PDA

View Full Version : Troops in Iraq?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:09 AM
We've just had election in Denmark, and some political parties think we hsould withdraw all Danish troops from Iraq as soon as possible. Now I'm just interested in hearing the voice of KKW. Personally I would find it unfair to the Iraqi people to leave now. We must finish our job. Otherwise there'll probably be civil war and they'll have a new dictator. So please cast your votes and discuss the subject.
NB! This is not a thread dedicated to discussing whether we should have attacked Iraq or not, it kinda too late for that discussion, so please don't start talking about how stupid you think it was to attack Iraq in the first place, kthx?

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 10:14 AM
Jojo sings it the best. Don't we all just love a bit of teen pop?

get out (leave) right now
it's the end of you and me
it's too late (now) and I can't wait for you to be gone

Fit Iraq and the US appropriately and you get my gist. In Australia the party with the withdraw troops policy lost. Australian voters were more interested in the economic interests (selling off government shares is so economically sustaining) of the winning party. In my own opinion, troops should leave. They already have civil war. Terrorists are killing fellow Iraqis if they are in the police or army forces. They currently have a puppet president. What more do you want?

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:17 AM
Still there is democracy. Not as good as it could be, but still. And the president is actually elected, not chosen by the US. The Iraqis have more freedom than they would probably get with a new dictator.

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 10:24 AM
Who were the candidates? What freedom didn't they have before?

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:25 AM
The freedom of speech for instance. The freedom to vote for whoever runs for president.

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 10:28 AM
Freedom of speech? The last person to be Pro-American got shot. The last person anti-American was deemed a terrorist. Another problem is most of the candidates were Shiites, who have had rivalries with the other races in Iraq, such as the Sunni. What democracy do they have?

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:33 AM
A better one than before anyhow.

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 10:39 AM
How about we give that section of it a bit of a rest. After all they've only been in "power" for a few weeks, lets see what they can do. I can see only bodies. Some of them not needing to be there, ie coalition troops.

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:44 AM
I just think it would be irresponsible to leave Iraq now. Look for instance at the area of Iraq the Danish forces are controlling. They are very glad we're there, and the area is rather peaceful.. Maybe some of the other coalition forces are doing bad, but it is possible. Of course there are problems with rebellions, but they will always be there. Their goal isn't to get coalition forces out of Iraq, there goal is stop any kind of democracy and make chaos. If I was in charge I'd probably bomb the living crap out of them when the Iraqi people has gone mad with them, which they will eventually. You just can't do it while they got a that big support in the population. That'll create huge amount of violent attacks on the coalition forces. That should be avoided if possible.

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 10:51 AM
I know your all smart and intellectually gifted, etc etc, but this one of the most stupidest comments I've ever read: Of course there are problems with rebellions, but they will always be there. Their goal isn't to get coalition forces out of Iraq, there goal is stop any kind of democracy and make chaos.

Chaos? Since when did people just want chaos? These people are fighting for a cause greater than just being there to cause an uproar. I'm not exactly sure what they want for their political stance, but I'm sure they aren't totally against democracy. It just isn't fair to the terrorists, who many are Sunnis, who have little say in the election process, with the asskissers (ie Pro-Americans) being highly ranked Shiite leaders (one assassinated but they keep on coming... ambitious) and Shiites being 60% of the Iraqi population.

Foeni
09-02-2005, 10:53 AM
They do not want democracy. They want a dictator who supports the Sharia Law. They are extremists. I'm not sure they know what they would do if the coalition left...

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 11:10 AM
What are they doing while the coalition are there? Causing a giant mess. What if they left? Cause more giant mess! No amount of fighting will stem the flow of terrorism because frankly, they've got the numbers, the loyalty, the courage and the will to die. The Shiites and the Sunni have to learn to get together. They live in the same country, they have to give each other a bit of space. And so what about the Sharia Law? If I have researched correctly (tell me errors when you see them please), its just law based on the Koran. Which isn't a big deal since members from both parties accept this.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12171839-38201,00.html

Ranman
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
your acting like when the shites are gonna want us there after they win the election we'll be lucky if they dont attack us. as for freedom of speech,i hear that goes well in iran where there is a shite gov

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 11:39 AM
The USA though it was necessary to invade Iraq without the approval of the UN.
They need to end what they started them selves and I hope its going to be a very bitter and expensive pill for them, so maybe they will think twice before they go play "I am world cop" again!

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 11:49 AM
Do we need more losses of lives to help prove a lesson? Remember if they withdraw, this won't be seen as an American victory, but another retreat, if less embarassing than Vietnam, but certainly shameful in being pushed off by poorly trained terrorists. Either way they would've learnt their lesson. But then again, you can't teach an old dog like George Bush new tricks. If he wants to go for Iran, good for him. Hopefully other coalition countries such as Denmark or Australia do not follow them.

Foeni
09-02-2005, 11:53 AM
The difference is that Iran has started to do what they're told. Skipping their Nuclear stuff.. If they start producing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction of any kind they should be attacked and stopped, too.

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 11:59 AM
I hope the US attacks Russia for shits and giggles.

Ranman
09-02-2005, 11:59 AM
what about pakistan and india, or isreal they all have nukes
we gonna attack everybody with nukes

Foeni
09-02-2005, 12:01 PM
They are not in any way unstable. Israel is under total control of USA. Without them they'll be overrunned by Arabs. Therefor Israel does exactly what the US tells them to. India and Pakistan aren't extremist like they are in Iran (talking government of course). We know much better what their stands are.

Ranman
09-02-2005, 12:03 PM
pakistan isnt unstable? guess thats why their hidding bin laden

marine
09-02-2005, 12:03 PM
The USA though it was necessary to invade Iraq without the approval of the UN.
They need to end what they started them selves and I hope its going to be a very bitter and expensive pill for them, so maybe they will think twice before they go play "I am world cop" again!

that's what it is call us imperialism, that won't stop (because it's the way Bush thinks, a unilateral way of thinking in my imo and the way us has been thinking openly since world war too, and in some cases it's not so bad, at least back at this time).

since now the situation over there is a mess, all the countries who didn't want to go admit that someting should be done, there are just differencies on how it should be done.
So should the troups leave ? I think that the form of occupation experienced right now should stop, obviously the presence of US troups are causin' more harm than anything else cause a part of the population is against America, I think that some forces should stay in the country but not some comtrolled by the US and some approved by the pop and it's governement and the more neutral possible to help (meaning influenced by the needs and demands of the population)

now, will this happened anytime soon? no, just read an interview a couple of days ago, from a US, menber of the government (can't remenber the name), who was saying that the troups will leave when the population will be able to rule on their own in a proper democracy (hello :icon_conf if you wish the kind of democracy there is in the USA, you're dreaming awake, they have their own culture), which meant also without attacks ect, considering that most of the attacks are against the us presence in the country, they are here for several years.

