If Iraq is shown to have ties to 9-11 would you support going in w/o the UN

[algboy 0]

"Damn right! They're standing in the way of the US empire. The emperor will _not_ be pleased."
Hope I get to jump with you someday. If you jump as good as you think, that is! (Don't think I've disagreed with a single one of your previous posts)
Anyway . . . this is a sad time for Americans. We have a petulant, war-mongering, chicken-hawk pResident who has alienated the world against us. This is not like WWII. We have NO business getting ticked off at the French, British, Chinese and Russians for playing the "turd in the punch bowl" role. This is about wanting to have a war over *alleged* weapons of mass destruction, which *might*--just might--be used against us. Pretty terrifying, eh? Any skydivers actually buy this crapatolla?
Oh--and please don't tell me to "love it or leave it," Mr. All-American Redneck! That's what I'm here for: to make your provincial, pork-rind eating, ethnocentric, jingoistic life a teeth-gnashing hell. Deal!
I invite you to read the Constitution, grab a decent history book or three and read a few international papers/magazines. Gee--kinda rocks your world, doesn't it?
Why do we have 200K troops in 144 countries? We ARE the New Centurions. Pax Americana. Deal!
Do they hate us because we're rich and beautiful?? Hardly--if they did, they would have bombed Rodeo Drive years ago. Sure, they love our movies, music and Coca-Cola. But, they hate us for our foreign policy--our meddling, bombs, CIA and financial blackmail.

“Keep your elbow up!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I am not saying you cannot do so. I just want to hear it from you."

Shabakazaa, you are preaching to the converted my friend. I've been through the whole "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" thing. I discussed it here about a year ago, and got publicly shouted at, flamed, and insulted. I'm not going there again.

I disagree with the term "war on terrorism", you can't wage war on an abstract pronoun. As above, I'm not re-opening that discussion.

I also disagree with waging war on Iraq for any other reason than non compliance with UN resolutions, and if any action is to be taken, it must be sanctioned by the UN security council. Anything less is illegal.

In answer to the thread subject my response would be a resounding no.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Sure, they love our movies, music and Coca-Cola. "

Apparently not
http://www.mecca-cola.com
(edit to add link)

This is a real product, but its not the 'Real Thing'

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[algboy 0]

Sorry, man, but this poll BLOWS!!
It's worded something like:
1. It's OK to beat your wife
2. It's OK to beat your wife--but only if she really, really, REALLY pisses you off.

Next . . . . . . . .

“Keep your elbow up!"

[billvon 3,120]

>If your offended by my language . . .

If I'm offended by your ideas I will discuss them with you. If I'm offended by your language I'm going to delete your posts. Please keep them civil.

>and has obviously got you believing he's not a bad guy!

He is a horrible man. He must be stopped. The issue is how do we do that. I happen to think that killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis to try to get to him (and probably failing; he's survived 20 years of coup attempts) is a poor way to get him out of power.

>If your offended by my language, strap on a "G" suit and come for a
> ride . . .

Be happy to. Where and when? Of course, I think taking a ride in an airplane doesn't make you any more qualified to be part of an open debate, unless the topic is rides in airplanes. But it would be fun.

>wipe the tears from the the faces of the kids who's Dads DID not
>come home in 1991. Unless your willing to do that DO NOT get on
> your GD horse to me!

And who will wipe the tears from the faces of the many tens of thousands of Iraqi children who watch as US bombs kill their parents?

War is never a good solution. Sometimes it's neccessary, and I admire the men and women who are willing to wage it to secure our freedom and security. That does not make it any less of a _last_ resort.

[billvon 3,120]

> You actually had the balls to put the words "Sadam" and "Pro-
>American" in the same sentenence?

Go search the web. There's a famous picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld. We gave him military assistance back when he was fighting the Iraqis for us; clearly we didn't always think he was so bad.

He would no doubt do whatever he can to stay in power. If it meant gassing a 3 year old girl he would do that. If it meant being pro-US he would do that.

[billvon 3,120]

>However, what is the definition of terrorist?

A person who uses terror against us. A person who uses terror for us is a freedom fighter, or a rebel, or part of an underground.

