*DAMN R6 Forum

As you all are probably aware of, Colin Powell Presented the new evidence against Iraq's violations of resolution 1441.  The accusations of the U.S. has been firmly backed up by satalite photos, intercepted phone calls, eye witnesses, videos, etc.

If you saw the presentation, the satalite photos showed chemical bunkers before U.N. Inspectors, and the time U.N. Inspectors showed up to the location. The photos before the U.N. Inspectors showed up to the locations, were chemical bunkers, with clear signs of the compound. Large cargo trucks were all around the location.  

Days later, the compound has been bulldozed. You can see the U.N. Inspectors arriving. As you are aware, they found nothing.

The photos also brought up the attention of Iraq's mobile chem labs. The labs are clearly to keep U.N. Inspector's from knowing what Iraq is trying to produce.

Also brought to the Security Council was many intercepted phone calls between top Iraqi officials. The interceptions clearly showed that Iraq was not trying to cooperate with the Inspectors but to deceive longer, as Powell stated in the presentation. The Iraqi officials mentioned "nerve agents" and how to hide them. The Iraqi officals talked about their mobile bio-labs. They spoke about what they would do if the inspectors spotted them.

This evidence alone is enough to screw the Iraqi's Regime over and to crush their lies.

But Powell wasn't finished. He showed videos of an Iraqi test flight spraying virtual test agents below.

One of the most astonishing new elements brought forth was the link to Al-Queda. They showed more photos of terrorist training camps in Iraq.  They also presented that Iraq made a deal with Al-Queda, that if they were to harbor them inside Baghdad, that they would leave Iraq out of their attacks.

Another violation next to having possession of nuclear/chemical and biological agents, is the refusal to interview scientist in private. This was in clear violation of Resolution 1441, where Iraq agreed to let inspectors have unfettered access to all sites requested by Inspectors. They have also refused to allow U-2 Recognisance flights over Iraq.

Sorry for the semi-long post about all this. You probably all heard about it, but this is just for a debate. Speak freely about what you think about all this.

Hey.. I have an idea... lets start another thread about the war...that's an original idea.....

At the moment I do not know what to think. WAR WAR WAR, some of you will say, many Americans not knowing what war is. This so called evidence? Is it false, fabricated, the weapons inspectors do not agree with it. I myself have not accumulated or analyzed enough information to form a rational opinion. My hart says it cant be it just cant be, one part of my brain says they are guilty, the other part of my brain (the paranoid part) says the evidence is fabricated. Here are some links that can help you.

You hear about Resolution 1441 but you dont know what it means exactly? Here it is word for word by the UN http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm)

Want to hear the conspiracy theorist view www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com) and dont forget www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com)

Want to hear a more rational anti-war view http://www.truthout.com/ (http://www.truthout.com/) and go to many other newspapers from Europe. www.pravda.ru (http://www.pravda.ru) News from Russia, gotta click on English version for this one.

My one concern about Powell's evidence, could this be another "Gulf of Tonkin incident?" American has fabricated evidence before they can do it again.

Good thoughts.

yes, true, we have made fake evidence before, but the Iraqi's have also attempted to hide weapons before.

Iraq has tried to lie and we have caught them at many of their lies. 1 example is when inspectors were around in 1991 after the 1st Gulf War. We found VX gas. Now Iraq claims it has NEVER produced any form of VX EVER.  They should know if you are going to lie... you should know what you have said in the past. Another example is in the 1980's Iraq was about 1 year away from making their 1st nuclear bomb. They denied it for years, even after people have proven that they had it.  Then the Israeli's bombed their nuclear facilities.

Iraq will never let go of its lies. Iraq could murder a thousand people infront of the entire world and it would STILL deny the fact they did it. As a matter of fact, they would probably call it "Typical American Hollywood special effects"

I'm not saying that this justifies war, but i feel something needs to be done. I don't feel that we should invade the country because of what one family is doing (Saddam's Regime) but again SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! We can't just let a man that wants to produce weapons in the effort to harm another country do what he pleases. Hell, if a small child got a weapon that would give him the advantage to some one far superior to him, he would use it out of either fear or just trying to show that he is"tough" . That's what Iraq would do.

Cossack, thanks for your opinions and facts. Please give more insight, to lead me on the right track, because i am just going by what I have seen.

Heh, you make me feel like Jesus. I dont know what the right track is. I used to be against the war unless there was suffecient evidence, and we had the world community with us. I am still deciding if this is suffecient in my view. BTW info man who are you. Are you anyone in particular in this community? Not that it takes away any validity of your points, I am just curious.

Just a minor detail, Iraq actually let one of their scientists be interogated just the other day, which could be a sign of them wanting to cooperate more...
About those sattelite photo's, I think it's very difficult to say exactly what they show, they're black and white and you can't really see any details at all.

kami, i would not be surprised if the scientest that suddenly wanted to cooperate was a mukabarat or military intellegence officer. even if he is a real scientist, this means nothing since he would proabably know that giving anyting to the inspectors means that he and potentially his family will bite it. this is how things have worked in Iraq for 20 years and theyre not about to change...
as for powell's evidence: some of this stuff is pretty damn incriminating (i.e conversations like 'did you get rid of the forbidden ammo') and damaging for Iraq. I don't think the US would wan't to put its credibility on the line here by presenting false evidence so I doubt any of it is doctored or "photoshoped" as some of conspiracy minded folks are claiming. then again, the Bay of tonkin thing and the iran/contra all happened so im also inclined towards some degree of scepticism. obviously some ppl are not going to be convinced no matter what, just like bin laden (there are still people coming up with theories about who did the WtC attacks-the "it was the israeli mossad" one is still very popular in the Arab world).
Cossack, its good that at least somone is thinking about this stuff. it seems that almost everyone here has theyre mind made up one way or another, which makes discussing anything kinda pointless and circular. also, nj in knowing propaganda from fact and seeing this stuff for what it is-> conspiracy theory. do u study IR or somthing? u understand a of this stuff much better than most GR ppl, even if we disagree on some things
Info-man, good post. i also had the feeling that powell made a pretty good case, but again, i doubt that it will help in convinving anyone....
just in case anyone cares, heres the transcript of what powell actually said.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/05/arpubcp020503.htm

well, you might want to read iraq's reply to the allegations (as much propaganda as everything for sure, but also as "convincing", if you're unbiased), but for the "quality" of these and other "proofs" that media and gov's feed us, have a look here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2735031.stm

and for those who understand german, also here:

http://www.nzz.ch/2003/02/07/al/page-newzzDBW8HFQM-12.html

... and just as an example on powell's speech - the video of the "chem-spray" airplane was taken 1991!

 ... the pictures of the mobile labs looked like photoshop and c4dxl imho ... and the phone calls were certainly not convincing either, i can do that myself in our studio with help from two arab-speaking fellas. so ... i don't believe much i see or read these days, and certainly not when it comes from the US gov ... :

http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/10/11/17799.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/osi/index.html
http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/FreePress.htm

mind it, i'm not saying this is *only* a problem of US media/gov, but it *is* certainly a problem in the US.

Ok, I'm not a blind follower of the US Government, that's for sure.  But, when it comes to who has more credibility, the Powell or Saddam, I'll go with Powell.

But, I'm not just taking anyone's word for it.  I'm trying to look at the whole picture.  The former head UN inspector confirmed the bulldozing of some inspection sites, along with telling the story of 8 feet of river gravel being dumped over one site that they had to try to dig through to get soil samples (by hand with no help from the Iraquis).  While the UN inspectors are saying they haven't found anything, they are also saying that cooperation is less then forthcoming.  

Oh, mono, I watched the coverage live.  Powell did mention it was an older photograph of the chem plane.  He was showing the picture while talking about how they've practiced this in the past, and if they are allowed to have that huge amount of chemical and biological weapons (that he claims they have), they are practiced in the ways to distribute it.  He was trying to point out that more then just Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia were in danger.  Nice slant you have there.

I know people think that the media is slanted, and they all are, US, European, all of them.  They all put their own spin on things.  I watched it live.  Spin free.  Maybe you guys should tune into CSPAN and other live feeds, and hear it first hand, instead of just posting links.

Mono -  It *is* certainly a problem everywhere.  

well, obviously not everyone else ... i saw it too, but as info-man said "But Powell wasn't finished. He showed videos of an Iraqi test flight spraying virtual test agents below" as an example of 'definite ownage', it thought it had to be mentioned, and also that some might not have known it and find it interesting.


well, my point was that i don't belive government representatives are "spin-free" either, especially not the US gov ones and especially not at times of (pre-)war. propaganda wasn't and isn't a weapon only for dictators and communists ... if you check the bbc link, you'll see why i'm sceptical (despite it being only a poor static link and not live).

Abe, I'm not saying it's enough, I'm just saying it's a step in the right direction. I feel that I'm pretty open minded actually Abe, I just don't think that any action is right without the UN security counsil being in on it.

I think that Saddam may well have some sort of chemical or biological weapon.  I however do not think they are a threat to the US seeing as Saddam has never done anything against the US in the past...against some countries near him yes, but not the US.  There is no reason for a preemptive strike.  That is why the war should take place only with UN clearance.  It still looks like Russia, Germany and France are holding out on that.

Do you guys think the U.S. Govt.  would lie through thier teeth to the U.N.??  I know the possibilities of fabricated evidence, but in an issue this big?  I dunno about that.  Can you guys imagine how much shit the U.S. would be in if it really was fabricated evidence?  *shivers*

-Exe

The security council is good for nothing shit  :)

bondo: u admit that iraq probably has weapons of mass destruction, yet you claim that there is no threat to the US. the US has made clear, before and after 9/11 that preventing the proliferation of wmds is in our national interst. saddam has shown himself capable of using them in warfare and he has, at times, supported terrorists. i dont put anything past that guy. do we have to wait until a major western (or any other) city gets wiped out before we start to do somthing about countries that are known to have them and that we feel are most likely to use them? u are using the same logic reasoning (i.e. they havent done anything yet.....) that allowed hitler to remilitarize the rhineland and eventually start ww2. im trying to use this analogy carefully and i am not comparing saddam to hitler, btw.
and executioner, that was the point i was trying to make. this is too big for the US government to put its credibility on the line by presenting false evidence. cynicism is important, but you cant go around thinking everything is lie.
and finally kami. i dont think i have to quote u, cookie just did. where the hell did u see me post anything about you being closeminded???? i dont know you and i cant make that judgement. and if i did i certainly wouldnt do so here. my point was that this guy (i.e. Saddam) has a pretty shitty track record as far as "steps in the right direction" go. in fact, every such step has, in the past, only been a manuver to delay and deceive the inspections process.
cookie, are u kidding? i hope so.  the security council is important because anything it does requires the consensus of the major powers. it might be ineffective, but the reason a security council resolution is so important is because it means that Russia, the US, the UK, China and France all agree on somthing....that also the reason they are so vague and tough to get.

Well, the weapon inspectors would keep doing their job so it isn't like Saddam would be free to do as he likes.

I think the main point is that the US can only have this war with the support of the rest of the world via the UN.  Otherwise it isn't a justified war even if there is a risk.  It has always been the policy not to have preemptive attacks.  It is too dangerous a line to cross to dissolve that policy.  What is preferable is to convince the rest of the middle east that they need to take the inititive in forcing the regime change.

Just had an additional thought...