PS: FF it's already expensive, didn't you hear about Bush's budget for the next 4 yrs and the "results" of the past years ? (that's not stoping anything, Bush just ask for more money from the congress)

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 12:04 PM
How do you define extreme? Just because they believe in another religion and use a different political system to your good self doesn't mean its a total shambles. India and Pakistan have been fighting over borders, and one day those nuclear bombs could tick over. Hey, not as if the US are running over to defuse anything or stop any programs.

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 12:04 PM
The difference is that Iran has started to do what they're told. Skipping their Nuclear stuff.. If they start producing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction of any kind they should be attacked and stopped, too.

So basically what you are saying is that the USA and some others are the only ones who can produce and own weapons of mass destruction?

The whole thing is hypocrite, The USA tells the palestins to follow the guidelines of the UN or they won’t support the peace conventions,..., they command other countries to follow the rules.
But the USA ignores UN guidelines them selves, hypocrites.
Like I said the USA though it was necessary to invade Iraq with huge force, let them clean up their own mess and hopefully it will be a very bitter and very expensive pill.

edit: Its al about money, take the money away and they will sing a tone lower.

marine
09-02-2005, 12:08 PM
The difference is that Iran has started to do what they're told. Skipping their Nuclear stuff.. If they start producing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction of any kind they should be attacked and stopped, too.

in this case be prepared cause if you follow what you said you're going to start attacking a lot of countries, US can't decide this way in fact nobody has the right too, that's an unilateral way of thinking and it's dangerous.

Ranman
09-02-2005, 12:09 PM
Bush thinks??? come on now
who you tring to fool
the man hasnt thought since the 70's
when he was a coke fiend

marine
09-02-2005, 12:11 PM
Bush thinks??? come on now
who you tring to fool
the man hasnt thought since the 70's
when he was a coke fiend

let me fool myself would you ?
I'm sure he thinks yet that doesn't mean he's clever

Foeni
09-02-2005, 12:13 PM
pakistan isnt unstable? guess thats why their hidding bin laden

I'm talking the official Pakistan. The government, and they are certainly not hiding Bin Laden. Some of the population might do, but not the government.

Jet, Denmark is a Christian country but that doesn't mean we follow every word of the Bible. The Iranien government follow every word of the Koran. That's what I call extreme.

Flightfreak, you are perfectly right, there's something terribly wrong here. Don't think I'm a big fan of the US, I'm not! I think all countries should drop the nuclear weapons, but unfortunately the world situation requires that you are superior to these extreme governments. I'm not afraid of the US having nuclears, not at all. Because I don't fear that they'll just suddenly use them, which was the case with Saddam Hussein. It is proven that he have wanted to have them, and if it wasn't for the first Gulf War, he would have had them in 1993. Now, we don't really know about Iran, they have tried develop nuclear energy and arms, and now they've stopped their plans about having nuclear weapons, the are cooperating with the UN. Therefor I don't think they'll be attacked. I hope, when the world comes to a point where is no need for a superior army/weapon development, the US and all others will get rid of their nuclears.

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 12:13 PM
Bush doesn’t think, the oil and weapon industries think for him, he grow up in it, its his life he believes he does good, but so did Hitler,
its the American population who needs to tell him, "hey, you fool thats not what we elected you for"

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 12:15 PM
See, you're prejudiced against countries that don't seperate state and religion. The Middle East is different from Western Europe. Islam is different to Christianity. The Koran is different to the Bible. You can't call them extreme just for being different. Hey, you have a monarchy, big deal.

marine
09-02-2005, 12:16 PM
I'm talking the official Pakistan. The government, and they are certainly not hiding Bin Laden. Some of the population might do, but not the government.

Jet, Denmark is a Christian country but that doesn't mean we follow every word of the Bible. The Iranien government follow every word of the Koran. That's what I call extreme.
.

hey, just to tell you, the koran just as every other religions doesn't advocate violence, now the interpretation of the koran made by some stupid assholes advocates violence, and some even stupider assholes follow them, then you have extremists

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 12:19 PM
Totally agree with Jet!
Who the hell thinks bush he is, to go and force other countries a western system (his *ahem* democratic system *ahem*)? Those people live still like we did 100 years ago, you can’t force them to evolutes 100 years in a few years.
We made the same mistake in Africa are we going to make the same mistake again?

Foeni
09-02-2005, 12:20 PM
I agree. The extremists are those who chose to interpretate the Koran that way. Which by the way was what Christians did with the Crusades. If you wish to read the Koran and the Bible in a way that advocates violence, you can easily do that. Or vice versa. It's only a question about interpretation.

Ranman
09-02-2005, 12:21 PM
i guess bush does think

how did bugs bend the shot gun so it shoots elmer in the ass

if the coyote can ride an acme rocket, why cant he

that he could walk away if a safe hit him on the head

if goofy and pluto are both dogs why can goofy talk and pluto cant

you know important things like that

hasselbrad
09-02-2005, 12:27 PM
These people are fighting for a cause greater than just being there to cause an uproar. I'm not exactly sure what they want for their political stance, but I'm sure they aren't totally against democracy. It just isn't fair to the terrorists, who many are Sunnis, who have little say in the election process, with the asskissers (ie Pro-Americans) being highly ranked Shiite leaders (one assassinated but they keep on coming... ambitious) and Shiites being 60% of the Iraqi population.

Greater cause? The greater cause these 'insurgents' (read: terrorists) are fighting for is the absolute repression of individual liberty of any kind. The greater cause for which they are fighting is to plunge the country into the middle fucking ages. Radical Islam is the moral equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. The difference is, these people have twisted their beliefs until they have become sub-human, indiscriminate killers, rather than just people living in trailers, with neo-Nazi tattoos and really shitty jobs.
My my...it really is unfair to those poor, poor Sunni's. You know, the minority of the population that had the nice hospitals, schools and infrastructure under Uncle Saddam. Whatever will they do now that they don't have their bootheels on the throat of the Shiites? Oh, yeah, I forgot, they'll fight tooth and nail to hamper any progress whatsoever. I find it amusing that you refer to the South as some sort of "proud mob" in one thread, yet you seem to have no problem rationalizing the behavior of the Sunni "mob". Trust me, during the darkest, cruelest hours of the civil rights struggle in the South, nothing occurred that came close to the horrific carnage these people are wreaking on a daily basis.

marine
09-02-2005, 12:28 PM
i guess bush does think

how did bugs bend the shot gun so it shoots elmer in the ass

if the coyote can ride an acme rocket, why cant he

that he could walk away if a safe hit him on the head

if goofy and pluto are both dogs why can goofy talk and pluto cant

you know important things like that

lol, ok so what the guys doesn't think the way I do, and we don't share the same ideas, that doesn't mean that because he has this (i think) archaic way of thinking and that he seems influenced a little too much by others and that he only thinks in term of "black gold" (as said FF earlier) that he doesn't think.
I mean faced, if your goal was to go in some kind of world war 3 with countries of the middle east, you would have seen him as a great leader.

