Policing the world [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

nudeM

03-19-2003, 03:53 AM

RT: I guess that oil is in the interest of the United States, but also in the interest of your country, (don't you also have vehicles)? It is poised to make sure the oil fields are not in the hands of a tyrannt such as Saddam, which are already wired up to go up in great balls of fire. Yes, Saddam has his oil fields wired so that the oil fields will be blown up by remote control. Is this what you really want? Oil is the "gold" of the region, and it has been used a leverage by the oil rich Middle East, to usually get what they want. We cannot afford to have Saddam to continue to profit from the oil reserves, while at the same time, his people are literally being killed, starved or just plain left out in the cold. We must see to it, that the oil in Iraq is in the hands of a more moderate leader, one who would not use it as a bargaining chip.

Rik: You state that the United States is not prepared to police the world collectively? What do you think we have been doing all these years? The United States has been to all corners of the world policing up the corruption and tragedies. It's the United States who has repeatedly been asked to respond to world events for aid of all types. Do you read about any other country being asked to do the same? Not at all. It's sad that there are anti-Americans out there, that at a moments notice, will turn around and ask for assistance. Does America ask for assistance? NO! We take care of our own (9/11/01).

I just wish people would wake up and take note on how to handle a world trouble spot. If it hadn't been for the United Nations, Saddam would not have been in power this long. I will take one thing in stride, we should have done this 12 years ago when we were already there. Major blunder. God bless America and the men and women of the Armed Forces.

wannabenaked2001

03-19-2003, 04:36 AM

Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

nudist_in_Tn

03-19-2003, 01:33 PM

I dont understand either Wannabe but I love hearing all the opinions even if I dont agree with all of them, keep on posting folks at least we can agree to disagree.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Suntied

03-19-2003, 01:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No! I'll bet no one can. Realisticly.

God Bless America, and those who love her enough to fight! (No war during my prime... or I'ld of been there)

It is about Saddam... as the President of the USA seemed to mention Monday night. I back AMERICA, therefore I back with my heart and my AMERICAN right... her PRESIDENT.

It is amazing how we help every one in the WORLD that we all live in, but can still be judged as looking out for AMERICA.

Doesn't Rohde Island look out for herself also, yet many of her citizens enrole in the armed forces for America, that does most of it's work through-out the WORLD! That is why we are forcing Saddam out of Iraq... the WORLD/EARTH/THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN. Don't you get the fact that we are a world power, because we care and we can. I wounder if Saddam gives two rats a** about the world... think about it. Do you?

Rik

03-19-2003, 02:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You could have a look at this article which appears (along with others) at http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp .

"Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.[1] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (?2.5bn), beating analyst expectations.[2] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?

SOURCES:

[1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.

[2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003."

So there's one opinion. I'm sure there are others.

Rik

Suntied

03-19-2003, 02:32 PM

Sorces are considered, yet relability continues to be the question.

Personally, I refuse to believe it, as I am a patriot. Used to believe everything... change is good! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wannabenaked2001

03-19-2003, 02:38 PM

Rik,

I used the link you provided in your last post and read the entire artical. I have to admitt, it does appear that oil may have been a motive for the move on Iraq. This worries me.

I also noticed that the primary source for the artical was a repot or series of reports produced by the Baker Institute, which also has reports outlining guide lines for post war Iraq. They are worth the read.

Baker institute (http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/)

Rik

03-19-2003, 02:41 PM

Suntied, is that you?
http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rik

Rik

03-19-2003, 02:47 PM

Wannabe,

The link to the Baker Institute didn't work. I tried the URL but it looks like the site is down.

Rik

wannabenaked2001

03-19-2003, 04:03 PM

The URL worked fine for me both just after I posted it, and just now. You could try the link you posted, then go to the bottom of the first artical. The first link given is the one I was looking at.

Anyway the reports basicly say that the Iraqis must retain control of their oil, and any US involvement must be in cooperation with the Iraqis. The UN's Food for Oil program is their best hope to recover from the war and years of repression. I really don't think the UN or the other mid-eastern countries would allow the US to take control of Iraq's oil. I do admit that with Saddam gone, oil will be able to flow more freely from Iraq, and possably lower the current prices, but I just can't belive it would make a big enough differance to be a real objective for the war. I know we buy huge amounts of oil, but this is going to be a very expensive war. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

03-19-2003, 04:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:

God Bless America, and those who love her enough to fight! (No war during my prime... or I'ld of been there)

It is about Saddam... as the President of the USA seemed to mention Monday night. I back AMERICA, therefore I back with my heart and my AMERICAN right... her PRESIDENT.

It is amazing how we help every one in the WORLD that we all live in, but can still be judged as looking out for AMERICA.

Doesn't Rohde Island look out for herself also, yet many of her citizens enrole in the armed forces for America, that does most of it's work through-out the WORLD! That is why we are forcing Saddam out of Iraq... the WORLD/EARTH/THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN. Don't you get the fact that we are a world power, because we care and we can. I wounder if Saddam gives two rats a** about the world... think about it. Do you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>America is several continents.... please don't drag all those other countries into this. Bush is not the president of America. He's the president of the United States.

And I'm not just picking on you... I've seen several people do this.

AussieBeachBoy

03-19-2003, 05:22 PM

Rik, that is an interesting article, though I don't know that it puts the case conclusively.

However it lends support to a documentary that screened here a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I didn't see it, and so can't comment in detail on it, as I have to rely upon the accounts given by others.

Apparently the documentary asserted that it has long been the desire of Bush and his advisors to topple Saddam, for various reasons. There is a strong personal reason for Bush (of course) as his family is stung by the way that his father's failure to get UN backing to remove Saddam during the Gulf War is the subject of some derision by Saddam & his supporters. Gaining control over the Iraqi oil interests was another motive. The US is also highly embarrassed over the degree of support that was given to Hussein's regime in the 80s during the Iran/Iraq war (eg the US actually gave Iraq anthrax, and Britain built a mustard gas plant for them.)

The problem was, there was no 'hook'. The invasion of Kuwait was the hook that Bush Snr had wanted to use to lever out Hussein, but he wasn't able to. However, the moment 9/11 happened, Bush, Rice, Powell et al realised they now had a 'hook'. The day after 9/11 there was a high level meeting that set out the long-term agenda: not really pursuing terrorists, but pursuing Iraq and ousting Hussein. The documentary apparently had a hold of secret briefing papers and even a timetable that set out that they were looking at war with Iraq in 1-2 years, dependant on how things worked. It was also always the US plan to basically ignore the UN and other international agencies, on the basis that "self-defence against further terrorist strike" would be used as a justification.

Now, I could be summarising it wrong and may have some things mixed up, so don't treat this as gospel. But I'm told the documentary presented a rather convincing case for the basic proposition that it's past events and long-term strategy rather than anything to do with the recent weapons inspections, or even 9/11, that are motivating the US.

Suntied

03-19-2003, 05:37 PM

Geeeeez Cyn, couldn't find anything else wrong with what I said. That is the standard saying. Did Mexico help any other countries this year... I wonder whom I was talking about.

Rik, although your depiction of me with SADDASSINSANE was quite hilarious... the grounds you are basing this discussion on are the grounds of what other's (not world leaders... just media) pick and choose from what was said by such world leaders. I'm not even sure if they have to say every word when they quote that, or those things they print, say, or broadcast. The grounds of the media are, as I'm sure you are aware, for ratings and not based on the grounds of truth. Have you noticed I keep using the term ground(s). It seems you think my head might be buried in the ground, yet the ground that the media supports it's statements and so called news, is merely meant to fill the air/ground you smell, see through, and hear through with untruths or ratings based possibilities. Bury your head in that ground, and you will forever believe the world is an awful place. Maybe that picture you have depicted for my views is actually a better place to look... below all the media dissipation! ( I prefer a word that involves animal dissipation )

You sure like to pick on me Rik, I am just an all American boy (sorry cyn, all USA boy).

God bless America! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
And the UK for backing us/our country! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If my head were buried, I woudn't respond to you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your friend across the pond,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

florida-david

03-19-2003, 06:08 PM

i hate to sound so pessimistic, but i do believe that bush jr is finishing up what his daddy did not finish. the only reason that we did not go to war months ago is that bush needed to work up the american (U.S.A.) people into a frenzy to support this war. even with the delay, u.s. citizens were still not overwhelmingly in support of the war. so he decided to go for it regardless. oil, oil, oil, oil.....

Suntied

03-19-2003, 06:19 PM

oil, oil, oil, oil....

Silly, silly, silly, silly....

....there could be oil down there!

We do not need oil... the poor people/nations do. What is the average income of the average Iraqie... middle class?

How about the Saudie middle class?

We all know how much the upper class have!

wannabenaked2001

03-19-2003, 06:33 PM

The war has begun.

While there are still issues to debate, I will be reserving any further comments while our country is activly at war with Iraq. I do this out of respect for our military, their families, and yes the leaders of our country.

I will be more than happy to continue this discussion once the dust has settled.

To the men and women of our armed forces, and those of our allies, God,s Speed, come home safe.

Suntied

03-19-2003, 07:19 PM

AMEN... God bless our MILTARY! No time for more... CNN is on.

brainyguy9999

03-19-2003, 07:47 PM

The White House has just asked the US Congress for $90 Billion as a start to funding the war in Iraq and to begin the after-war activities. How much oil would $90 Billion buy if the US government had wanted to buy it directly from OPEC??

The US government doesn't buy oil to give or sell to the citizens (except in the case of the strategic oil reserve, which is only released in the most dire circumstances).

Oil companies buy from OPEC and they sell it to citizens. OPEC controls the oil sales and prices. When the Iraqi oil is put back on the market, OPEC will tell other members to reduce production to stabilize the world-wide prices. So, it doesn't matter how much oil there is in Iraq; the US won't have direct access to it and OPEC won't give it away to oil companies.

I fail to understand why the US would spend $90 Billion (not to mention risking hundreds of thousands of lives) for oil when they can't get the oil you are claiming they are after???

I don't believe for a minute that the US attack on Saddam is about oil.

bg

Daz

03-19-2003, 10:30 PM

Hi,

Please let's not forget the millions of Iraqi's that the U.S. is giving a chance of freedom and democracy to. Sure oil may be a part of the incentive but keep in mind other benefits that will come from this war if it's succesful, like giving human beings the chance to live a life without fear and menace. That alone should be enough and as time passes and arguments continue it confounds me that anti-war protesters and views don't even mention the past and current suffering of the Iraqi people.

In Australia the majority of people are against refugees entering the country, do these people expect the Iraqi people to grin and bare years of oppression, fear and death and stay in their situation????? (Crazy!).

Peaceful diplomatic efforts have not worked. Saddam is a violent crazy man and war has proven the only option. I fully support the coalition and their liberation of the Iraqi people.

Maybe the question in this pole should be... Do you think America is being a big bully by trying to PROTECT the world?

America, Britain and Australia have the guts to stand up and protect the world from another Hitler! How is that being a bully? This war will stop the genocide and make the world a safer place.

Something for fellow Australians... Who will we turn to if North Korea sends a nuclear warhead our way? You can't have it both ways...what I'd like to see is an end to the anti-American and anti-our own government and see some support. If we were living in a dictatorship I'm sure we'd be calling out to any other country that would come to help us.

Take care and stay safe...
DAZ

03-19-2003, 11:52 PM

RT again with his penny.

Daz, sorry but as a fellow Australian I have to disagree with your post.

Firstly, I have just got back from the city where there was a huge peace rally. The Majority of Australians don't want this war. It will only cause more terrorism around the world and give North Korea a reason to nuke Australia.

