PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Zeric on February 05, 2003, 02:33:12 PM
-
Just want to know peoples thoughts on this.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html
-
He called that evidence? Ha, that\'s laughable. Other nations are right in not joining us on this horrible excuse for a war.
-
Thats more than adequate. He said there would be no "smoking gun" and that is plenty to prove they are hiding banned weapons.
-
ABSOLUTLY...... Peacfull people can handle things peacfully all this man know is War "some men you just cant reach" "well if thats what he want then that what he gets" he has or is building his wepons of mass destruction has been for years lets just hope we dont take him down sitting on politics before he uses them.
-
Our soldiers are screwed.
-
WEAK.[/size]
If this is a reliable account of the evidence we\'ve all been waiting for, then I\'m not convinced. I\'m not big on blind faith. I need to see better evidence before I will support a war. Sorry, that\'s just how I feel man.
There is probably a hidden reason our government wants a war on Iraq. They\'re not willing to share it with us, and therefore I\'m not willing to support it. As far as I\'m concerned, I\'m still against this war until they show me more.
-
Oh my god, are you guys kidding me. Iraq is lying so badly, they have illegal weapons and they won\'t come clean. I felt that Powell was too subtle, but its not his fault... isn\'t Ironic didn\'t the same thing happen 40 years ago with Cuba?
-
And Castro is still around...
-
Is this the top secret intelligence that Australia was giving him from ASIO?
If it is, it BLOWS>
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
Oh my god, are you guys kidding me. Iraq is lying so badly, they have illegal weapons and they won\'t come clean.
Prove it. :p
That\'s all I\'m saying... :)
-
Don\'t you think if we came out with our evidence so openly it would screw up our spy network?
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
Don\'t you think if we came out with our evidence so openly it would screw up our spy network?
They already know we are spying, so Id say no.
-
That\'s my point exactly. During ordinary times it\'s fine for the CIA & NSA to conceal everything, and not even tell congress what they\'re doing. No one knows and no one seems to care.
In this case however, there has to be a better balance. If they have hard evidence they have to show it even if it damages their spy network. The cost otherwise is just too great. If we can\'t prove to the world and to ourselves that this war is ESSENTIAL, then we are running a very great risk of escalating warfare and terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The entire world hates us right now and we need to prove them wrong.
-
Of course they know we are spying on them, but they have no clue where we are and what we are hearing.
It was stated numerous times that what is being presented is not a huge smoking gun, but rather evidence to show that the Iraqi\'s are toying with the UN.
I just can\'t honestly believe in anyone\'s right mind that we shouldn\'t do something about this guy. It simply blows my mind that people just want to sit back and wait for chemical and biological weapons to be used against us.
The guy is a scam artist. This is ridiculous. It\'s just stupid to even rebut people who think this guy is no big whoop and that we shouldn\'t do anything.
-
People want to goto war...yet we dont have full blown proof.
We are probably going to attack anyway...
Yet every shakes their heads and wonder why ships, stations, embassies abroad, and buildings at home bombed.
-
Originally posted by luckee
They already know we are spying, so Id say no.
well duh, but by providing substantial evidence they might be able to figure out the who-what-where, and we don\'t really want that do we?
-
Originally posted by luckee
People want to goto war...yet we dont have full blown proof.
We are probably going to attack anyway...
Yet every shakes their heads and wonder why ships, stations, embassies abroad, and buildings at home bombed.
No one WANTS to go to war. But it is inevitable. These people are freaks. They praised Allah for making the COlumbia blow up. Yeah, that\'s normal.
-
I doubt the same ppl would still be hanging around now that some info has been released. Most of it is OTA stuff and sattelite pix anyway.
-
I\'m actually in favor of taking the dude out... IF NECESSARY.
I just need someone to prove to me that it\'s necessary.
Everyone is saying that\'s it\'s so obvious that he\'s building NBC weapons, but no one provides adequate proof.
I\'m saying that for the benefit of people like me here in the US, and everywhere else in the world, let\'s just prove the case before taking action. Otherwise we are nothing but an enormous vigilante mob. We need to act more like a legitimate police force and get a search warrant before kicking in the door with guns blazing.
-
Maybe people just take too much offense with us taking up the first strike position on this. It\'s pretty pathetic to have to quote a movie to get the point across, but here goes anyways:
Wanting people to listen, you can\'t just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you\'ll notice you\'ve got their strict attention.
Maybe that so called sledgehammer could be placed right in someone\'s backyard and then vaporize an entire city. Maybe then, the world will listen.
***Edit, a lot of people replied while i was finding that quote so let me respond to some stuff:
The UN was supposed to do that (the whole search warrant policing analogy), but they\'re schedule might as well have been placed on the Internet for all to download and take a look at. If the criminals who have the weapons know we are coming, do people honestly think they\'re going to sit idley by and let the police come knocking at their door and find exactly what it is they\'re up to?
-
Originally posted by videoholic
No one WANTS to go to war. But it is inevitable. These people are freaks. They praised Allah for making the COlumbia blow up. Yeah, that\'s normal.
Thats there perrogative, not like ppl in the US dont celebrate certain negative things that happen to just about anyone else in the world. There are bad types of ppl all over the world.
*edit Ryu, or maybe then they will hate us even more and have even more ppl trying to attack us.
-
I can\'t believe some people. Powell presented VERY STRONG evidence that Iraq is violating UN Resolutions. What other proof besides intercepted communications about moving stuff, video footage of an Iraqi Mig simulating spreading anthrax, photographs of chemical bunkers and mobile labs do some of you need? An Iraqi Mig to fly over your house dropping anthrax????!! Even then, I still doubt some of those who don\'t believe he is hiding anything would believe it. Some expect us to show everything we have along with names of all our informants and layouts of all our technical equipment to show proof... that is very naive and stupid.
His linking terrorism to Iraq was a bit harder to understand, but it would be very hard to find physical proof of such a thing and we wouldn\'t even have hard proof even if terrorists attacked us using weapons or training they got from Iraq.
His point is very clear though... if the UN fails to back up its own resolutions then it is an invalid entity.
If we go this alone (or with just Britain and some help from Russia) we should just drop out of the UN and kick them out of NY. See how long it lasts without the US. We pay the most in dues and always provide troops for peacekeeping duties and the such...
-
Russia doesnt want in anymore, unless something has changed since 2pm.
I think some of you always seem to forget that not all of us anti-war ppl think he should stay in power.
-
From my understanding, the only countries the US has backing them on this war is Britain, Russia and Australia. France has turned their back, as has Japan.
Which countries are a part of the UN and which ones aren\'t? Is it really integral that the UN play a part in all of this?
Also, how can Bush say he\'s willing to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if they use them against US. I mean, isn\'t the whole point of this war for Iraq to disarm weapons of mass destruction? So why are the US allowed to have them but Iraq isnt???
-
The sad reality is we have to go in. Even then, I doubt we will actually get him, but he will no longer be in power. That is my main point of why I think it is necessary to go to war. If I thought for a second it was an option to just take his sorry ass out, I would be right behind the rest of you in opposing military action. Unfortunately nothing anyone says is going to convince me that we can just kill him and leave.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
From my understanding, the only countries the US has backing them on this war is Britain, Russia and Australia. France has turned their back, as has Japan.