Bush claims he has the right to attack Iraq preemptively in order to protect the security of the American people.  Well, in this war many Iraq civillans will die.  If this precedent is set, then Iraq could claim America is a threat to their safety and launch a premptive atack against the US under equal moral grounds.  That is how absurd this war is.  Sorry, but if the US feels it can have this war outside of the pretext of the UN policing, then every other country that feels a threat from another will have the right to attack another and to force a regime change.  Somehow the US thinks it can have special rules of war just because it is the strongest.

Cookie, the UN is all we've got, it would be bad if we had no international organ like that at all.

The reasons for the war should be to free the opressed people of Iraq from the mad dictator that is Saddam. They should have done it earlier though. Saying that it's because he thinks that Iraq is a threat to US national security is rediculous at the least.

Yea, sure Iraq can take a preemptive strike on the U.S if they wanted, if any of their troops could even get there with out being detected and/or whiped out. And if Iraq made an open preemptive strike on the U.S; God only knows what we would do to them. Oh don't forget that the U.N security council would surely act, for striking Iraq. Thus, Iraq would not just be disarmed, but completely and utterly annihilated. If you didn't get the picture just from that,  picture the Gulf War. Iraq invaded a small mid. east country, Kuwait, and we completely crushed his invading army. Now if they were to preemptive strike the U.S, a far more powerful country... heh ::Waves goodbye::

And for other countries preemptive striking other countries because they feel it's a threat and wanting a regime change. Well one, they need evidence of the threat (something we have presented and others know). Two, will have to have a logical reason other than "that leader is a jerk or that leader has a bigger army than i do." (Saddam has gassed his people, invaded another country, relations with terrorist [which is a threat to us], etc, etc,etc.)

As for the "U.S thinks it has special rules of war just because it is the strongest". Well, hell, it isnt like we have been working with the Security Council for over 4 months. And I think Bush said it well, " We will not allow others to run our country." It was somewhere along those lines.

Quick point of fact.

The USA only needs Congress to agree to declare war.  We do not, nor have ever needed the UN to agree with us.  There are no special rules.  It's the law.  The only thing special is that the USA has acted with the UN so much in the past 20 years, and not on it's own.

Study your history Bondo.  The precident was set long long ago, before the USA was even a country.  And it's been repeated throughout history.  The USA will not be setting any precident if they attack Iraq.  200 years ago, everybody in the world would have expected it long ago.

Yes yes yes, go ahead and say we should have evolved and should be better.  That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that you are wrong.  Being that far off base weakens your point, that the USA should be better then that.

The plain and simple truth is, Saddam is a madman.  He is a ruthless murdering bastard.  And, no matter what other issues are out there, he should not be allowed to have weapons such as these under any circumstances.  If (again, IF) he has them, it needs to be stopped.  He has proven his willingness to use them in the past, and there is nothing to make me believe he wouldn't again in the future, given the chance.  So it doesn't really matter if it is innocent Americans, Russians, Isrealies, Iranians, Saudi's, or anyone else.  If he has them, he will murder innocents with them.  And he will not do it with the intention of not killing innocents, he will do it with the full intention of killing anyone in his way.  So, some innocents are going to die if he has them.  I'd much rather it be UN forces, that at least attempt not to kill innocents doing it, then that crazy bastard.

Oh, and I say again, those Iraq women that are forming human shields (another new article about them today), they are no longer non-combatents or innocent.  They are putting themselves in harms way, defending him.  

That last post made me.....all the more stupid for reading it. I have to go to school and i will be laughing at Buccs ignorence the whole way

Way to not provide one puny little example/proof of your point Bucc.  When has the US attacked another country preemptively because it posed a threat.  I'm not talking about attacking because they attacked us, or attacking because we are defending another nation that was attacked.  I'm talking about attacking because, despite the country not having taken any military action against any other country, they pose a threat.

But if it isn't a new precedent, then I guess N. Korea, Iraq, and any other country we threaten to go to war with has full right in the world scene to declare war and attack.  And as they say all's fair in war...don't expect their military strategy be one that puts them head to head with ours.

Everyone, thank you for your input.

Zaitsev, you say Bucc's post made you all the more stupid and how you will be laughing at his ignorence. Well, one, Bucc made facts not stupid opinions.So if facts make you stupid, then I feel sorry for you. The only opinion he made was that he would rather have innocent civillians being killed by U.N forces trying to put down a mad man before he can cause more harm and death, rather than having a mad man slaughter the innocent before we act. And if we act after he uses these weapons on his own people or others, casualties will be far greater than if we didnt act before. Freedom and security come at a price.

Tell me Zaitsev, which would you rather have? 1,000 innocent civillians die  or  10,000?


Bondo, read my last post.

Sorry, missed your post with the page change.  I agree that Iraq would get crushed...but it is the theory that is important.  And the UN technically should punish the US if the US attacks.

Secondly, the US hasn't proven itself to much of the world.  Unless saying you have proof is proof enough.  In which case once again other countries could just claim they have proven the threat.

Sadaam, god damn sadaam. I am going to a Clinton speech tomorrow, will post what I think of it later. I do not like Clinton's endorsements of President George II.  I think Powell's argument is not very good. Iraq has chemical weapon CONTAINERS. I hear the word containers and boxes and empty chemical warheads used alot. The inspectors have not found actual weapons. Then one has to wonder, are these countries developing weapons because they want to defend themselves? Are they scared we will attack? I have only seen the Al Quada Orginization attack us, and that was 3,000 people. Hell Al Quada had killed more Russian troops in Chechnya than that. You dont see Putin bombing the living shit outta Afghanstan, although he has threatened invasion a few times. The fact still remains, you do not see Russia, who has suffered more casualties to Al Queada going off and invading other countries. Do not give me the typical American red neck shit, " The Russian army sucks, you suck, they cant take a country down" The thing is, Americans as a whole dont know their effect. I think George II is the reincarnation of Nero, George is a baffoon. Your SUV driving, your damn brown nosing in our buissness, you fucking tell other nations that their democracy is not "enlightened enough" yet you are taking away civil liberties. Hypocrites! I know I am gonna make many enemies with this post, but really, if you justify this than you are what I spit on. You disgust me. Back in Russia I idolized America. I wanted to grow up to reform my country to be like America in civil liberties, but now that I have lived here, I am truley sickened at your government's hypocracy. Dont get me wrong, your spirit is amazing, you all mean to do good, but god damnit so many of you people are ignorant. I am not just saying this to right wing republicans, I am saying this to total leftist nuts like Zaitsev and Bondo. Some Americans are in the midset: "If its European, its right!" It seems Americans are either fanaticaly loyal to the crown of George II, or want to make America just like Europe, sacraficing the American identity. Now that I have ended my rant. I will wear off my hangover with a few drinks.

I agree with everything Cossack had to say...especially the total leftist nut part :D

Cossack is right, we Americans do have a tendancy to over-react to things. I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justified. But it should stop here, there's been no reason given to explain the need for an immeadiate attack on Iraq. Yeah, Saddam is a bad dude but sometime it's best to leave well enough alone. We might be able to defeat Saddam's army easily and with few casualties on our side but there would be a huge cost for us in international relations. Right now, it's just not worth the price. Someday it might be, but that day is not today.

Also, I too am disgusted with the hipocracy of the American Government. This USA PATRIOT Act shit has to stop. Yeah, yeah, national security protect American lives etc. But there comes a time when we have to ask: Is destroying our enemies worth destroying ourselves?

To think like an economist for a second...when trying to do a Benefit Cost Analysis of going to war, I can't imagine a scenario in which attacking Iraq has a positive result.  The possible benefits are Iraq will be "liberated" and have a good goverment installed that can actually lead its people.  Oil supply would be better and gas prices would go down.  Possible attack on Americans with WMD could be avoided.

Now the costs...we'll increase hatred by extremist and even some moderate Muslims.  We'll increase resentment from Europe over the US's all powerful attitude.  We increase the chance of a terrorist attack happening with the increased hatred mentioned earlier.  We run the risk of Saddam setting his oil rigs on fire causing incredible ecological devestation as well as likely raising gas prices.  We'll spend billions perhaps trillion/s between the war, rebuilding Iraq, and if it happened putting out the fires on the oil rigs.  thousands of American soldiers may die and millions of Iraqi soldiers and civilians...especially if biological/chemical weapons are used.  Add in all the other costs associated with such a huge deficit in the national budget on an already stressed economy with bankrupt state goverments.

From an economic view (economics and money are not the same despite popular use of the term) the war makes no sense.  The value of protecting America and correcting human rights violations does not make up for the great costs of doing so.

With this war and unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, Bush Jr. has destroyed the surplus Clinton built. Back to financial irresponsibility. There's my outraged rant for the day.

Tasty, money aint everything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If Saddam is proven to have chemical, biological or nucular weapons, or even to be shown trying to make or acquire them, why shouldn't he be stopped?

Someone answer that.

It's great to say you are against war, and war sucks, and innocents shouldn't die.  Who doesn't think that way?  Madmen like Saddam maybe.  But everyone here agrees that war sucks and innocents shouldn't die.

But does anyone think that if Saddam has or gets these weapons, innocents wont die?

Again, bashing Bush (and rightfully so in most cases) doesn't mean siding with Iraq.  That's childish thinking, but many people are doing it.  The issues in Iraq are not a Bush thing, and it shouldn't be turned into one, no matter how you feel about him.

Cossack, one added point to your post.  About the containers.  One of the things the US has been after that Iraq has been fighting is overflights by U2's to help the inspectors.  The US wants to put spy planes in the air over Iraq to help the inspectors find them.  Someone tell me why that issue shouldn't be forced?

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them.  As for the U2 flights, Iraq has recently conceeded that and the flights will resume.  My question is...do you really think Iraq can develop/use these WMD while the inspectors and U2 planes and such are looking all around?  No, I certainly don't think they can.  By having these things we keep the bad things from happening without war.  It puts things on hold for a while.

Another thing...you said that millions of Iraqis were dying because of the embargo...here's an idea.  We don't do that so those millions don't die.  We force Saddam to allow UN peacekeepers to move in and let, through the UN, the world supply Iraqis with food and other necessities.  This is what France, Germany, and Russia is suggesting (well, extending the inspectors and moving in peacekeepers).  I think it is a sound policy compared to war.

what kind of a dumb argument is that??? bondo, you are ignoring the fact the president of the US got there by being elected (well, and having his daddy's buddy's on the supreme court and his brother in the florida governors mansion, true), while saddam got where he is by murdering half of his family, terrorizing an entire country and starting wars. furthermore, the US isnt (officially) developing offensive biological or chemical weaponry and what we do have is to produce vaccines and antidotes (i suggest bondo doesnt get any if we do get attacked by such weapons, j/k) ;)) anyways i feel better about the WMDs we have because i have some degree of confidence, if not in george bush the noob, then in the US military, which i don't have in saddam or the iraqi military. could you picture bush and cheney gassing a village in vermont because they didnt vote for them? has anyone in your family had their children tortured in front of them because they were democrats and not republicans....? in iraq this stuff happens, so any comparison is unwarranted.
as for the UN oil for food program: it is a joke. saddam and his cronies have been diverting oil destined for that program and smuggling it through turkey ever since it began. that gives them foreign currency (read US$) which they use to a) strengthen their grip on power by handing out money to loyal supporters (even more effective now that UN sacntions have made everyone dirt poor) and b) buying weapons and equipipment in contravention of the UN embargo. the only reason russia and france support this plan you mention is because iraq owes them big time for arms purchases made before the gulf war and they want their money back. a new regime is likely to refuse paying those debts since they were accumulated by saddam. germany is a different story, although im sure they have debts to collect as well.
the point im trying to make bondo is that iraq has made a mokery of the UN for almost 12 years by cheating and lying, and that the counties that are oppising military pressure are just playing into his hands. can u imagine what kind of leverage he would have if UN troops were IN iraq. we couldnt bomb and they could simply take UN troops hostage like the bosnian serbs did in the mid 90s by chaning frech, dutch and british peacekeepers to potential nato targets during the air strikes there. i have great respect for the UN and i think its an important institution, especially today. but unless the UNs members can actually rally up some muscle and show that they are not just about talk, it will not deter people like saddam from breaking its rules. keep that in mind: he has broken chapter 7 security council resolutions. the UN charter even calls for a security council task force that can intervene in these situation but this article was never implemented.
i too believe in multilateralism and international cooperation, but what is going to happen if we can't collectivly deter bad guys? are we just going to let them get away with it and threaten us and our interests?