Little Johny Howard will be thrown out at the next election mark my words all over his political stand on this war.

I understand what your saying about Saddam and his past you have to also realise that there will be a lot of innocent woman and children who will die over this war.

Where are you getting your statistics from about Australians being against refugee's ?

Let me guess you also voted for the GST, and I bet your worse off now financially ?

RT signing out

Rik

03-20-2003, 12:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AussieBeachBoy:
The problem was, there was no 'hook'. ... However, the moment 9/11 happened, Bush, Rice, Powell et al realised they now had a 'hook'. The day after 9/11 there was a high level meeting that set out the long-term agenda: not really pursuing terrorists, but pursuing Iraq and ousting Hussein. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There was an article in a leading UK newspaper this last weekend which said exactly the same thing. It also said that within hours of the 9/11 attacks the events were being described by senior Whitehouse officials as an "opportunity".

Rik

Rik

03-20-2003, 12:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Rik, although your depiction of me with SADDASSINSANE was quite hilarious... the grounds you are basing this discussion on are the grounds of what other's (not world leaders... just media) pick and choose from what was said by such world leaders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unless you have a direct line to the president then you too are basing your judgement on what you hear and read - it's just that we reach different conclusions. I certainly do not believe everything I read - heck I spend my life challenging what other people say - but when there is a broad consensus that particlular events have taken place then I form a conclusion accordingly.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion I have just woken up (it's early morning in the UK)and seen reports on the TV that missiles have been dropped on Baghdad. The Prime Minister of the UK has made no public announcement about it. Should I believe it's happened based on a single TV report?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The grounds of the media are, as I'm sure you are aware, for ratings and not based on the grounds of truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I absolutely agree but you cannot use that as an argument to assume that the heads of government always speak the truth. The truth is always somewhere in between.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You sure like to pick on me Rik... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Moi? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Daz

03-20-2003, 12:51 AM

RT,
You said
"Let me guess you also voted for the GST, and I bet your worse off now financially ? GST? What's that got to do with the issue?

"The Majority of Australians don't want this war. It will only cause more terrorism around the world and give North Korea a reason to nuke Australia."

Your statement is so full of fear. I don't think the threats we may be presented with should intimidate us into not taking action to assist the innocent people of Iraqi.

"that there will be a lot of innocent woman and children who will die over this war"

There are innocent human beings dying in Iraq under an insane regime. The coalition are targeting military and government targets not civilians.

"Where are you getting your statistics from about Australians being against refugee's ?"

From many sources. Newspapers, the Internet polls and from people in general on the street, friends, work colleagues etc.

"RT again with his penny."

You better keep your penny sounds like you aren't coping with the G.S.T. Thanks anyway.

"Firstly, I have just got back from the city where there was a huge peace rally."

Please tell me as I wasn't at the peace rally...Did anyone at the rally call for a peaceful everyday life for the people of Iraq? Or did they stick there head in the sand and not want to see what the reality is there? I wonder what Iraqi's, who are calling for help, think of the peace activists trying to block their freedom!

Take care
Daz

greensunshine

03-20-2003, 03:15 AM

Daz,

I wanted to say thank you for trying to educate some of the people who think this war is just about Oil, it is not.

For those who have not had the opportunities to listen to what this mad man Suddan has done to the women in his country...I encourage you to take the time to listen to them and the horrors he has forced on them...

In the US and many other countries around the world, he would get at the very least "Life in Prison without Parole" for what he has done to them...in his country, he gets nothing but more excuses to go on and do what he has justified doing all these years.

There are many many more reasons why the USA and supporting countries are backing us...and why we have had enough of his many many many lies regarding everything he has said to his people and ours.

To Everyone who has a greater understanding and supports these nations...I say Thank You for your support.

Greensunshine

Rik

03-20-2003, 04:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
For those who have not had the opportunities to listen to what this mad man Suddan has done to the women in his country...I encourage you to take the time to listen to them and the horrors he has forced on them... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh please, do you really think that Bush has the slightest concern for women's rights in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter? Womens's rights are abused in many countries. Here's just a few examples - perhaps we should invade these countries:

Saudi
"On Monday 11th March 15 girls burned to death as a consequence of a fire in one of Mecca's schools. Male policemen from squads known as the "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" prohibited the girls from escaping the fire because they were not wearing the Islamic veil. They also prevented firefighters from helping the girls, warning that, "Touching the girls is considered a sin and leads to severe punishment".

Iran
"According to official press in Iran, Azam, a 21 - year - old woman from the city of Behbahan has been sentenced to be blinded by throwing acid on her face in accordance with Islam law of retribution, Quisas.

"In court Azam said that she has thrown acid on the face of a man to defend herself against his repeatedly harassing her and wanting to enter her house forcibly."

Nigeria
"An Islamic court in northern Nigeria ruled on Monday 20 August that Amina Lawal Kurami must face death by stoning according to Islamic law for having a child outside marriage."

Kuwait
"Six years ago, Islamic legislators pushed through a law banning the mixing of the sexes in classes, libraries, cafeterias, labs and extracurricular activities at Kuwait University. "

Burma
"Due to a combination of traditional Burmese customs and the deteriorating economic situation, families are increasingly prioritizing the rights of males over females to limited resources. As a result, women and girls throughout Burma suffer from reduced access to nutritious food, medical services, as well as vocational training and other educational opportunities."

Sources:
http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/5thColumn/WomenandIslamicLaw.shtml
http://www.secularislam.org/women/bulletin5.htm#Iran
http://www.aworc.org/bpfa/pub/sec_e/vio00001.html

Rik

missouriboy

03-20-2003, 07:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
America is several continents.... please don't drag all those other countries into this. Bush is not the president of America. He's the president of the United States.

And I'm not just picking on you... I've seen several people do this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>cyndiann, I suggest that if you have really looked, you have seen millions of people do this, not just the several on this forum.

Those people are not wrong to say "America," because that IS the name of our country. The continents are named North America, Central America and South America. Those continents contain numerous countries, such as Brazil, Panama, Canada, and yes: AMERICA. Could this be why we are referred to as Americans, and not United Statesians, or Peruvians?

True, Bush is the president of the United States, but that's because "The United States of America" is the corporate, legal name of the national government, not the geographical name of the soil we walk on.

To summarize:
1. North America is a continent.
2. America is a country in that continent. (As is Canada and others.)
3. United States of America is the government of a country on that continent.

Now, if you can document that I am wrong, I'd be happy to concede the point. But I'm inclined to doubt it because, if you're right, wouldn't all those millions of people have to change the name of their National Anthem to "The United States the Beautiful?"

Love ya, anyhow, gal! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

03-20-2003, 08:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
Those people are not wrong to say "America," because that IS the name of our country. The continents are named North America, Central America and South America. Those continents contain numerous countries, such as Brazil, Panama, Canada, and yes: AMERICA. Could this be why we are referred to as Americans, and not United Statesians, or Peruvians?
.......
Now, if you can document that I am wrong, I'd be happy to concede the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just looked up in my brand new atlas which lists all the countries in the world and, guess what, America is not there. Ok, perhaps my atlas is worng so I checked in an encyclopedia but still no reference to the country of America.

I might be wrong but I always assumed that the individual states were countries in their own right (they make their own laws for example) but with an overseeing admistration. It's the federal administration which 'unites' them.

It's a similar situation in Europe where we have countries in their own right united by the European Union. We often refer to individual countries a 'states' but can't quite bring ourselves to say "United States of Europe" which has derogatory undertones.

The words 'America' and 'Americans' have just become shorthand: as you suggest, "United Statesians" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue. It's a bit like people referring to the citizens of the UK as English or British. Try saying "United Kingdomians".

As for "America the Beautiful" surely that just reflects the view that Americans see America as something which extends (or should extend) beyond the boundaries of the United States. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Whilst I'm not sure that Katherine Lee Bates would have been thinking about the likes of Peru or Bolivia (or even Iraq) when she wrote it there's no reason to assume that the landscape which inspired her words was limited to the US.

Have I convinced you? I claim my 5 dollars! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

AussieBeachBoy

03-20-2003, 01:57 PM

Daz said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>In Australia the majority of people are against refugees entering the country, do these people expect the Iraqi people to grin and bare years of oppression, fear and death and stay in their situation????? (Crazy!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The true irony is that at present, hundreds of Iraqi refugees are being forcibly sent back to Iraq as the Howard government denies their applications for asylum. Howard was on the television last night deploring the treatment of Iraqi citizens by Hussein's regime, but when those citizens ask us for asylum the government's response is that they are not genuine refugees and sends them back.

The last opinion poll taken in Australia showed that over 65% of Australians were opposed to war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

As for the suggestion that this war is motivated by humanitarian concerns - I don't believe that that would ever have been an initiating factor in itself. As has been pointed out there are many regimes which have questionable human rights records, against which no action is planned.

I actually believe there is a role for a kind of UN-supervised global policing of human rights. But I don't believe the human rights concerns are justification for the particular action that's taking place.

One of the most disgusting things I ever read on a message board (not this one) was during the Afghan war, when someone said that the Afghan war was a good thing because the regime was so bad, Afghan citizens would rather be killed by US missiles and daisycutter bombs than live under the Taliban. Breathtaking arrogance.

--------------------------------

Edited to add a PS: There's been a lot of debate on here about whether it's right to debate the merits of the war while it's on, or whether such debate should be suspended to "support our troops".

Last night the Australian Prime Minister encouraged Australians to do both. He asked that we support our troops, who are just doing their job. But he did not say we should shut up and stop debating the war. He asked that protest against the war be directed to him and the Government, and not to the troops.

This is a commendable attitude. The other day protestors chained themselves to the fence of the Prime Minister's residence. He actually came out and had a talk to them when going on his morning walk. The Police stood back and watched. We have a strong tradition of peaceful protest, and tolerance of the right to protest peacefully. Let's hope it stays that way.

j4king

03-20-2003, 05:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by brainyguy9999:
I don't believe for a minute that the US attack on Saddam is about oil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whether or not it is a motivating factor, there are many US companies which stand to gain substantially from the outcome of this war. The following is from today's New York Times, by Bob Herbert.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Do most Americans understand that even as we are launching one of the most devastating air assaults in the history of warfare, private companies are lining up to reap the riches of rebuilding the very structures we're in the process of destroying?...

It's not unpatriotic to say that there are billions of dollars to be made in Iraq and that the gold rush is already under way. It's simply a matter of fact.

Back in January, an article in The Wall Street Journal noted: "With oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq would offer the oil industry enormous opportunity should a war topple Saddam Hussein. But the early spoils would probably go to companies needed to keep Iraq's already rundown oil operations running, especially if facilities were further damaged in a war. Oil-services firms such as Halliburton Co., where Vice President Dick Cheney formerly served as chief executive, and Schlumberger Ltd. are seen as favorites for what could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20HERB.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daz

03-20-2003, 09:45 PM

Hi again,

First of all thanks Greensunshine for your supportive comments. With all the anti-coalition/government/war demonstrations going on I'm seriously considering joining demonstrations to show my support for the stance the fearless are taking.

My next reply goes to Aussiebeachboy when he said...
The last opinion poll taken in Australia showed that over 65% of Australians were opposed to war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

The last opinion poll actually showed the opposed/support percentage as 50% each way, and support is growing. That was the last Morgan poll as of this morning. Not sure where some of the statistics are coming from on this thread but some have been very creative.