Foeni
09-02-2005, 12:30 PM
Thank you Brad. Just my words, my English unfortunately isn't as good as yours (naturally...). You are completely right!

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 12:30 PM
I agree. The extremists are those who chose to interpretate the Koran that way. Which by the way was what Christians did with the Crusades. If you wish to read the Koran and the Bible in a way that advocates violence, you can easily do that. Or vice versa. It's only a question about interpretation.
Indeed, you can’t force uneducated people to interpretate something in a different way in a few years knowing we took 100 years and more for it.
They approached the whole problem wrong in my opinion, they should have broken the Iraq system trough the inside, and not like they did now with huge force.
But of course what would the profit be for the USA if they supported an idea to break such a system from the inside? Indeed NOTHING
!Its hypocrite!
Let them pay for their brutality and arrogance.

marine
09-02-2005, 12:36 PM
Indeed, you can’t force uneducated people to interpretate something in a different way in a few years knowing we took 100 years and more for it.
They approached the whole problem wrong in my opinion, they should have broken the Iraq system trough the inside, and not like they did now with huge force.
But of course what would the profit be for the USA if they supported an idea to break such a system from the inside? Indeed NOTHING
!Its hypocrite!
Let them pay for their brutality and arrogance.

I agree with most of what you say FF about this war and us imperialism, but nowaday you can't let those kind of situation in this state, there are too much of "intercourses" between countries, and I'm not talking only about oil, so though I would love to see Bush administration collapsed other the question (i'm partial, can't stand his ideas sorry), something has to be done, and as US will never let go on Irak ... that's not an idea I like, but 2day even france recognise the importance of the question (i'm sure oil has to do with it, but not only, also terrorism -i'm convinced that this war created a lot of extremists as a reaction agains US-, geopolitic, ect )

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 12:45 PM
The USA needs to stay in Iraq, leaving it now would only mean chaos and that’s what terrorists want.
But I think Denmark or Sweden or any other countries that has troops in that region should NOT stay there.
The USA wanted to play "world cop" well let them play it on there own.
It will cost them so much money that they will think twice next time.
I would like to see it otherwise, at the end it isn’t the USA or any other country who needs to build up or develop Iraq, but do you really think the USA will leave? No way, this war already cost a fortune to the USA, they won’t leave without profits.
The Iraqi people needs to develop them selves, we can only support projects they build up on their own, because they are the only ones who know their culture habits language, history….

hasselbrad
09-02-2005, 12:53 PM
Indeed, you can’t force uneducated people to interpretate something in a different way in a few years knowing we took 100 years and more for it.
They approached the whole problem wrong in my opinion, they should have broken the Iraq system trough the inside, and not like they did now with huge force.
But of course what would the profit be for the USA if they supported an idea to break such a system from the inside? Indeed NOTHING
!Its hypocrite!
Let them pay for their brutality and arrogance.

The problem with that "pie in the sky" theory is that breaking a dictatorship, run by a paranoid control freak is incredibly difficult. It's not like Saddam was going to allow himself to be voted out of office. Any attempt at a coup was doomed, as were those who participated. Don't believe me? Ask Saddam's sons-in-law...oh, I'm sorry, you can't do that. They're dead.
Brutality and arrogance? I'm sorry, but that is the most ignorant fucking thing I've ever read. Brutality is rape rooms and mass graves. Brutality is gassing entire villages to death and starving your citizens while living in palaces, that are across the street from your other palaces.
What language would you be speaking if it weren't for the arrogance of Roosevelt and Churchill? What would Europe look like if it weren't for the Marshall Plan?

marine
09-02-2005, 01:08 PM
The problem with that "pie in the sky" theory is that breaking a dictatorship, run by a paranoid control freak is incredibly difficult. It's not like Saddam was going to allow himself to be voted out of office. Any attempt at a coup was doomed, as were those who participated. Don't believe me? Ask Saddam's sons-in-law...oh, I'm sorry, you can't do that. They're dead.
Brutality and arrogance? I'm sorry, but that is the most ignorant fucking thing I've ever read. Brutality is rape rooms and mass graves. Brutality is gassing entire villages to death and starving your citizens while living in palaces, that are across the street from your other palaces.
What language would you be speaking if it weren't for the arrogance of Roosevelt and Churchill? What would Europe look like if it weren't for the Marshall Plan?



the situations are slightly differents, of course the USA did a great job in Europe during the world war 2 (I'm not going to point out that they moved mostly after Pearl Habor), but they went to help populations who were asking for their help, and they fought countries who intended to "invade" (sorry but I have a limited vocabulary in english for those kind of convo) the planet, they fought for their freedom as well.

there are the tortures things which have been massively talked about in the press (and yes I know it's not all the soldiers)
moreover you can't deny that there is somekind of arogance, Bush didn't only want to get rid of a dictator, he said himself that he wants to introduce a democracy, the kind USA, Western Europe have, and that's not possible because Irak doesn't have the same history and culture, so I truly think that this goal should be rethink, a democracy yes, but one that is compatible with their culture and history which means different from the us and europe's one.

oh and between (), the marshall plan was a way for the usa to secure their interests in the western Europe, as it did forbid the countries who accepted to form alliances or to have relations with URSS ( in france, England, ect communists weren't allowed anymore to work for the administrations for exemple)
conclusion: those kind of actions are not free

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 01:12 PM
The problem with that "pie in the sky" theory is that breaking a dictatorship, run by a paranoid control freak is incredibly difficult.

Indeed, and it will take time, and it would costs allot of money, with out any profits for the ones who would support the action to break such a regime trough the inside.


It's not like Saddam was going to allow himself to be voted out of office. Any attempt at a coup was doomed, as were those who participated. Don't believe me? Ask Saddam's sons-in-law...oh, I'm sorry, you can't do that. They're dead.
i never said breaking it trough the inside mend voting him out.


Brutality and arrogance? I'm sorry, but that is the most ignorant fucking thing I've ever read. Brutality is rape rooms and mass graves. Brutality is gassing entire villages to death and starving your citizens while living in palaces, that are across the street from your other palaces.
What language would you be speaking if it weren't for the arrogance of Roosevelt and Churchill? What would Europe look like if it weren't for the Marshall Plan?

Sorry, but if a country has the guts to ignore UN guidelines them selves, and go tell other countries to follow them, or we’ll put an economic embargo on you.
Than I call that arrogant.
If someone behaves like he rules the world than I call that pretty arrogant.
War is always brutal, maybe that was a wrong word to use.

