Say whaaat??

[Raven2367]

Did you hear what that Rumsfeld guy (i think it was him) said in the news?
Something like: There are only few nations not supporting the Iraq plans. I think it is Lybia, kuba and germany. <- Something like that.
I dont think thats good naming germany next to kuba and lybia in one breath. I mean there isnt realy a good reason for war. No one found any Bio/neuclear weapons.
Should see the effort that germany puts into doing something about terrorism. I hear at least once a week about a new terrorist being caught. Hm well what ever.
 

[Cocobolo]

SOO, POLITICS EH..

Well, I will be the 1st to say that the current administration is really all over the place as far as the explanation and disinformation they have been releasing, but whether I agree or disagree with the motives, I still think that doing something now can prevent something really much worse from happening later. Procrastination creates places/situations like N.Korea, I'd rather not see Iraq with the capabilities of N.korea.

On another note, it's obvious that the UN is impotent. Can somebody tell me the point of passing resolution after resolution without the military resolve to back these resolutions up? All bark and no bite. Now they've got Libya heading a human rights committe and Iraq is due to head a weapons disarmament committe?
And when something is actually done about a resolution and force is used, guess what, the UN (and all of it's european and middle eastern representatives) looks right at the US to not only pay the bill, but pay with american lives. (not to say that other nations don't lose lives also, but it's always mostly us) America is the world's babysitter. My tax dollars go to other countries by the billions in the form of "aid". How bout we pull back all the "aid", pay off our OWN deficit, and let the world eat itself? So I don't think asking for some military backing is unreasonable.

Remember WW2? Without the US jumping into action, the entire of Europe would probably not exist as seperate sovereign nations. With places like France doing business with Iraq, hey that's ok, we do it too, but don't stand in our way. As far as I'm concerned, France and Europe still owe the US a huge debt (both morally and financially) and it's time to pay up. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but it's not about Bush, it's about America in the end. When we go in there, those who are sitting on the sidelines will wish they were involved, including Germany. Remeber the SAS motto, "Who Dares, Wins"

[Cobra6]

I can answer all of that with a joke...so here goes

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around
the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand
is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he
reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man
look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring
him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the
kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be
happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he
just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could
my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I
need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a
conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of
clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!

[Raven2367]

i like that joke, cobra  
Anyway.
Coco isnt it true that the US only involved itsself into WW2 because of Pearl Harbour? They came at the end of the war. Ok I must admit it was a good idea they came.
And that about germany being "OLD EUROPE" i think the rest of europe is more like the missing US States (sorry bout that). they do everything america says. I bet youve seen that "george michael" video "shoot the dog" thats what i mean. dont get me wrong but i think france and germany are doing the right thing. As far as i know the European "headquaters" are against the war and germany and france are sticking to it. so they stay just europe.
I heard someone I know say: "Why doesnt the USA try and get their own politics right before they interfere with europes, the school system in the USA is so bad and they give all of their money for war. They only want turkey to join the EU so they can have better relations to them cos turkey is the gate to Asia." that made me think. Dont know if he/shes right though.
I'm not anti american. Just want to get that clear. theres just so many people like me who are against the war.

peace,

Greg

[WardenMac]

LOL, I like it

[Mr_Grenade]

Good one Cobra .  

Below is from a another board i hang on .

Politicians and people are hot to trash Bush. Everyone wants to see a "smoking gun". Problem with a smoking gun is, it doesn't smoke until AFTER it's been fired.

Too bad the Congressional Committee investigating what went wrong before 9/11/01 isn't dealing with the following:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U. S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U. S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U. S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U. S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promises, an estimated 2,800 people in New York and Washington, D. C. that are now dead would be alive today.

Now that Bush is fulfilling his promise, hunting down and punishing people that are directly responsible or harboring those who do, and he's suppose to first produce a "smoking gun"?!

Maybe in a couple of months, perhaps after Iraq fired a chemical warhead into one of its neighboring countries, killing thousands, THEN people will say "OH! THERE'S the Smoking GUN we've been looking for!"

Too bad it'd be too late for the thousands that will already be dead.

Or did we learn nothing from 9/11?

[Cobra6]

I comletly agree. Being a former soldier I can tell you no one wants war, but to have "peace" war may be inevetable. I define peace as being able to sit at home and not worry about when a bomb is going to go off in my neighborhood.

[Raven2367]

thats a point cobra but lets nor forget the fact that they didnt actualy find any neuclear/chemical bombs/material

[Whisper_44]

Coco & Cobra, Mr G.

Well said..

It's a shame that the world can sit by and pretend that situations like this will pass, or worse yet never occur.

Cobra?? what would a frenchman's answer have been to that question?

[Suicide_Commando]

what woudl a frenchman's answer have been to that question?

Exactly the opposite of what American officials said.    

[Cobra6]

Here is the problem as I see it. The UN Security Council adopted resolution 1441, which in simple terms is the demand that Iraq disarm. The whole thing about the weapons inspectors is that they are not there to find a "smoking gun", but rather to test Iraq's willingness to cooperate with dissarmament.

With that said; Has Iraq shown any willingness to cooperate with the Security Council's resolution, or have they been playing the typical games we have come to expect since 1991.

It's time for the UN to step up to the plate if they want to be considered a "world power". Sanctions that have been in place since 1991 have not worked, a "no fly zone" has been ignored and US and allied planes have been shot at on a continual basis.

Now there may be those who say that Iraq is a sovereign nation and should not have to answer to the UN or the US, but remember; Iraq LOST the gulf war, and as part of the cease fire agreed to certain terms, and lost their right to sovereignty.