Oh please, do you really think that Bush has the slightest concern for women's rights in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter? Womens's rights are abused in many countries.

Peace to all human beings it's our right (including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria etc). Just because cruel and unfair acts are committed in one country doesn't mean it's right. I'll bet Afghanistan is a much better place to live right now than during the Taliban rule, just as Iraq will hopefully one day be a safer and more peaceful place for all it's citizens including women.

Take care all...
Daz

Rik

03-21-2003, 12:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Daz:
The last opinion poll actually showed the opposed/support percentage as 50% each way, and support is growing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that the opinion polls are swinging towards apparent support for the war but I think the reasons for this are not completely straight forward. In my view what's happening is that whilst many people remain against the act of war they nevertheless feel that as it has now started and as our troops have been put in the firing line there is a need to get it over and done with as soon as possible (although note the managing of expectations yesterday that war could be prolonged). There is also a view that if Saddam is removed, even by a war that is not supported, then at least some good would have come from it.

What I see happening in the UK is that anti-war demonstrations are gathering pace. One protester who was asked by a TV crew "what's the point of demonstrating now the war has started" said words to the effect of "we have been campaigning against the threatened attack on Iraq because we see it as an illegal act (because it is unsupported by the UN). An illegal act is a crime and we cannot now be silent because we see the crime is being committed."

As someone who has opposed this war quite vocally on this board I too find myself in this awful dilemma of being fervently against the crime yet feeling a tremendous amount of support for those who have been ordered to commit it.

I have just seen this article which appeared in the Financial Times yesterday in th UK.

"The latest polls show that two-thirds of Americans support the attack on Iraq, and pollsters say those numbers are likely to rise as the tanks roll into Iraq and the public rallies behind the troops.

The rest of the world, in contrast, remains overwhelmingly opposed. A Pew Research poll released on Tuesday continued to show strong public opposition to the war even in countries that are supporting the US. In Italy and Spain, 81 per cent of the public reject the war; 87 per cent of Russians and 86 per cent of Turks are opposed. Even in the UK, which has sent troops to fight alongside the Americans, the Pew poll showed only 39 per cent back the war."

Full story here. (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511936182&p=1012571727162)

Rik

florida-david

03-21-2003, 06:23 AM

count me as opposed to the war and bush. let's all watch the crime as it is committed, and hope the world will hold the criminal (bush) responsible after it is done. does anyone know- has the u.n. been providing aid to afghanistan and helped create a new government? or did the u.s. do like it always does, dethrone a leader and than let a worse leader take over the country? will iraq be better after we get done bombing and the mega-companies get paid by u.s. citizen tax dollars to rebuild the country, starting with the oil fields? or will another ruthless leader take charge to create new atrocities. will u.s. world domination occur using the "terrorist threat" as a legitimate reason (excuse)?

i'm glad to see such activities on this post from the australians, you guys are quite vocal.

rik (uk), you keep speaking the truth, us u.s. citizens are getting brainwashed every day that the truth is hard to see most of the time. not only that, most u.s. citizens follow the herd, and bush is the shepherd with the media spreading his gospel.

Rik

03-21-2003, 06:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by florida-david:
rik (uk), you keep speaking the truth... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no monopoly on truth: I offer only my opinion which is based on information available to me. I acknowledge that others may form different opinions from the same information.

Other than that I agree with your post. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

missouriboy

03-22-2003, 07:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
I checked in an encyclopedia but still no reference to the country of America.
...
Have I convinced you? I claim my 5 dollars! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've consulted my encyclopedia too, and of course it isn't going to contain duplicate entries. Under "United States of America" the very first sentence starts out: "Commonly called the United States or simply America, a federal republic..."

...simply America...

Another clue is the word "of," which generally means: part of some larger entity. United States, being a government, is "part of" America. Note that it does not say "of North America." Obviously this is because it can only name the area of jurisdiction of that government, right?

Under other "United States" topics, there were listed but 7 institutions beginning with that name, such as Coast Guard, Air Force Academy, etc., every one of which was a federal government institution. Conversely, the institutions named "American...' numbered SIXTEEN, from the American Academy of Arts and Letters to the American University, many of them chartered by the US government. (Admittedly, my encyclopedia is very old; those numbers may be different today.)

In checking this stuff, I did find that I erred in calling America the Beautiful our national anthem. It is not, that would be The Star Spangled Banner. However, I think saying "surely that just reflects the view that Americans see America as something which extends (or should extend) beyond the boundaries of the United States" is a stretch. If the song was named by its author, it must be a reflection of her view, not the view of all Americans (whoa! who are THEY, sir? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) wishing America (whoa! where is THAT, sir? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) extended beyond its boundaries.

That first line in my post, "Those people are not wrong to say "America," included you, friend, as well as the rest of the people of the world. Myself, I too may be a U.S. Citizen (a subject of federal jurisdiction) but first I am an American!

I enjoy all your posts, with their good logic and thorough thinking, but for right now I'm going to retain that five dollars a bit longer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gamblefish

03-22-2003, 07:45 AM

I heard a report today that the war protesters are stepping up their efforts to make it known that they oppose this war with massive anti-war rallies world-wide.

What I find odd is that these rallies are turning very violent.

So, I guess war with Iraq is bad but war with police is good...? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Rik

03-22-2003, 09:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rik:
Under "United States of America" the very first sentence starts out: "Commonly called the United States or simply America, a federal republic..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. It's commonly but erroneously, called America. It's as common, but equally erroneous, that citizens of The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) are called British.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>In checking this stuff, I did find that I erred in calling America the Beautiful our national anthem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Shame on you for not knowing that. Call yourself an American? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>[qb]I enjoy all your posts, with their good logic and thorough thinking, but for right now I'm going to retain that five dollars a bit longer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How about two and a half dollars then?

Rik

David77

03-22-2003, 10:22 AM

Some years ago, I was conversing with a Mexican woman on the train who spoke very good English. We were talking about traveling. I mentioned that I had traveled in all of the United States. She replied, "I have too". I learned that she was talking about all of the (I think 21) states of Mexico. She said that they were called "The United States of Mexico". Is there a "United States of Mexico", or do they often use that term, or was there misunderstanding about this in our conversation?

Of course, Mexicans are also NORTH AMERICANS.

Suntied

03-22-2003, 05:06 PM

I know I don't know that much about politics, Britain, Iraq or oil. But some of the things said in this post (and others) seem ridiculous.

I know that Rik will put another picture up of me with my head in the ground for this one... but, once again, I will take it in stride.

Truth is a myth. Freedom is a myth. Governments of countries control the amount that we are allowed to know. All governments!!!!! Thus altering the truth. We are not free to roam the streets without being clothed!!!! Thus we are not truly FREE (along with many other restrictions for textiles).

Here is my view on the war in Iraq: The government of my country felt, after voting and approving, that military action would be necessary if the weapons possessed by Saddam Hussein were not revealed and destroyed by such a date (this was approved by the government not President Bush). They were not revealed or destroyed; they were used on day one (some). Seems the government of the United States of AMERICA knew what they were talking about.

We... Americans... are the most powerful military force in the WORLD! It is a tough job, but someone has to do it... KEEP WORLD PEACE!!!!

So, as a world power or THE world power, we could just go out there and blow everybody up... kill then all... BUT WE DON"T!!!!

We are humane and decent, but we are strong. Sometimes, one must use his strength for the good of the weak. Which means destroying the evil.

Imagine a world were there is no pain and suffering, because the governments of each nation have found a way to maintain peace and prosperity in each of their countries without death and destruction. Myself... I haven't had my life threatened since HIGH SCHOOL until 9/11/01. Try to threaten my life now! I won't back down or give in.

I WILL FIGHT!!!

Peace will come if the evil is gone.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Bart/Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Trailscout

03-22-2003, 05:25 PM

David77,

Yes, the formal name of Mexico is Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, translated as the United States of Mexico. It is on every coin of theirs. I lived in Mexico City with my cousins for a while.
You rarely hear it in everyday conversation, but in more formal political speech, yes.

j4king

03-22-2003, 06:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
So, as a world power or THE world power, we could just go out there and blow everybody up... kill then all... BUT WE DON"T!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So the rest of the world is supposed to be grateful because we don't blow them up?! It is arrogant statements like these that perpetuate the negative feelings many nonAmericans have towards America.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Which means destroying the evil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Alas, if evil could simply be destroyed by going to war, we would have eliminated evil a long time ago...well, I guess maybe if we managed to blow up the whole human race we could get rid of evil...so I guess there is hope yet :-)

Suntied

03-22-2003, 07:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by j4king:
[QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So the rest of the world is supposed to be grateful because we don't blow them up?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would if Saddam Hussein were president of the UNITED STATAES OF AMERICA????????????????????

Our work as a world power is GOOD!

To get rid of the opposite.... BAD! Tell me Sad asss insane isn't BAD and your statement might be have some wieght.

Support the men/women that have agreed to defend by the presidents orders. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

It is our country, our government, our governments decision, and therefore, I stand behind my country. They may have other objectives, but they are still my leaders and government.

EricNY

03-22-2003, 07:27 PM

What do you suggest gets done? Should we sit back and wait?

This whole thing with saddam is not new, it has been going on for years. He should have not been allowed to go as far as he has.

Maybe we should just sit back until he becomes stronger. Maybe we should wait until he does more or worse things. Maybe we can wait until all hell breaks loose and then maybe it would be O.K. to stop him???????

Nobody likes war, but being nice and asking politely, to not be a menace to society does not seem to work. So we have to do things the hard way. He had his chance.

Rik

03-23-2003, 01:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
So the rest of the world is supposed to be grateful because we don't blow them up?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.....

Our work as a world power is GOOD! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, these comments are representative of the breathtaking arrogance by which the US is perceived by much of the rest of the world.

The arrogance, as apparently shared by many, appears as such that you cannot conceive of a world where anyone who doesn't want to live the American dream is evil.

I have just woken up to the news that a British plane has been shot down by an American Patriot missile. Just thought I'd share that with you.

Rik

greensunshine

03-23-2003, 03:51 AM

It is better that a few die trying to protect a nation than a nation die because someone was to busy to try and protect that nation because the nation didn't seem to be important enough to protect.

Excuse me, but we are all worth protecting if we are good people...and many of the people that are being protected have gone un-protected for so long by their own government...I like many others only wish we could do more for our military and the people we are trying to protect and restore their freedom too are deserving of.

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

missouriboy

03-23-2003, 05:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
Exactly. It's commonly but erroneously, called America. It's as common, but equally erroneous, that citizens of The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) are called British. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And now, in light of David77's post, the population of the whole world is also erroneous to say "Mexico" and "Mexicans?" Sorry, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Shame on you for not knowing that. Call yourself an American? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Forty lashes with the wet noodle! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Of course, there are tons of other things I misremember, or don't remember at all, from school so long ago. Sorry. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>How about two and a half dollars then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, I was going to make the same offer, but backed out at the last minute. Now that you did so, it looks like we've come to meet in the middle. Shake, pal, it's a deal! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I shall brook no one telling me that saying "American" infers the inclusion of everyone else on three continents. It does NOT! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Rik

03-23-2003, 08:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
It is better that a few die trying to protect a nation than a nation die because someone was to busy to try and protect that nation because the nation didn't seem to be important enough to protect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your words will, I'm sure, be a great comfort to the widowed wives, bereaved parents and orphaned children of the the crew members who have been killed by allied forces.

Rik

Rik

03-23-2003, 08:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
Shake, pal, it's a deal! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You got it!

