Gravitymaster 0 #151 February 20, 2003 QuoteLet's summarize. We should invade Iraq because: 1. They have WMDs ... but so do India, Pakistan and N. Korea, France, Britain, Russia, China, and the US 2. They have a despot in charge who kills thousands of his own people ... but so do half the countries in Africa 3. They have a history of invading their neighbors ... but so do India and Pakistan and N. Korea (among many others). 4. They are in violation of UN resolutions ... as is Israel 5. They provide material support to terrorists ... as has the USA, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, Iran, and a long list of other nations. 6. They have oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia ... ummmmm Careful Kallend. If Bush is the rabid mad dog 'You' think he is, he may read your list and decide to act on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #152 February 20, 2003 QuoteDave -- Are you suggesting that this war is about freedom of speech? Let's be clear about something -- Saddam Hussien has no interest in whether or not Americans can speak freely and Saddam Hussien has no possibility, whatsoever, of overthrowing the U.S. government. Overthrowing isn't his interest either but the next time a relative handfull of fanatics supported by an entire region and religion decide to make a strike on a very high profile soft target of "world trade center " proportions I don't want to be one of those people at Disney world or any other event when that balloon goes up. These guys have been warned and they are playing around. Bush has been mister nice guy. They are lucky they don't have Reagan to contend with. Reagan went downtown on their asses for blowing up a small disco ( even I hate disco ) No help from the french or spain, just our allies england,,,,, again. But it shut that bad house down. The place is stinkin up the world again, Time to go downtown. Glen The war may be about a lot of things, but billvon attending a peace rally, in and of itself, is in no way showing any disrespect to anyone that has ever now or ever will be fighting for the U.S. Constitution. Agreed, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #153 February 20, 2003 QuoteWho decides to send them to war? The politiciansI agree with this statement. That was the point of this portion of the thread! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #154 February 20, 2003 QuoteAre you directing this towards me?Just espousing on the point you and Mills so eloquently make! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #155 February 20, 2003 QuoteIsrael was formed half a century ago by invasion and occupation of the countries that now surround it. I have no great love for Israel but I don't believe the country was formed by any invasion. In fact several Arab countries invaded Israel before it was even a nation. Israel was established by UN resolution, not invasion. QuoteJust to set things straight, Saddam used those weapons on the Kurds, who, although they may be citizens of Iraq, are a nation all for themselves. Which, of course, makes it completely OK. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #156 February 20, 2003 I think the resolution in question is the one to retreat from Jerusalem. I think 181 stated that Jerusalem was an international city? when israel was created. Then I think 242 relates to retreating after the 6 day war and not trying to unify jerusalem. Basically there are a few about Jerusalem that Israel is ignoring. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #157 February 20, 2003 Is your post aimed at me? I agree that Israel is breaking UN resolutions. The UN hasn't been able to enforce those either. To show you the UN's effectiveness read this story about Annan's great "mission" to Iraq to solve the Iraq standoff. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/20/iraq.annan.arrives/ It says Annan is not going to Iraq to "negotiate". He is going to "solve the problem". It happened on.......................................................................................February 20, 1998. Woo hoo! They are working too fast for me. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #158 February 20, 2003 I wouldn't use the phrase "aimed" and I'm sorry if you took the post as a shot at your viewpoint. Yes the UN is ineffective, we saw that in Bosnia and a few other places besides. I was adding to what I thought was the debate on the UN as a whole and the previous posts had mentioned Israel. I'll choose who's reply button with more care next time. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #159 February 20, 2003 Quote I wouldn't use the phrase "aimed" and I'm sorry if you took the post as a shot at your viewpoint. I didn't take it as a shot. I shouldn't have used "aimed". I just didn't know if I understood your post. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #160 February 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteAre you directing this towards me?Just espousing on the point you and Mills so eloquently make! It's Mill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #161 February 20, 2003 Cool! No more Newbie status either. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #162 February 20, 2003 Quote"It's not time to go to war with Iraq, but keep the inspectors in getting rid of WMD, and by the way, Saddam sucks" support Iraq?" and Not all of us equate having a backbone with killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The protestors should be demanding that Iraq immediately disarm as the means to preventing the war instead of demanding that the US not invade Iraq. A united world against a dictator works a lot better than allowing him to think the rest of the world will let him get buy and continue. Don't get me wrong Bill, I don't want anyone to needlessly lose their life whether American or Iraqi. QuoteFeel free to show up at the next rally to voice your view Nope, to attractive a target for the nuts these days! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #163 February 20, 2003 Quote It's Mill At least I didn't say "Millhouse" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #164 February 20, 2003 "A united world against a dictator works a lot better than allowing him to think the rest of the world will let him get buy and continue. " There you have it Jim, the 'United World' must do this, not a coalition which appears to be in a minority, albeit a minority that is growing in international support. Saddam is in a box right now, he can't go anywhere, or do anything that might threaten our fragile peace. He knows it and we know it, the eyes of the world are upon him. If we invade and replace this regime with one of our own liking, without 'world support' we open the door for years of 'freedom fighters/terrorists' to do their thing on our soil, to our people, wherever and whenever they feel like it, its how they wage war. They will have a 'just cause' to poison, maim, and kill us (or at the very least change our carefree world forever) at their discretion. This 'just cause' will more than likely take a religious angle, further splitting the civilised world, and leading to the worst form of fanaticism (Bin Laden is already trying to use this angle to stir things up), people killing each other in 'God's name'. I'm already seeing hints of sectarianism here on this forum, and the real nasty stuff hasn't started yet, for example. "a relative handfull of fanatics supported by an entire region and religion decide to make a strike on a very high profile soft target" I'm pretty sure Al Quaeda/OBL do not actually have the support of the entire Middle East, nor do they represent the feelings of Muslims across the world, but sectarianism hatred can, and will, breed hatred, and misinformation on both sides to fuel this conflict. I for one don't want to see a holy war. We must have the support of the UN before we act, if this involves gathering sufficient evidence to persude other members, or providing regimes (with a less than shiney human rights record) a little aid in exchange for votes, then so be it.-------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #165 February 20, 2003 Quote QuoteJust to set things straight, Saddam used those weapons on the Kurds, who, although they may be citizens of Iraq, are a nation all for themselves. Which, of course, makes it completely OK. I'm sorry, my message was obviously a bit unclear. I did not mean to say that killing minorities, even though they might be rebelling, is OK. I merely wanted to add another dimension to the argument that everyone has been using to present Saddam as an inhuman monster who would for no reason at all kill his own innocent subjects. And on the efficiency of the UN (kiltboy)- I wouldn't go as far as to say that Bosnia did not benefit from it- perhaps the UN could have done more to stop the fighting (but then again, the whole thing was a big bloody complicated mess- I should know, it's practically next door to me), but right now it's being quite efficient at keeping the region stable (and once again, I speak from personal experience) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #166 February 20, 2003 Morning I think we may agree to an extent on Bosnia. I think the UN is pretty good at the humanitarian rebuilding work which is welcomed by most. The fighting was a bloody mess but the declaration of safe havens didn't work (Srebrenica sp?) and I remember more than one story of UN vehicles being held up and looted by the folks fighting. I think the UN is sometimes lacking in the abilty to impose it's will through diplomatic means and that greater force is required. Maybe generate a UN Corps of troops that can be a touch more aggressive (I'm thinking that the Dutch troops really had no other option but to let that massacre happen as they had no support), or change the UN rules of engagement. My understanding is that the forces in Bosnia now don't wear the Blue Beret of the UN but are working as IFOR. They have different rules of engagement and so have less problems than the previous UN forces had (I'm basing my opinion on the guys I know that served under both berets so to speak). I also agree with what Nacmac says about working with world opinion. Bush and Blair may believe they have a good case but if they act without persuading the world then future problems will ensue. The two governments have made a piss poor job of selling this action. Telling the world that Saddam is Hitler isn't going to persuade a lot of the people with doubts. Focus on the issue that Saddam is in material breach. Unfortunately I think the US and UK have dug a hole for themselves. Axis of evil, regime change, freeing the Iraqi people are all comments that are hurting the case for action. It has made the case less about the UN breaches and makes it appear to be a case for taking out a country you just don't like. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #167 February 20, 2003 >The protestors should be demanding that Iraq immediately disarm > as the means to preventing the war instead of demanding that the > US not invade Iraq. They were advocating a peaceful solution over war; that's what 90% of the signs made reference to. Iraq immediately disarming is one way to do that, and indeed what several signs made reference to. >A united world against a dictator works a lot better than allowing him > to think the rest of the world will let him get buy and continue. Agreed; which is why going through the UN is so important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #168 February 20, 2003 Quote Agreed; which is why going through the UN is so important. Which is why the US and UK are drafting another resolution in the UN. Feels like Groundhog day.