Powell's case on Iraq... Definite Ownage against the Iraqi's

[Info-Man]

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

if it were france, they would all hate france the most and you would be telling me about how the evil french foreign legion...

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.  

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

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.

[Cossack]

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.

[abe]

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.

[*DAMN Mauti]

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

[abe]

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.

[*DAMN Mauti]

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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

"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.

[Cossack]

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.

[kami]

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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...

[abe]

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.

[abe]

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.....

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

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.

[Mr. Lothario]

     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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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?  

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Info-Man]

Eventually I think that not Sadaam is the real danger, it is Bush and someone has to stop him before its to late.

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.

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...

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.

[Info-Man]

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.

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.....

3 out of 4 isn't bad Abe.  I'll keep working on you with gun control   (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.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

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

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).