Which countries are a part of the UN and which ones aren\'t? Is it really integral that the UN play a part in all of this?
Also, how can Bush say he\'s willing to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if they use them against US. I mean, isn\'t the whole point of this war for Iraq to disarm weapons of mass destruction? So why are the US allowed to have them but Iraq isnt???
The Security Council is all that really matters in the UN and even then only the countries with veto power matter there. The US, France, Russia, the UK and China all have veto power. I still wonder how France made the cut... it is made up of the victorious allies from WW2...
-
I don\'t see how you can call that evidence VERY STRONG.
1. "intercepted communications about moving stuff" - WHAT STUFF? A modified vehicle of some kind. So, because they were talking about moving it, that must mean that it\'s incriminating? That\'s not proof.
2. "video footage of an Iraqi Mig simulating spreading anthrax" - I haven\'t seen it, but it\'s hard for me to imagine that this could be incriminating in any way.
3. "photographs of chemical bunkers and mobile labs." Photographs are always open to interpretation. This could be evidence for a photo technician who knows everything about Iraqi construction methods and the designs of chemical labs, but to the layman it\'s meaningless. Therefore it requres that we trust the photo interpreters to accept it as hard evidence. Maybe it is, but I think we need something more easily acceptable. Kennedy\'s photos of the russian missles on the deck of a ship were much more easily understandable than this stuff.
4. Powell said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has personally barred Iraqi scientists from participating in interviews with U.N. inspectors and forced them "to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death." Not strictly evidence of any wrongdoing.
5. Powell said Iraq has failed to account for its stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons, including four tons of the nerve gas VX. "We have evidence these weapons existed," Powell said. "What we don\'t have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are." Show the evidence that they existed, don\'t just refer to it.
6. "we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons." What proof? Show it.
Referring to proof isn\'t the same as showing proof.
-
What the hell do you think they are referring to??? Baby formula???? They edited that part out of the presentation right? You honestly believe he isn\'t hiding anything? I guess that Mig was really crop dusting huh? It is people like you who won\'t believe until a city is destroyed and millions die. No offense Core, you are entitled to your opinion, but I have to say you are very wrong in your perspective of this situation.
-
My argument is NOT that Saddam is innocent.
He probably needs to be eliminated, but if we do it on our own authority without proving our case, we are creating a HUGE problem for ourselves internationally.
I\'m saying I want our leaders to prove their case to me before I endorse their war. Is that easy enough to understand?
-
WHich is part of my point. I dont truely think we would get him either way. I also dont think he will be out of power this time either. His grip in the area is too strong.
-
I think Bush thinks this is going to be just the same as when they toppled the Taliban.
Trouble is, it won\'t be.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
My argument is NOT that Saddam is innocent.
He probably needs to be eliminated, but if we do it on our own authority without proving our case, we are creating a HUGE problem for ourselves internationally.
I\'m saying I want our leaders to prove their case to me before I endorse their war. Is that easy enough to understand?
Who do we have to give this 100 percent undeniable without a shadow of a doubt proof too? France? Germany? :laughing: This in the best interest of the US to have a regime change in Iraq. I would even go as far to say for the sake of National Security. You are in the minority Core, most of the US sees this as the only option left and Powell\'s presentation made it even stronger.
France is only dissenting because of THEIR oil interest in Iraq - funny how they can send troops to the Ivory Coast, yet they are opposed to ousting Saddam.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
I think Bush thinks this is going to be just the same as when they toppled the Taliban.
Trouble is, it won\'t be.
If Saddam doesn\'t use any NBC weapons it will be. They don\'t want to die for that man.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
If Saddam doesn\'t use any NBC weapons it will be. They don\'t want to die for that man.
See, thats just the thing, if he has them, then he is gonna pull no stops and use them. But Bush says if he uses them then so will the US. But why are the US allowed to have them but Iraq isn\'t?
-
World War III here we come... :(
-
Thats another reason I am opposed to war. I just know he is going to do something if he has said weapons once our guys are on the ground.
-
Good point... I will be back tomorrow morning and discuss this further. Our European friends in this forum will comment tomorrow as well. It will be interesting to see how they react. Anyway good night all.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You are in the minority Core, most of the US sees this as the only option left and Powell\'s presentation made it even stronger.
I don\'t think I\'m in the minority either among the population of the US, or the entire world. I think you\'re in the minority.
Proving this to me, and other developed nations like France and Germany is not even the highest priority. The ones we have to prove it to are all the rational minded, but generally anti-american Muslems in the middle east, Africa, and SE Asia. They already believe that Saddam is innocent and we are wrong, but many of them are smart enough to accept hard evidence if we show it to them. If we don\'t even bother to show it to them, we will be spawning a whole new generation of terrorists bent on destroying the US.
I don\'t understand what\'s so hard to follow about this. We have to prove our point and take the moral high ground now, or this could literally doom us. You\'re worried about Iraq using NBC weapons at some time in the future... If he does, he will be instantly villified, and we\'ll have every justification to completely sterilize the nation formerly known as Iraq. Not what I want to happen, but we can still avoid it by proving our case and waging a JUST war.
I\'m worried that if we don\'t prove our case, we\'ll have millions of suicidal terrorists swarming toward our continent, and no leader like Saddam to strike back at when our cities start vaporizing.
-
I\'m actually interested in the resolution proposed by France. I wonder what the details of that are. It sounds like something that implies force, but they are opposed to that. I\'m really curious what it is they propose exactly.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I don\'t think I\'m in the minority either among the population of the US, or the entire world. I think you\'re in the minority.
Actually you are wrong. The polls that came out two days ago say that 58% of the US is for attacking Iraq. This is not only up from rescent polls, but it is higher than back in 91 before the original attack.
-
Who conducted the poll, and who was polled?
Polls never tell the real story. Never.
-
Someone made a good point about France and their opposition.
We all know France sold a reactor to the Iraqis. Maybe they\'re a little nervous about what might be uncovered when the dust clears.
Again, Powell could have had a picture of Saddam mixing chemical weapons in a lab and some of you guys would say he\'s making soup or as Giga said baby formula. :laughing:
Strap yourselves in because we are going in to clean house. Then when all this crap is uncovered and out in the open you can all sit back and thank the US.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
Again, Powell could have had a picture of Saddam mixing chemical weapons in a lab and some of you guys would say he\'s making soup or as Giga said baby formula. :laughing:
Don\'t try to tell me what I would think. You have no idea. I\'m a rational person, and I already stated numerous times that I would support this war if our leadership provided solid evidence. You haven\'t refuted my assertion that it\'s in our own best interest to provide the proof.
-
b/c they cant since it hasnt happend yet. Id like to call what was presented..alleged proof.
Kinda like if someone witnessed me arguing with someone and threatening to kill them. That person ends up dead later that day am I am caught with one of my guns on me of the same caliber as the guy was shot.
-
all I know is:
My SUV needs a parking lot the size of California, with its own oil fields....
oh, and Colin Powell rules.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I don\'t see how you can call that evidence VERY STRONG.