Want to stop terrorism?
Support educations projects in countries like Iraq, Iran, they need to develop them selves, Give people the chance to think for them selves to ask questions about a system them selves.
The only thing the so called “anti terrorist projects” do is make more and more terrorists.
Give people the freedom to think for themselves and they won’t become terrorists, and that doesnt mean forcing them western theories up like the usa and others do now. because thats no freedom.

Take something away from someone with out his understanding and he will want to get it back even if it’s bad for him.
Give him the freedom to make the decision for him self, give him the chance to understand why and he will leave it.
think about that ;)

Narg
09-02-2005, 01:15 PM
I voted no, well, not untill they remove more rag heads from the face of the earth, then they may leave.

hasselbrad
09-02-2005, 01:49 PM
And how do you propose implementing these wonderful education programs in state run schools under a totalitarian dictator? Better yet, how do you implement these programs in countries where females aren't allowed to go to school? Fundementalist Islam isn't real keen on educating people on anything other than the destruction of infidels. Infidels is code for you, me and anyone else who doesn't share their belief.
Well, you're right, you didn't say voting him out. I'd be fascinated to hear your plan. Lure him with a trail of cheese out of the palace? He executed his daughters' husbands, for God's sake. What do you think would happen to those who weren't married to one of his daughters? (see mass graves)
Yes, the Marshall Plan protected American interests in the region. It prevented the utter fucking vacuum of power in Germany created by the Treaty of Versailles in the first place. You bet we wanted to protect our interests. We didn't want to have to go back into Europe in another 20 years to liberate France...again.
Oh, and by the way, ignoring the sanctions of a corrupt organization, run by a man who has been helping Saddam rape the citizens of Iraq is okay by me.

EmotionSickness
09-02-2005, 01:54 PM
Finally, someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Brad, you have taken every single word right out of my mouth. I don't even need to respond, haha. You did it for me. Thanks.

Ahh, how I love the voice of reason ... the voice of intelligence.

Foeni
09-02-2005, 02:01 PM
Want to stop terrorism?
Support educations projects in countries like Iraq, Iran, they need to develop them selves, Give people the chance to think for them selves to ask questions about a system them selves.
The only thing the so called “anti terrorist projects” do is make more and more terrorists.
Give people the freedom to think for themselves and they won’t become terrorists, and that doesnt mean forcing them western theories up like the usa and others do now. because thats no freedom.

That of course would be the most ideal solution, but the fact is, that there are thousands of terrorists who would refuse any kind of education. They have learned, many from they're only little children, that everything the Western community brings is bad. They have to be forced. Of course the children who are being born while the US is in Iraq, will have a much better education, and therfor another view at democracy and the western world. Those we can prevent from becoming terrorist. The main part of those who are already terrorist we can't do nothing about. Except of course fighting them. And there is a beginning optimisme in Iraq; they have voted for the first time in what, three decades? You hear a lot of Iraqis saying that they're glad the coalition came to their rescue. Of course they don't think it's nice to be occupied, but it's still better than with Saddam Hussein. A lot of Iraqis praise Allah, that the coalition came.

About the UN.. I don't see why the UN have the right to declare a war legal or illegal. If any of the other countries really wanted to stop the coalition, they should have stood up and said that they would defend Iraq with military force. That certainly would have stopped the US. Then they would have given it another thought. That would cost way too much US lifes.
Flightfreak calls the US hypocrites. What are Germany and France then? It later showed that they lost money big time when Saddam's reign had fallen. They had a major interest in keeping him on his post. Their trade deals were, I think, the main reason they were against invading Iraq. But they used a lot of other arguments. They were hypocrites as well.

marine
09-02-2005, 02:19 PM
About the UN.. I don't see why the UN have the right to declare a war legal or illegal. If any of the other countries really wanted to stop the coalition, they should have stood up and said that they would defend Iraq with military force. That certainly would have stopped the US. Then they would have given it another thought. That would cost way too much US lifes.
Flightfreak calls the US hypocrites. What are Germany and France then? It later showed that they lost money big time when Saddam's reign had fallen. They had a major interest in keeping him on his post. Their trade deals were, I think, the main reason they were against invading Iraq. But they used a lot of other arguments. They were hypocrites as well.

UN is an organisation wich gives legitimacy, and it's important it's supposed to be neutral (I said SUPPOSED) countries have accepted to be controlled by it, it prevents other countries to say that others started a war on personnal interest only (don't know if I made myself clear here) where does it take the right from ? from the countries which have founded it and agreed to sign, USA is one of them, one of the most influent too.

Now for France and Germany, I'm french and I always said that there were reasons why France refused to go as there are reasons why USA, Great-Britain decided to go and I always knew that for both sides it was in part economics reasons, like the fact that even if they would have went US would have forwarded its own interests first. There is also the fact, that France and Germany have different ways of dealing with this kind of situations, you call that hypocrisy, I call that geopolitics.

Now maybe because I'm french and I'm influenced by french media and stuff, but I don't think the USA should have went giving the reasons they gave.
Is it a good thing that the guy is out of the country ? yes, but I also think that the ways and the contest in which the war was started led to the present situation. Lack of legitimacy, lack of "tact" and so on. the fact is that I disagree with the form.

Flightfreak
09-02-2005, 08:09 PM
Want to stop terrorism?
Support educations projects in countries like Iraq, Iran, they need to develop them selves, Give people the chance to think for them selves to ask questions about a system them selves.
The only thing the so called “anti terrorist projects” do is make more and more terrorists.
Give people the freedom to think for themselves and they won’t become terrorists, and that doesnt mean forcing them western theories up like the usa and others do now. because thats no freedom.


This is a utopia, you know why?
Not because it’s impossible, even better it’s the only fair and human way.

Why is it a utopia?
Because it cant work in our world, we live in a world were we can fly around the world in a few hours, we live in a hypocrite world were money rules the world, terrorists can buy a nuclear bomb in a few hours, you can blow up a plane passing every security…
Who trained Osama Binladem?
Indeed the USA,
who provided Iraq with nuclear power plants?
Indeed we, we earned heaps of money by selling those programs to them, knowing very well that he is a dictator, but the will for money was/is too strong,…,yes indeed it still happens Belgium sold weapons too Nepal knowing very well that the regime is a dictator, and so does every country do his part in the oh so fair world economy.

The USA made a huge mistake by ignoring the UN, we don’t live in the wild wild west anymore were two gangs fight for the alcohol business.
We aren’t citizens of Belgium, Denmark or the state New York, or whatever anymore we are world citizens, distance doesn’t mean a thing anymore, you can fly from Brussels national to new York In a few hours,…

It’s an outrage that the USA did this on their own.
That countries like France, Germany were for the *wrong* reasons against it only proves how “hypocrite” our system is. But apparently if you look back in history than you will come to the conclusion that that’s the way humans live and always will live.