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #169 February 20, 2003 >Which is why the US and UK are drafting another resolution in the >UN. Feels like Groundhog day. How many anti-terror resolutions have the house and senate considered? Does the large number of them mean that the later ones are useless? Times change, and inspections have been making progress (according to Blix) but not enough. There are inspectors in country who have found no evidence of chemical and biological weapons, but there is now intelligence showing that it exists. They have found missiles that exceed the range limits called out in disarmament agreements, and Iraq has agreed to destroy them. In other words, the situation is different than it was four months ago. There have been problems identified with the original resolution (I'm sure you recall all the arguments over what 'serious consequences' meant.) Another resolution, setting time limits, hard requirements on cooperation, and detailing those serious consequences, makes sense. It will cut down on the bickering in the UN and make it very clear to Iraq that they have X days left to comply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #170 February 20, 2003 Quote >Which is why the US and UK are drafting another resolution in the >UN. Feels like Groundhog day. How many anti-terror resolutions have the house and senate considered? Does the large number of them mean that the later ones are useless? Times change, and inspections have been making progress (according to Blix) but not enough. There are inspectors in country who have found no evidence of chemical and biological weapons, but there is now intelligence showing that it exists. They have found missiles that exceed the range limits called out in disarmament agreements, and Iraq has agreed to destroy them. In other words, the situation is different than it was four months ago. There have been problems identified with the original resolution (I'm sure you recall all the arguments over what 'serious consequences' meant.) Another resolution, setting time limits, hard requirements on cooperation, and detailing those serious consequences, makes sense. It will cut down on the bickering in the UN and make it very clear to Iraq that they have X days left to comply. Shoot me. I concur with Bill. I owe beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nitrodan 0 #171 February 20, 2003 There was a clip on CNN last night from a guy who runs a web sight call brain-terminal.com he shot some video and ask questions of alot of the people at one protest not sure if it was the one you were at but of all the video i saw, nobody could give an educated answer to questions like how should we solve this problem without war. everyone just kept saying that our government wants to dominate the world by taking over Iraq. so then this guy ask, if thats what we wanted to do why didn't we do it after the first Gulf war. no one could answer that either. I know that you can give educated answers I'm not taking a shot at you with this I just thought it was funny you may want to check out his sight.DAN SMITH www.skydivewichita.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #172 February 20, 2003 QuoteHow many anti-terror resolutions have the house and senate considered? Does the large number of them mean that the later ones are useless? Meanwhile, we are capturing terror cells all over the world, the first conviction in Germany just yesterday. More to come... QuoteTimes change, and inspections have been making progress (according to Blix) but not enough. There are inspectors in country who have found no evidence of chemical and biological weapons, but there is now intelligence showing that it exists. They have found missiles that exceed the range limits called out in disarmament agreements, and Iraq has agreed to destroy them. The problem is these inspectors should not be "discovering" these materials at all. Iraq should have been displaying these components for all the world to see. To say there is "intelligence" that Chem/Bio materials exists is an understatement of monumental proportions...Good God! We know they have 30,000 chemical warheads, we've found 18 or 19...where are the other 29,981? We found some missiles that exceed UN mandates, where are the rest of them? Come on, one or two is never enough. QuoteIn other words, the situation is different than it was four months ago. There have been problems identified with the original resolution (I'm sure you recall all the arguments over what 'serious consequences' meant.) Another resolution, setting time limits, hard requirements on cooperation, and detailing those serious consequences, makes sense. It will cut down on the bickering in the UN and make it very clear to Iraq that they have X days left to comply. Even with a resolution like that, there will still be resistence, assuming that the resolution would even pass (which France won't let happen). We've discussed this to the point of redundant. We will continue to disagree on methods and procedures. So I ask this: If someone you know, without a shadow of a doubt, to be untrustworthy says, "Trust me, I have nothing to hide." -- You give the benefit of the doubt, once, twice, three, times plus...only to be slapped in the face. How many times do you turn the cheek? Personally, I often only need to be burned once. The UN has been burned for 12 f**k**g years, and 18 resolutions. I don't want the UN to turn the cheek. I want the UN to grow some balls and sh*t or get off the pot, I want France to accept its place in the world (which is not a dominating power, as much as they wish it), and I want to hear a statement from our leadership putting down a deadline. How can you trust an environment that is known to not be trustworthy?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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #173 February 20, 2003 QuoteThere was a clip on CNN last night from a guy who runs a web sight call brain-terminal.com he shot some video and ask questions of alot of the people at one protest not sure if it was the one you were at but of all the video i saw, nobody could give an educated answer to questions like how should we solve this problem without war. everyone just kept saying that our government wants to dominate the world by taking over Iraq. so then this guy ask, if thats what we wanted to do why didn't we do it after the first Gulf war. no one could answer that either. I know that you can give educated answers I'm not taking a shot at you with this I just thought it was funny you may want to check out his sight. It was all to do with keeping Israel out of the conflict and keeping the coalition together. Recall that the US forces were based in Saudi. George I's administration believed (incorrectly) that Hussein would be overthrown from within.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobsled92 0 #174 February 20, 2003 That's a mouth full but, AMEN to that! Well said Max._______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #175 February 20, 2003 Quote How can you trust an environment that is known to not be trustworthy? Like this ?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)