1. "intercepted communications about moving stuff" - WHAT STUFF? A modified vehicle of some kind. So, because they were talking about moving it, that must mean that it\'s incriminating? That\'s not proof.
2. "video footage of an Iraqi Mig simulating spreading anthrax" - I haven\'t seen it, but it\'s hard for me to imagine that this could be incriminating in any way.
3. "photographs of chemical bunkers and mobile labs." Photographs are always open to interpretation. This could be evidence for a photo technician who knows everything about Iraqi construction methods and the designs of chemical labs, but to the layman it\'s meaningless. Therefore it requres that we trust the photo interpreters to accept it as hard evidence. Maybe it is, but I think we need something more easily acceptable. Kennedy\'s photos of the russian missles on the deck of a ship were much more easily understandable than this stuff.
4. Powell said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has personally barred Iraqi scientists from participating in interviews with U.N. inspectors and forced them "to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death." Not strictly evidence of any wrongdoing.
5. Powell said Iraq has failed to account for its stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons, including four tons of the nerve gas VX. "We have evidence these weapons existed," Powell said. "What we don\'t have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are." Show the evidence that they existed, don\'t just refer to it.
6. "we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons." What proof? Show it.
Referring to proof isn\'t the same as showing proof.
EXACTLY.
Why doesn\'t the US just say the truth, "we want him out b/c we don\'t like him". That\'s all there is to it. National Security? If they go to war, how is that going to make us any safer? If they do have weapons, and they go to war they\'ll have an even greater reason to use them. Racer\'s question, Why can\'t Iraq have weapons, and the US can? He had no proof. All accusations, and the "proof" could of come out of anywhere, for all we know those conversations never happened about hiding "stuff".
-
I have watched the news and read alot about the evidence that Powell presented.
Here in Europe the situation is clear.
There is not enough evidence for war.
But most experts here knows its going to be war anyway.
If UN says yes it would be a terrible thing. I would never belive in UN again.
War IMO is never the way to go.
I´m more afraid of Bush than Hussein. Im not alone in this belife.
I think and belive the G.Bush is the most dangerous man on this planet. IMO he is a monster and the world should fear him.
The american people should stand up and tell the world that they are not idiots and will not support war.
But how can that happen when 60% of the US population wants war? What kind of picture does that give us european?
-
this whole situation is trouble. And now this !!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N Korea threatens US with first strike
Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up
Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian
North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North\'s foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.
Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
His comments came on a day when tension was apparent in Pyongyang, with an air-raid drill that cleared the city\'s streets and the North\'s announcement that it has begun full-scale operations at the Yongbyon nuclear plant, the suspected site of weapons-grade plutonium production.
Since reopening the plant in December, the North has kicked out international inspectors and withdrawn from the global treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Anxiety in North Korea has been rising since Washington announced plans in the past week to beef up its military strength in the area. Additional bombers will be sent to the region, along with 2,000 extra troops who will serve alongside the 17,000 already stationed on the North-South border. USS Carl Vinson may also be deployed.
According to Pyongyang, the USS Kitty Hawk has already taken up strike position in waters off the peninsula. The US says that reinforcements are needed to warn Pyongyang that it should not try to take advantage of Washington\'s focus on Iraq.
North Korean officials fear the extra forces are the start of the build-up for a full-scale confrontation - a dangerous assumption that could push the peninsula over the edge.
During the last crisis, when the Pentagon planned a surgical strike on the Yongbyon nuclear plant, American generals were convinced that the North would rather launch a surprise attack than wait for a US military build-up.
Mr Ri said today\'s stand-off is more dangerous: "The present situation can be called graver than it was in 1993. It will be touch and go."
The crisis erupted in October when a US envoy to Pyongyang confronted the regime with suspicions that North Korea was engaged in a uranium enrichment programme, in violation of the 1994 agreement which ended the last crisis.
To punish the North, the US cut off supplies of 500,000 tonnes a year of heavy fuel oil, a severe blow to a nation that is desperately short of energy. The north of the country is worst hit but power shortages are apparent even in the capital, where temperatures have fallen as low as -21C recently.
The North claims that the Yongbyon nuclear plant is being used for peaceful purposes. "The US stopped our oil so our country faces a critical shortage of electricity," Mr Ri said. "Our nuclear activities will be confined only to producing electricity."
Both sides say they are committed to finding a diplomatic solution but remain far apart in their demands. Pyongyang wants a non-aggression treaty but Washington has said it will not reward blackmail and has hinted only at a written guarantee of the North\'s security.
Concern about the crisis has prompted South Korea and Japan to pressure the US to take a softer line. In a sign that this may be working, the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage said for the first time yesterday that the US would definitely hold direct talks with the North. "It is just a question of when we do it and how," he told the Senate.
A breakthrough stills looks distant. The European Union plans to send a high-level delegation to North Korea later this month to mediate, but similar envoys from Russia and South Korea achieved little because the North insists that the issue is a bilateral matter with the US.
The North has shown a willingness to open up to other na tions. In an important development, a new road link to South Korea was used for the first time yesterday.
But the North know that the nuclear issue stands in the way of progress, prompting a request that Britain intercede. "The US must sign a non-aggression treaty," Mr Li said.
"I hope that Britain can help to persuade them to do so."
· Japan may deploy two destroyers near North Korea to detect missile launches, the Kyodo news agency reported on yesterday. Quoting unspecified government sources, it said Tokyo believes it increasingly likely that ballistic missiles will be test-fired as part of the North\'s brinkmanship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the world is ****ed....
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
World War III here we come... :(
WW3 if we are lucky
i fear that this has not only the potential to spread to other regions, but it could also trigger Death and destruction on a Apocalyptic scale.
this is as good a time as any to move to a luxury Nuclear fall out shelter in New Zealand. :(
hey at least on the Bright side i could spend my final days in LOTR country :D /.......:(
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
War IMO is never the way to go.
I´m more afraid of Bush than Hussein. Im not alone in this belife.
I think and belive the G.Bush is the most dangerous man on this planet. IMO he is a monster and the world should fear him.
The american people should stand up and tell the world that they are not idiots and will not support war.
But how can that happen when 60% of the US population wants war? What kind of picture does that give us european?
War is never the way to go? Sure about that? Hitler would have appreciated that concept! Thank God there are countries like the US that do not shy away from a problem and wilt like a flower when trouble arises.
Your comment about GWB just shows there is no amount of evidence that would sway your mind about this situation. I think if looked at that statement with a clear mind, you would realize how ridiculous it is to say that you fear GWB more than SH. :rolleyes:
Coredweller,
Proof that Saddam has ignored UN RESOLUTIONS from day one is as clear as the nose on your face.
Now I am going to roll my eyes at all of you who can\'t grasp the situation. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Ace
-
WW3??
Come on, lets all be rational. What is this whole idea that the sky is falling, the sky is falling? Is it more fun to run around being scared to death?
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
WW3??
Come on, lets all be rational. What is this whole idea that the sky is falling, the sky is falling? Is it more fun to run around be scared to death?