[cuchulinn 0]

I want to express an apoligy for my recent posts on this topic. Not for my views but for the way I expressed them. I spent many years over there as I'm sure many forum readers have, lost many friends over there and growing up in New York City with in view of the towers, there were close childhood friends killed on 9-11. My son just went over there this week and a few beers into worring last night, my emotions got the better of me....

Blue Skies

SMA#18

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I think you may have been listening to Rush a little too much. Hussein is a very bad man, and there are indeed good reasons to make sure he is incapable of waging war, one way or another. Claiming that he's going to kill us all, and that he hates all americans, is a little silly

no Bill he has helped train the 9-11 cowards. Let's take him out before he trains more.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Go search the web. There's a famous picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld. We gave him military assistance back when he was fighting the Iraqis for us; clearly we didn't always think he was so bad.

Of course, you meant the Iranians right?

Perhaps we were simply supporting the lesser of two evils. While we were openly helping Saddam in the 80s, we were covertly supplying the Iranians too.

This seemed to be an indicator of playing two warring factions in a game of "occupation". Now, if we were really thinking that Saddam and Iraq weren't so bad, don't you think we would've given him broader assistance? Remember, we didn't sell him planes, tanks or much hardware.

By keeping those two countries at it, you've preoccupied the region with other tasks of keeping their noses to the grindstone, producing oil (oil was at all time lows), and keeping quiet in the face of two of the most powerful countries in the region in an open war.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I think you may have been listening to Rush a little too much. Hussein is a very bad man, and there are indeed good reasons to make sure he is incapable of waging war, one way or another. Claiming that he's going to kill us all, and that he hates all americans, is a little silly

no Bill he has helped train the 9-11 cowards. Let's take him out before he trains more.

VERIFIED evidence?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rgoper 0]

i voted that we need concensus in the UN forum. if we attack without the required 9 UN votes, we will only succeed at unifying Russia, China, Germany and France. that would unify 4 very powerful nations. what if all 4 turned on us at once? it would be a very different situation then wouldn't it? i still vehemently contend that we should eliminate SH et.al with a 0.35 cent bullet from a sniper's rifle. as for the notion the good ol' US of A is going to "waltz" right in iraq and take control of iraq's energy, that's an absurd notion, it won't happen, the afore mentioned world powers (yeah, US is not by itself in having some stroke) won't allow it.
as of this morning, we will not have access to our most technologically advanced war machines, (these machines are outfitted with "friendly fire" identifying equipment, never before utilized) the specialized tanks that were to be utilized in Turkey's southern border to help the US gain access to iraq's northern border now sit dormant in the red sea. wonder how much that is costing the taxpayers per day?

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

VERIFIED evidence?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html
I know you will not accept this comrad kallend but it's true but here is a photo.

photo credit.... Gary Napier and his whole staff from Space Imaging, Inc. for these images from their IKONOS satellite.

[rgoper 0]

while thses url's are most enlightning, i'm sure it's old news. at least nothing new to me as i can only speak for myself. whether we have "verified" data or not, you asked opinions of other's here whether UN concensous was nessecary or not. i voiced my concern on the UN issue and to me it's valid. i can't wait until the proff. see's you've referred to him as "comrad" that's rich! John is nobody's fool you know. mein junge!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

i can't wait until the proff. see's you've referred to him as "comrad" that's rich! John is nobody's fool you know. mein junge!

I'm sure comrad knows I was kidding[ angelic]

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

VERIFIED evidence?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html
I know you will not accept this comrad kallend but it's true but here is a photo.

photo credit.... Gary Napier and his whole staff from Space Imaging, Inc. for these images from their IKONOS satellite.

1. PERSONAL ATTACK

2. Nice picture, how is it evidence of a link to 9/11?

3. You could not convict anyone of shoplifting on "evidence" that tenuous, yet you would go to war over it? (Well maybe in Illinois we would sentence someone to death, we do that all the time with no good evidence)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

You could not convict anyone of shoplifting on "evidence" that tenuous, yet you would go to war over it?

Please just admit that the only evidence you would accept would be a known Al Qaida member killing thousands of people in the US, dressed in the Iraqi flag, singing the Iraqi National Anthem, with a tattoo of UBL on his butt. As soon as you verify this we can move on to other arguments.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[rgoper 0]

yeah........what Kenny said!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

1. PERSONAL ATTACK

comrad meand friend right? You don't want to be my friend

Do you really think that was a personal attack? I'm sorry if i offended you, what kind of VERIFIED evidence do you want that I'm sorry?