United States of Mexico? Well, you're just never too old to learn. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Suntied

03-23-2003, 05:17 PM

Arogant (ar'-e-gant) adj: aggressively haughty.
Haughty (ha'-te) disdainfully proud.
Disdainfully (dis-dan) adj; 1. look down upon: scorn: despise. 2. not deign or stoop.

Arrogant Americans... yes.
Disdainfully arrogant... no.

We have no choice, but to be arogant. We are humane and caring and that is why we... Americans... have invaded Iraq. You must teach children... maybe you think the child is more knowledgable.

Arogant Americans???

The United States of Arogants... sounds good to me... The United States of The PROUD!!!!!!!! AMERICA!

Good luck
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

David77

03-23-2003, 06:26 PM

Trailscout,
Thank you very much for your reply letting me know that Mexico is "United States of Mexico", "Unidos Estados de Mexico", which clears up what the woman meant on the train in Mexico.

AussieBeachBoy

03-23-2003, 08:23 PM

Daz said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The last opinion poll actually showed the opposed/support percentage as 50% each way, and support is growing. That was the last Morgan poll as of this morning. Not sure where some of the statistics are coming from on this thread but some have been very creative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As far as I'm aware, my stats were correct as at the time of posting. I've been trying to access the Morgan website for confirmation but it's down at the moment.

It is to be expected that once war has started a number of people who disagreed with it being started in the first place will support its speedy conclusion. Even with 50% each way, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Edited to add: Still can't get on to Morgans but Newspoll this morning published a poll showing 50% in support of war. This is being billed as the first poll to show that support may be overtaking opposition. Unfortunately there was no analysis to indicate on what basis people had changed their opinion, which would be interesting to see.

Snoboy

03-24-2003, 09:23 AM

For the love of God and Country, stop all of this whining. Support the troops in harms way. It is too late to belly-ache...it is time to show a united front for the benefit of our soldiers.

03-24-2003, 09:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
For the love of God and Country, stop all of this whining. Support the troops in harms way. It is too late to belly-ache...it is time to show a united front for the benefit of our soldiers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem confused.... posts that don't agree with yours are not "whining" they are posts with other views and that is all.

You seem to think that some here don't support the troops and that isn't true either. I supported the troops so much that I didn't want them to go to begin with. They are my first concern.

Now play nice and stop attacking other points of view.

03-24-2003, 09:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
What do you suggest gets done? Should we sit back and wait?

This whole thing with saddam is not new, it has been going on for years. He should have not been allowed to go as far as he has.

Maybe we should just sit back until he becomes stronger. Maybe we should wait until he does more or worse things. Maybe we can wait until all hell breaks loose and then maybe it would be O.K. to stop him???????

Nobody likes war, but being nice and asking politely, to not be a menace to society does not seem to work. So we have to do things the hard way. He had his chance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So when do you think we should attack all the other countries that are doing what Saddam is doing?

EricNY

03-24-2003, 10:30 AM

Hey don't get me wrong. I HATE WAR!!I wish it did not come to this.

I have read this post over several times, many have agreed that we are doing the right thing, many think we are not.

My point is, I have yet to see any other options. In my original post that Cyndiann was refering to. My statements were not meant to be argumentative, they were meant to poise the questions How long should we wait????and What other choices do we have???

If there were logical alternatives why hasn't anyone offered these suggestions? Since I have not seen any, I have to aggree with the route that our leaders took. (and keep my fingers crossed that they know what they are doing)

And Cyndiann as far as your question <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> So when do you think we should attack all the other countries that are doing what Saddam is doing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I am not as up on current events and politics as some of the others. I am not aware of any other countries that are doing things to the EXTENT that Saddam is. If there are I hope they reconsider since the recent events have shown that we are not going to sit back and let that happen.

On a final note: This has been a learning experience for me. I appreciate all the veiws expressed by the folks on this board, whether I agree or not. If I disagree I do not think any less of you, and I hope we all continue to get along /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As always ercNY....PEACE

03-24-2003, 12:28 PM

"Well I am not as up on current events and politics as some of the others. I am not aware of any other countries that are doing things to the EXTENT that Saddam is. If there are I hope they reconsider since the recent events have shown that we are not going to sit back and let that happen.

On a final note: This has been a learning experience for me. I appreciate all the veiws expressed by the folks on this board, whether I agree or not. If I disagree I do not think any less of you, and I hope we all continue to get along"

I hope we all do as well.... and I am glad to be able to show you what is going on in the world. Unfortunately it is not so nice. Many of those opposed to the war do so because they are aware of all the torture and false imprisonment that goes on and has been going on for probably as long as people have been on this planet. Our point is that Iraq was not the first offender and not the worst offender. It is the offender with the most to gain by the US by taking it over and it is the offender that can be overtaken very easily. China does horrible things to people and I think the US won't go after them because it would be a lot more difficult to win. I also think that there was no compelling reason given for having to take over Iraq this very week. Yes, Saddam does terrible things but why the interest now? Why did we have to move in last week?

Please read this website (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/regSUM/regSUM?OpenDocument) which has the latest avaliable worldwide update on all the human rights abuses.

Confirmed or possible extrajudicial executions were carried out in 61 countries in 2000.
People were reportedly tortured or ill-treated by security forces, police or other state authorities in 125 countries.
Confirmed or possible prisoners of conscience were held in 63 countries. People were arbitrarily arrested and detained, or in detention without charge or trial in 72 countries. During 2000, at least 1,457 prisoners were executed in 28 countries and 3,058 people were sentenced to death in 65 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures are certainly higher. Armed opposition groups committed serious human rights abuses, such as deliberate and arbitrary killings of civilians, torture and hostage-taking in 42 countries.

I suggest you read the summaries to find out what was found on each continent.

EricNY

03-24-2003, 01:50 PM

Origially posted by Cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I also think that there was no compelling reason given for having to take over Iraq this very week. Yes, Saddam does terrible things but why the interest now? Why did we have to move in last week? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Am I wrong, that Saddam has been warned for over 10 years to stop making chemical and biological weapons?

I see your point as far as the treatment of the population of these countries. I think that the war we waged is more than just about fair treatment. If that was the only reason we went to war I would be against that.

This is much bigger, this is a smaller war in hopes to prevent something bigger and more catostrophic....no? Is that not what started this? That he would not stop creating this sick warfare for use in the future?

I feel that the elimination of a Madman from a power position is not a bad thing for our future.
Unfortunately this comes with consequences, and our country has always been willing to pay.

03-24-2003, 03:48 PM

"Am I wrong, that Saddam has been warned for over 10 years to stop making chemical and biological weapons?

I see your point as far as the treatment of the population of these countries. I think that the war we waged is more than just about fair treatment. If that was the only reason we went to war I would be against that.

This is much bigger, this is a smaller war in hopes to prevent something bigger and more catostrophic....no? Is that not what started this? That he would not stop creating this sick warfare for use in the future?

I feel that the elimination of a Madman from a power position is not a bad thing for our future.
Unfortunately this comes with consequences, and our country has always been willing to pay."

Granted Saddam is a bad man but the agreement he made to limit the arms he had was with the United Nations and not the USA. What has made people mad is that Bush decided to go against the decisions of the UN and start a war anyway. I feel we really didn't need to go against the UN at the present time.

I've not understood why it was necessary to do all this right this minute. Bush said in his speach that there was an immediate danger to the US and he had to go to war but nobody seems to know what this immediate danger is and I've been asking.

Bush could not show the UN what this immediate danger was either and so they voted not to go to war at this time. I feel we should have worked it out within the structure of the United Nations and had just a bit more patience.

Perhaps if they had the US airlines would not be in such a bad place right now. The number of people flying never did come back up to pre- 9/11 numbers and they were all hurting and some are bankrupt. Since the war started lots of people have canceled flights and now the airlines are in even worse shape.

I've been doing some learning myself with this crisis.... learning about how the UN works and all about the Security Council.

EricNY

03-24-2003, 04:27 PM

Very interesting Cyndiann, I see where you are coming from.

Unfortunately, we do not have all the true facts to work with. We are all basing our opinions on pure speculation. Maybe there was an immediate danger,maybe there wasn't. Maybe the UN knew what that danger was, maybe they didn't.

The only thing I do know for sure is the government (for what its worth)< our government has succesfully gotten us this far. A successful country since it began.

I feel that until we TRULEY know what the reasons behind this are, we need to stand behind them.

I, like you, want the truth, but we only know what they tell us. I just pray that we had good reason to do what we did.

I do however refuse to disrespect the decision made by our administration based on speculation.
Soon we will have the facts or the version of the facts that we are allowed to have.

If we then,disagree we can rip the administration to pieces. But for now we know far too little to make assumptions that it is wrong.

Suntied

03-25-2003, 06:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
...But for now we know far too little to make assumptions that it is wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AAAHHHH... a true AMERICAN! Good to hear that ercNY.

j4king

03-25-2003, 07:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
AAAHHHH... a true AMERICAN! Good to hear that ercNY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seeing that you seem to be the resident expert on who is a true American and who isn't, I would like to know what exactly are your criteria for deciding such (or is it simply anyone who happens to agree with you--meaning that you are THE standard for a true American?!).

j4king

03-25-2003, 08:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
My point is, I have yet to see any other options. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You may be absolutlely right that there was/is no other option. However, the administration's efforts at diplomacy were so crude, many are left with the feeling that
1) they were never serious about the diplomatic route
2) whether or not they were serious, if they had not alienated the rest of world from day one they may have been able to put together a much stronger coalition which may have convinced Saddam to shape up
3) and if that didn't convince Saddam to shape up, we would have had much more legitimacy going to war, thereby reducing the possible negative aftermath.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I am not aware of any other countries that are doing things to the EXTENT that Saddam is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I saw an interview with a person who had visited both Iraq and N. Korea, and he said that he found N. Korea much much more repressive. It is appalling the numbers of people who are starving to death in that country, and one reason we hear so little about it is that N. Korea keeps such a tight lid on it [though I imagine if they were being gassed instead of starved there would be a much greater outcry from us]. N. Korea also is a lot further along in developing nuclear weapons than Iraq [and has kicked out all inspectors]. And there is evidence that N. Korea would be willing to sell any type of weapon to anybody for money. So it seems to me it poses just as large a threat and just as large a moral problem, if not greater, than Iraq.

Suntied

03-25-2003, 08:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by j4king:
...meaning that you are THE standard for a true American?!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Arogant aren't I.

I am behind the Country I love... which puts me behind the government that runs her... which puts me behind the men and women that defend her... and behind the Man that every one calls the president of her. If you will read the posts about United Statesians, then I guess I can claim to be a STANDARD for a TRUE AMERICAN without it meaning a thing. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It's an "innocent until proven guilty" concept that I am showing my aproval for. I'm not sure where I got the idea from. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

EricNY

03-25-2003, 08:24 AM

originally posted by jb4king:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> And there is evidence that N. Korea would be willing to sell any type of weapon to anybody for money. So it seems to me it poses just as large a threat and just as large a moral problem, if not greater, than Iraq. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If this is true I would imagine it is being investigated.

AussieBeachBoy

03-25-2003, 01:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>It's an "innocent until proven guilty" concept that I am showing my aproval for. I'm not sure where I got the idea from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, that idea comes from Britain. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Shame that the US can't abide by that idea for the folks down in Guantanamo Bay, and the other prisoners detained indefinitely without charge or trial by the US outside its borders so that the US courts can't help them.

Suntied

03-25-2003, 01:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AussieBeachBoy:
...outside its borders so that the US courts can't help them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, my arogance prevails... they must be detained for good reason... or they would not be in that predicament(sp?).