Ace
Ok lets look at it
Point 1
We have Bin Laden and co trying to whip up anti Western feeling, and if a attack on Iraq dose go ahead then the result could be even more suicide fighters to his deranged cause. Remember one of the reasons for his War on the west is due to US & UK forces in Saudi Arabia.
Point 2
Geographical and political conditions are very sensitive through out the region, from Egypt in the far west through to Iraq in the middle and through to Pakistan in the east. The ~Whole region is a potential powder keg waiting for a spark to set things of,.
Point 3
If civil unrest dose start in counties which are very sympatric to the Islamic cause..i.e. Pakistan. We could see a civil war where there where the current president is ousted and a HARD line Islamic extremist group take over .. and guess what Pakistan is Nuclear equipped.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Good point... I will be back tomorrow morning and discuss this further. Our European friends in this forum will comment tomorrow as well. It will be interesting to see how they react. Anyway good night all.
well for me i was 100% Unimpressed with Mr Powels Powerpoint o death
I have seen more convincing scientific information at “Big Foot sighting” press conferences.
Breakdown
1 ) Recorded conversations
Although the recordings are clammed to be real, they could refer to anything. The whole mode of the conversation is one of where it could be applied to near enough anything (from chemical Weapons to two Iraqi Squaddies talking about hiding porno’s)
2) Satellite images of \'active chemical munitions bunkers\'
yeah not how they used Active and chemical munitions bunkers with the use of 2 “” . these could be a underground chemical weapons plant or it could be a former plant converted to producing non WoMD. And as for still images well they can be made to show just about anything you want to.
3)Scientists banned from interviews
As leaked last year the Scientists are in fear of their lives, just in case the say the wrong thing in front of one of Saddams Goons
There is a big difference from being banned and actually wanting to talk,
4)Mobile biological weapons labs
WTF ?
Has GWB been watching to much X files or Thunderbirds ?
Mobile biological weapons labs would work in theory..if only you have the level of resources of a country like the US or UK and not a Tyranical country which has been under UN sanctions for the past 12 years.
What next from Mr Powell ? Baghdad is really Tracy Island ? and Saddams Palace is Tunderbird 2 ?
5)Nerve gas unaccounted for
yeah note how its VX gas a US weapon, and how it mysteriously was “sold” to Saddam and now has Mysteriously disappeared :rolleyes:
6) Nuclear efforts continue
yeah a 300 page document found in a scientists home.
They have yet to say what the document was.. it could of been a high school text book on nuclear power.
7)Links to terrorism
this one was the biggest Fook up in his Speack because
a) there is not one country whith “links” to al Qaeda
b) al Qaeda is a hard line Islamic terrorism group who would nothing better than the fall of Saddam’s circleular stance.
Edit
oh and as for the powerpoint on a whole.
I am more Inclined to believe this than any “evidence” about Iraq
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penny-arcade.com%2Fimages%2F2003%2F20030205l.gif&hash=d15a8c196568d1acc77c5ec3be22ca71a8fe7680)
Iraq "evidence" = Hear say and stuf they made up to scare us.
-
There is no doubt this controversy has reached a global scale, we are trying to keep it from exploding into war. The United States is not a a belligerent country. Let me state this, I HATE WAR!
-
Fascinating how whacko people are. I finally got to watch Powells address last night and I honestly think that in order for you guys to want to go to war, we will need pictures of saddam building the damn missles himself. Or perhaps launching one at a neighboring company. More than likely Cyprus because apparently that\'s the country everyone wants.
He is in total breach of the UN for over 8 years now. If the UN does not vote yes to this war then they have absolutely no back bone.
Korea is another story. Their leader is a brainwasher of biblical proportions. Keeping food from his people unless they follow him. Instilling himself into everyones mind as the greatest leader of all time since day one is a head trip. I couldn\'t imagine being told all day every day from day one of my life that the sky is red. The human rights issues alone are enough to blow that country up. Did any of you watch 60 minutes the other night? My God it is sickening.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
EXACTLY.
Why doesn\'t the US just say the truth, "we want him out b/c we don\'t like him". That\'s all there is to it. National Security? If they go to war, how is that going to make us any safer? If they do have weapons, and they go to war they\'ll have an even greater reason to use them. Racer\'s question, Why can\'t Iraq have weapons, and the US can? He had no proof. All accusations, and the "proof" could of come out of anywhere, for all we know those conversations never happened about hiding "stuff".
Iraqi sympathizers... yes I will use that label for some of you in this thread.
Iraq has CLEARLY violated UN resolutions. You have seen the evidence yet you are blinded by:
1. Your hatred for GW Bush
2. Your Anti American sentiments
3. Your lack of logical reasoning
Colin Powell laid all the evidence that was needed to show he was in violation and the next step in the process would be to oust him from power. As luckee said, I am worried too that we won\'t actually get him, but in that regard, he won\'t be in power anymore and he will basically be a fugitive. Whats worse? Sitting by and letting him stay in power or having him running from country to country hiding in fear?
I just can\'t understand you Core, the evidence is clear. Are you trying to say he hasn\'t violated UN Resolution 1441? I am done discussing this with you, because frankly you will never see the truth even if it is "as clear as the nose on your face."
SirMystiq... :rolleyes: your post is unfounded bs. I don\'t think you believe in anything to be honest. "Why can\'t Iraq have weapons, but the US can?" - Because we are a stable government that has proven for the past 50 years we can handle weapons of mass destruction without using them. Iraq\'s sole purpose of obtaining these weapons is to:
1. Destroy Israel
2. Intimidate its neighbors
3. Use them against any country (ie. the US) who tries to stop their aggressiveness.
Why don\'t you volunteer to be a human shield. I know for one, I wouldn\'t miss you. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I don\'t think I\'m in the minority either among the population of the US, or the entire world. I think you\'re in the minority.
I\'m in the minority!?!?:laughing:
In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 601 adult Americans who watched Powell\'s speech or heard about what he said, 57 percent said they favored military action against Saddam, 15 percent said they were opposed and 26 percent were unsure.
Before the speech, 50 percent of respondents favored military action, 22 percent were against it and 28 percent were unsure.
The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I just can\'t understand you Core, the evidence is clear. Are you trying to say he hasn\'t violated UN Resolution 1441? I am done discussing this with you, because frankly you will never see the truth even if it is "as clear as the nose on your face"
Before you reply to me again, why don\'t you take the first step of actually reading what I wrote. I know it sounds crazy, but humor me. :rolleyes:
I never once said Saddam has not violated the UN Resolution. I said I wanted to see the proof of it. I want to see the evidence so that I can fully accept and endorse this war. In a court of law we can\'t convict someone of murder simply because "we know he did it." We have to build a case and display the evidence. It\'s simply a formality that will ensure our cohesiveness and support from the rest of the world. What\'s so bad about that? I really really want you to tell me what\'s so bad about that. You can say it\'s as clear as the nose on my face, but that is still not proof.
Look at ooseven\'s breakdown of the Powell speech, and explain to me how that\'s hard evidence. I fully believe that our US government has hard evidence that they\'re withholding, and I want to see it.
-
I never once said Saddam has not violated the UN Resolution. I said I wanted to see the proof of it.