Here is UN Resolution 1441 that was adopted:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[Cobra6]

Part 2

What we need to look at is Iraq's compliance with Resolution 1441. I think Colin Powell showed in his speech to the UN that Iraq has not been complying with the resolution.

Remember that the UN Security Council voted unanimously on this resolution.

"The council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

So, what are those consequences? More sanctions, or will it be war. I think we can all agree that the sanctions in place since 1991 have not worked, so war is the alternative.

If France and Germany (members of the Security Council) want to now back down from the resolution that they both voted "yes" on, they should leave world politics and leave it up to the big boys who can reach down and grab their ***** and do what is right.

Just my opinion

Cobra6

[Cobra6]

thats a point cobra but lets nor forget the fact that they didnt actualy find any neuclear/chemical bombs/material

Iraq has had a NBC (Nuclear Biolgical and Neclear) weapons program for decades now. If you will remember (if you are old enough) that on June 7, 1981 Israel took some F16's and went in and bombed a nuclear power plant that Iraq was building.

In 1987 and 1988, 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds were gassed to death with chemical agents.

So, Iraq does have a history of having NBC items. Just because non have been found does not mean they do not exist. Iraq consist of 432,162 sq km of area (roughly the size of California) I think that if I wanted to hide a nuke or a biological weapon in California I could do it.

[Whisper_44]

Well said Cobra, again...

If I am mistaken please correct me, I believe that France crapped their pants when that reactor was deystroyed, and will crap again when Iraq goes down again,  France stands to make Billions in oil revenue from their own agreement with Iraq. Do you think that France offered to share these same profits with Big brother Germany?

[Raven2367]

ok youve convinced me now cobra. I saw some disgusting pictures of that what happened in the Iraq. But on the otherhand: hasnt the country suffered enough? I mean all this time there has been opression I dont think the people of Iraq want war. If there was just a way on changing the government in Iraq peacefuly...

[Cobra6]

But on the otherhand: hasnt the country suffered enough? I mean all this time there has been opression I dont think the people of Iraq want war. If there was just a way on changing the government in Iraq peacefuly...

And there in lies the problem the US created in 1992. If you remember back to the Gulf War era, President Bush (sr) told the people of Iraq to overthrow their government. The Kurds in the north listened and began an uprising that Sadaam quickly put down with the use of helicopters. Shame on the US for this disaster! When the Kurds began to rebel we should have stepped in and helped. Do any you think that the Iraqi people will join a revolt now after the US would not back the Kurds back in 1992? It is a shame that innocent people will be killed if a war in Iraq were to errupt, and what is a bigger shame is that some fault lies with the US's non-action when a revolt began.

After 9/11 President Bush told the world that he would not stand for terrorism or those countries that support terrorism. I remember seeing the world applauding his speech. Now after 1 1/2 years President Bush is still focused on that promise while everyone else looses focus on the goals set forth.

Countries like England should be applauded. I remember seeing the changing of he guard at Buckingham Palace after 9/11 when they played the Star Spangled Banner...that was pure class, and showed the world who our friend is. Now it seems they are the only ones that are sticking by our side without any reservation.

I guess we will see who our true friends are if war were to begin in Iraq.

As far as changing the government peacfully; I think the US had an opportunity to get rid of Sadaam in 1992 and did not take advantage of it. Saudi Arabia offered him assylum if he were to step down, but as of now Sadaam has not taken advantage of that offer. Where does this leave any peacefull solution?
I do belive we are going to war, but in order to have true peace I think it must be done.

[Raven2367]

they have german permition to fly over. what else do they want?

Getting scary this is.

[Whisper_44]

Just read this,  

By the early 1960s, DeGaulle was demanding that France wean itself from ?American tutelage? and by the middle of the decade had ordered that all U.S. troops be removed from French soil. This led to one of the most clever responses in American diplomatic history. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, requesting clarification of the French demand, asked whether the order included removal of those buried in French soil, too.)

[Raven2367]

Sounds whitty...  

I'm glad an influential country like russia has joined France and Germany in its rejection to war.

I watched a programme on TV yesterday about the Double of Sadam Husseins son. That guy was forced to be a double, got put in prison for 2 months where he was tortured 12 hours every day and was then told that it was a mistake, that they put him in prison and used him as double again. he lives in austria now.
I mean, how cruel can a human be to be so horrible to another human?

[Cocobolo]

I think the one thing the French can do to help us out is to go into Iraq and show them how to properly surrender. After all, that's what they are best at!

Raven, if you think the US only entered WW2 because of Pearl Harbour, then why didn't we just fight the Japanese? Because Europe was on the ropes, and would fall without us. Why were they about to fall? Because they believed they could capitulate and "deal with" (in other words, appease) the 3rd Reich. What was the result? Europe was all but destroyed due to the domino effect of a few weak nations who basically sold out their neighbors.

If these Euro nations you call "US states" because they are like-minded to the US decided to go it alone and not accept US aid money or military protection, how long do you think they'd last? It's like arguing with your boss: you can tell your opinion, but you don't want to get fired.  In fact, I dare you to name a nation that doesn't recieve some of my tax dollars.  

Think back to when the USSR was around. How well would Europe have slept without an American nuclear umbrella over their heads? In fact, it's because of the US that the USSR fell. Only problem is, they needed more free money from us than we were willing to give, and now the country is run by gangsters.

Last time I checked I didn't see any foreign toops stationed on US soil to help ME sleep... Hmmmm