I never said it was a good reason...I just said it was a reason...which is all Bucc asked for.

Bondo, just about every country has biological weapons. It isn't the fact that we have those weapons, its the fact that Saddam WILL use them, if given the opportunity.

And for Abe, you said just about what i was going to say to Bondo, if you didn't post  ;)


Not to be mean or anything, but that is wrong. Of course the Iraqis can produce such weapons while inspections and U2 flights are flying over. It's called "underground bunkers" such as the ones that are presumed to be under Saddams palaces. And since Iraq isn't fully complying with the resolution 1441 which as for unconditional inspections, where as the inspectors can search anywhere they feel would be hiding such weapons.

As you are aware, Iraq is just buying time with the U-2 flights. A fact that Bush brought up, was that we are not there for U-2 flights. We are there to see that Saddam is disarming, which is obviously not doing well. He hasn't accounted for about 30,000 weapons.

People say that the U.S has to prove that Iraq isn't disarming, but what you need to know, is that Iraq is the one that needs to prove it IS disarming.

France has said that Iraq could be delt with, with Peace Keepers and tougher inspections, as you brought up Bondo and Abe. Abe brought up a good point with the Peace Keepers being used as prevention from us bombing Iraq. Or in other terms, using the U.N P.K's as a shield for Saddam to continue his mad regime.

France on the other hand is not being considerate to the other ally nations, such as Turkey. France used its veto power to not send in Patriot missles and other protection weapons against Missle attacks from Iraq, to Turkey. Some allies they have. And for your information, Turkey is a member of NATO. It bugs me that France, our ally, whom which we have protected for nearly 50+ years basicly won't let us protect other countries.

Too stupid to warrent a real reply.  Besides the fact that he's proven to use them ruthlessly and has signed agreements saying he wont have them.


Yes, I do.  The UN inspectors have been hampered and are not getting full access or cooperation.  And there aren't enough of them to see everything.    So yes, I think they could have stockpiles of them hidden (remember, he hasn't accounted for even close to the amounts he was supposed to destroy).

And Yes, I do think he could use them.  While the news has talked about large scale delivery systems, all it takes is one madman with the right biological infection to infect millions.  How do you stop that?  Only one way to be sure, don't let the weapon exist in the first place.


What??  Abandon the peaceful ways of protesting??  What should we do, call him a dumbass on some internet forums?  Oh, wait, here:


How do you exactly "force" him?  Wouldn't that be a war if he resists?  He's already not followed other UN resolutions, you think he'd just lay down and accept this?

Sending in Peacekeepers is pretty much the same result as sending in UN sanctioned troops in my opinion.  So I back that.  Oh, France is just backing the extra inspectors from what I've read, so if you have seen something new, post it please.  

But like I said, there's only one way to force.

But either way, by no means should we lift embargos while Iraq still hasn't followed directives from the past.  Not until they do.

On NBC news last night is where I saw about the French/German/Russian plan of having more inspectors plus peacekeeping troops.

As for how we'd force it...yes, you use or war...but I think Saddam would rather have UN Peacekeepers than US army attack...I think if you keep pressure on him he can slowly fold and be dealt with in a way that is beneficial to war.

Yes according to the previous agreements.  But people keep forgetting this.  Why?

Oh, as for France and their stance on Turkey (and Belgiums, but they follow whatever France does, and everyone know is), this shouldn't surprise you.  Disgust you, maybe, but not surprise you.  They have always been the fence sitters in NATO.

Info Man you want facts I will give you facts:

IT IS A FACT that attacking Iraq gurentees we get attacked by terrorists.
IT IS A FACT we financialy funded Iraq's weapons programs (specifically offensive missiles to defeat Iran)
IT IS A FACT that we hated being attacked 9-11 and now we are going to do the same thing to some one else.


NOW  a big lesson for a Info-Man and sometimes Buccaneer doesnt get this either you ready??

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
do you wonder why our terror warning is HIGH

Zaitsev, thats pretty a loose definition of fact there. smells more like opinion to me.....and whats worse some pretty uninformed opinion.

it is a fact, according to our fbi and intelligence community, that a terrorist attack is currently guaranteed, whether we attack iraq or not. we have been expecting attacks and trying to prevent them (with some success) independantly of what is happening in the persian gulf.

it is a fact that iraq's offensive missle capability consists mainly of modified SCUD missles that were made in the soviet union. we helped with a lot of satillite imagery  and some military equipment during the iran-iraq war. much of his arsenal was supplied by european countries as well, but i guess thats pretty much irrelevant, right? (sarcasm)

it is a fact that we "hated being attacked" on september 11th and that we wan't to prevent the same thing (or much much worse) from ever happening again. if you have a problem with that then i suggest you volunteer as a victim of the next attack.

zaitzev, im not going to lecture you on being young or ignorant, but get your facts straight!! the United States HAS done some pretty nasty things and supported many bad people in it's time and i'm sure everyone here is aware of them (including buccaneer and info-man). but what u don't understand is that our enemies in this case don't hate US for anything specific, but simply because we are the dominant western power.
if it were france, they would all hate france the most and you would be telling me about how the evil french foreign legion comitted massacres on the poor helpless vietnamese or algerians and how now, that the eiffel tower was blown up by terrorists, they are going to do it to the poor iraqis and the poor afghanis. Please, just grow up and make your own opinions! If you cant just shut up for the time being.

Oh My God! Thank you Abe, you just took the words out of my mouth!!!


Most people already don't like the French  ;) "Would you like some American champagne (cocacola)?" "Flithy Americans and their MTV"

About 90% of the people who have met French people or have been to France, dislike them very, very much. But that is a whole different story to tell.  ;D


Because we are the ones wanting to disarm him forcefully, I believe. So people feel that we have the responsibility to prove to the world that Saddam is not disarming, which I feel is a load of Hoopla. If Iraq can't prove this, then something is surely up.

And Bucc. about your last post before this one... You said basicly what I said  ;) I can understand. I am one wild and beautiful guy. Who doesn't want to be me!?  ;) Just kidding, you were just backing up parts i didnt support well.

Heres another point I am pissed off at. I have tried to ram this point into your heads forever and forever. Your attack on Iraq will effect much of the world, including Europe with increased instability. Can you imagine the stream of immigrants coming into Europe? Can you imagine the amount of terrorism in my country will increase? Your oil barons under the reign of George Shrub II will exploit the Iraqis more so, adding to the flames of hatred.

Bondo's points are weak, but he does remind me of a point. When do you draw the line of a fanatical aggressor state or a state scared shit? Is Iraq allowed to produce weapons to defend itself.

This will seem far fetched to Americans, but if we keep interfearing in the Middle East, we will find ourselves at war with the whole Muslim World from Jakarta to Rabat. People advocating war are not thinking rationaly. Earlier generations went to war to defend their country, you are going to war over a few empty containers. Truley people that advocate war should be put into a war to experience it. Granted I have never been in a war, but I am surrounded by Afghan vets and have lost 1 cousin to the Chechens. I have a feeling this nation does not know what they mean when they say war anymore. They have done 5 seprate military actions this past decade.
Gulf War
Bosnia
1998 Cruise missile Actions
Kosovo
Afghanistan

I wonder why America is so hated.

Wow, cossack, youre post is a lot harder to poke at than zaitsevs or bondos. ;)
yes american foreign policy has ripple effects....right now we are feeling one. but i feel that this is part of being a superpower and US inaction or isolation can also have ripple effects on other parts of the world, as it did in the 1930s. i don't think that an attack on iraq will produce an increase in terrorism in the US or in Russia simply because the bin laden and his subsidiaries are already throwing everything they can at us. they are trying as hard as they can and i don't think they can do much more.

as for iraq being wmds for self-defence. i don't think saddam's record indicates that he intends to use them for this purpose. saddam wants to be the leader of the arab world and thinks the only way to do this is to match or outmatch israel's military capabilities, both conventional and unconventional. if he was trying to build giant radar stations that could track US/UK planes you might have a point but chemical/biological weapons are very hard to use defensivly (i.e. wind blows the wrong way=your side gets gased). and nukes...well theyre only a deterent when the other states are nuclear, but not when the other guy cannot retaliate.

war sucks and you dont have to have lived it to know that. but i don't think it's a given that it will be a long and tough war if we attack iraq. perhaps war can even be avoided if a coup from the military or somthing topples saddam before its too late. you have to take the worst case scenario into account, but you cant take it as a given, especially when you havent considred the best-case scenario as well.

actually, cossack, you forgot two US military interventions in the past decade: somalia and haiti. but most of those were UN or nato endorsed so if people are going to hate the US for Bosnia, Kosova, and the gulf war and afghanistan shouldnt they also hate the following countries?: Germany, France, UK, italy, spain, greece, poland, czech republic, hungary, Australia, even Russia (yes cossack, remember kosovo?), Syria, Egypt, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, turkey...etc

btw, one compelling arguement against war is that iraq will still have all the expertise necessary to make these weapons and that forcing a new regime doesnt really change that. but nobody has made it so id better shut up.

Well may Iraq has the knowledge to create such weapons but I don't understand one argument: the US would start a war only because of some empty gas grenade containers and a possible threat! But on the other side they ignore the much bigger threat, that already confessed the illegal developing of nuclear weapons? But the US is afraid to intervene in North Korea(also over 30.000 US soldiers are in range of North Korean artillery) and Bush said in TV something like "I don't think we have an issue with North Korea".

So what do we learn from that!? Develop and produce illegal mass destruction weapons. If someone finds out nobody will attack you anymore because of your weapons - OR -  don't create mass destruction weapons and you get bombed only because YOU COULD BECOME A THREAT [sarcasm]That's what I call education[/sarcasm] (On a side note in Austria the law says you are as long innocent until your guilty has been proven) The US didn't proof anything yet. They shall use everything they can to proof it but to start a war only because they could became a threat is unreasonable.

Also I agree with Cossak, I think another Iraq war would have a much bigger impact on the world's balance than we could imagine.

However another issue that disturbs me is that the US claims Germany, France and Belgium are breaking the NATO alliance with their veto. Let me think hmmm I would say one reason for an alliance is to decide together and to agree to a common decision. What's wrong to have another opinion because the facts aren't clear enough? Nobody is breaking the alliance but the US tries to play the king of the alliance, acting like a big child - "If you don't do what I want you aren't my friend anymore!" -.

We europeans had enough war in the last 100years and don't follow anyone blind into a war. And comments from Rumsfeld, Powell and Bush "We don't want war at any prize" are really funny - Sorry but who does believe this? I don't. If we, europe, would have agreed to an UN resolution Iraq wouldn't excist anymore.

Suspects are suspects and don't proof anything. Something Bush should learn.

Btw sorry if I always post the US does this and that but Bush is your president and he representates your country although not every american agrees with an Iraq war.