The one thing we do know about our buddy Saddam is that he has violated the resolutions. When he threw out the inspectors a few years back would be one case of a breach.
Along with all the breaches we also have circumstantial evidence. We seem to have enough. I don\'t think this is a case where we can sit and wait for the French or Germans to get of their collective butts and grow a backbone.
Ace
-
Colin Powell\'s key points added little to no evidence which is already either common knowledge or just hear say.
Put it this way the evidence presented was so insubstantial that it would even stand up in the presence of TV’s Judge Judy, never mind the UN Council.
And we are supposed to believe that our “all wise” leaders :rolleyes: have it in our best interest to launch a pre-emptive strike on the basis of just.
17 empty warheads and a 300 page document and a badly tapped telephone conversation.
Mean while in North Korea the situation is being ignored and getting worse, it was revealed that any attempt by the US to build up forces in the region would be considered a Act of war.
And with well over half of NK’s Fighting force pointed at South Korea.. it almost makes you feel relaxed that your in Safe hands with GWB & BLIAR :rolleyes:
The 2003 GWB / BLIAR Apocalypses tour .. had your Country been bitch slapped yet ?
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Before you reply to me again, why don\'t you take the first step of actually reading what I wrote. I know it sounds crazy, but humor me. :rolleyes:
I never once said Saddam has not violated the UN Resolution. I said I wanted to see the proof of it. I want to see the evidence so that I can fully accept and endorse this war. In a court of law we can\'t convict someone of murder simply because "we know he did it." We have to build a case and display the evidence. It\'s simply a formality that will ensure our cohesiveness and support from the rest of the world. What\'s so bad about that? I really really want you to tell me what\'s so bad about that. You can say it\'s as clear as the nose on my face, but that is still not proof.
Look at ooseven\'s breakdown of the Powell speech, and explain to me how that\'s hard evidence. I fully believe that our US government has hard evidence that they\'re withholding, and I want to see it.
Why should we let the UN (France and Germany in particular) dictate our foreign policy or what we perceive as a legitimate threat to the security of our country? That is the real question here - not world opinion.
He has violated UN Resolutions by kicking the inspectors out in 1998 alone. Is that not proof enough? He is also hampering current inspections and Blix has been urging them to "cooperate" more, but they will not. Its like beating a dead horse.
I am positive as well that government is withholding information and they should. I think it is quite ridiculous to expect our government to lay everything out just to satisfy a few skeptical citizens. By doing so, they jeapordize our intelligence network and technology, not to mention the possibility of putting our troops in danger. It is not our right to know everything the top officials in our government know. What they presented to the UN was more than enough to prove Saddam is playing games with the UN.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I am positive as well that government is withholding information and they should. I think it is quite ridiculous to expect our government to lay everything out just to satisfy a few skeptical citizens. By doing so, they jeapordize our intelligence network and technology, not to mention the possibility of putting our troops in danger. It is not our right to know everything the top officials in our government know. What they presented to the UN was more than enough to prove Saddam is playing games with the UN.
Withholding info ?
then why don\'t they pass on the infomation to the UN weapon inspectors, instead of just sitting on it and saying.
"We know he\'s Fooking with us..but we must protect our sources"
if the inteligence sources are soo important then why don\'t they extract the imformants and then publish the damming info.
i am sorry for being skeptical
but from the looks of things so far both GWB and BLIAR
have Jack and his twin Brother S$%T when it comes to enough evidence to GO TO WAR.
-
ooseven: Oh god please don\'t tell me that you get Judge Judy in Scotland! :laughing: I can see why you must think all americans are idiots! :p
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Withholding info ?
then why don\'t they pass on the infomation to the UN weapon inspectors, instead of just sitting on it and saying.
"We know he\'s Fooking with us..but we must protect our sources"
if the inteligence sources are soo important then why don\'t they extract the imformants and then publish the damming info.
i am sorry for being skeptical
but from the looks of things so far both GWB and BLIAR
have Jack and his twin Brother S$%T when it comes to enough evidence to GO TO WAR.
You wouldn\'t believe it anyway... :rolleyes:
Besides those sources need to stay where they are. The rebuttals to Powell\'s speech are getting more absurd with each post. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
ooseven: Oh god please don\'t tell me that you get Judge Judy in Scotland! :laughing: I can see why you must think all americans are idiots! :p
yeah we do but they only put it on late at night i.e. After 3pm ..for all the insomniacs to fall asleep to.
anyway they are now saying Analysts that is and not the Iraqis , is that the phone conversations were miss translated, and in fact could just be that they where talking about normal procedures.
/me is watching BBC news 24 the now.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You wouldn\'t believe it anyway... :rolleyes:
i wouldent be so sure of that if i was you.
if and ONLY if we have possitive proof that he is developing WoMD and that he plans to use them.
Then we SHOULD take action.
but i for one do NOT believe thatwe should go to war over
17 Empty OLD shells
300 page document
& Badly written PowerPoint presentation with piss poor Surveillance pictures and a miss translated phone tap
[sarcastic mode]
i mean i am sure everyone will be happy that both US & UK blood is spilled over such "Strong evidence":rolleyes: :rolleyes:.
[/sarcastic mode]
-
Originally posted by ooseven
yeah we do but they only put it on late at night i.e. After 3pm ..for all the insomniacs to fall asleep to.
anyway they are now saying Analysts that is and not the Iraqis , is that the phone conversations were miss translated, and in fact could just be that they where talking about normal procedures.
/me is watching BBC news 24 the now.
Getting desperate for excuses I see... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Getting desperate for excuses I see... :rolleyes:
No.. it was the Analysts (who is British and works for the BBC)words
he was in the studio and said he was shocked that the Iraqi\'s (who are doing their responce the now) didn\'t even highlited the miss translation.
and as for the evidence if your so pro war.
will you have it on your consience if Both British and American Soldiers DIE over the piss poor evidence that has been out line in my previous post.
Until they can actualy provide SOLID EVIDENCE...I for one don\'t want THIS "WAR" in my name.
-
Badly written PowerPoint presentation with piss poor Surveillance pictures and a miss translated phone tap
Very few people, I haven\'t heard any, say that the presentation was poor. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. Some of our (U.S.) extra, extra left wing pols have said just the opposite.
Ace
-
ooseven, can you please stop with the giant text? You can keep making your arguments, but the text is getting annoying. :(
-
Don\'t worry, the victory will be mostly in our name anyway.
Ace
-
You\'ve got to understand my perspective, Giga. The entire Vietnam war was started on a ruse that the USS Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. Turns out later "oh yeah, I guess that never actually happened." Our nation\'s credibility is not what it used to be.
I\'m not implying anything, just stating the obvious. In ordinary situations, it\'s ok for our intelligence agencies to conceal everything and stonewall the world and our own citizens in the name of national security and protecting their assets. At some point we have to acknowledge that this behaviour can be a threat to our national security as well. We are in an EXTRAORDINARY situation now. It\'s critical that we build a world consensus and get some support from around the globe for this military enterprise we\'re embarking on. If not, we\'re risking making ourselves the target for waves of terrorist attacks unlike anything before.