The USA are hypocrites like al the rest, but even worse they have the arrogance to behave like they can rule the world, they even have the guts to ignore guidelines of an organisation we need more than ever in the world of now.
Why do I support the idea to redraw all the non USA troops?
To give the USA a damn good signal that they can’t just ignore the UN, knowing that they threatened other counties with economical embargos if they don’t follow the UN guidelines and I am not only speaking about ignoring the approval of the UN for the war against Iraq, I am not only speaking about the economical embargo on Iraq what did more bad than good for the Iraqi people were bush *oh so much cares about*, yes indeed they ignore more UN guidelines,…
I think the world needs to make very clear to the USA that they can’t just go and play the cowboy over the whole globe!
The USA need to pay the bill them selves and I really hope that its going to be a very expensive and bitter one, so they wont be so ARROGANT again a second time. Thats what they want now, now they want other countries to come with troops, now they want the UN.
I say no way,..., you had the arrogance to do it on your own, well you can pay it your selves.

Why do I think the UN is so important? Just because of the fact that the world has become very small, one nuclear bomb could mean the end of the planet, distance is no barrier anymore, we need a “neutral” organisation who tries to keep things in ballance.

IMO

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 08:52 PM
I only said rednecks were a proud mob in response to someone asking how come they were still proud in defeat. I personally don't know much about the Confederates and the northerners or whatever it is. Back onto the topic, its as if you're arguing about whether to go to war or not still Hassel. The fact that Saddam commited atrocities doesn't effect whether the coalition should withdraw now. Your intelligence to quote ES would be useful in a War in Iraq: Right or Wrong, thread, but in this one, that knowledge isn't really suitable. The US and coalition needs to leave now, while it has a chance, stem the flow of dead, and let the Iraqi people stand on their own. What is your solution anyway Hassel? You think the terrorists will break if the Americans just keep being based in Iraq? You'd be quite ignorant to think so. Iraqi still needs have a good, or at least peaceful relationship between the Sunnis and Shiites. They live in Iraq, not the Americans.

Pygmalion
09-02-2005, 09:33 PM
I voted"yes" but thinking about it more, The US army should stay and clean up their mess, otherwise it'll turn into another Afghanistan.

Geroge Dubya said sending troops into Iraq would make life BETTER, but lets look at the oil for instance: Iraq has huge oil deposites (which is why George wanted to go ther ein the first place) but Iraqis cue up for hours-sometimes overnight-to fill up their cars when countries like Australia and the USA suffer no shortages, the price of petrol's actually gone DOWN here!

deviljet88
09-02-2005, 09:39 PM
It did go up to a dollar from 70cents or so, before dropping to 90 cents, so we're still losing out from this war :P What's happening in Afghanistan anyway?

hasselbrad
09-02-2005, 10:05 PM
The Sunnis and Shiites can coexist in a representative democracy. The people that are causing the majority of the chaos aren't even Iraqis for the most part. If states or provinces of some sort can be partitioned within the country, peaceful coexistence can probably happen. However, it would be foolish to pull out at this juncture. They don't have the infrastructure to handle security at this point. The fact that voter turnout was around 70%...especially considering the violence that has been taking place...makes me think the people of Iraq are happy to see democracy. Once the infrastructure is in place and their security forces have been adequately trained, I am all for us pulling out. However, to do so now would leave a dangerous power vacuum that would undoubtably be filled by the most vicious of the thugs currently operating in Iraq. The tide of dead would rise much quicker than it is now.
As to flightfreak's points about enacting change from within, Iran is a much better candidate. Young people in Iran were flashing victory signs to each other when news of Bush's re-election. Iran's fundamentalist mullahs don't have the stranglehold, nor the network of spies, that Saddam had. From what I've read, the younger generation in Iran is very unhappy with the current state of affairs. Iran is ripe for change.
He's also right about us training Osama Bin Laden. We have quite a history of fighting those we have supported and trained. Ho Chi Minh was a valuable ally against Japan in WWII. This sort of thing is inevitable. Bin Laden was more than happy to have American assistance when he was fighting the Russians, but now we are the great Satan.
Kofi Annan is as corrupt as they come, and the fish rots from the head down. If the United Nations wants to be a viable organization, he and his cronies must be given the heave-ho. Thankfully, the Oil for Food scandal may very well be the impetus. UN sanctions had been going on since before most of you knew what the UN was. They weren't working. The French, Germans and Russians were selling him things he wasn't supposed to have. The scary thing is, a lot of it probably in Syria. We'll have to jump off of that bridge when we get to it.
Giving people the freedom to think for themselves is what we are trying to do. Once there are viable democracies and thriving economies in the region, it will be more difficult to recruit young men to strap bombs to themselves. The environment of fear and hatred that is being cultivated my the radical, fundamentalist mullahs is the only way to breed terrorists. We'll never eradicate terrorism entirely, because there will always enough people who are angry about some slight. The trick is to keep that number as low as possible.

Mags
09-02-2005, 10:49 PM
I personally think that at this point, troops need to stay until they can develop some kind of infrastructure to make sure the country can thrive, but I didn't support the reasons behind this war, and I don't support the reasons our soldiers are still there, though I do offer all my support to the soldiers themselves.

I see both sides to the "brutality and arrogance" arguments, namely I think both sides are guilty. There's no doubt that Sadaam was a brutal dictator, but that also doesn't mean the US has the automatic right to decide how best to punish him. No one has chosen us to be the world police, Flightfreak is right about that. Also, one thing which absolutely disgusts me, is who exactly has the right to decide which instances of brutality will get our attention. In the current situation with Darfur in the Sudan, brutalities are being committed on a much larger scale, while all those who have the ability are shirking away from it, though Bush was so willing to send in American troops to a separate region where he decided the situation was too dire to ignore.

As for the brutality of Americans, I can't help but be reminded of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, of which there is AMPLE evidence. I can't even read the news of those events without feeling sickened. It's incredibly hypocritical to suggest that US forces our only looking out for Iraqis' best interest when we're willing to treat prisoners, against whom we sometimes don't even have just cause or a warrant, the way the piles of evidence has suggested. I do also think that George W has been exceedingly arrogant in his entire foreign policy style.

And I can understand arguments that troops should remain to highlight the aspects in which this endeavor has failed, but when given that example, I wholeheartedly suggest pulling every troop out, because with the new budget our esteemed president has just sent to Congress, we're going to need every penny we can get.

Ranman
09-02-2005, 10:53 PM
Giving people the freedom to think for themselves is what we are trying to do. .

is forcing the people to do anything really freedom

Narg
10-02-2005, 06:14 AM
Originally Posted by Flightfreak
The USA though it was necessary to invade Iraq without the approval of the UN

Correct me if im wrong, but the US government still had permission from the gulf war. I beleive bush only asked to be seen as polite i guess..