Regards,

Mauti

I agree that North Korea is a big threat that needs to be taken as seriously as iraq. the problem with Noth Korea is that they have been preparing themselves for war for over 40 yrs and have a huge conventional army that is only 30 miles from seoul. they are not a bigger threat in the wake of sept. 11th.....iraq does. besides, i think all they are trying to achieve is get more aid by playing the nuclear trump card. the perverse thing about north korea is that while they starve the population by developing nuclear weapons, while at the same time receiving aid to feed that starving population from the very countries (S. Korea, Japan and the US) they are threatening with those nukes. somewhat paradoxal, imo. many countries posses WMDs including some that we really dont like (e.g. libya) but iraq is a special case because they actually use them or have done so in the past. n. korea having nukes, altough unpleasant for the US, is not an immediate threat so the US as saddam is.

about the nato thing: don't you think it is a little weak of belgium, france and germany to publicly challenge the US over defending turkey (mind you, this isnt even about going to war yet) after nato intervened in kosovo and bosnia on behalf of the EU, which did'nt have the initiative to get the job done themselves. nato has worked well for europe and now it is time for those three countries to live up to their obligations. no matter what the reason is for turkey needing protection, it should be granted that protection.....thats what nato is about.

yes suspects are innocent until proven guilty (btw, in france this wasnt the case until recently), but saddam isnt a suspect anymore. hes on parole and his parole officer has been slacking off so he thinks he can bend the rules a little. remember the terms of the 1991 armistice? well, hes broken them, which makes him anything but a poor innocent victim of unilateral US aggression.

Wow I am shocked how prowar you can be as european. Well I don't find France's, Germany's or Belgium's behaviour weak, it would be weak if they would change their opinion after  a warning word from the US. They have their opinions and btw it doesn't change anything at the fact that an alliance should decide things together not one country dictating.

Furthers you are always speaking about Sadaam. Sadaam is a 60year old dictator that enjoys his popularity. If the US would be only interested in Sadaam they could send some almighty special forces to neutralize him but they want more, they want oil. They aren't interested in a better Iraq they just want to earn some money with the war. Also they already had the chance to catch Sadaam but Bush senior didn't so Sadaam could also kill most Shiiti who were supported once by the US. Look at afghanistan: the US could use it as example and build up the country again and tell everyone "Look we have created a better place in this world". They didn't because such an investment wouldn't be profitable enough. But that's another story.

Yes, Sadaam has used gas against the kurds but on the gas grenades was a nice sticker: Proudly made in the USA and furthers they were paid by the US.

One question:  What do you think will change after a strike against Iraq? - Will the world be better? Will the world be more safe? I highly doubt that, contrary more wars will be started under the "War against terrorism" theme.

Really sad. Thanks Bush who  terrorizes the USA with bad news. I just watched the news today and saw that the US has alert 2 or something else on every highway infoscreen messages were played: "Prepare yourself for an attack buy..." OMG that's so manipulating. Hitler did the same: The Jews are taking your job. The Jews are responsible for the bad economy... Look at the recent US laws about terrorism. Unfortunaly I can't quote them but it gives the police so many rights to do things even without suspects. Eventually I think that not Sadaam is the real danger, it is Bush and someone has to stop him before its to late.

Mauti

"Bondo's points are weak"-Cossack
"Your post is a lot harder to poke at than Bondo's"-abe

Okay, this is just getting stupid.  The points I have made relating to this argument are well stated and in no way weaker than anyone elses.  This popular, lets insult Bondo in our post saying he doesn't make good arguments is just rediculous since in the post containing it is an argument no better or even worse than the ones I make.  Sadly it seems you are playing follow the leader and in this case the leader is Bucc.  He has shown pretty much forever that he'll disagree and mock any stance I have...I've yet to see him not do it.  He is in no way a valid judge of whether my points are good or not, so by following him so blindly playing tag along you guys behave just as childishly.

No I seriously think that the last point you made was weak. Iraq should be allowed to have WMD because we have them? I do not agree with that because Sadaam signed a treaty and must abide by it.

I don't think Cossack is one of Bucc's ?followers?, and he does have stronger points than you do Bondo.

What is with Americans hating anyone related to France (Canada too)? Is it just because you don't understand the language? I find French people to be really friendly, my family has a lot of French friends and we have an apartment down in the French riviera. I have never met any unfriendly Frenchmen ever, 'cept for those people who stole my mothers purse *cough*, but that could've happened anywhere.

Abe, there is a serious flaw there, Iraq is not a bigger threat now in the wake of September 11th. Korea is though, having broken the seals etc.

Most Americans who hate the French hate the French because they are stuck up assholes. We save their asses from Hitler, pour billions of dollars into their country, and save them from the commies yet they still hold their nose high in the air and are arrogant towards us. If you are an American, and you go to France, 9 times out of 10 the only way you get respect from the people is if you keep a low profile and spend a lot of money.

Bondo, just because someone cites your points are weak (you make many of them) doesnt mean that they are a follower of anyone. FOr the most part, people on this forum have their own opinions.

On to North Korea...

North Korea is not a big threat YET.[/b] North Korea can only be considered a big threat if/when they test a Nuclear weapon or make an aggressive move that is genuinely threatening to its neighbors or the United States. Kim Jong II, like his father, is a man with a big mouth, sharp teeth, and a mental handicap. If anything, everyone on this forum is afraid of North Korea as an immediate threat because of how the media portrays them.

You hear quotes of "making the Korean penninsula glow" (which btw basically proves they have Nuclear weapons) and "total destruction" blah blah blah. Kim Jong II is playing a game of Stalinist era hard line rhetoric to scare his neighbors to try and secure more aid. Most of his neighbors realize this - South Korea is on a semi-heightened alert along the 38th paralled, but their citizens aren't really fearing a war. Japan hasn't done anything to raise its security, and the Chinese for the most part raised security along the North Korean border to capture refugees and deport them back to North Korea for torture.

So in other words, North Korea isn't exactly a threat - YET.[/u]

Abe: Your "ccompelling argument" is null. "Iraq will still have all the expertise necessary to make these weapons and that forcing a new regime doesnt really change that."

Well, forcing a regime change will change that because we will go in there and install a government of our liking - one very unlikely to build and/or use a WMD. On top of that, you can sure as hell bet that we will be looking for the info on how to build these weapons within Iraq and destroy them.

All I have time for is one last remark...

Cossack, how does the action is Kosovo make us hated by muslims? If you look at it, we SAVED the muslims from the Russian back Serbs and Slobo. As a matter of fact, they love us - a picture of Bill Clinton drapes an office building in Kosovo and many people are naming their kids Madeline and Bill.

I'll respond to more of you in the afternoon after I am back from classes...

Mauti: what i meant by these three countries acting poorly is that they are not living up to their obligations under nato by refusing to protect an ally. everyday these countries receive protection from nato in the form of a nuclear umbrella and mutual defence agreement, yet now that turkey needs help they are getting on the ir high horse and refusing to come to the aid of an ally. this in my opinion is weak, because it puts into question everything nato is about. picture america refusing to provide troops to protect germany from a soviet attack during the cold war by saying that the germans probablably going to be attacked for a good reason and that therefore defending them would be immoral. this is absurd because nato can only work if members CATEGORICALLY come to eachothers aid, no questions asked. otherwise why even have nato???

Saddam is poor helpeless 60yr old man? give me a break. thats almost as absurd calling george bush smart!!! the guy has proven himself to be the most ruthless thing our planet has seen since stalin, but you see him as helpless?? and popular? yes, i'm sure people whose families have been murdered or tortured under saddam really love him. how about the kurds and shiites? im sure they love him for killing of their communites during the 80s and after the gulf war. im sure that amongst women who were raped for hours in some dirty dungeon by some greasy iraqi mukabarat agents are only full of admiration and praise for saddam hussein. im sure that explains why his popularity is at 100 percent with a 99 percent turnout as his recent "referendum" indicated. iraq is not popular....in fact im pretty sure he is one of the most unpopular world leaders in and outside of his country (even more so the bush the tard).

and for the sticker on the gas munitions, it probably said somthing more like "proudly made in w. germany" because the US supplied other things to Iraq. this doesnt make it ok, but we were not the only ones who sold him weapons. i have made this point several times, but noone seems to care.

mauti, i don't think the hitler comparison is warrented, because hitler made the jews out to be a threat when this was completely unfounded. toady, it is not like bush got out of bed one day and decided he was going to hate arabs. we were attacked by arabs and now its time to make sure they can, under no circmstances, get their hands on WMDs.

finally, i don't know what my position "as a european" should be other than the one i came up with myself. i know european history and, yes, it makes europeans more inlined to pacifism (especially germans and austrians= guilt reflex). but this does not mean that we can simply use this as a pretext for idleness, when a real threat exists. look at how long it took europe to realize it had to do something about bosnia and kosovo, and then it still needed nato and the US to sort out the details. btw, don't you think this is a good reason for france and germany to go and help turkey when they need it (again, all defensive deployment- noone is asking them to go to war yet). what makes me sick about the french postion is that, when push comes to shove, they will decide on what is more profitable for them. and, kami, this is not because i dislike france or the french- many of my freinds are french (or canadian) and ive lived there. i love both the country and the people, but not their foreing policy. at least the germans are making this into a question of morality.

Now, to you, weaksauce: instead of crying about some sort of conspiracy against you, why don't you make some better points. cossack quoted the one that stands out as truely idiotic and i have already responded to it. Bondo, your posts are full of contradictions and circular arguments. this is the reason i critcize your arguments, not because i have a grudge against you. if i remember correctly, the first time you responded directly to a post of mine,  you told me to stop sucking buccs dick (or somthing along those lines). yet, i responded to each of your arguements with actual reasons instead of being an ass and trying to diss you. i don't even know bucc and cossack even agrees with you on the issues, but still thinks your arguments are weak....and u see us conspiring against you?

 how old are you? you can't take criticism, but you dish it out like hot soup. you say my post are unreadable because i dont capilalize or put line breaks, you say that the distinction btw security and peace is a semantics one, then you turn around and say you that you did'nt have to give a "good" reason why saddam shoudl have WMDs to bucc and that any reason (no matter how moronic) will do. THAT is being picky about about semantics and little shit. so i suggest you put down your copy of "textbook of cliche liberal arguments" and start thinking for yourself. and before you go accusing me of being a republican and a biggot: i voted for gore, i am for public welfare and i believe in strict gun control. but sept 11th has made me a lot more hawkish on foreign policy.....

Did you read my reply about that...I was playing devil's advocate...Bucc asked for a reason and I gave him an absurd but in some way logical reply just to show that indeed there was a reason.  I didn't try to defend it because I don't truly believe that is good reasoning.

Sin, the problem I have with people taging on that I have weak points is that they don't cite a specific point and say this one is weak, please expand on it...they say it as a generalization that any point that I say is inherently weak, which is far from the truth.  And what I meant when I said following Bucc wasn't in opinion in any way, it was that they remove themselves from those Bucc deems dumbasses because they don't want to risk acknowledging that they agree with someone Bucc thinks has stupid points so they just also consider the points stupid...even when they go and say the same thing but with different wording.

     You just quoted a reply that addressed a specific point and said that it was weak, and then said that no one is addressing specific points and saying that they are weak. Yes, yes, I know, you were playing retarded debater... er, devil's advocate on that one, but that doesn't mean that it's not exactly what you're asking for. You've shown amply and repeatedly that you are willing to ignore large sections of arguments if they weaken your "everybody hates me for no good reason" case, and that's exactly what you're doing here. Yup, Bondo's definitely back.