Sorry... I feel none for them!

03-25-2003, 02:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AussieBeachBoy:
...outside its borders so that the US courts can't help them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, my arogance prevails... they must be detained for good reason... or they would not be in that predicament(sp?).

Sorry... I feel none for them! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would if you had a clue what was going on there. It is estimated that up to half of those being detained are there by mistake but as it stands there is no way given to them to show that. They are not allowed due process of law and aren't labeled as prisoners of war so that they would have the rights given to that group.

You most definitely are arrogant if you think the courts in the US are in any way above board and not ever wrong. Just looking at all the men on death row in Florida that have been let go in the past few years proves that wrong.

In this case these men aren't allowed to be in a court. Is that really right? Please before opening your mouth and inserting foot, read this article written just yesterday about these poor guys. (sorry for another long post)

A Times Editorial

Indefensible detainment
? St. Petersburg Times, published March 24, 2003

--------------------------------------------------

In the chaos of battle, it is easy for innocent people to be captured as the enemy, particularly in a place such as Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida members blended in with the local population. But the Bush administration, in establishing a detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has made no provision for correcting such errors.

In violation of international law and military regulations, our government has labeled the 600 or so detainees held there "enemy combatants" and denied all manner of due process.

Family members of some of the prisoners have resorted to the courts as a way to challenge the legitimacy of their continued confinement. In a case decided this month before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 12 Kuwaitis, two Britons and two Australian prisoners asserted that they were being wrongly held. Families for some of the men said they had been in Afghanistan or Pakistan as aid workers, to get married or for other legitimate reasons. But the court refused to hear their pleas. It ruled that the prisoners at Guantanamo have no access to U.S. courts.

The court relied on a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving German prisoners during World War II. By shutting the courthouse door, the court may be technically accurate -- though the U.S. Supreme Court should be encouraged to rethink this precedent -- but the ruling unfortunately gives the administration the green light to continue to hold Guantanamo prisoners in a way that violates all notions of due process.

International law and the Army's own regulations demand that prisoners' status be independently evaluated by a military tribunal if they so request. The administration has ignored these rules, claiming summarily that no person at Guantanamo is entitled to prisoner-of-war status or to assert that he is an innocent bystander.

Now that we are at war with Iraq, the administration's position becomes even less defensible. American soldiers may soon need a sturdy Geneva Convention to protect them in case of capture. By ignoring its strictures for prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict, the United States is giving cover to other countries that would ignore the rights of Americans.

There are real reasons to suspect that not everyone being held at Guantanamo belongs there. In December, the Los Angeles Times reported that at least 59 Guantanamo detainees are not true members of the Taliban or al-Qaida. According to the newspaper's sources, some of the prisoners are civilian farmers, taxi drivers and cobblers. Back in October, the Pentagon essentially admitted some of the people at Guantanamo were wrongly imprisoned when it released three prisoners back to Afghanistan, saying they were not dangerous and had no intelligence value.

It would take very little for the administration to supply individual military hearings for the Guantanamo detainees. During the last Gulf War, about 1,200 such hearings were held. It would raise our stature in the eyes of the world and demonstrate that we are a nation that lives by the concepts of fairness and due process that we preach to others.

AussieBeachBoy

03-25-2003, 02:44 PM

Suntied, part of the standard system of justice when someone is arrested and charged with an offence is that someone impartial adjudicates upon whether the person is actually guilty or not.

If what was happening at Guantanamo happened to all those arrested there would be an outcry. Essentially, courts would be done away with and no-one would be given the right to put their case as to why they did it. The police case would be accepted without question.

Look at how many hundreds of thousands of people each year are found not guilty of the offences with which they are charged, either by judges or juries of their peers. The accused people who get off may have been arrested for good reason (ie a reasonable case against them), or may not have been (for reasons of bias, prejudice or just plain incompetence). The important point is that the evidence against them gets weighed.

In the case of those imprisoned offshore without trial by the US, you deny them this right. In fact, you effectively maintain that the mere fact they have been arrested means they must be guilty - that is, they are guilty until proven innocent; and are not even given the chance of a trial to prove their innocence.

Suntied

03-25-2003, 04:56 PM

I will have to stand down on the ones being held at Guantanamo. I agree that it may not be just. However, a greater evil had been in play in that situation and those who suffered there have no chance of release from that evil. Just a reminder.
Like I said, I will stand down.

All that has nothing to do with why the war has started and I back our country. You are saying that because, we have detained without justice in your mind, that you will now retain a poor image of the man/ones that did the detaining without giving them/him time to prove himself innocent. Let me see... two wrongs make a

AussieBeachBoy

03-25-2003, 09:14 PM

Suntied, your post seems to have been cut short.

I agree with you that the detentions in Guantanamo are not directly connected with the present actions against Iraq; although the topic is in line with the overall topic of this thread.

The point I was trying to make is this: Governments, and government authorities, do make mistakes sometimes. It is generally accepted in society that we do not accept without question the allegations of the police against accused people - we afford them the right of a trial, and often the police are proved wrong. We should not blindly accept the allegations against those in Guantanamo...and also should not blindly accept that the Government will always act in the best interests of the country and that they should be unquestioningly backed, including in matters such as the war with Iraq.

03-25-2003, 09:49 PM

Dude you are just making way too much sense!

Snoboy

03-25-2003, 09:56 PM

Here is a thought:
Subject: FW: DENNIS MILLER
>
> Article in Wichita Falls paper by Dennis Miller
>
> All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war
> against Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning
> like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from
> both sides but I have detected a hint of confusion
> from some of you.
>
> As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of
> the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me
> about the KISS method ("keep it simple, stupid!).
> Therefore, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply
> this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope
> is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a
> few important facts.
>
> Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion
> on this important issue
>
> 1) Out of President Bush and Saddam Hussein ...
> Hussein is the bad guy.
>
> 2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the
> right thing keep, this in mind, they have Libya
> heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading
> the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math
> here.
>
> 3) If you use Google search and type in "French
> military victories," your reply will be "did you mean
> French military defeats?"
>
> 4) If your only anti-war slogan is "no war for oil,"
> sue your school district for allowing you to slip
> through the cracks and robbing you of the education
> you deserve.
>
> 5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations
> approval before they try to kill us.
>
> 6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the
> President. He plays one on TV.
>
> 7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an
> "infidel!" In addition, Bin Laden wants you dead, too
>
> 8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy"
> but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging
> out with the Dell computer dude.
>
> 9) We are not trying to liberate them.
>
> 10) Whether you are for military action or against it,
> our young men and women overseas are fighting for us
> to defend our right to speak out. We all need to
> support them without reservation.
>
> I hope this helps. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Suntied

03-25-2003, 10:02 PM

Aussiebeachboy and Cyndiann,
I must tell you both that I am wrong. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I might be arogant, but when you put it that way Aussie, I must pack my bags. Very good point... and you are talking to a die hard AMERICAN! Guess I have to re-think my views on patrionage. How much does land cost in Australia? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Maybe seeing you soon,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Suntied

03-25-2003, 10:08 PM

Snoboy,
I LOVE YOU MAN.... NO REALLY I LOVE YOU MAN... SERIOUSLY, I LOVE YOU MAN. One Bud Light for Snoboy!!!!!! It is funny... but true! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

03-26-2003, 04:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Aussiebeachboy and Cyndiann,
I must tell you both that I am wrong. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I might be arogant, but when you put it that way Aussie, I must pack my bags. Very good point... and you are talking to a die hard AMERICAN! Guess I have to re-think my views on patrionage. How much does land cost in Australia? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Maybe seeing you soon,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for being nice enough to admit you could be wrong. I love this country too, I just don't agree with the prez and don't like what he's done to this country's freedoms. Between him and Ashcroft they have torn our constitution apart.

I will stop now while I am ahead. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

David77

03-26-2003, 05:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AussieBeachBoy:
The point I was trying to make is this: Governments, and government authorities, do make mistakes sometimes. It is generally accepted in society that we do not accept without question the allegations of the police against accused people - we afford them the right of a trial, and often the police are proved wrong. We should not blindly accept the allegations against those in Guantanamo...and also should not blindly accept that the Government will always act in the best interests of the country and that they should be unquestioningly backed, including in matters such as the war with Iraq. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excellent post! Very true! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>P.S. To be fair to the very good men and women in out local police force, I must add that I do not know how often they are mistaking, nor do I know that they are often proven wrong here in our community.

j4king

03-26-2003, 08:14 AM

Regardless of one's views, I think the following program may be of interest.

Thomas L. Friedman Reporting: Searching for the Roots of 9/11, premieres Wednesday, March 26, at 10 p.m. ET/PT on the Discovery Channel.

As I have said before, Friedman supports the war, although not the way we went about it.

Suntied

03-26-2003, 10:14 AM

Cynndian,
You are very welcome... yet, I don't quite think you caught the sarcasm... Snoboys post said it all.

Sorry, but I really am a die hard AMERICAN. I guess I think about our country in the same way that the brave men and women fighting for it do. You could tell me every bad thing about our government and it's misuse of law, power, and prosperity that you can think of, but I would still defend her to my death. But, that's just me.

American,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

j4king

03-26-2003, 10:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
I guess I think about our country in the same way that the brave men and women fighting for it do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As shocking as it may seem, not all soldiers/veterans hold the same views you do! If you don't believe me, check out the following site: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

AussieBeachBoy

03-26-2003, 12:38 PM

Suntied, I'm not trying to say you are wrong for supporting the war. While I don't agree with the war myself, and will put my case, I respect your right to put yours in favour of the war.

All I'm trying to say is that you should come to this decision by analysing the evidence yourself, rather than just blindly backing your government.

Patriotism is one thing, but blind subservience is jingoism - not a healthy thing. Governments do sometimes act contrary to a country's best interests. It is possible to be both a patriot and oppose the government's policies.

03-26-2003, 04:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Cynndian,
You are very welcome... yet, I don't quite think you caught the sarcasm... Snoboys post said it all.

Sorry, but I really am a die hard AMERICAN. I guess I think about our country in the same way that the brave men and women fighting for it do. You could tell me every bad thing about our government and it's misuse of law, power, and prosperity that you can think of, but I would still defend her to my death. But, that's just me.

American,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are throwing several concepts together as if they are one and they are not. That is the difference. I support the US, I love our soldiers. That is separate from opinions on the government and on who is in office and what kind of job they are doing.

As Aussie Beachboy said, some people are blindly supporting things they have no knowledge of so education is very important. I read as much as I can and there is lots I still want to find out like how the UN works and how it got started.

Suntied

03-26-2003, 08:28 PM

J4king,Aussie and Cyndiann,

Yes blindly following leadership is exactly what the Iraqies are doing (the ones giving resistance) and it?s not at all healthy. My point in following our leader... or leaders by the way the government has been set up... is that it is very difficult for them to do something without a majority acceptance. Therefore, since they have many more facts of the actual problems before them, and the problems to come, I feel it is better to trust their decisions than mine, or yours, as they have more knowledge of the facts at hand. When Paul Revere made his historic ride no one questioned or debated that the "The British are coming" was true or false. If this debate were so lop-sided that more facts were showing the wrong intensions of my government, than I may feel differently. It is not lop-sided and pondering on small, unsubstantiated facts to see a reason for debate seams futile.

As I have posted on this forum quite often? most of you know that I am not a serious person? everything can be a joke to me? except my patronage to my country and the extraordinary force fighting something that MANY have decided to be legitimate.