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 10:30 AM
Originally Posted by Flightfreak
The USA though it was necessary to invade Iraq without the approval of the UN

Correct me if im wrong, but the US government still had permission from the gulf war. I beleive bush only asked to be seen as polite i guess..

But even than,...,

See the hypocrisies:
Bush and his government are the first ones to say to the Palestine’s that they need to follow the guidelines of the UN, or they wont support any peace convention.
They ignore several UN guidelines them selves I call that hypocrisies
What do I need to conclude?
OH its the USA they are the boss of the world they can ignore them and tell others to follow them?
Sorry, but I call that terribly arrogant and hypocrite who the fuck do they think they are?

The UN food for oil scandal is an outrage, but well apperently we are only humans and all make mistakes.
I rather have a corupt "neutral" organisation supported and ruled by the whole world than one corrupt cowboy who plays world cop.
But hassel do I need to remind you of who the main sponsors were of Bush his election campaigns? The oil and weapon industries
How long was bush president before he invaded Iraq? Do I really need to say more?

Of course the world is better of with out dictators like Sadam, of course we are better off with out terrorists like Osama Binladem, but don’t forget we gave them the powers we helped Iraq building nuclear power plants, chemical fabrics, we sold them weapons. (we= usa, europe, ...)

But we also can’t have a Cowboy who plays the police of the world! Certainly not if they don’t play it by the rules.
The USA made the credibility of the UN disappear by ignoring them.

I’ve said it before, we need an organisation like the UN the world is become way too small, and we need them to keep balance and not some cowboy from the wild wild west.
The Bush government and the public opinion needs to accept for once and for all that they can’t rule the world on there own and that they can’t make such decisions on there own.

Why do I think that the USA needs to clean and pay the mess of his own?
Because I want it to become so damn expensive that the public opinion of USA changes, because now its like a lot of people think “oh, aren’t we terribly good, sending our soldiers to bring the so called *cough* “democratic” *cough* in to countries like Iraq, the rest of the world should be thankful.

And this is an total outrage what I can’t accept and what even your own high Court of Justice doesn’t accept.
Guantanamo bay CUBA

http://www.startribune.com/stonline/images/news88/1atta0119.l.jpg

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 12:46 PM
is forcing the people to do anything really freedom

What are we forcing the Iraqi people to do?

The UN food for oil scandal is an outrage, but well apperently we are only humans and all make mistakes.

Uh...no. A mistake is a misunderstanding. Trust me, Kofi Annan and his cronies understood what they were doing. Siphoning billions of dollars out of a program designed to help feed millions is not a mistake, it is a cold, calculated fraud against humanity.
So then, given your reasoning that that was a "mistake", I would assume that the war in Iraq could be deemed a "mistake". Oh well...whoopsie-daisy...we made a "mistake". But, that's okay. People make mistakes...right?

How long was bush president before he invaded Iraq? Do I really need to say more?

Two and a third years. And your point is?

No one has chosen us to be the world police, Flightfreak is right about that.

You're right...it was Trey and Matt. ;)

As for the brutality of Americans, I can't help but be reminded of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, of which there is AMPLE evidence. I can't even read the news of those events without feeling sickened. It's incredibly hypocritical to suggest that US forces our only looking out for Iraqis' best interest when we're willing to treat prisoners, against whom we sometimes don't even have just cause or a warrant, the way the piles of evidence has suggested.

Worse cases of "brutality" occur in fraternity houses across America every single day. I'm not saying it's right, I just think it should be kept in perspective. It was embarrassing and stupid, but to assume that it is the norm in regard to our treatment of Iraqi citizens is ridiculous.
And, that photo from Guantanamo Bay is ridiculous. They are fucking terrorists, who in reality, should have already been executed.

Andrew
10-02-2005, 01:16 PM
And, that photo from Guantanamo Bay is ridiculous. They are fucking terrorists, who in reality, should have already been executed.
What about the fact that their are prisoners being kept their which they have got no evidence on which has lead to them having to release prisoners who have been kept their for upto 3 years?

and upon the release of these prisoners they have also spoke about how they were being mis-treated in their

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 02:00 PM
Ok, hassel few questions:

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore UN guidelines themselves, and threaten other countries because they don’t follow UN guidelines?

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore “the convention of Geneva”?

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore the “human rights”?

Do you think the USA has the right to hold people in prison, without any form of trial?

Do you think the USA would have invaded Iraq if there wasn’t any oil?

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 02:33 PM
Ok, hassel few questions:

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore UN guidelines themselves, and threaten other countries because they don’t follow UN guidelines?
When the United Nations ignores its own guidelines, and refuses to enforce, if memory serves me, eleven resolutions, yes.

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore “the convention of Geneva”?
Since the Geneva Convention applies only to regular, uniformed troops, it doesn't apply here. Period. All of the teeth gnashing over this issue is moot, since these 'insurgents' are really just terrorists who purposely use the cover of civilians.

Do you think the USA has the right to ignore the “human rights”?
No. However, if the only way to get a terrorist to tell us where the next roadside bomb is going to explode, is to hook his nutsack to a car battery, I have two things to say. Red is positive. Black is negative.

Do you think the USA has the right to hold people in prison, without any form of trial?
See the answer to the Geneva Convention question. If we need to hold people in order to extract information, so be it.

Do you think the USA would have invaded Iraq if there wasn’t any oil?
Probably not. But, then again, the French, Germans and Russians probably wouldn't have continued selling items illegally to Saddam if his natural resources were limited to figs and dates.
I know what you are getting at. I've read enough of your "American Imperialism" posts. We are not stealing Iraqi oil. That was Kofi Annan, Uncle Saddam and the UN. We are simply trying to help create a stable, friendlier Iraq. If we succeed, and the Iraqi economy flourishes, it may very well begin to cause changes in countries like Iran. The more economies in the region that flourish, the harder it becomes to recruit more terrorists.

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 02:40 PM
So what’s your conclusion than?
The United States are the only fair, balanced and democratic party in this whole affaire?

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 02:55 PM
As opposed to blocking every attempt to oust a ruthless dictator, simply to protect one's business interests, then yes.

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 03:22 PM
hm, I am a bit confused now,
So basically what you are saying is that the USA was the only one who was able too do the right thing. Because al the others were corrupt.
right?

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 03:51 PM
5000 children were dying per month (UNICEF figures) due to the Oil For Food money being diverted to Saddam's military. He was not supposed to be arming himself.
Resolution 1441 was passed by the UN Security Council, which basically said, disarm or else. France signed Resolution 1441, and then immediately began going to African nations and paying them to not support the United States.
French firms were selling aircraft parts to Iraq...after they had signed R1441.
A French oil company had an oil contract worth billions of dollars pending with Baghdad, the money from which, was to be used for even more military buildup, again, in direct conflict with R1441.
Seems pretty corrupt to me.

