dollars start pouring into the coffers of the big oil+military industries that this particular US Administration represents. And owns. And runs.

But I'm certain there will be a war and we'll all eat whatever media bullshit excuses we are fed about it and wave our flags happily.

Interesting times.

Edit: apostrophe abominations

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 10:19 am**

Well the game is on now, the Iraq council voted against the UN resolutions, but "will leave the finial decisions up to Sadam".

Let's gear up for showtime, folks.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 10:44 am**

It is no big mystery that the US wants Saddam gone. The entire POINT of us wanting to go to war with them at this moment is a series of a very few facts. If you would stop looking for some hidden deeper meaning and just realize this, you might save yourself a lot of headaches in trying to prove a non-existant point.

1) Saddam has and will attack countries with limited defenses to gain land and resources.

2) Saddam has used and still has biological and chemical weapons.

3) Saddam has launched missiles into Israel for absolutely no reason other than he wanted to.

4) Saddam made an agreement to end the Gulf War (one that he was losing in a HUGE way and would have seen him dead) to allow the United Nations to inspect Iraq with no limitations to ensure that all biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons or factories capable of producing them were not present. He has violated this since the very beginning.

5) Saddam has created an ecological disaster as he was withdrawing from Kuwait. He is not afraid to pollute an area for centuries.

It is a damn shame that the US had to threaten to go to war on its own to get the United Nations to step up and do what it should have done years ago. The oil implications are extremely arbitrary and would only hurt us on the pricing and availability by going to war with Iraq. The oil from Iraq is a non-factor. Stop trying to read more into this conflict than exists.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 11:24 am**

Who cares if this war is about Oil. Wars have been fought for much less than for natural resources. Taking out Saddam and a bunch of terrorists is just bonus. Is it wrong to try and mislead the public about the true goal of the war? Prolly yes. But listen to the screams when the soccer mom's are paying $3 a gallon for their SUV's.

This is an old argument though that has been fought out on another thread. Basically summed up in that we need to find alternate resources. We all pretty much agreed upon that.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 1:41 pm**

i am yet to really form an opinion about what this war is 'about'.

i'm not sure it is really about oil. oil is certainly in the equation.

i think the fact that France has even made some mention of committing troops to a military campaign now suggest there may be some relatively convincing intelligence out there regarding a military threat that the current Iraqi regime poses to the stability of the region.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 2:20 pm**

Now Voro, don't get them started on the French again.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 3:02 pm**

Drewno wrote:Hehe sorry about the colors. In any event, I just wished people would look at things from a different perspective. A lot of people trust the news as the holy bible and take their views from it when, in fact, the news is just another television show, fighting for ratings - willing to twist, skew, and extort facts to any end to get viewers. Good example that you can all relate to: What 48 hours portrayed Everquest as. Just think, we were ALL angry (Or just entertained) at how piss poor the journalism was. We knew that what they said was blown WAY out of proportion...How did we know? We play the fucking game and we know the facts. Now think about what we know about Iraq and Afghanistan - it ALL comes from the same people. Just think if we knew the REAL facts behind Iraq and Afghanistan and then saw the news - How many things do you think you hear that are undistorted truths

Last I checked, most people on the face of the planet do not have the luxury of going to the middle east themselves to find out what is *really going on* So, if you live on a planet called earth, and are not a millionaire that can fly to said place to get firsthand news...YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't flame people as a rule, but that was the most idiotic thing I have ever read.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 3:37 pm**

Voronwë wrote:i am yet to really form an opinion about what this war is 'about'.

i'm not sure it is really about oil. oil is certainly in the equation.

i think the fact that France has even made some mention of committing troops to a military campaign now suggest there may be some relatively convincing intelligence out there regarding a military threat that the current Iraqi regime poses to the stability of the region.

Not true V-Man France is going there in a educational capacity, Some one needs to show the Iraq's how to surrender.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 4:03 pm**

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 5:01 pm**

Last I checked, most people on the face of the planet do not have the luxury of going to the middle east themselves to find out what is *really going on* So, if you live on a planet called earth, and are not a millionaire that can fly to said place to get firsthand news...YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

KK, what is your problem? After every legitimate post I make you respond with a childish rambling trying to make personal attacks on me to defraud my points. If you had taken your time in reading my post and understanding it instead of instantly trying to flame it you would realize that I was not saying we all need to go to Afghanistan in order to realize what is going on. I am simply giving some honest critizism directed towards the media for exagerating, lying, and twisting facts in order to get more viewers - which is even worse because, just like you said, it is one of our ONLY ways to know what is going on. I am also urging people that if they do stick with the news - which I think everyone should, although most Americans don't - they shouldn't take the messages they hear at face value. You can't just trust everything you hear on the news, you need to be able to see through all the shit they try to throw at you in order to scare, and intimidate you into thinking that you NEED to watch the news in order to hear their next story. If you want to hear REAL stories there are plenty of sites on the net you can visit to get the facts.

Are you kidding me? Germany TOOK countries, for keeps...as in, it's now Germany.....when is the last time we TOOK a country from someone by force and made it a state?

I was just proving a point that we have not taken a country, or land from someone in over two hundred years. Was trying to figure out how that made us like Germany.......drawing a blank still...