For which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

God bless the USA! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

03-26-2003, 08:44 PM

"If this debate were so lop-sided that more facts were showing the wrong intensions of my government, than I may feel differently. It is not lop-sided and pondering on small, unsubstantiated facts to see a reason for debate seams futile."

I have a whole lot more I haven't posted.... and I don't call holding hundreds of people in limbo as small. I guess it is all in the viewpoint as to what is significant and what is not.

Suntied

03-26-2003, 09:08 PM

AAAWWWWW... the poor little Talaban that have done nothing to harm anyone. They might be sorry now, but I BET THEY WERE CHEERING WHEN THOSE TOWERS FELL!!!!

Limbo... that is Loco(sp?)

Come on Cydiann, we have a few reasons for their detention if you remember right. I call hundreds very SMALL compared to the THOUSANDS!

Now in Iraq... there are MILLIONS that are suffering.

GO GO GO USA!
Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

nudeM

03-26-2003, 09:29 PM

I just read everyones input, and I must add something else. SADDAM is nothing but a ruthless leader. I don't care if the Geneva Convention dictates his (or our) accords in accordance with their agreements, but, by the actions that these soldiers have seen these past couple of days, it is just a reminder that these ruthless BASTARDS have only one thing in common: Win the war at all means possibe, whether it means bringing in innocent civilians into harms way, or by "tricking" the coalition into believing that the retreating soldiers, they are in part. part of the populations. As far as I am concerned, these people need to be totatally eliminated.

As I was in the military about 23 years ago,we were taught a different type aggressive action, but it was taught to be within the accords of the Genova Convention. These people have no other accords, but which they adminster to, and it has no bearing to the "Laws of War".

Vote myself as being a "Patton type" leader, and just wipe everything in sight on the way to the major objective. May God bless our servicemen and women. and wish them a joyful return to the United States of America.

j4king

03-26-2003, 10:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
God bless the USA! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>May God bless the rest of the world too (or is that unpatriotic? :-)

Suntied, just out of curiosity, what is your view on the Vietnam war and how it was handled by our government?

Suntied

03-26-2003, 10:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by j4king:
Suntied, just out of curiosity, what is your view on the Vietnam war and how it was handled by our government? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am 39 years old. I have known quite a few vets in my time and have had some knowledge of the way that our government handled war. For the most part... from what I know... POORLY! As if it were a second hand show, where something else must have been more important to them at the time. We were far more powerful then the foe, yet politics seemed to dictate the amount of forces that could be used. By age you can tell that the war was over before I was eligable and too old before Desert Storm. A peaceful time in the world which we should all be thankful for. However, if I had been called, I would have put my life on the line then and there.

The politics do not seem to be stopping us in this endevour. We have all of the backing needed to make the PEACE that will and must follow. It may be 10 months, 10 years, or 110 for all we know, but we are comencing war to make PEACE!

For that I am PROUD to be an AMERICAN!

God Bless the United States of America!
The POWER to make PEACE!
Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

03-27-2003, 02:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
AAAWWWWW... the poor little Talaban that have done nothing to harm anyone. They might be sorry now, but I BET THEY WERE CHEERING WHEN THOSE TOWERS FELL!!!!

Limbo... that is Loco(sp?)

Come on Cydiann, we have a few reasons for their detention if you remember right. I call hundreds very SMALL compared to the THOUSANDS!

Now in Iraq... there are MILLIONS that are suffering.

GO GO GO USA!
Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your post is very heartless. I wish you could walk in their shoes just for a couple of days. We have no reason at all for detaining many of them, none at all. Keeping them in limbo shows the world we are no better than those we wish to take out of power. Just another bully....

Suntied

03-27-2003, 07:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
We have no reason at all for detaining many of them, none at all. Just another bully.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know this, are you really one of the women that were over there in Afganastan that had to cover every inch of your skin (you've come along way), and not speak, and God only knows what other torchures. They stood and fought for what they believed in and were defeated. We didn't just grab a few people and put them under lock and key... we WON.

The idea is to keep us, all of us from being in their shoes.

03-27-2003, 07:47 AM

Ok then you say you love your soldiers so much huh? You know that some of them have been taken prisoner by the Iraqi's right? Don't you want them treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention(do you even know what that is and why it exists?)?

You are the one that has been bringing up how nasty the Iraq people are, so what do you think they may be doing to those held captive? Does Bush really have enough nerve to say to the world that those prisoners of war had better be treated humanely when he's not doing the same thing? Should he be allowed to say "Hey, you need to follow the rules!" when he's not following them either?

Yes we won in Afganistan. What does that have to do with treating prisoners of war as prisoners of war?

And don't tell me they aren't the same because Bush has worked hard to link the invasion of Iraq with the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11.

I think you need to do some reading..... (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/5473065.htm)

Rik

03-28-2003, 12:42 PM

On the subject of the Geneva Covention it strikes me as a tad hypocritical for Bush and Blair to condemn Iraq for riding roughshod over international agreements when this whole bloody war was started by the US and UK riding roughshod over international agreements.

Rik

Suntied

03-29-2003, 01:17 AM

"Thus far, U.S. courts have agreed with the administration's contention."

Cydiann... did you miss this line in your link? Is the OPINION that you required me to read of a higher plain than the "U.S. Courts"? He/she can call a Judge/s wrong and I need to bow down to your inclination that the Bush Administration is just as evil as Saddam... how much does land cost in Iraq? Maybe I'll forget about Australia and move there instead. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As far as the prisoners of war in Iraq... every man/woman that goes into battle has been trained to deal with the harshness of capture or death and are willing to do so/either for the country that they love. That is called BRAVERY, and one that should fall of such fate is called a HERO. I encourage concepts, bravery and heroism, as dignified human personality traits. From what I know, the fighters (not the people) in Iraq are fighting out of fear, which is the opposite of the for mentioned human traits. Do you see the difference? They fear execution, torture and many other unspeakable acts that will be imposed on them by their leaders, who do that out of fear of their leader, who do that out of fear of Saddam Insain. Sorry... I win. You can't beat bravery. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I really enjoyed our discussion, but I still think Snoby said it all with the Dennis Miller quote. So... see ya. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Rik

03-29-2003, 01:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
As far as the prisoners of war in Iraq... every man/woman that goes into battle has been trained to deal with the harshness of capture or death and are willing to do so/either for the country that they love. That is called BRAVERY, and one that should fall of such fate is called a HERO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...or maybe a MARTYR.

52 Iraqis (including 6 children) were killed yesterday when a bomb fell on a market place in Baghdad. I wonder if their wives, husbands, sons, daughters and parents are grateful that the US is liberating Iraq.

Rik

Suntied

03-29-2003, 01:42 AM

Rik,
The war was started by Saddam Husaine, he did not comply with the mandatory UN sanctions, and refused to admit it.

The US, UK, Spain, and Australia have just decided to stand up for the rest of the worlds safety... good thing were weren't counting on you!!! Have a bloody good-day!

You left me hanging on the Arogant American!

Suntied

03-29-2003, 02:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
52 Iraqis (including 6 children) were killed yesterday when a bomb fell on a market place in Baghdad. I wonder if their wives, husbands, sons, daughters and parents are grateful that the US is liberating Iraq.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Says WHO!!!! That is my point!!!! Did you see it, know the SIX childeren personally or did you just hear about IT!!! GEEEEEZ, we are fighting a war not arresting a parking ticket offender! It isn't easy and the people that may loose loved ones on the American side should look at the life lost as the BEST WAY TO DIE... with honor. You sir, will die some day, I hope the loved ones that you leave behind can think of your death that way. When you do look up my grandfather and ask him if he is sorry about fighting for his country in WWII. I'm sure, from your posts, that you are far too intelligent to beleive anything that may be broadcast on Iraqie TV.

EricNY

03-29-2003, 02:47 AM

The one thing that has to be remembered is that this is a truly cruel man. Sadaam is a heartless person.He is using his own people as shields. He is holding children to force the parents to fight. He is hiding soldiers in hospitals, along with 3,000 chemical suites. What do they need them for, halloween?

It is very possible that much of the information we see in the media is untrue. Rik you yourself said that those that beleive all that they see in the media has there heads buried in the sand.

I don't care what anyone thinks we are NOT the villians in this case

Rik

03-29-2003, 07:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
The war was started by Saddam Husaine, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that's just plain silly talk. The war was started by George Bush (in defiance of the will of the UN). Even Bush would admit that he fired the first shot although of course he blames everyone else (especially the French) for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You left me hanging on the Arogant American! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whether or not you believe that the US takes an arrogant stance in its relations with the rest of the world; whether or not such a charge is justified, it doesn't alter the fact that many people, and whole countries, view the US in that way. To dismiss such a view as irrelevant is in itself an act of arrogance.

Rik

Rik

03-29-2003, 08:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Says WHO!!!! That is my point!!!! Did you see it, know the SIX childeren personally or did you just hear about IT!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It has been widely reported although I just looked for it on the CNN web site and couldn't find any reference to it. However if you want to read reports try the BBC web site at www.bbc.co.uk/news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news) where you will find the coverage a little less one sided than as reported by CNN.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> It isn't easy and the people that may loose loved ones on the American side should look at the life lost as the BEST WAY TO DIE... with honor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So let me get this right. Your view is that the men, women and children who lost their lives in a maket place in Baghdad died with honour?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You sir, will die some day, I hope the loved ones that you leave behind can think of your death that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well let's hope I'm bombed by a cruise missile while out shopping. What an honour that would be. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Rik

03-29-2003, 08:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
It is very possible that much of the information we see in the media is untrue. Rik you yourself said that those that beleive all that they see in the media has there heads buried in the sand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I absolutely agree that you shouldn't believe everything you read but you have to take a view as to what to believe and that often depends on the source and whether or not it is confirmed independantly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I don't care what anyone thinks we are NOT the villians in this case <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You state that as a fact whereas it's really just an opinion. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is a villain of the highest order but equally there is no doubt that many people in the world do believe that the US and the UK are the villains in that they agressively attacked another country when diplomatic efforts to achieve disarmament of Iraq were brought to a premature end. We are now being told that this war will take "as long as it takes" which is an odd thing to say when it was seen that for weapons inspections to take "as long as they take" was unacceptable.

Rik

Phil

03-29-2003, 10:09 AM

OH WELL, What the hell are we talking about? This is WAR not a party. Sometimes the people are killed. So what!!! When they blow up our people I guess it is alwright. GROW UP smell the roses. If someone dies wrongly it is a shame but I will not loose any sleep over it. We need to back up our troops. GOD BLESS AMERICIA.

Rik

03-29-2003, 11:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phil:
If someone dies wrongly it is a shame but I will not loose any sleep over it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The callous disregard for life exposed by your remark leaves me speechless (for once!).

Rik

j4king

03-29-2003, 11:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Yes we won in Afganistan. What does that have to do with treating prisoners of war as prisoners of war? And don't tell me they aren't the same because Bush has worked hard to link the invasion of Iraq with the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the following excerpt from the latest briefing at Doha further underscores the problem we have gotten ourselves into by not treating the prisoners at Guantanamo as POWs.

Q: Are there any indications or intelligence reports actually to indicate that al Qaeda elements are fighting side by side with irregular forces in Iraq?

GEN. RENUART: Well, a few days ago, General Franks mentioned what he describes as the nexus of terror, when you take a regime who would support terrorism and mix it with the fanatics of organizations like al Qaeda. We have conducted some operations in the north that are -- that have been targeted at elements that we believe are aligned with al Qaeda...