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 06:57 PM
I have a few questions, so if the USA really did al of this just to give the Iraqi people a better life.
Why?
LINK1 (http://home.tiscali.be/flightfreaks/IRAQ.htm)
Why?
LINK2 (http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/embargo/The%20Impact%20of%20the%201991%20Aggression%20and% 20the%20Continued%20Embargo%20a.htm)
Why?
LINK3 (http://home.tiscali.be/flightfreaks/IRAQ 2.htm)

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 07:17 PM
I have a few questions, so if the USA really did al of this just to give the Iraqi people a better life.
Why?
LINK (http://home.tiscali.be/flightfreaks/IRAQ.htm)
Why?
LINK (http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/embargo/The%20Impact%20of%20the%201991%20Aggression%20and% 20the%20Continued%20Embargo%20a.htm)
Why?
LINK (http://home.tiscali.be/flightfreaks/IRAQ 2.htm)

Um...are we supposed to be giving them wireless network capability?
Me no understand. Nevermind. When I clicked your links, I got ads. I'll read.

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 07:18 PM
sorry, corrupted urls repaired them.

doubly
10-02-2005, 07:57 PM
Suppose for a moment that the Iraqi elections prove to be a resounding success. Suppose a democratic goverment is established. Don't you think that this seed of democracy will prove to be a starting point for a totally democratic Middle East? And don't you think (suppositons having occured) that the US shoul reap more benefits from this new Iraq than other nations that didn't contribute as much to the invasion? The US would be hailed for their foresight.

I for one think that the United Nations is outdated, corrupt, and bent on keeping America's power under control.

Flightfreak, I didn't even bother to read your links because they seem to have no citations, and there is no indication that they are from a reputable source.

It's too early to consider taking troops home. I'm alarmed at whoever said that the US needs to "learn a lesson." Do you mean that my own cousin needs to be murdered by a terrorist in Iraq? I'm no French historian, but from what I gather about all your revolutions, it seems it took you guys an awfully long time to democratize. So we can't expect such a fast turnaround.

Flightfreak
10-02-2005, 08:09 PM
Just a quick question, Is Fox news a reputable source for you?
because if it is than i know enough.

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 08:33 PM
Doubly beat me to it.
What you have there are opinion pieces, pure and simple. I don't care how many people the writer claims "resigned in protest" of sanctions, the fact of the matter is that the Food For Oil program was set up to alleviate these hardships. The grim reality is that Saddam used this money to build more palaces and buy more weapons, while allowing the infrastructure, especially in the Shiite areas, to deteriorate.
In response to your question about Fox, Brit Hume does the best job of reporting, rather than editorializing, the news. He does a better job than Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather. Of course, I think Al Franken would give a more balanced report than Dan Rather.

Foeni
10-02-2005, 08:42 PM
I must admit, I didn't read all the links. I read most of the first one, and gave up. It seems to some journalist travelling to Iraq like a tourist. Of course it seems better than it is. Every country will make their country look better to the outer world.. You gotta look at the cold facts, not a personal memoir.

Ranman
10-02-2005, 09:11 PM
Before this tread gets locked I want to make a few points

Fox news is anything but fair and balanced. All through the election
they never said a harsh word about bush and poked fun at Kerry every
chance they got.
Next we went to war because saddam had "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" not because of the oil for food scandal. Only after the fact that there weren’t any WMD's did we hear of oil for food, torture chambers, his connection with terrorist. Maybe it was to take peoples eyes off the fact there are no WMD's Finally the people of Iraq Kurds, Shites and the Sunni, these people have hated each other for hundreds of years. If you think one election and the chance of freedom is going to bring and end to the hatred? If you do there is a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. We should let them split the country three ways so they all have power
But we won't so there will probably be civil war. There is a different culture in the Middle East. We can't force our way of life on them. They don't want it.

hasselbrad
10-02-2005, 09:42 PM
...and if you think he didn't have WMD's, I've got some beautiful mountain property here in Florida for you.
We've found some items, Sarin or Ricin with Russian on the labels.
More than likely, most of them are in Syria. Thanks France!
He had them. He's used them. Hopefully we can find them before we have thousands of corpses being carried out of the subways of New York City.

Andrew
10-02-2005, 10:12 PM
Just a quick question, Is Fox news a reputable source for you?
because if it is than i know enough.
I don't no if anyone on here has seen it but there is a film that was released which was documentary called 'Outfoxed' which shows just how bad and unfair this news actually is.

Ranman
10-02-2005, 10:22 PM
I don't remember seeing any news reports about Sarin or Rican bombs
and fox news is on my parents TV alot. If Saddam had any WMD's why
didn't he use them on us? If they were moved to Syria where is the proof?
They have satellites that would have all these weapons being moved.
And alot of stuff Saddam had was American from the early 80's
when we supported him.
Nothing like bush fans twisting the facts in his favor.

Nick
11-02-2005, 05:51 AM
There are no "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION." I know this for a fact because my cousin is in the Army and was in Iraq for a year. During his time there one of his platoon's missions was to protect an area at all costs where there were supposedly WMD's burried. When they finally dug the area up they found nothing but some old rusty trucks burried in the sand.
My cousins platoon was under fire pretty much the entire time the work crew was digging and it was all for nothing, he put his life on the line and nearly lost two men for a bunch of sand and some old rusty trucks. That's the kind of war we're fighting people, it has nothing to do with freeing the people of Iraq and bringing Democracy.
It's nothing short of a Crusade, Bush thinks he's going to purge the Middle East of Islam. He isn't going to stop with Iraq either, in fact they are now talking about invading Iran, don't ask me why. Iran is pretty much minding their own business but Bush will think of some bullshit excuse to get more of our soldiers killed. Anyway I suppose you have guessed that I think we should withdraw as soon as possible. Although I do agree with the argument that we need to finish what we started first. Since we got rid of Saddam we need to help them set up a new government but we need to do it quickly and get the hell out of there because this is turning into another Nam.

Liam
11-02-2005, 05:56 AM
We cant leave.

If we do, the place will turn into a nation purpose built for the training of terrorists and other assorted ratbags. I just wish Bush and Co. had given a *little* more thought to post war reconstruction before charging in all gung ho with guns blazing, just to prove that he wasnt going to be talked down to by the UN.

Maybe next time they will do their homework first.

Foeni
11-02-2005, 06:35 AM
Danish engineers actually found some traces chemical substances which are used for WMD. And as I said before, Saddam has always wanted nuclear arms, according to a defected scientist. And he would have had themin 1993if Bush senior hadn't stopped him.

deviljet88
11-02-2005, 07:07 AM
North Korea just said they have nuclear weapons and are withdrawing from disarming or whatever talks were going on. GO AMERICA, GO GET THOSE BASTARDS!