     I know full well that you'll ignore or disbelieve this, but the attacks against your arguments have nothing to do with personal dislike of you (well, possibly Bucc's do, but that's a whole 'nother case). Rather, they have to do with the fact that you present weak, subjective arguments loaded with emotional buzzwords and ignoring any and all rules of logic, debate, and rhetoric. If you put together a solid argument based on evidence for once, you'd find that it would be taken seriously.

Did you write that wrong, or do you really think it matters if Saddam likes who's going to war with him more?

And since when wouldn't the US armed forces be part of UN peace keeping troops?  


Yes, what goes around comes around.  Why are you against it coming around against Saddam?  He has been rolling the dice in this game, why do you want to ignore it?


Cossack, and if we let Saddam do anything he wants, wont that have impacts on the rest of the world as well?  Why do you think the US wants the UN involved so much.  It would be much easier for the US to just declare war and take what it wants (that is an option, believe it or not).

Yes, one large reason that Bush is so high on Iraq is he wants to influence oil (this doesn't have to mean taking over Iraqi oil fields).  But that motivation doesn't change anything else at all.


That's beneath you Cossack, too easy.  Yes, Iraq is allowed and HAS BEEN ALLOWED to produce weapons and armies to defend itself.  HOWEVER, Iraq did sign some agreements, oh, 11 years ago, to destroy some types of weapons that they had (and admitted to at that time) and not to produce or seek some types of weapons in the future.  These types fall into more offensive and terrorist type weapons like biologica, chemical and nuclear.  Along with limiting the range of missles (to somthing over 100 miles I believe).  

Well, they haven't proven that they destroyed what they were supposed to 11 years ago.  They are being shown to be both seeking and attempting or producing other weapons that they agreed not to (including a missle that travles too far and could hit Russia and other countries).  

So, yes, they are allowed to have weapons to defend themselves (SAMs, planes, guns, rpg, etc etc etc).  But they are not being allowed to have the weapons to attack with (and they AGREED TO THIS).


It is a little far fetched.  While we may stir up a large war in the middle east (that has always been a risk), there are muslim countries that are not denouncing us too.  And if the UN agrees, I'm not too worried about this being a problem.

Not to belittle it, but the terrorist fanatics are going to attack us no matter what.  The only thing we can do is possibly scare them, we are not going to win them over to our side.  As for the nations of the middle east, it's not like they could actualy go to war with us (to state the obvious, they don't have a navy, and they need our money too much to stop shipping oil).  

Also, a little known fact, the US can produce enough oil to cover its own needs.  It's not talked about, but it is true.  They've been capping wells off in the US for a long long time.  Reasons are because it cheaper to get it from the middle east (where it's easier to get and contains more lighter hydrocarbons like octane) and because when it's all said and done, we want to have whats left over.  Scarry.

I believe I must disagree with you here. Saddam IS a real danger. Bush is playing global police. He spotted an infraction and isn't going to ignore it.

I know that Abe has basicly covered your points which I am about to say. Okay, you say that the U.S has not proven any threat from Iraq. As stated earlier, if you read it, Saddam will use WMD if given any opportunity. The other threat which concerns us as well, is the link between terrorist. Now this could be false or this could be true. More leaning toward true. As Saddam has seen and applauded the 9/11 attacks. Now if he were to see the mighty blow to the U.S, and feel this could be a way to bring down the mighty giant and then supply these terrorist with WMD.

As for Nato, denying the request to defend an ALLY, is weak as stated by Abe. This isn't showing strength by France or Germany. So, I FEEL (My oppinion) your are wrong on this, Mauti.

As for the terror alerts, they are not meant to scare you, they are meant to make you more aware. Sure they are going to frightent some people, but fear is natural when you feel you are about to be attacked. Would you rather not know you are going to be attacked? And then after the attack you see the picture of the man responsible for the attacks, and you go "Oh crap, I saw that guy passing supplies to others. If only I could have done something."  I know Europe has been through many wars, but that doesn't mean you should fear having to show backbone to another country, whom is trying to produce WMD.



Well one if we strike Iraq, the difference is that there will not be an evil dictator killing his own people. And i do feel that the world will be better off without him. Of course you can argue this and say "well terror attacks will strike the U.S or other parts of the world." Well one, terror attacks will happen either way. Whether you attack or not.

As for North Korea, I feel that we should be putting pressure on them as well. They have admitted to having a working Nuke and have threaten with a full out war with the U.S. But i do approve of the U.S dealing with Iraq 1st, because if we were to send more military troops to Korea, Iraq would be more open to send weapons to terrorist or even strike military units while we are concentrated on North Korea. But as of now, we already have 30,000 U.S troops on the 38th parellel along with thousands upon thousands of South Korean troops and miles of mines. So I agree with Assassin with that North Korea isn't a threat, YET.

And for Cossack, I think everyone pointed out your flaws nicely.

And Thanks again to everyone for their inputs on the situations, whether or not i agree with you.

My post right now is a little weak. I am pretty tired from running today, and also it is pouring rain. So please point out all my weaknesses, so that I can reinterpret what I meant. Sorry.

Sorry, one major error,  "Cossack, i think they pointed out your flaws nicely" I mean, Bondo's flaws, not Cossack, Sorry.

Or maybe they just judge for themselves.  Maybe you are just wrong.  

And I have yet to see you back why I'm not a valid judge of your points.  

Oh, and what makes you a valid judge of mine, or anyone elses here?

Bondo, I deal with the arguments, and yours are often lacking depth.  You get angry when I point this out.  So what.  You then turn things into a me vs you thing and attack people you don't even know as my "supporters".  You are sounding paranoid like Raipid now.  You'll accues Abe and Info-man of being part of the "inner forum circle" soon.


3 out of 4 isn't bad Abe.  I'll keep working on you with gun control  :D (I'm for some control, but not in the traditional sense).  But, all that is for nothing.  They still call me a conservative republican, even though I'm very much not.  It's just a label for anyone that thinks he's wrong.

What's even more funny is that you and I have disagreed on a few points just fine, without any heat whatsoever.  But I'm still told by others that I mock, insult and ridiclue all those that don't agree with me.  When actually I just mock the ones that are dumbasses

Oh, and Loth, good call, but my dislike for someone doesn't impare my thinking.  I'll agree to good points (when brought up) by people I have contempt for like Bondo, Bander and Rapid.   :o

I wrote it correctly, you just didn't read it correctly.  I said UN Peacekeepers.  Peacekeepers don't fight a war, they just keep peace.  Sending Peacekeepers wouldn't involve bombing the shit out of Bagdad, it wouldn't involve killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.  It would mean having a few thousand soldiers in blue and white spread in various places in Iraq.

As for you Loth, you also don't seem to read.  I addressed Sin with the second paragraph, not Cossack.  In the two posts I quoted when I made the original statement, no specific statement was cited, it was just a general insult.  I realize Cossack then added the specific thing and I responded exactly how I had responded before, that it wasn't literally my opinion.

Sorry, but I'm not being paranoid about a conspiracy.  I've seen with my own eyes that I put down completely valid points and they are not disproved but rather insulted with some weak reasoning as to why it isn't a good argument that in no way breaks the validity of my points.

Finally, I'll make my view really simple.  War should be a last option when all peaceful solution has been exhausted.  In this case there are many many peaceful solutions that could be tried such as the UN Peacekeeping.  As there are peaceful solutions left, war should not be considered at this time.

Well, you start by saying you use war to force it.  Now you say that peacekeepers don't fight a war.  

So you ae saying that UN allied forces attack Iraq and then leave behind peacekeeping forces if I'm reading you right.  I have no problem with that at all, if it comes to it.

Oh, and peacekeepers keep the peace with the threat of war.  They have had to use violence to do it in the past.  It's not like they drive around in tanks because they handle well and get good gas milage.  

But, to summarize it, You just want to see this as a UN action, not as a US action.  Because UN peacekeepers or not, it's always been up to Iraq as to holding up it's end of the deal.  They are just as likely to fire at blue helmets as brown camo ones if they don't like it.


Feel free to post an example.  You have a whole forum in which to find one to back this.  Just because you think that they are valid points, doesn't mean that anyone here has to agree with you.  

Two things.  One, I can pull examples of you doing this right out of these top threads.  A good few examples.  Two, you have often remakred (bitched) on how I quote and pull apart your points.  So if I'm disecting your points, I guess I am not just insulting them, am I?


War should always be near the bottome of the list, there are few things worse (but they exist, and therefore, so does a need for war sometimes exist).  

War should well be considered at this time.  Not made, but yes considered.  For a very simple reason.  Without the THREAT of war, Iraq would never agree to peacekeepers, would they?  Even with the threat of war, Iraq isn't doing everything it is supposed to.

So, while I don't think peacekeepers and a vast amount of UN inspectors with FULL ACCESS in Iraq is a bad idea at all, I don't think Saddam will agree to it, even in the face of war (maybe after the first bombs have dropped, in my opinon).  So, I'm all for the UN trying that tact.

But I don't see many options.  Iraq can't be allowed to continue to drag its heels like it's done for so long.  It has to abide by the conditions set forth and agreed to.  And if it doesn't, it has to be forced to.  If there are many other ways to do this, name them?  Because I don't see many.  And I don't see any that don't involve the THREAT of war (it took that threat to get inspectors back in there a couple times in the past).

Bucc, I don't need to go find proof, I have it in another form.  Both at this forum and at the other ones I post at, people agree with me, including people at this forum who you don't rip their posts apart.  I've even seen you either ignore or commend a post that in essance says the same exact thing as a post of mine that you do say is poorly argued.  It has been seen clearly that I not my arguments is the cause for what you do Bucc.

Lets look at the Peacekeeper thing.  The Peacekeepers and war were seperate things.  I was assuming that Iraq under the threat of war would let the peacekeepers in without having a fight.  You were making an assumption seemingly about what I meant.  Nothing you have posted shows why my opinion about the peacekeepers and extra inspectors isn't a logical next step.  You may not agree but that doesn't make it lack logic.

Just because you have a more pessimistic view of how Saddam would react doesn't mean that my thinking he would accept the peacekeepers without a fight is less of a reasonable claim.  Do you see what I'm saying?  You aren't using factual reasons in saying my points aren't logical, you are using your opinion and treating it as superior.

You want a better example of insulting my point without giving any argument.  How about that 'This is too stupid to even be replied to' or similar comment to my Iraq can have WMD because the US does.  Yes, I wasn't serious with the point and was just presenting a example argument, but certainly it still shows your propensity for brushing my comments off without any true proving their weakness.

This gets to the base of the problem.  I have numerous people saying my arguments are weak but giving very questionable reasoning as to why they are weak.  Add to that having an equal number of people having similar points that aren't called weak and it is clear to me that it is those reading my points, and not my points themself in which the problem lies.

I don't agree with this. Its true that there are some that will always be against the US, but I think that if the US is taking proactive steps to prove that they aren't biased against Moslems and that they do not control a unipolar political system (or that they aren't trying to keep it unipolar, because obviously systems with a balance of power work better) that negative sentiment against the US will decrease. These people have beliefs that are extremely aberrant from ours, but they aren't stupid. If they don't perceive that the US is fighting a war against Islam, then they will have no reason to fight a war against us. I don't think that whatever military action we take will scare them. In the unlikely event that our military might works effectively against terrorists, I think that they will be both proud to have died for their country/religion and I think that they will be further convinced that the US is evil and must be attacked. So I don't think we can "win them over" but I do think we can really take a lot of vitriol out of their arguments and thus cause the number of their followers to greatly decrease.