Q: Yes, Paul Hunter from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Just back to the terminology, this notion of terrorist organizations we've been talking about and terror tactics, and yesterday, it was terrorist death squads. Does that -- how does that effect how people who are captured from these groups will be treated? Do they lose their Geneva Convention POW rights?

GEN. RENUART: It's a good question. I'm not sure that I'm capable of giving you a technical, legal answer. We have the authority to engage as military targets both military and paramilitary organizations, and we continue to treat all of these as hostile forces.

Q: So how do you decide who's who, I guess?

GEN. RENUART: Once they are captured, they will -- interrogation will determine what their appropriate status would be, and they'll be treated appropriately. I'm really not able to give you a more technical, legal answer.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/transcripts/20030331.htm

j4king

03-29-2003, 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
I feel it is better to trust their [our leaders] decisions than mine, or yours... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, the Bush gov't has done nothing to earn my trust. In fact quite the opposite. Allow me to quote from Jonathan Alter:

...I happen to think this war was inevitable and therefore necessary. Better to get the job done now. But there's something sick about what the whole thing is doing to the values of our government. As we marvel over military prowess, let's not forget about other, less covered stories:

1) that the National Security Agency bugged the delegation of every other member of the U.N. Security Council except Britain;

2) that the CIA was either too incompetent or too politically corrupted to spot a crude forgery of a document tying the Iraqi regime to purchases of nuclear materials in Africa;

3) that the president of the United States is so petulant and so oblivious to the basic diplomatic requirements of the job that he has not spoken to the president of France for a month.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/889519.asp?0dm=O1FPO&cp1=1

Suntied

03-29-2003, 12:43 PM

You Anti-Bushians (you know who you are /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) are forgetting that the US government voted and approved military action if the deadline for Saddam to disarm was not met. He did not meet the dead line, the extended dead line, and the further 48 hour dead line. That was the first shot fired... President Bush has the authority to maintain those dead lines... or should I say the guts to follow through. Saddam was told it was going to happen if he did not comply, and he thought we would not follow through with our demands.... well BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!!! Guess Hussain was wrong! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

God Bless the USA and the WORLD that it is helping... repeatedly.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Suntied

03-29-2003, 12:49 PM

Now Iraq's Vice President is promising terrorist attacks through out the world like the one today! This has no bearing on 9-11 at all I suppose? I love it when they prove us right! We vowed to whipe out terrorism in 2001 and we are obviously still working on that by attacking Saddam!

Rik

03-29-2003, 01:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Now Iraq's Vice President is promising terrorist attacks through out the world like the one today! This has no bearing on 9-11 at all I suppose? I love it when they prove us right! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hang on there. The US declared war on Iraq so Iraq is at war with the US. Right?

The Vice President of Iraq says "We will use any means to kill our enemy in our land and we will follow the enemy into its land...". This of course sounds like rhetoric but haven't the US used any means to kill its enemy?

What is the difference between the US killing people in a market place or bombing the Baghdad TV studios and Iraq threatening to do the same to the US?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>We vowed to whipe out terrorism in 2001 and we are obviously still working on that by attacking Saddam <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I admire your optimism but I fear that the current war with Iraq, rather than wiping out terrorism, will significantly increase terrorism. As I've said elsewhere there is a huge and growing anti-American feeling in the world today especially (but not exclusively) in the middle east and there seems little doubt that many terrorist groups will use this upsurge in emotion to justify their own agression towards the west. Terrorism is not something you can wipe out by attacking countries for by its very nature it is not necessarily state sponsored and doesn't have traditional organizational structures. For example if you kill off Osama Bin Laden you'll get a dozen more Bin Ladens rising from his ashes.

The only way to effectively prevent terrorism is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism. Bombing Saddam, fun though it may be for some, is not the answer.

Rik

Phil

03-29-2003, 01:56 PM

Well it didn't keep you speechless for long. Who cares if there are people or goverments that don't like us. They can kiss our a##. When they want money or need help let them call on someone that agrees with them. We have for too long cared what people or goverments say about us. They call us names they spit on us but when they need money or help they call us and we are stupid enough to help them. Well from now on we should spit on them.
Like our president said you are FOR us or you are AGAINST us. NO middle ground. GET OFF THE FENCE!!!

I LOVE THE FRENCH "THEY TASTE LIKE CHICKEN"

Suntied

03-29-2003, 02:01 PM

Rik,
Amazingly enough, I agree that we are going to cause more terrorism by attacking Muslim countries, but the fact remains that the Iraq regime needs to be wiped out, and the terrorist threat announced by there vice president makes it clear that they are terrorist based. We have a lot more work to do when this war is over.
That bomb you claim hit a civilian area does not make me believe that a bomb was targeted for a civilian area. To assume that the civilians that may be killed by the coalition forces are targeted is absurd. For the regime to claim to plan to attack civilians as a means of warfare is insane! The morals of these leaders are completely ridiculous? and you are picking small instances, or mistakes, or mishaps? and defending the ridiculous redirect of these leaders that we are fighting to rid the world of. Maybe that cruise missile will make you a hero, but protesting this war as our heroes move into Baghdad? certainly does NOT.

Suntied

03-29-2003, 02:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phil:
They can kiss our a##.... ...I LOVE THE FRENCH "THEY TASTE LIKE CHICKEN" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AAAHHHHHAHAHA! we may be arrogant Americans, but we are funny!

That was great Phil!
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Rik

03-29-2003, 02:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phil:
Who cares if there are people or goverments that don't like us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously not you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I LOVE THE FRENCH "THEY TASTE LIKE CHICKEN" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In its desire to boycott all things French perhaps the US should return the Statue of Liberty to France. Maybe they could replace it with a more fitting symbol of America - an oil tanker perhaps!

Rik

Phil

03-29-2003, 02:38 PM

WHO CARES, They can have it back. What is it anyway just a pile of brass/bronze. Unless there is a feeling behind it it is just a pile of junk. Remember we were their second choice they first offered it to the Egyptians. Take it back, do you need some donations? Just let me know where to send them.

Rah! Rah! Bomb them first before they bomb us.!!!!!

Rik

03-29-2003, 02:48 PM

Hey Suntied,

Your arguments are getting more coherent. You're getting me worried! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree that it is unlikely that the coalition forces have deliberately bombed civilian targets but that doesn't lessen the tragedy for those involved but somehow there's the feeling that because they're Iraqis their lives are worth less than Americans.

Those American and British who have been killed by accidents and the (ludicrously named) friendly fire are being treated as heros when in fact they are as much victims of this tragic war as those Iraqi children. I say victims because they have been deliberately put at risk by politicians whose only personal risk is that they might lose votes at the next election.

However let's not also forget that even the so called legitimate targets in the centre of Baghdad would all contain civilians and, in the case of the Information Ministry building which was bombed by Tomahawk missiles, foreign journalists. The US continues to say that objective of this war is to liberate the Iraqi people but has no compunction in killing a load of them on the way. Some people obviously believe that this is an acceptable price to pay - to me it seems madness, not to mention, utterly hypocritical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Maybe that cruise missile will make you a hero, but protesting this war as our heroes move into Baghdad? certainly does NOT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't claim that protesting this war makes me a hero: far from it. I am simply articulating a view which is shared by many people although probably not by the majority of US citizens. I am not anti-war on principle but I am firmly opposed to this particular war which, to me, seems riddled with hypocracy, arrogance, political subtefuge and commercial interest.

The propaganda being put out (by both sides) makes it really difficult to be completely objective but ultimately we all have to analyse the information we have and come down on one side or the other.

Rik

Suntied

03-29-2003, 03:29 PM

Rik,
My side is to be a patriot in the country I live in which I believe is BASICLY humane, decent, and honest. I could be wrong, but for me to disapprove of something as extreme as this war and the lives put on the line for it, in the BIG picture, seems ludicrous. Once again? small instances of untruths or allegations of corruption do not give me the right to defy the idea of a good movement for the world?s safety. I do not feel that you or the small countries like France that disapprove of this war have a right to do so based on the insignificant theories of corruption and personal vendetta that you keep backing.

The big picture is? Saddam is a mad man, we all agree there, and the US was attacked on 9-11, which put us in a defensive state of alert. Our defense has looked for potential threats upon our homeland and went to the UN to stop the mad man from being able to pose a threat in the future. The UN failed? we will not. For our freedom and defense, we fight as heroes with the utmost bravery and arrogance.

Thanks for telling me I?m more coherent (didn?t know I ever was incoherent) and thanks for calling me arrogant? I am an American? what did you expect? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Frank R

03-29-2003, 04:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
In its desire to boycott all things French perhaps the US should return the Statue of Liberty to France. Maybe they could replace it with a more fitting symbol of America - an oil tanker perhaps!
Rik[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure Rik, just talk the French into returning, alive, the ten's of thousands of American soldiers buried over there who had to die to keep France free, since they were too incompetent or cowardly to do it themselves. France should think about paying back the hugh sums of money we gave them to rebuild after WW II since they appear to want to have nothing to do with us. It appears they are too busy entertaining mass murders from Africa to speak to our President. Lastly, may I add that I too am opposed to going to war since Congress has not declared war and I, for one, think that keeping our Constitution intact is more important then some little tin pot killer in a big sand box.

j4king

03-29-2003, 05:31 PM

For those who see Saddam as the greatest evil/threat facing the world, here is a different view from some Iraqis who have experienced Saddam's tactics first hand.

"The Turkish government has been far worse to the Kurds than Saddam has," one well-educated Kurd said bitterly. His comment stunned me, for Turkey never used poison gas or conducted mass executions as Saddam did, but one Kurd after another said the same thing. They described past Turkish military techniques like raping wives in front of husbands, or assembling villagers to watch men being tied and dragged to their death behind tanks, and they noted that Turkey had been less tolerant of Kurdish language and culture than Saddam.

by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRIS.html?th

Suntied

03-29-2003, 07:42 PM

Kurds are a citizen of the country called Kurd... never heard of it. Another explanation of the evil that must be desolved... not Muslums, just bad middle easterners.

EricNY

03-29-2003, 09:36 PM

originally posted by Rik: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The only way to effectively prevent terrorism is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism. Bombing Saddam, fun though it may be for some, is not the answer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is the answer, Rik?

EricNY

03-29-2003, 09:40 PM

Rik said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> In its desire to boycott all things French perhaps the US should return the Statue of Liberty to France. Maybe they could replace it with a more fitting symbol of America <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I forget, why did the french give us Americans The Statue of Liberty?

Rik

03-30-2003, 01:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
originally posted by Rik: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The only way to effectively prevent terrorism is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism. Bombing Saddam, fun though it may be for some, is not the answer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is the answer, Rik? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said, the answer is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism. Or to put it more bluntly, to understand why the US is so hated by people who become so desperate that they are prepared to actively seek their own death (through suicide bombings and the like) to help rid the world of what they perceive as a tyrant.

America sees the answer in spending billions of dollars bombing Iraq. The US military budget for 2004 is st at $2.23 trillion (yes trillion dollars). Just to put that in perspective it works out at over $4 million per minute. Compare this with the US overseas aid budget which works out at just over $3000 per minute ($5bn over 3 years from 2004) and you begin and you begin to see what the rest of the world sees.

Just think what a fraction of the defense budget could be used for around the world which would enhance America's reputation and, in consequence, reduce or even eliminate the threat of terrorism.