If we have to trash some of the CIA\'s information conduits to display our proof against Iraq, then in this case it\'s worth it.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Don\'t worry, the victory will be mostly in our name anyway.
Ace
Victory ?
Yes its plan to see that we will win, but I wouldn’t call it a victory.
Remember we aren’t dealing with repelling a invasion force from a small country, we are dealing with a brutal dictatorship who has had the past 4 years to prepare for any act of aggression.
Already Iraqi forces are digging in heavily populated areas which will reduce or limit the possibility of Air strikes and from the looks of things they won’t go quietly.
Urban fighting is said to be the most brutal forms imaginable, and our forces will have to take each city block by block.
Another thing is that like an animal a country like this is even more dangerous in the throws of “death” I wouldn’t be surprised if Saddam would use by any means to make our (in your words Victory) all the more sourer.
And finally this action will only cripple the war on terrorism as the out rage among the Islamic communities around the world will only breed more potential Suicide “bombers”
Remember nearly all of the hi jackers on 9/11 were Middle class well educated Saudi Nationals.
After another war on Iraq , imagine how many more will be recruited into al Qaeda
p.s. to Ryu
point taken Buddy I won’t do it again, but could of you of PM me :crying: no one ever PM’s me ;)
:p
-
I understand your mistrust and the Vietnam example is a valid one. If 9/11 wouldn\'t have happened I most likely wouldn\'t feel as passionate about this situation as I do.
I also see another madman wanting to gain nuclear weapons so he can do as he pleases just like what is going on in N. Korea. This is preventative and that is why I am in favor of it.
I also agree with those on this board that think we should really be worrying about N. Korea as they are really becoming a bigger threat than first realized, but as I said before - get Saddam and his party out of power and avoid another Korean situation.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I understand your mistrust and the Vietnam example is a valid one. If 9/11 wouldn\'t have happened I most likely wouldn\'t feel as passionate about his situation as I do.
I also see another madman wanting to gain nuclear weapons so he can do as he pleases just like what is going on in N. Korea. This is preventative and that is why I am in favor of it.
I also agree with those on this board that think we should really be worrying about N. Korea as they are really becoming a bigger threat than first realized, but as I said before - get Saddam and his party out of power and avoid another Korean situation.
the problem is that Iraq has nothing to do with the events of 9/11
but on the other hand our so called firend in the gulf Saudi Arabia not only gave us Bin Laden , but about 90 % of the Hi Jackers too.
Remember the one thing Bin Laden would love to see is an Iraq in chaos after another war, and enough resentment to build on Islamic Extremism and produce a new Hard line Islamic Iraq.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
the problem is that Iraq has nothing to do with the events of 9/11
Oh really can you prove they don\'t? Who knows... like I said earlier in this thread making that link would be very hard regardless of if there was one or not. Iraq does sponsor terrorism, whether it be Bin Laden and friends or Hamas... he hands out prize money to suicide bombers in Israel.
-
OK, I have decided we will never come to terms about what should be done. That\'s fine, we can disagree to disagree. The question is, what do think we should do with Saddam and Saudia Arabia and any other country that is linked to terrorism?
Ace
-
Ahem... uh Ace you are supposed to let the liberals throw in the towel first... didn\'t you get my "psx2central Axis of Evil official memo"? ;)
Seriously, this is turning into a circular argument... Ace is right, instead of arguing lets discuss N. Korea!
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Oh really can you prove they don\'t? Who knows... like I said earlier in this thread making that link would be very hard regardless of if there was one or not. Iraq does sponsor terrorism, whether it be Bin Laden and friends or Hamas... he hands out prize money to suicide bombers in Israel.
i am shure for 3 reasons
[list=1]
- Saddam is a tyranical dictator who has Bin Laden as a moral and actual enemy due to his Circleur ways (in Fact Bin Laden has went on record that he would like to see him die because he turn his back on Islam)
- A Leaked UK inteligence (Released yesterday and dated LAST WEEK) report not only proved that there is no link to al Quida, but that members of the group have been and are being hunted down within Iraq due to the threat outlined in point 1.
- This war has nothing to do with Oil, Human rights or Terrorism . its to do with the potential of one country in the middle east riseing to dominate the region.
-
:)
Not throwing in the towel. I just figure the best way to do in liberals is let them talk. Then just sit back and let their words speak for themselves.
Ace
-
Oh, oh, Ace, can I talk myself into a circle? ;)
I\'m not gonna directly address the Iraq topic. People know my opinions on it, and the arguement not only get no where, but also grow too fast for me. I\'m just gonna pick out random points that caught my eye as I skimmed the topic:
Originally posted by Bossieman
War IMO is never the way to go.
I´m more afraid of Bush than Hussein. Im not alone in this belife.
I think and belive the G.Bush is the most dangerous man on this planet. IMO he is a monster and the world should fear him.
Although in an ideal world, war would never be the way to go, it is unfortunately necessary in certain situations in the world we live in. I happen to not believe that this is one of them. However, if you are in a country ruled by an oppressive government that is denying its people their basic rights, and is an incredibly oppressive state, would a revolution not be an appropriate last resort to make changes to such a situation? Also, there is a difference between starting a war and fighting a war. Basically, I think the only reasons for war are for self defense or to preserve your basic rights and liberties. This war does neither of those things, if you ask me. We are the agressor.
As for fearing Bush more, however, I agree in some ways. I think Saddam is a much worse person than Bush is, but the resources Bush has to work with are incredible, and his decisions have much more effect on the people of the world.
Originally posted by Ace
Your comment about GWB just shows there is no amount of evidence that would sway your mind about this situation. I think if looked at that statement with a clear mind, you would realize how ridiculous it is to say that you fear GWB more than SH. :rolleyes:
Regardless of his statement, how is his situation any different than yours? If you can say that his hatred for Bush means that no amount of proof would sway his opinion, could one not in turn say that your hatred for Saddam means that no matter how lacking the proof is, your opinion also would not be swayed? It goes both ways.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I\'m in the minority!?!?:laughing:
In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 601 adult Americans who watched Powell\'s speech or heard about what he said, 57 percent said they favored military action against Saddam, 15 percent said they were opposed and 26 percent were unsure.
Well of course one would expect results like that. The people had just watched a presentation of a man making every arguement he had for why we should go to war, so the results would be expected to be skewed in his favor. Perhaps if that presentation were followed by one saying why we shouldn\'t go to war, the poll would be more accurate.
Basically, there is no question as to whether Iraq has violated the UN resolutions. They have. The only question is whether or not that is cause for war. I don\'t happen to believe it is. The UN also doesn\'t. I believe it was Giga that asked why we even need the UN with us in this war. Well, maybe it would be important, if you\'re using their violation of UN resolutions as justification to also take into consideration the opinions of the UN. The two go hand in hand.
And as for Saddam and Bin Laden being connected, why should you have to prove beyond any doubt that they aren\'t connected to avoid war? Shouldn\'t it be that you have to prove that they are to start war? 9/11 is still fresh in many peoples minds, as people have already said in this thread. It is what set this whole action into motion, really, and it\'s what has support for the war so high. However, there really is no direct link between the events of 9/11 and Iraq. It just doesn\'t seem like a valid connection to me.