No way we could take a country in todays time, the price would be too great. If we took Iraq, oil fields would get sabotaged over and over and over. Good article Adex.

We take over countries quite frequently (from a historical perspective), and it's not just in our distant past. It has happened as recently as, say - 6 months ago, even - What the fuck do you think we did to Afghanistan? We sent in military forces to occupy the country in order to overthrow it's government and set up a pro-US government. Those troops are still there, and whether we admit it or not - we control that government. How does this compare to Germany? Look back at what Germany did before WW2 began. They took over a whole bunch of land in a centralized and strategic location, most with military assaults. These countries weren't considered "Germany" they were still considered under their respective names, only now they were in essence controlled by germany. This is just as we now control Afghanistan - and most likely will control Iraq when all of this is over.

Edit Note: I invite you to use FACTS in support of your opinions, it helps - a lot.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 5:42 pm**

Fact- Germany did not enter those countries as retaliation for terrorist attacks, FACT-we did.

FACT-We entered Afghanistan in search of Al-Quaeda, who was responsible for SEP 11th.

FACT-that has nothing to do with Germany.

Better?

-edit I apologize for the personal attacks.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:12 pm**

You are a posterchild for exactly what I stand against. You listen to the news and believe every word. Al-Quaeda was an excuse - nothing more.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:16 pm**

What other reason would we have for shedding blood on that god foresaken moon of a country?

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:16 pm**

i think it is fairly safe to conclude that Al Queda and Osama bin Laden played a central roll (at the very least) in the terrorist attacks on the US.

you may say that the media does not provide evidence up to a certain standard (i believe it does: stuff i've seen on CNN and Al Jezira), but i would put the challenge to you to present evidence that "Al_Quaeda was an excuse - nothing more."

You should be able to back up a statement like that with some hard evidence.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:17 pm**

And please enlighten us with this knowledge that you have and the rest of the world does not.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 6:20 pm**

Al-Qaeda was an excuse? That's the entire fucking reason for being there. Bin Ladin was hidden in Afghanistan, the Taliban would not help us find him, we then considered the Taliban as an ally of Bin Ladin. We took out a pro-terrorist regime and replaced it with a government that would help us find Bin Ladin.

You're doing worst than the media. You're pulling shit from thin air rather than stating any facts whatsoever.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 7:32 pm**

I'm not sure about the sitiuation right now. This is what I understand so far. Starting with afganistsan(sp).

When we went in our goals were clear, elminate Osama, the terrorists, and their suporters. Well I still beleive hes alive, but any kind of organization of a terrorist group has been severly damaged. The way we went about it though was horrible but I can understand from a statistics view. Thousands of innocent people were slaughtered, I'm not sure how we(u.s.) even chose the targets. What I was more suprised and scared of more was that we found chinese arms and troops there. Combined with China breaking the locking system code of the Suez fighter jet from Russia, thier best jet.(forgot the name but i think thats it, reinstalled windows xp and forgot to save my favorites) China is the only country I fear.

Now comes Iraq. While I suport the war, I suport it because we didnt take care of the sitiuation well when we had the chance in desert strom. I also heard that one of the reasons that Saddam will not let inspectors to all of his places is because of the trade sanctions we have against him. But being the man he is I wouldnt want to help him either. I also understand why he wouldnt let them in because if he did we still wouldnt drop the sanctions untill we had a nice chat about that oli.

Speaking of oil, we dont even get the most of our oil from Iraq anyway. we get most of it from Saudi Arabia. Iraq is our #4 source I believe. If we invaded Iraq and took over, we would not make it part of the U.S.. We would "help" up a government there of the people that hated Saddam, which in turn would make them our personal cock sucking bitches. Since they would be in control of the oil, we could get some cheap prices eh? Also it looks good for the books and history, which the press could report no problem without looking bad. And also that "new" government wont mind giving us permission for that pipeline that we want to build, but im not sure if it involves the iraq area, so dont take that last line to heart.

All in All, money is the reason behind everything U.S. does.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 7:43 pm**

It's vertical consolidation, Sion. Much like a car company might buy out a steel plant in order to supply itself with cheap steel - we can take over Iraq and supply our country with a large, albeit limited, source of cheap oil. Also, you may want to rethink putting Iraq on the #4 list for our oil...as of today we import (openly) zero, yes ZERO barrels of oil per year from Iraq. Embargo = Bad for Iraq.

Posted: **November 12, 2002, 7:56 pm**

True, but a car company doesnt have to worry about its global view regarding how it gets its supplies. But a whole government does. If bush ever said "were taking over we want your damn oil" he can kiss his chances of getting re-e....eerr cheney can kiss his chances of getting re-elected again. That being they dont put that as the formost reason.

Also I think one of the reasons the UN agreed to send an ultimatum to iraq was out of fear. We have a pretty good distance from Iraq, well more from his missiles. But most, if not all of the other UN countries are in his range. I believe Saddam's range is all the way to england( of course this needs to be verified i'll check into it), kinda funny how england was the one of the first countries to co-op.

VeeshanVault

UN finally unifies against Iraq

UN finally unifies against Iraq