Liam
11-02-2005, 07:08 AM
They wont touch the North Koreans. Doing that would upset China.

deviljet88
11-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Touching Iraq upset who? Touching Iran will upset whom? And who was the blundering idiot who said Iraq, Iran and North Korea (Was these 3 wasn't it?) were an axis of evil?

Liam
11-02-2005, 07:36 AM
It upset nobody. Thats the point.

deviljet88
11-02-2005, 07:43 AM
If it upset nobody there wouldn't be much fighting would there :P I'm pretty sure there's some Middle Eastern country that doesn't support this American action, but their names don't come to mind yet.

Liam
11-02-2005, 07:48 AM
I'm talking major world powers.

deviljet88
11-02-2005, 12:02 PM
So what's to be done about North Korea? Nothing? Who might pose as a bigger threat than Iran, who I doubt are threats but if Bush thinks so, good for him.

Ranman
11-02-2005, 12:11 PM
what the threat about north korea?

just lil kim with one hand, his fingers on the nukes

and the other hands fingers on a gameboy

see there has to be traces of WMD for the usa to attack

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 12:21 PM
I don't remember seeing any news reports about Sarin or Rican bombs
and fox news is on my parents TV alot. If Saddam had any WMD's why
didn't he use them on us? If they were moved to Syria where is the proof?
They have satellites that would have all these weapons being moved.
And alot of stuff Saddam had was American from the early 80's
when we supported him.
Nothing like bush fans twisting the facts in his favor.

Funny, that.
I've seen pictures of the vials of Sarin (or Ricin) in a briefcase in a room with all other assorted goodies. If memory serves me, it was in an AP service slideshow of pictures taken after a home was raided.
The fact that you folks need to get your minds around is that we're not going to find railcars full of artillery shells and bombs loaded with chemicals. This stuff is easily hidden in briefcases, backpacks and car trunks. It's in vials the size of Sharpie's. And, generally, it's highly concentrated and extremely dangerous. When a country has a member of the government nicknamed "Chemical Ali", I think it's safe to go ahead and assume that they are creating and stockpiling chemical weapons.

It's nothing short of a Crusade, Bush thinks he's going to purge the Middle East of Islam.

Really? Then why, within days of 9/11, didn't we turn the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass?

Ooops...I lied. It wasn't AP. It was USA Today. Picture 2 in the slideshow.
Notice the languages printed on the boxes of Sarin. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm)

Ranman
11-02-2005, 12:26 PM
Like I said before WHY DIDN'T THEY USE THEM IF THEY HAD THEM

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 12:42 PM
Most of it had probably been smuggled into Syria.
There's also the nagging issue of delivery systems in a military application. Couple this, with the fact that his military crumbled rapidly, and there really wasn't a way to effectively use them.

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 12:47 PM
So what's to be done about North Korea? Nothing? Who might pose as a bigger threat than Iran, who I doubt are threats but if Bush thinks so, good for him.

So, we didn't do it right in Iraq, and we're doing "nothing" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948909/site/newsweek/) about North Korea. Which approach do you approve of?

Narg
11-02-2005, 01:10 PM
And this is an total outrage what I can’t accept and what even your own high Court of Justice doesn’t accept.
Guantanamo bay CUBA


...

you clearly havent seen the film clip of a us soldier getting his head cut off wiht a 3" blade by a group of terrorists. Hearing the blood gargle in his screams as his head is severed and the terrorist holding it up like a trophy. These people are the lowest form of life, Guantanamo bay is what they deserve.


Arabs are basically fucked. This happens when you take a hunter gatherer society, and acclerate it to todays technology in 100 years. It's a massive culture shock, and they dont know what to do. The same thing happened with the Aboriginals of Australia. 100 years ago, they were running around naked spearing animals. Its to much technological acceleration in a small time period, it fucks races and countries up. Download a Arabian drift movie called "matrix", it really shows you how much these people value their lives.. re: not at all.

edit: im fucking glad America are pushing these 3rd world shithole countries around. It keeps my standard of living as high as it is. Sounds arrogant and it is terrible, but fucked if i care.

Ranman
11-02-2005, 04:40 PM
Most of it had probably been smuggled into Syria.
There's also the nagging issue of delivery systems in a military application. Couple this, with the fact that his military crumbled rapidly, and there really wasn't a way to effectively use them.


Syria, where's the proof?
No delivery system, no effective way to use them.

My point is made there were no weapons of mass desruction.

Most of the countries in the world are working on ricin and sarin.
Ricin is widely available, easily produced, and derived from the beans of the castor plant
Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent Sarin originally was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide.

If this is a type of WMD, maybe we ought to attack everybody
because i'm pretty sure everyone has them or can get them.

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 04:57 PM
Maybe this guy has an axe to grind, or maybe he's telling the truth. (http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php)

As far as delivery systems go, I didn't say they didn't have them, I just theorized they had problems that stemmed from the fact that their military crumbled rapidly. Ask the Kurds and Iranians about Uncle Saddam's delivery systems.

Ranman
11-02-2005, 05:13 PM
My axe is that bush lied and the Republican party is fine with that.
Remember when Clinton lied about sex, Republicans in congress
impeached him. Clinton admitted he lied, why can't Bush?
Clinton got a blowjob and you would have thought it was the end of the world.

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 05:16 PM
So then...did all of these people lie too?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Ranman
11-02-2005, 05:57 PM
And how many Americans died from all that...ZERO

All quotes from Democrats, and none from Republicans

How pathetic.

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 06:51 PM
And how many Americans died from all that...ZERO

All quotes from Democrats, and none from Republicans

How pathetic.

Um...yeah, you missed the point. That would be hypocrisy.
Did you notice the names? Well, it's obvious you did, since you noticed they were all Democrats.
Kennedy. Pelosi. Levin. Graham. Kerry. Byrd.
They were all convinced that Saddam had, and was continuing to produce, biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons. Bob Graham signed a letter urging Bush to act. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry were convinced enough in 1998 to draft a letter to Clinton, urging him to act. Now, they are Bush's harshest critics, for doing what they urged Clinton to do. That is fucking pathetic...partisan politics, pure and simple.

Ranman
11-02-2005, 07:48 PM
The difference is they admit they were wrong

How come Bush can't do the same

hasselbrad
11-02-2005, 08:07 PM
...because he's right! ;)

And with that, I leave you. Have a nice weekend all!

Ranman
11-02-2005, 08:14 PM
So all the Democrats on your list were wrong and stupid

and Bush was right for going to war for those reasons

I must have a problem doing the math (oh yeah Bush uses fuzzy math)

or I have a brain and can't lower myself down to a republican way of thinking