And as for support ratings, maybe if the American people were told more of the reasoning against the war, instead of just the reasoning for it, the polls would be different.
-
shockwaves,
Bossieman\'s statement is irrational to me. Don\'t get me wrong, he can have any opinion he wants no matter how irrational it is, but there is no comparison of the two men. This is my opinion, of course, and I would like to hear from Bossieman how he can have these feelings.
And as for support ratings, maybe if the American people were told more of the reasoning against the war, instead of just the reasoning for it, the polls would be different.
The American people are getting both sides now. Just watch the slant from the networks and the buffoons in Hollywood and you can see both sides.
We have been told that the American people are not for this war but attitudes are changing by the day especially after Powell\'s incredible work in front of the UN. Also, lets not forgot Powell was telling the president to go slow in the beginning and was no where as hawkish as everybody thinks Bush has been since 9/11.
Ace
-
The networks, at least the ones around here, are very slanted in the pro war direction. For example, yesterday my local ABC network showed the reactions of school students to Powell\'s words. The students were very much in favor of war, and the news station was sure to convey this point. However, what the neglected to tell the viewing audience is that the children interviewed were from a private military school :rolleyes:
As for bossieman\'s statement, you have your opinion of the two people, and he is entitled to his. Sure, you can disagree with it, but dismissing it as irrational, and saying it discredits the rest of what he has to say doesn\'t seem to be appropriate to me. And as I said, on some level, I agree with what he said. Bush hasn\'t done the same sort of things that Saddam has, but my personal opinion of his character tells me that he could do some bad things. Although what I would consider bad wouldn\'t be nearly to the level of what Saddam does, it would be on a larger scale, whatever it is, because it is being done in or by the United States. That is what makes Bush potentially more dangerous than Saddam. It\'s not just what they would do, but also what they could do.
And I still think that Powell\'s work in front of the UN was garbage. Once again, just an opinion.
-
As I said, it\'s my opinion and Bossieman is welcome to his. Sure, logically I guess we have more to work with if GWB wants to go on a rampage. Is it something that should be feared? I think not!
I think the only way we can settle this is with a duel. :)
Ace
-
pistols at dawn? :D
-
Well I guarantee that we will see something within the next month UN or no UN. I really don\'t want war, but if that takes Hussein out of power then so be it. Why do we care what other people think once everything is done and gone away with and Iraq is a stable normal Muslim country again people will be praising the US. You really think that the US is the cause of so many of those childrens lives because of embargoes, well if Hussein would have listened and never gone into Kuwait we wouldn\'t of put those embargoes in place, and all of the Presidential palaces he\'s built, I\'m sure that could have been a shit load of food for some hungry kids in Iraq. The man obviously does not care for his people, or anyone else for that matter besides himself!!!
-
/me gets out his dueling glove
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Why do we care what other people think once everything is done and gone away with and Iraq is a stable normal Muslim country again people will be praising the US.
Thats what you think. Stable governments will be hurt by a war as well as this non-stable Iraq. It wll promote an increase in anti-US sentiments and provoke more terroist attacks. It will only be the beginning IMO. To attack without concrete proof anyway.
-
I would assert that no matter what proof we have, the radical Islamic world already hates us and they need nothing more to want to do us harm.
Ace
-
I agree, however an attack without concrete proof will only increase those terrorist attacks IMO. This can possibly turn stable or your average person into a radical.
Im sure the radicals werent always radicals. Not the majority of htem anyway.
-
I saw nothing in that presentation that warrants a war. Until we have a solid confirmation that there is missles or biological weapons and I mean, downright obvious stuff, than I refuse to support such a war and even then, I doubt I\'d support it.
I find it awful funny that we are allowed all these weapons and North Korea is building them, yet we are throwing alittle tissy fit about Iraq.
And as for this stupid war, if he does have these weapons once we go to war he will most likely pull out all stops and then launch them. By goin\' to war at this point, we are only hurting our international image and evoking a larger attack , provided he has one.
This country has gone to hell. Maybe after Bush is out of the white-house something decent will happen, but so far he has been nothing but bad luck.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I saw nothing in that presentation that warrants a war. Until we have a solid confirmation that there is missles or biological weapons and I mean, downright obvious stuff, than I refuse to support such a war and even then, I doubt I\'d support it.
I find it awful funny that we are allowed all these weapons and North Korea is building them, yet we are throwing alittle tissy fit about Iraq.
And as for this stupid war, if he does have these weapons once we go to war he will most likely pull out all stops and then launch them. By goin\' to war at this point, we are only hurting our international image and evoking a larger attack , provided he has one.
This country has gone to hell. Maybe after Bush is out of the white-house something decent will happen, but so far he has been nothing but bad luck.
You can thank Clinton\'s soft stance on Iraq and N. Korea for everything that is happening now.
Comparing Bush to Saddam is comparing apples and oranges. Ace is right - you can\'t compare the two. Some Europeans are such drama queens... isn\'t that right Sammy ;)
oh and btw...
You guys are traitors and shall be shot at dawn!!! ;)
-
/me strokes his dueling pistol
That\'s what you think!
And basically, I agree with everything L-I-C said. Those opinions are all mine, as well as his.
-
I claim those opinions too. LOL! :p
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Iraqi sympathizers... yes I will use that label for some of you in this thread.
Iraq has CLEARLY violated UN resolutions. You have seen the evidence yet you are blinded by:
1. Your hatred for GW Bush
2. Your Anti American sentiments
3. Your lack of logical reasoning
Colin Powell laid all the evidence that was needed to show he was in violation and the next step in the process would be to oust him from power. As luckee said, I am worried too that we won\'t actually get him, but in that regard, he won\'t be in power anymore and he will basically be a fugitive. Whats worse? Sitting by and letting him stay in power or having him running from country to country hiding in fear?
I just can\'t understand you Core, the evidence is clear. Are you trying to say he hasn\'t violated UN Resolution 1441? I am done discussing this with you, because frankly you will never see the truth even if it is "as clear as the nose on your face."
SirMystiq... :rolleyes: your post is unfounded bs. I don\'t think you believe in anything to be honest. "Why can\'t Iraq have weapons, but the US can?" - Because we are a stable government that has proven for the past 50 years we can handle weapons of mass destruction without using them. Iraq\'s sole purpose of obtaining these weapons is to:
1. Destroy Israel
2. Intimidate its neighbors
3. Use them against any country (ie. the US) who tries to stop their aggressiveness.
Why don\'t you volunteer to be a human shield. I know for one, I wouldn\'t miss you. :rolleyes:
1. Yeah, I don\'t like Bush.
2. So in order to be pro-America, I need to kiss ass to the government, and believe everything they say?
3. Lack of reasoning? Your the one that believe EVERTHING this gov. has to say. If you don\'t then you probably find some excuse that wont make it seem so bad.