I think that we go about our world strategy all wrong... to think that we can't change world opinion of us is too cynical and I think it creates unnecessary stress on our country with all the military needed to sustain such a position in the world.

Not so clear to me.  Or, it seems, to some others here.  Guess it isn't so clear.  And I don't see many people agreeing with you.  The only ones I've ever seen are the ones that, gosh, don't like me.  

As for poorly argued, yes, it is true.  I do think you argue poorly.  Not good at all.  A quick example, you started off in a thread saying that "Bucc ridicules and insults anyone that doesn't agree with him", when I point out people that I don't agree with, but get along with fine, you claim you said "he mocks and insults the posts of those he calls dumbasses"  (thats a paraphrase, but I can find the quote if you like).  Well, you see, you make these outlandish statements that can't be true (absolutes seldom can be) and you think you argue well?  

You got it right in the last.  Yes, I mock the people I consider dumbasses.  And why not?  Who should I mock if not the people I consider dumbasses?


No, I made no assumptions, I just didn't make your assumption for you.  I read what you write, not what you think.  You mentioned force, war and peacekeepers all in one sentence the first time around.  Look at the quote.  I'm not a mind reader, and am not trying to be.  The meaning was unclear and I said as much.


Way to read Bondo.  I agreed that it was a good idea.  Way to fucking read.  And you wonder why I mock you?


Do you see what I'm saying?  I said it was a good idea but I don't "THINK" that Saddam would do it without the threat of war.  And you can't have the threat of war if you aren't considering war.  Can you?  If the US said "no, we will not be looking at possible military action to uphold the accords.", do you think that would convey a threat of war?  Do me a favor and actually consider the position I've made there.

Ok, now, read that again, and I'm going to quote myself here:


Golly gee Wally, is that there a couple quick and dirty pesky little arguments after that mock there?  Well by golly gee, it is.  I guess that even though I mocked you, I still bothered to bring up an argument.  So much for another Bondo example.  Funny how they fade so in the light.


Bondo, read more carefully.  Your points are weak because your arguments are weak.  Just like in the example above, you argument was weak because you tried using a gawd aweful example.  I may not have used a strong argument after the mock, but it was an argument where you say none existed (and you omitted it, which makes you look all the more wrong).  

Look at your defense of Zaitsev.  You praised the paper, I tore it apart, you defened it weakly, I tore it apart, you continue to defend it, now by lowering the standards.  That's what's weak.  My opinion of that is you were praising him because he is on your side.  Then you defended him because it was me pointing out the errors.  And you continue to hang on only becaues your pride wont let you just say that while you agree with him in spirit, it wasn't really a good paper.  So instead, you say that letters to the editor are held at a lower standard.  Weak.

Bondo, how will Peace Keepers disarm Saddam? How would saddams 3rd largest ground army (well at least during Gulf war, not sure about now) respond to 1,000 peace keeper. I would think Saddam would take advantage of this. He would probably do what Abe said. Attack the U.N Peace Keepers with overwhelming forces and use them as a shield of some sort. If I am missing something, or not getting your point on how the U.N keepers would disarm Saddam, fill me in.


Saying that we have them too, is a very weak arguement. I don't understand how you dont get that.

Here is a retarded example, but I hope you get the idea i am getting at.

Now lets say there is a bully and he has just beaten up a smaller kid. Now during the fight, a teacher interferes with the fight and throws the kid in his room untill he proves he can behave. Now lets say time goes by, and we have news of this kid planning to get a knife and use it against the teacher. Now we tell the kid to give up his weapon or else face a spanking. Now you argue this by saying "well who cares, the teacher has knives too, so he isnt a threat." Now true, the teacher has knives at home, but she doesn't bring them to school or plan to use them on any other people, unlike the bully who has showed violence in the past and would likely use them, if he was given an open shot.

Crap, Internet Explorer Crashed on me. So i basically lost what ever i added to that previous post i made. =/ Oh, well...

The biggest problem with your analogy Info-man is it is too easy on the bully.  

If the bully were Iraq, he'd already knived half a dozen people before the teacher got involved.  The bully would have also agreed to destroy his knife and never get a new one to be allowed to come back to class.  The bully would then complain that he wasn't being allowed a fair education because he wasn't allowed back, eventhough he hadn't brought in the broken knife yet.  

I could go on and on, but why.  You get it Info-man.  

The only thing you've overlooked (and me as well) is Bondo just deflected the argument away from any good, logical, ect reason there could be, by dragging us through this muck.

Well, lets think of it this way...you seem to think I'm stubborn in not seeing the weakness of my posts.  Maybe you all are stubborn in not seeing your vast errors.

I don't make a habit of trying to spot any minor flaws in an argument and go for the jugular and try to be anal about every single thing.  In the setting of a forum debate there is no need for that.  I just take what their view is, ignore the problems, and reply to the general point with my own take.  Why can't you just accept people's views as their views and then state your own.  I don't see why you have such an obsession on taking other people's posts and ripping them apart (which is not to say there is something actually wrong with them).

This showed itself in the Zait letter in particular.  I took the general essance of the letter and commended him on the thought, but you on the other hand took any error in number or percieved error in reasoning and used it as "proof" that he was a moron.

For christ's sake, I keep trying to point this out to you Bucc but you never listen.  You have a big problem with how you act.  You show great disrespect for many people.  Even if we were as stupid as you claim (although none of us are), you want to know what someone who makes fun of special ed kids is?  A completely vile human being.  You claim we are dumbasses and thus you should mock us...here is an idea, how about you don't mock and you just try to make arguments without tarnishing your points with insults.

You say I'm bringing a good thread down by bringing you through the mud...well, I try to seperate my debate about the topic and my criticising your poor actions on the forum to avoid the problem I state in the last sentance of the paragraph above.  Bucc, you just fail to understand how horrible a human being you come off as on the forum.

Well I am not going to get into the Bucc-Bondo love fest. Info man I like your metephor for these actions.

I guess my official standing on the war would be for it if there were tangible proof. So far those containers are not enough, and those phone calls are circumstancial. I see no "hard proof" No labs, no chem warheads.

I am glad that U2 flights are being conducted, seeing if they can proove what the US claims.

I went to the Clinton speech today and found his speech to be compelling and extreamly well thought out. You dont get any slicker than "slick willie." He is anti-war until there is tangible proof. What I liked about Clinton's foreign policy is that on the whole, it respected the sovreignity and sovreign rights of other countries much more than George II's reign. Clinton is also correct when pointing out the domestic atrocities of George Shrub II.

LMAO, yeah, that's about what I expected.  our VAST ERRORS.  Remember those words.  LMAO


Really?  Like about Abe's use of paragraphs?  LOL, nice try, but no basket.  You refused to read his because they weren't easy to read.  you've refused to read mine in the past because you said they were too long.  That doesn't seem like ignoring the problems to me?

Fucking hypocrite.



It's not an obsession, and you don't have to see it, do you?  You just ignore it and take the point, don't you?  Oh, guess not.


I took an error in a number?  Really?  Did I?  I think that was you that talked about a minor little error in a number.  I didn't.  I ripped him for completely being wrong (or blatently lieing) about NATO, He based half his argument on our allies thinking we were wrong, and the other half on money.  Well, that is an awefully shitty foundation for an argument on his case, and I sure as hell didn't see any thought behind it on his part that was worth commending.  It may as well have been a political TV commercial, for all the depth it had.  I went on to keep pointing out these flaws, these VAST ERRORS, not little minor numbers errors.  Even you gave ground on them, because they couldn't be defended.  So don't try to make it look like something it wasn't here.  All anyone needs do is flip back two pages.


Big difference between a dumbass and a person with, say , DS.  Someone with a "handicap" like that doesn't fall into the "dumbass" category.  That's reserved for people like you.  

You can point out that you don't like how I act as much as you want.  I'm not going to change my ways for the sake of a hypocrite, such as yourself.  I'm quite honest to myself about my lack of patience for the termanilly stupid, as I like to think of you.  Sure I could have more patience with you, but why should I?  You've done nothing to deserve anything but my contempt.  So why should I do anything for you?

You say again that I'm disrespectful to "many people".  How many is many?  How many haven't deserved that lack of respect?  You?  No, you've more then earned it.  Zaitsev, nope, gave him chances, but he has just proven to be a sock puppet.  Bander?  how can I show respect to someone that biggoted against Americans?  I just don't respect stupid biggots.  I tried talking to him, but he doesn't seem to be able to communicate well with anyone that doesn't share his opinions.  Who have I missed??

Should I go back and quote some of your insults to me?  No, that would be too easy and not deep enough.  I know, I could go back and quote your very first sentence to Abe, something about getting his lips off my ass and calling him an aasshole.  Yeah, that's it.  

How about you practice it before you preach it?  If there is anything I respect less then a biggot, it's a hypocrite.  And Bondo, you are so there.

Tasty wrote me a nice PM about taking it easy on Zaitsev, telling me that I was a bit to harsh, even if I was mostly correct (in a nutshell).  While I responded to tasty with my thoughts, I didn't mock him at all.  Why?  Why can he make that point and you can't?  Because he's not a hypocrite about it.  He doesn't go around insulting peple, then tell me not to.  So, I respect his opinion even if I don't share it.


Yeah Bondo, because I don't go after people, I go after arguments.  You go after me.  I'll tear apart your arguments.  I'll show you, like here, exactly how you are wrong (or like in the peacekeeper comments, or a dozen others), but you just turn it into a You and Me thing.  You don't say what's wrong with my comments about something, you call me names for being too harsh in them.  Get over yourself.  Your opinion of me is less then important.  Hell, it's actually a source of humor, because most of the time you try to make me look bad, you do a better job on yourself.  

So you may think I come off as a horrible human being, but if you think you are a good human being, that just makes me feel all the better.  

I ignore the Bondo - Bucc love story and answer to Info-Man, Assassin and abe. I'll try to answer as short as possible:


Assassin you disqualify yourself from this debate. Quoting the New York Time and other newspapers that only try to raise hate. That isn't objective journalism. Our press wrote very well that it is very interesting that the US media starts to pick on France and not Germany because France never acted different, they always behaved very tactical, but Germany, and that's the point, behaves differently than usual. Interesting isn't it.

Abe and Info-Man about the NATO: unfortunaly we talked about two different NATO issues. About the Turkey I agree that it would be against the alliance agreements(whatever they are exactly) but before the issue with Turkey started Bush already claimed that if Germany, France and Belgium are against a war they break the alliance. I was refering to this issue and for this issue my points are VALID: An alliance should decide things together, not one country dictating.


I don't think so. About the gas grenades Abe is right - weapons from all over the world were sold not only the US but Iraq still got the money from the US and that was the main point of my statement.  Also what's about to kill Sadaam? You don't have to bomb thousands of civilians to kill Sadaam.

Abe populartiy doesn't only mean that he is liked it also means that he is well known. I was refering that Sadaam enjoys his media coverage. The whole USA knows his name.

And I still believe Sadaam is a 60years old dictator. Of course he is still dangerous and he was very cruel in the past but currently he is only dangerous inside Iraq. Why should he risk any attack? - Have you seen his palaces, have you seen how the rich in Bagdad live? - He is very clever and wouldn't risk to lose that.


Many guys applauded to the 11/9 attacks and they aren't all terrorists. This doesn't proof anything.  "Saddam will use WMD if given any opportunity." The last Gulf war is over 10years ago. He didn't do anything against the US in these 10years and suddenly after the 11/9, 1 1/2 year ago, he developed WMD and will attack the US. Lol sorry my reasonable mind says this doesn't make any sense.