[billvon 3,120]

>Of course, you meant the Iranians right?

Yep, typo. Sorry.

>This seemed to be an indicator of playing two warring factions in a
>game of "occupation". Now, if we were really thinking that Saddam
> and Iraq weren't so bad, don't you think we would've given him
> broader assistance? Remember, we didn't sell him planes, tanks or much hardware.

Well, we did give him a bunch of helicopters. (And this time "we" means with the approval of US government.) They were the civilian models; he quickly converted them to military versions and used them in the anti-Kurd attacks.

> and keeping quiet in the face of two of the most powerful countries in
> the region in an open war.

While that works to distract them, I don't believe that you can tacitly approve the use of chemical weapons by supporting a regime using them against another country, then use their existence as a reason for invasion - just as you can't tacitly approve of a country's invasion of its neighbor then go to war because it attacks its neighbor.

But that's an issue of morals, not practicality.

[flyboyshell 0]

I may not be a citizen of the US just yet, but to me this is still my home. I love this country, the people, skydiving and everything else. No matter what, war or peace these terrorists are going to take the US on somewhere down the line and even more people are going to perish.

If I could, I would pick up arms and fight this war with all of those other proud volunteer US soldiers ready to take on god forsaken Iraqi, and rid Saddam once and for all.

Hey, but that's just me and my opinion!

Blue Skies!!!

FlyBoyShell
EarthBound FreeFly Suits

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I may not be a citizen of the US just yet, but to me this is still my home. I love this country, the people, skydiving and everything else. No matter what, war or peace these terrorists are going to take the US on somewhere down the line and even more people are going to perish.

If I could, I would pick up arms and fight this war with all of those other proud volunteer US soldiers ready to take on god forsaken Iraqi, and rid Saddam once and for all.

You know most of the people coming here feel proud of being included as a country. it's a shame how some don't understand how great it is to be here!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

... I don't believe that you can tacitly approve the use of chemical weapons by supporting a regime using them against another country, then use their existence as a reason for invasion - just as you can't tacitly approve of a country's invasion of its neighbor then go to war because it attacks its neighbor.

But that's an issue of morals, not practicality.

Agreed and I hope I didn't infer any potential approval, simply trying to recall the events, regardless of motive. I can't find the direct essays, but at the time I don't think anyone anticipated that Saddam would actually use them. Hussein underestimated the cohesiveness of Iran's government and ability to respond to the Iraqi invasion (it was not unlike Germany's stall towards Stalingrad/Leningrad/St. Petersburg in WWII).

Bear in mind that the US support to Iraq ended as soon as Hussein chose not to use the WMD as a detterent only.

What the Iran/Iraq war did do to the region is keep Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, to name a few, close to western interests. Oil prices hit all-time lows in the eighties. This hit Saddam in the wallet during his fruitless pursuits of power against Iran, and it dealt a devestating blow to Iran, whom at the time, America would've been wholly satisfied with their destruction. This forced the rest of OPEC to maintain production.

I don't have the exact dates, but the cease fire agreed upon between Iran/Iraq was not too long after the Iran/Contra scandal in the US. Saddam was shocked to learn that we had also been supporting his adversary. In 1989-90, Hussein was still reeling from low oil prices, he just lost a big benefactor (the US) and had just put down a massive invasion from Iran and crushed an uprising by the Kurds. Meanwhile, there's Kuwait. Whom he held no love for and didn't think anyone would care about. He was, of course, wrong.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Michele 1]

Quote

I don't have the exact dates, but the cease fire agreed upon between Iran/Iraq was not too long after the Iran/Contra scandal in the US.

UN Resolution #598 was signed on July 20, 1988 (text of resolution 598: gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s87/5, whereas the Iran Contra scandal seems to have broken in November/87, barely 8 months prior (Report of Congressional Committees Investigation the Iran Contra Affair was released then, at least. The original investigation by the FBI began in late '86: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_ii.htm)...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rgoper 0]

See Here

the next 24-80 hours are critical. "The Moment Of Truth" George W. Bush AKA: Wyatt Earp. Tony Blair AKA: Doc Holiday. (Fric & Frac) should the UN divide tomorrow the shockwaves will be felt throughout the whole world.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"