ALL of the laws and regulations that this world has are made by the US. Who blew up the JAPANASE with the nukes? Hmm I don\'t think it was hussain, the US did. After they blew em up they "realized" how destructive they were and "encouraged" the world to put laws against them so any more "disasters" like that would occur. BS. I think all the "evidence" the US has is BS, I think Sadam is BS, I think NK is BS, I think you Giga eat BS. I probably wouln\'t be missed by you, but I bet you\'ll take a kick in the balls to protect bush and his sidekicks.
North Korea has threatened to stricke first, wonder why SuperBush and his PowerNuke girls haven\'t threatened to nuke them? They probably already have, but they are still focusing in Iraq for some reason. Osama? Probably still alive somewhere planning another terrorist attack now that the US gov has apparently forgot who started all this mess.
-
TOLD, SirMystiq! LOL!
Let\'s poll the posters in this thread and see who\'s in the minority... :p
-
I say if we want to stop terrorism, we ban SUV\'s! Damn gas guzzlers!
Down with SUV\'s!
Oh - wait, you mean we\'re goin to war?..Ah, damn!
-
"War is never the way to go? Sure about that? Hitler would have appreciated that concept! Thank God there are countries like the US that do not shy away from a problem and wilt like a flower when trouble arises." - Ace
That was a very very different situation. If you remember right, the Axis powers had invaded Poland, France, North Africa, Spain, and practically all of Europe.. not to mention fire bombing downtown London. I agree that we should have taken much sooner.. but don\'t you see the slight difference between Hitler invading Poland and Saddam "hinting" at maybe possibly having weapons that he\'s not supposed to? There is no hard evidence.. lots and lots of speculatory evidence.. some very blatant.. but nothing solid. This stuff, in a civil matter, would be thrown out of court. Yet we want the world to accept it as legitimate grounds to go into a war which could possibly destabilize all of the middle east as well southern Asia? Come on.. Like Bossieman said. We don\'t need to prove this to the Neutrals or to our Allies.. circumstancial evidence will work for them. We need to convince our ENEMIES of this.. which is going to be very very hard to do. What we\'re doing is letting "our" intelligence do the talking.. and to them.. we\'re not trustworthy. We need something rock solid that NO-ONE, no matter the alignment to the US can refute. We\'re lacking that.
That\'s what we had durring the Cuban Missle Crisis... another point of history that was brought up. Russian diplomats sat in the UN for weeks bashing the US and painting us as villans who are bringing the world to the brink of disaster... and the world sat by and did the same thing they are now. Asking why. We are faced with a similar situation now (albiet, the threat to the US is much less at the present time.. but will only grow with unfounded military action) and we do not have solid evidence.. we do not have the smoking gun we had then.. and yet we ask the world to support us in a move that has the potential to wreak untold havoc on the third world, as well as the rest of the world.
Come on.. I want to see Saddam ousted as much as the next guy. I believe we must do something.. but not military action. Not at this time. Kennedy\'s millitary think tank saw only one recouse in the Cuban Missle Crisis.. a surgical strike which would eliminate the missles.. but the reprecussions of that action would be potentially devistating. What did Bobby Kennedy say? Not an exact quote, but "There has to be another way, and if it\'s not presenting itself it means we haven\'t thought hard enough yet."
All I\'m saying is that there IS another way, even without evidence, to diffuse this situation. We just haven\'t thought hard enough yet. Weither it\'s because of ulterior motives, 9/11 righteousness, or top millitary brass looking for an excuse to try out their new toys in an actual war.
Yes, some wars are unpreventable.. but I see absolutely NO reason to think that is the case this time.
-
I support Bush to whack Saddam ass anytime. Remember, Saddam is obviously part of the Osama terrorist network even if he didn\'t involved directly, he probably has given support to them via financially or some other support.
Of all the people in the Mid East, why does Bush have to keep bugging Saddam? Why don\'t the US bug some other countries like Egypt etc etc?? The guy is obviously guilty as hell and hide his weapons well off the sight of the inspector.
Believe me...Islam does not mean peace. What they forgot to tell you is Islam also means "submission (to Allah obviously)". So if you don\'t join them, you\'ll be treated as an infidel. So it means only peace if you submit to Allah. Islam have no tolerance for non-Islamwhatsoever. That is their core teaching. It can\'t be help.
Islam IS EVIL.
-
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of ignorance at it\'s finest.
:rolleyes:
-
yeah i though i already gave PAUL a warning about his narrow mindness and RACEIST Views (it was after the Bali Bombing).
Paul consider this your last.
one more Borderline Neo Nazi statment and i\'ll push for your removeal.
-
SonyFan,
I don\'t have enough time to read your post carefully right now. One comment, I don\'t think we have a shot of convincing our enemies of any proof, no matter how rock solid the evidence.
I\'ll explain later. Gotta go.
Ace
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
1. Yeah, I don\'t like Bush.
2. So in order to be pro-America, I need to kiss ass to the government, and believe everything they say?
3. Lack of reasoning? Your the one that believe EVERTHING this gov. has to say. If you don\'t then you probably find some excuse that wont make it seem so bad.
ALL of the laws and regulations that this world has are made by the US. Who blew up the JAPANASE with the nukes? Hmm I don\'t think it was hussain, the US did. After they blew em up they "realized" how destructive they were and "encouraged" the world to put laws against them so any more "disasters" like that would occur. BS. I think all the "evidence" the US has is BS, I think Sadam is BS, I think NK is BS, I think you Giga eat BS. I probably wouln\'t be missed by you, but I bet you\'ll take a kick in the balls to protect bush and his sidekicks.
North Korea has threatened to stricke first, wonder why SuperBush and his PowerNuke girls haven\'t threatened to nuke them? They probably already have, but they are still focusing in Iraq for some reason. Osama? Probably still alive somewhere planning another terrorist attack now that the US gov has apparently forgot who started all this mess.
SirMystiq you don\'t have a leg to stand on with your argument. Once again you have proven yourself to be the biggest dumbass on these boards... why didn\'t you just leave after we found out about your fake girlfriend little man? pfft...
1. I don\'t believe everything the government says. That is your stupid little interpretation.
2. Comparing Japan to Iraq and this situation is absurd - just like you little boy.
3. Did you get the that N. Korea rhetoric from the new and Sen. Boxer? Sure sounds like her to me. Typical liberals trying to score political points when holding direct talks with N. Korea goes against everything the Dems stand for - ie. they want multilateral talks. It is very hypocritical of people here - especially you SirDorq to call for action against N. Korea instead of Iraq.
Yes, I have resorted to name calling in his case, because I respect each and every one of you who posts here EXCEPT for him. He has been proven to be immature and a liar and frankly he should stay out of conversations of which he knows nothing. :rolleyes:
-
look i am starting to think this thread is becoming more and more like a American Bashing thread.
i know i for one, find the though if a war worrying.
but i have to say everyone should be entitled to their view just as long as we don\'t desend into ...
name calling (SirMystiq)
or
Raceist BS (PAUL)
either way this thread has went on long enough for just responce to Colin Powells address to the UN.
if you want to continue to debate the war then please feal free to do so with a new thread. but please don\'t let it sink to a level where we have to close it.
*thread Closed*
Unless reopend by the Vid mister or sexy Sammy ;)
j/k guys j/k :p
;)