All eyes and ears are looking towards Iraq. - Sadaam wouldn't do anything unreasonable because that would be his end and he knows that. As a consequence Iraq isn't more dangerous than North Korea! Let the U2 spy airplanes do their work and let's wait. Where is the problem to wait a bit!? Why do you have to start a war before you have any real proofs?


IMO the only purpose of these warning are to raise fear. Think: take a map of the US and now see how large the USA are. Well do you really think if the CIA and others have information about terror attacks it is necessary to warn the whole USA!? Come on, if they only have the information that there will be an attack against the USA I am rofl. If they have information at all, they have some detailed information and can prepare locally. [sarcasm]Btw did you know I'll attack the USA soon so let's give alert allover in the USA![/sarcasm] - That's what Bush doing.

You are right my comparison with Hitler is maybe a little bit too harsh but the new anti terror laws raise fear and hate against foreigners. Reminds me at the second world war where America brought most Japanese in ghettos because they could be spys. Bush starts to do the same so someone, preferably the intelligent population of the USA, has to stop him and with him this unobjective, full of hate, journalsim.

To sum up: I AM AGAINST A WAR AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE WATERTIGHT PROOFS. Use your reasonable mind and brain and don't let the US news coverage manipulate you. Buy non US newspapers and compare to see the picture as a whole.

Regards,

Mauti
ps.: I don't have to proof that Iraq has no WMDs - The USA has to proof that they DO. - That's something you all seem to forget.

I agree with pretty much everything Mauti has said. The reason why Iraq and North Korea aren't a threat is because if they use weapons of mass destruction against us, they know we'll obliterate them with our own nuclear weapons. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the same reason the U.S.S.R. didn't nuke the U.S. during the cold war, and vice-versa. Although, if we nuked North Korea or Iraq, they wouldn't have the capacity to completely wipe us out. Iraq can't even hit us from where they are, and North Korea can only hit our west coast. It would be suicidal of them to do it. Well, now your response will be "But Saddam and Kim Jong II are crazy! They'll do anything!". They might be crazy, but I doubt they'd be able to convince their generals and scientists to kill everyone in their country just so they can nuke California. Now, if anyone has an intelligent arguement against this that doesn't involve cussing at me, I'd like to hear it. 8)

I couldn't agree more with you Mauti, that's what I've been trying to say all along  ;)

gotta go to class so ill be brief, but i want to respond to some your points mauti.

first off, if you think the NY times is spreading pro-bush propaganda, you are wrong. it was quite liberal, almost leftist sometimes. just take a look at the op-ed page of the NY times. in europe many newspapers cater to a specific crowd so i think the euro newspapers are rather biased in general as well. im basing this on french and german newspaper- i dont know what the deal is in austria.

on the NATO issue, i don't think the US is dictating shit. there are other NATO membes than the US would have a hard time dictating if the vote is 18-1 against them. on the turkey issue its 16-3 in the US' favor. if the US and 15 of its allies vote on somthing then this is not the US dictating. i know you were refering to support for the war and i was talking about help for turkey. the point im tryng to make is that for france and germany its not about turkey, but about standing in opposition to the US. since the US hasnt requested (officially) any helpe from NATO, yet, being pains about turkey is about all they can do to voicee their oppositon. the problem is that they are killing NATO's credibility.....

mauti, our goal is not to bomb civilians, but to remove saddam from office. if we can do the latter without to much "collateral damage". but allowing him to hide behind his population is a different story....


i guess not, but they are assholes for sympathizing with terrorists. besides, if you applaud the attacks, you are imlying that it is ok to kill americans in terrorist attacks and that you are capable of doing it yourself....thats my opinion. and that was what this whole "either with or against us" statement bush made after 9-11 meant. that if you fail to condemn the terrorist attack or even applauding, you are siding with terrorists and thats no good.

shite i gotta go, laterz

Mauti, I've said it a few times, and you keep ignoring me.  I read non us papers, all the time.  I have formed my own opinions.  Thanks.  But you have it wrong.  Iraq does have to prove it.  They agreed to that at the end of the Gulf War.  We are still waiting for them to prove they destroyed the WMD's they admitted to having back then.  

So I'm not the one forgetting, you are.  You are fogetting that they have to hold up thier end of the bargin.  You are forgetting what happened in the past when things like this were ignored.

Abe: Nobody is interested in, if the NY time is "left" or "right". answer to mautis arguments but dont talk bla blah again.

And something else: Nobody symphatises with terrorists. but sometimes when u look closer, why something really happened, u develope some sympathy with people leaving in poor and surpressed countries. the poor thing is: we "The "free world" only notice that when it already became a threat to us.

Bushaneer: Bah. So we have to attack RIGHT NOW! Yeah lets have a "Blitzkrieg" on Irak - instead of waiting a littlebit longer. Sounds a little blood thirsty to me.

Mauti: u spoke directly out of my heart dude!

Bander

Oh, ONLY OUR WEST COAST?! PSH WHO CARES?!?! (sarcasm) Listen, I live in west coast. I am about 20 miles from L.A, which is a prime target. Now if a nuke is launched, I would perish. But remember. It's only the west coast. There is still plenty of the U.S left. (sarcasm)


Okay, lets put our selves in N. Korea's position.

You see that the U.S is going to win either way. Besides the fact they would surely have all of their NATO's allies behind us, which would extremely raise our power in the case of War with N.Korea. Now remember the Asian haritage, Dying for your country is the highest honor you can bestow.

Now if War broke out, and they sensed defeat, which would you do? (remember you are of asian heritage and dying is an honor)

1) Surrender and disgrace your name and country.

or

2) Go down taking as many of them as possible (nuke)


Well, if I were in their position during a war, and I sensed defeat, I would choose  2. I would take as many of the enemy as possible and die with honor.


Mauti, you quoted something of mine, and left out one of my critical points in that saying. " Sure it will make some or most people scared, but it is MEANT to create awareness."

So when quoting me, please don't take things out of context.


If I am not mistaken, wasn't I stating that because of France using its Veto power to reject protection to its ally, Turkey, weak? Well that seems like the same topic. But before you were stating that, France, using its veto power to refuse protection to an ally, wasn't weak, but firm. Am i mistaken? Sorry, I can't get a quote from that, but i will when i respond straight after this, when i can actually go back that far.


So you are saying that it is okay to murder people if you are poor and helpless?So lets say I am a poor guy out in Afghanistan. I could go out and murder a ton of people and you would sympathize for me?  Interesting...

Bondo, just because your arguements are weak, doesn't mean you have to get all anal and just start getting all pissed off at people for pointing them out. Hell, Bucc. has stated weak parts in my arguement and I don't get all pissed. I actually like when someone points out my weaknesses, then I can improve on them. So don't turn a debate into a name calling war.

Here it is.


I know that refers to the war and protection to Turkey.

Bander,

the USSR saw the RAF (rote armee fraktion) and various other leftist terrorist groups in europe as leading a legitimate struggle against oppression and tyranny, as they saw it. were THEY right?? i think that if you are looking for a justification behind terrorism, you are being a sucker, because it is rarely about real issues and more about power and personal ambition. do you really think bin laden gives two shits about any arab or muslim other than himself?



i did answer mautis arguements and this is not "blah blah" as you seem to think. mauti, in one broad stroke, characterized the NY times and every other US newspaper as propaganda and only trying to raise hate. i just felt that i had to nuance that statement stlightly by pointing out that the NY times doesnt fit this convenient stereotype of the american press. im sorry if you consider this to be blah blah, but to me this seems relevant to the question.

Bander, we should have gone in years ago. Saddam has violated UN Resolution 687 so many times. Clinton was a moron and just sent a few cruise missiles in, thinking that Saddam would care. Yeah, right. We can wait and wait and wait for only so long before he annexes the Sudetenland and gets the ball rolling.

Bander, do you always make shit up and put it like other people said it?  There is a good reason to quote people, so you don't just make up this bullshit and pretend that they said it.

I've never used the word blitzkreg.  Hell, if you actually took 5 minutes out of your otherwise worthless life, you would see that I've been wanting to hear more too, and that I also thought sending in peacekeepers is a good idea, just that I think it wouldn't work.

But no, you have to make shit up, trying to make me look bloodthristy, because you are just looking to start more flames.

First Bucc I wasn't ignoring you I just was tired to filter out the information that has nothing to do with your love with Bondo which btw doesn't belong in this thread.

Sorry Iraq doesn't have to proof it they just had to destroy all WMDs and agreed not to produce WMDs anymore and furthers they agreed to let UN inspectors control their facilities and all other locations where WMDs could be produced. Generally letting UN inspectors into the land and they don't find anything is proof enough not to start a silly war.

Info-Man sorry it wasn't my purpose to take this out of context. Btw I didn't refer to turkey I refered to their voice against war(that was before the turkey issue).

Abe I just took out one name - unfortunaly the austrian national TV website doesn't have an archive they had quotes of all newspapers and magazines - well look at the Times magazine with their cover of a US soldier graveyard in France and read it. This is pure bush propaganda.

About applauding to 11/9 is of course stupid I just mentioned it because at 11/9 I was at a combat exercise when we got alert and I saw that many soldiers(dumbasses imo) were happy about it.

As you can see I am not adding more points because I already said everything and I think it is clear now that just few of you WANT WAR AT ALL COSTS. That few of you can't wait until a "WMD excistance" proof is given. That's really sad but I respect your opinion.

Mauti

Yes true Iraq HAS to destroy all WMD and agree not to produce anything, but the one part that is wrong, is the part where you say "Sorry Iraq doesnt have to proof it..." the thing is, Iraq HAS to prove they are disarming, in order for the U.N to lift the sanctions which were placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. All they have to do is prove to the world that they dont produce these weapons and this would end. If Iraq claims they have none of these, why can't they prove it? They have failed to turn over 30,000 chem warheads i believe. So if Iraq doesn't want war, just turn over the information, instead of trying to play stupid. And yes we should have proof of their deceiving, but as earlier stated, Powell has turned over a bunch of evidence of Iraq avoiding inspectors, moving sites, and other links with terrorist.

And I have also told about how stubborn Iraq is and how they will never let go of their lies, so I won't get into that.

Mauti, the way I read the resolution, Iraq did have to prove that it destroyed the stockpiles it had to the UN.  It's part of the agreement.  They also have yet to let UN inspectors have unrestricted access (you know, to the Palaces and other places the inspectores haven't been allowed to visit).

So I don't agree when you say they don't need to prove it.  When I'm reading that they do.

mauti,

i suggest you read this: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

it is a copy of the latest UN resolution on iraq (1441) that was endorsed by the UN security council, including china, russia and france. the paragraphs beginning with "deploring" seem particularily pertinent to me. now you have it in the exact words of the UN: iraq is not living up to its obligations!

now, from what we know of saddam hussein's previous behaviour in international politics, including the 1990/91 fiasco and his dealings with the UN? that he only responds to force and threats, and that even then, he only gives in at the 11th hour when he has played all his cards and has to save his ass.

given that, and the fact that the entire UN security council agrees that his behavior is not acceptable, how are we going to get him to obey this resolution if not by the threat of military force and the willingness to back those threats up if necessary? diplomacy and sweet talking didnt get him out of kuwait and it wont get him to comply now either!

about the press thing: the only reason i went in on that is chose the ny times out of all the newspapers in the US as an example of non-objective journalism and "only trying to raise the hate". if you look at their op-ed page (or the front page for that matter) youll find they are very critical of the administration and anything but pro-war or US propaganda. now, if you were talking of time magazine (a subsidiary of aol-timewarner, same as CNN) that is a completely different story and i have to say that there i basically agree with you.

i actually prefer the european press myself, not because it isnt biased or slanted in any way (generally speaking, it is), but rather because it is far more inquisitive and usually goes deeper than the american press, in my opinion. at the same time  i pay attention to the american press as well however to get a picture of the whole story, as you were saying. my sources are usually the bbc, www.spiegel.de, the economist and google news is cool too.

anyways, i respect your opinions as well, and its important that people stand up and raise their concerns because the possibility of war is somthing all reasonable people want to avoid as much as is possible. nobody, apart from the real meatheads, wants war at all costs. but there is no use in categorically excluding the possibily of using armed force, unless we are living in a perfect world where no one can hurt anyone else. that most certainly isnt the case so we have to be ready to defend our security by, when needed, flexing military muscle and when not, using diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. right now, the US government, which has access to a hell of a lot more information than any of us, thinks that the first option is needed and i happen to agree with them based on the the document i quoted at the beginning of my post and what iraq's general attitude towards the UN has been.

bah

i posted the wrong link. that was the draft reslution from the US and UK (kind of ironic i find....). anyways, the final resolution (http://www.mideastweb.org/1441.htm (http://www.mideastweb.org/1441.htm)) is pretty much a toned down version of the same thing.

sorry folks, its late and im tired....

It's an fact (an scientific fact!) that only stupid europeans sailed to amerika 300 years ago.........well , thats one  fact we "all" know for 100%....... the other fact we all know is that europe doesn't get that much oil as the USA, wich is the only reason france tries to slow down the "commercial" for the US-army.
not because of PEACE(wuhahaha)...It's so funny that US-people think that europeans are afraid of war.....(good propaganda from junior)
no one killed so many people like european countries(that's nothing to be proud of it; don't get me wrong G.W bush influenced people) ... so the US has been attacked for only one time in it's hole "history"........people don't know how to handle that-> they have extrem FEAR....(even bigger than of black people ;D)....an with fear you can't make an uninfluenced opinion when junior is talking to you  on TV (every day)

It makes no sence to be against the USA , beacause this war is an RUMSFELD-war,  (reliable since 25 years->vietnam...no one can stop Donald :))
but it's also extremly stupid to think an war will stop terrorism......it's just an economy-fresh up

Alright now we come a little bit forwards, that's good. - Bucc I also added that if the UN inspectors didn't find anything it should be proof enough.

How can you proof that you have nothing? - An example: the police claims that you have drugs. How can you proof that you don't have drugs? You can't except letting them search your house and if they find nothing it should be proven that you don't have drugs. Yes of course you could have hid them somewhere else. There can't be a 100% proof that you have nothing, or!? That's the reason for: INNOCENT UNTIL  GUILTY HAS BEEN PROVEN.

You say that the UN inspectors don't have unlimited access to Sadaams palaces. I think that's true and probably that wouldn't be a bad argument to set Iraq under pressure. It's only interesting that this argument haven't been mentioned in any recent Bush, Powell or Rumsfeld speech so maybe they have unlimited access I don't know.

About the 30.000 warheads(sounds very much for me). They could have been destroyed in the Gulf war and  if the UN inspectors can't find even ONE of them there are probably none or much less.

So there are still no proofs to start a war and Abe I never excluded the possibility of using armed forces. I just would like to see a proof that Sadaam has some bad ass weapons. If he breaks the agreement consequences can be decided, whatever they are, but currently I don't see the necessary to start a war.

Mauti

Well Mauti, I don't think your analogy fits the situation.  It would be more like the polliceman pulled you over for doing something wrong, you admitted to having a kilo of drugs.  He said he wouldn't punish you for those if you proved that you destroyed them before he cam back, but when he came back, you claimed it was only a few ounces, and didn't have any proof that you said you'd give.

Now, I'll give you the words right from Blix.  Yes, I watched this live again so that I could judge for myslef and not just take the clips from the news.

Blix said that in the declaration submitted by Iraq (in response to the USA's pressure) back in December, they omitted data needed to account for their past stocks of anthrax, VX gas and long range missiles.  And for the really good part, I'll quote him:

"Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it," he said. "Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

So you can see where the UN stands on who has to prove it.  Iraq.

Other things I noticed:
Half the ambassadors weren't listening or taking notes (Powell was taking a shit load of notes).  They read from prepared speaches after Blix.  They had made up their minds before Blix ever came to the table.  That's bullshit, no matter which side of the argument you are on.

Of note for those that will say the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, they did find things that are proscribed, just not full weapons.  Like rocket engines 5 times more powerful then allowed.

One thing I found very funny was that the aluminum tubes that much hub-bub is about.  Some people claim that these are built to the specs to use in the purification of uranium.  Iraq says it's just for building missile casings.  Well, the UN told them to destroy those before because that was for the making of missle casing that they aren't allowed to have anyway.  Classic.

One thing I found disturbing is how few actual inspectors there are in the 250 people there, and how few inspections they've done.  I don't consider 400 inspections in a country the size of Iraq to be a big number.  I could hide anything from 100 inspectors in just the city of Detroit, let alone the whole state.

A last thought.  Things that the UN has been wanting for over 10 years they are just starting to get.  U2 fly overs, the ability to interview people without observers, for Saddam to declare it illegal to import or produce WMD's (he did that about an hour before Blix started today).  Does anyone think that Iraq finally gave into any of these things for any reason other then the looming threat of war?  They still have much more to do to keep up their end, so it's not time to back off either in my opinion.  If they come clean with all their responsibilities then war should be avoided.  Iraq is making steps in the right direction, but it has much further to go, and I don't think they are going to continue without that gun to their back (they have caved more in the last few months then in the previous 10 years, there is a reason for it.)

the UN is in agreement that he has broken the resolution (687, passed in 1991). right now, the consequences are being decided and the US believe that those consequences should be millitary in nature, because thats the only thing saddam responds too.

the analogy of the drugs: this guy the police is going after is a known drug kingpin, who has many cronies and many sneaky ways of hiding drugs (as they have found out in previous raids on his property). since the guy is slick, the only evidence the cops are finding are empty crack vials, but sometimes the cops do overhear his gangsters talking about "moving the product" and have pictures of suspicious activity. everytime the police puts pressure on him, he acts like hes gonna cooperate, then slams the door on them. one day (lets say sept. 11th) a bunch of crackdealers go and murder off the cops' family so now the cops are very harsh and take not one more iota of shit from any drug dealer (indcluding the kingpin saddam one). cops threaten that if he doesnt stop having drugs, they will kick down his door and shoot their way in if necessary, and turn the ghetto from which he runs his drug buisness into a normal, livable area again. the people in that ghetto want the drugdealer to leave so they can finally live in peace, but that is only possible if the police come and help since the drugdealer kills everyone who tries to mess with him.

omg, i went off on a rant.....i love analogies. anyway the above is a more appropriate one in my opinion.

LOL Abe, I started with an anology closer to yours, but had to shorten it because my post was too long.  But you are right, it's still more accurate your way.

Probably a summary of all 3 analogies hit the truth best. ;)

Bucc that's all true but Blix said much more than this. He also stated that they haven't found any WMDs,but he adds that they aren't sure about the excistance of 1000 tons of anthrax and VX gas. The inspectors didn't have any troubles to enter all desired buildings. Some conventional missiles have a a to long range(30 - 40km to much). There aren't any proofs about a nuclear program...


Sure set them under pressure. That's nothing I am against, enforce more controls. Give the inspectors helicopters so they are more independant...

Iraq needs a gun in their back but without the UN that wants more facts Bush would already reload his gun.

Bucc I hope that you come with me to the decision that a war isn't necessary yet. (I know you will never admit or if you do there will be a huge BUT hehe.)

IMO war should always be the last possibility as my posts hopefully expressed.

Greetz,

Mauti

Great analogies bucc, abe!

I've been thinking about this whole Iraq thing a lot recently, it's hard not to. It's become clear to me that military action will probably be neccesary in Iraq. It saddens me to say this because I hate war and up to this point I've been against taking military action in Iraq. I just didn't see why NOW was so important, containment just seemed like a better alternative.

Two things came together today to change my mind. Powell's speech today before the UN was one, a movie called "The Pianist" is the other. Powell's speech helped me realize that the burden of proof is on Iraq to come clean, we already fought one war over this if it takes a second war to finish it, that's entirely Saddam's fault. He is the one who is making it neccessary to take military action. If he would just cooperate completly there would be no need for violence.

The Pianist reminded me of the brutality of the german army during the occupation of Poland in WW2. It reminded me that we, not as Americans or Europeans, but as Members of the Human Race, have a moral responsibility to stop atrocities from happening. To stand by and let a government in power brutalize a people is inexcusable. The people of Iraq cannot wait any longer to be freed from Saddam's terrible power!

Now, that said, does this mean I think we should attack right now? No. I am all for giving one last chance, Saddam has had 12 years of last chances so what's the hurt in one more? Give him one more chance: Immeadiatly (within 24 hours) disclose the location of ALL banned materials. This is not negotiable. If he does not comply, fuck him.

This is one thing I think you have wrong Mauti.  If Bush really wanted to, he could have already pulled the trigger.  And there are countries that would have joined him and have said as much.  The UN isn't stopping him (the UN has never said that the USA can't attack on it's own).  It would just be stupid to act alone at this point.  Give the man a little credit (he doesn't deserve much, but give what he has earned).  If he was as bloodthirsty as you guys make him out to be, we'd be at war already.


And Mauti, if you go back and read my early posts, you'll see that I feel the same way.  While fighting to make people understand that the burdon of proof is not on the USA or UN, but on IRAQ in many cases (which was repeated today in the UN), people have pegged me for thinking that we should already be at war.  I've never said that, quite the opposite.  I've said that I want to see more facts brought in myself.  I've just also said that you can't wait forever. that 10 years is long enough and the issue needs to be forced.  So, the ball is in Iraq's court in two ways.  It needs to live up to it's side of the bargin, and it needs to do it now.  

So I admit it then and I admit it now.  War isn't necessary yet.  The preperations for war are, and should continue.  They are the gun the UN is holding to make Iraq listen.  To put that gun away now would be just as stupid as to fire it now.  And if he drags his heels, it will come time to put the gun in his face (peacekeepers, troops there, etc).  And if it goes on after that, you have to be willing to fire the gun.  Otherwise, you shouldn't have pulled it out in the first place.  IMO.

Alaric, I applaud you on looking at issues and changing your mind, and would even if you took the other side.  It seems I came off as a war monger, just because I accept that war is sometimes a necessary thing, and that I think it will soon be necessary.  But you seem to get it.  No matter what you think of Bush, or his reasons, it doesn't change who Saddam is, what he has done, what he has agreed to and what we should do about it.  Bush isn't the issue, and shouldn't be made one.  That's a politicians trick, to make the issue about the opponant, not the real issues.  Hey, look over there.  Bush is a bad man.  And while your back is turned, I'll just hide this little thing over here.

Some people seem to hate the fact that I accept the ugly truths.  War is sometimes necessary.  Sometimes, you have to use violence to stop even more violence (like using a bomb to put out a fire).  So be it.  I wont hide my head in the sand from the truth that they can't handle.  Sure, peace is wonderful, and it would be great if we never, ever had to fight another war.  It would be great if I could live forever too.  I'll bet you any amount of money that neither of those things will happen.

I just want to post that I am really happy that we could discuss out a topic without ending in a flamewar.

Although probably none didn't change their opinions I think most see the picture from all sites now and also learned some interesting facts .

I hope we'll see more of those high quality discussions here.

Bye,

Mauti