Rik

Rik

03-30-2003, 01:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
I forget, why did the french give us Americans The Statue of Liberty? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Touch?. It was a long time ago so it's no wonder you can't remember. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Frank R

03-30-2003, 04:38 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rik:
[QUOTE] The only way to effectively prevent terrorism is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism... As I said, the answer is to understand and wipe out the causes of terrorism.
America sees the answer in spending billions of dollars bombing Iraq. The US military budget for 2004 is st at $2.23 trillion (yes trillion dollars).

Just to set the record straight, the total US budget is less than 2 trillion dollars, about 1.8 trillion. President Bush has asked Congress for a total of $75 billion for the war (period ending 09-30-03). Military spending is about 25% of the total budget.
Next, to "wipe out the causes of terrorism". OK, what are the causes of terrorism? Bin Laden has been very wealthy his entire life so it can't be poverty. Take a look at a map of the middle east sometime from the Palestinian point of view. One country is missing. It does not exist in the world of the Palestinians. Take a guess which country it is. So I guess one cause of terrorism is that we Americans do not like to see an entire race of people wiped off the face of the earth. We stopped Hitler (while not for this reason but we stopped him anyway) and have helped stopped others. If this makes us evil, so be it. I would much rather be considered "evil" than to stand by while others are being murdered because they are Jewish, Polish, or even Frence.

AussieBeachBoy

03-30-2003, 03:00 PM

There is a logical flaw in the argument that 'disarming' Saddam in purported reliance on the UN resolutions requiring him to disarm will have a 'flow on' effect in combating terrorism.

Our Prime Minister used this as his key argument in favour of the war when he addressed the nation 2 weeks ago. It went something like this:
* Saddam has weapons he shouldn't have (debatable but let's assume it's correct)
* Saddam may give those weapons to a terrorist like Bin Laden (though there's no evidence he has in the past)
* If we let Saddam keep his weapons we are sending the wrong message to other rogue states. We must disarm Saddam to show that other states thinking of giving weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) to terrorists that they shouldn't do it

Can you spot the flaw? The only reason why Saddam is not permitted to have WMDs is because of the ceasefire arrangements following the Gulf War. Most other countries in the world have no such restriction. It is somewhat laughable that the US, Britain and many other countries have WMDs and throw up their arms in horror at the thought that other regimes may have a fraction of the arsenal that they have, even though it's completely legitimate.

Let's look, for example, at Pakistan, which has many weapons of mass destruction (far more than Iraq is likely to have), and where a large percentage of the population is supportive of Bin Laden. Pakistan is not nuclear-capable (yet). No-one talks of disarming Pakistan despite the enormous threat it potentially poses by way of its potential to assist terrorists. And North Korea is worse still, with its weapons capable of delivery directly to the US. The weaponry of both these countries poses far more of a risk, by way of terrorism or otherwise, to the west than that of Iraq.

Face it - this argument about the Iraq war being about minimising the terrorist threat is a furphy.

Suntied

03-30-2003, 05:26 PM

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie...

Peaceful country... weapons for protection from unpeaceful country.

Unpeaceful country... No weapons to threaten peaceful country.

DUH!

AussieBeachBoy

03-30-2003, 08:05 PM

Suntied, the first problem with what you say is - the weapons Iraq had posed no threat to the US.

First, Hussein never threatened to use them against the US (except in war).

Second, they are incapable of reaching the US, unless someone takes them a whole lot closer.

The second problem is - exactly how do you define "peaceful" and "unpeaceful"? I wouldn't define the US, given its long history of forceful and unprovoked intervention in the affairs of other countries, as "peaceful". SHould the US be stripped of all weapons? I doubt you'd agree. And just because a country is "unpeaceful", do you think it should be stripped of all weapons and left unable to defend itself against other "unpeaceful" countries that have not been disarmed yet?

I gave the example above of Pakistan, which has been locked in war with India for several years. Do you think Pakistan should be disarmed? If not, why not? They are clearly far more "unpeaceful" than Iraq.

Simplistic statements often overlook the complexities of the problem.

AussieBeachBoy

03-30-2003, 08:44 PM

On another note -

Shortly after the war began there was some discussion about opinion polls.

I finally was able to get onto the Roy Morgan website and found a very interesting article.

Here's an excerpt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>In the first international qualitative poll since the war began in Iraq, Roy Morgan International has surveyed opinions of the United Nations' stand on Iraq, and explored the reasons behind the views of 1,660 randomly selected people across the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, about five days after the war began, March 24-26, 2003.

When asked whether the United Nations should have supported military action against Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein or not, 81% of Americans said yes, as did 66% of Britons, 61% of Australians and 50% of New Zealanders. However, the reasons given for their views show how deeply divided these nations are - on the issue of Iraq - and on the role of the United Nations, America, and democratic countries, in enforcing world peace.

There were diverse reasons given for the belief that the UN should have supported military action against Iraq. However, underpinning many of the reasons given was a fundamental belief that the fight - against Saddam Hussein, for democracy, and for world peace - was right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now, of course, mere numbers mean nothing - questions of morality and ethics aren't decided on a "morality rules" basis. But I think the article makes interesting reading as it sets out the wide range of views that people across the four countries in question have on the topic, and the different ways people have interpreted the 'evidence' put before them. I thought that this article might help give all of us an insight into the wildly diverging views on this issue.

For the full article click on the link below.
Article on attitudes to war (http://www.roymorgan.com/index.cfm?0A329764-50BA-1DC3-65AB-6FD5CE2DDB58&moduleID=100000020&morganPoll=100000225&docType=2)

Suntied

03-30-2003, 08:59 PM

The problem is the simplexes of the complexities. You are very intelligent in the ways things have come about Aussie, but you make it much more complex than it is. Look back at what I said about the big picture... that is the simplexes of it. Pakistan helped us in the fight against the Talaban... mass murderers ruling a country with fear. Now, we, as the super power, have threatened Saddam to disarm, and he didn't. We did not threaten Pakistan or India... we threatened Iraq. The leader of that country feels he is brave enough to take us/US on in war and we are brave enough to oblige. I'm thankful we have other countries like yours to lend a hand. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The problem is; people that don't back their HEROES out there in Iraq who are doing what they vowed to do when they signed up for the Military... die for love of country! You, would obviously not do that. If I could I would, but I can?t so I defend my country by telling you non-patriots the BIG PICTURE! Support our heroes, not your petty complaints!

For Love of Country,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

EricNY

03-30-2003, 09:08 PM

Rik said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> the US overseas aid budget which works out at just over $3000 per minute ($5bn over 3 years from 2004) and you begin and you begin to see what the rest of the world sees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That seems like a whole lot of money that we give to those in need. How bad can us horrible Americans be giving away that kind of cash?

How much money does other countries give in foreign aide?

AussieBeachBoy

03-30-2003, 09:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The problem is; people that don't back their HEROES out there in Iraq who are doing what they vowed to do when they signed up for the Military... die for love of country! You, would obviously not do that. If I could I would, but I can?t so I defend my country by telling you non-patriots the BIG PICTURE! Support our heroes, not your petty complaints! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Suntied, you are right that I would not be prepared to sign up to the military. This is because I am not prepared to commit myself to lay down my life for a cause which I do not think is just. In particular, I do not think the Australians who die in Iraq are necessarily "dying for their country". They are dying because of the result of the orders they were given, which are not necessarily good for the country.

Your final sentence suggests that support for the troops is inconsistent with opposition to the war. As I think most people recognise, that is just not so. I do 'support' the Australian soliders, to the extent that they are doing their job, and doing so in accordance with the Geneva convention. I do not, however, support the decision of the Government to give them that job. I hope the troops return safe and well. I don't call them my 'heros' though, because I think that their mission is misguided rather than heroic. If they were truly going out and protecting us against an aggressor that posed a real threat to our country, rather than attacking an underprepared and underresourced army which has never displayed outward antagonism toward our country in particular, then I might consider them heros.

EricNY

03-30-2003, 09:54 PM

So basically, you dont care UNLESS someone attacks Australia?

Suntied

03-30-2003, 09:57 PM

Aussie,
I don't mean this personally... really I don't... but................ WHIMP! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AussieBeachBoy

03-30-2003, 10:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So basically, you dont care UNLESS someone attacks Australia? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ERC, I can't see how you can possibly derive that from what I wrote.

As I have written several times in this forum, I support my country taking part in a war that is justified at international law. That means either:
a) we are reacting in defence to an immediate threat, or
b) the United Nations has sanctioned the use of force.

I do not support my country initiating war as the aggressor against a country that has not threatened it, and against which the UN has not approved the taking of force. (And on my reading of the applicable UN resolutions, I don't believe it has.)

If my country's troops are taking part in an illegal war, I don't consider that fact of particpation heroic. It is possible, though, that an individual may be responsible for an act that does constitute heroism in the context of this war (eg by a particularly brave act). But just being there doesn't make them heroic in my eyes.

I don't know what any of the above has got to do with whether I "care" or not. I would have thought that the fact that I have expressed an opinion on the matter would suggest that I do care about the issue in general.

And Suntied - if being a wimp means sticking up for your beliefs rather than blindly following orders, like the conscientious objectors who resisted the draft to Vietnam, I'm happy to be a wimp!

EricNY

03-31-2003, 08:11 AM

Aussie:
maybe I misunderstood when you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> well. I don't call them my 'heros' though, because I think that their mission is misguided rather than heroic. If they were truly going out and protecting us against an aggressor that posed a real threat to our country, rather than attacking an underprepared and underresourced army which has never displayed outward antagonism toward our country in particular, then I might consider them heros. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I took that as you not being willing to participate, unless they showed aggression toward "MY" country. If that is not what you meant I apologize.

j4king

03-31-2003, 01:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
So basically, you dont care UNLESS someone attacks Australia? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only reason most AMERICANS are behind the war is because they believe that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attack. If it were not for this huge misconception there would be little support for the war here as well.

EricNY

03-31-2003, 01:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The only reason most AMERICANS are behind the war is because they believe that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attack. If it were not for this huge misperception there would be little support for the war here as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There would be little support for any war if there was not a reason. You say that it is a misperception, do you know something that we don't.

Do you know that he was not involved in 9-11? Do you know that he is not a threat to us and other free countries?

Naturist Mark

03-31-2003, 02:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Do you know that he was not involved in 9-11? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well yeah, I DO know that Saddam was not involved in 9-11. That is, I know that the US Government has said that he was not involved.

I know that Osama Bin Ladin is a sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein, and that in the past Bin Ladin has urged the violent overthrow of Hussein. I know that Hussein has put a price on Bin Ladin's head.

I know that they now have common cause since they both have a greater enemy in America.

I know that Hussein has long been one of the greatest sponsors of international terrorism (mostly against Israel). I know that the danger from Saddam was no longer that he'd attack a neighbor like Iran or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, but that he would share his banned chemical and biological weapons with the terrorists he supports. I know that as great a danger as this weapons proliferation to terrorists is, Saddam is a far greater danger to Iraqi citizens than to anyone else. These are the reasons he has to be eliminated, not because he had anything to with 9-11 (he didn't), but because we cannot allow him to sponsor the next 9-11 or to continue to ravage the Iraqi people.

It's not about oil, it never has been. We could have got all the oil we ever wanted from Iraq, and at bargain prices, if we had eliminated sanctions. It is about the clear and present danger Saddam's regime represents in terrorist weapons proliferation, and his ongoing crimes against the Iraqi people.

There are plenty of good questions to be asked about how we should have dealt with Saddam, and why now and not earlier or later, but I don't think there is any reasonable debate about why.

-Mark

j4king

04-01-2003, 02:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
...do you know something that we don't. Do you know that he was not involved in 9-11?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do YOU know something I don't? Do YOU know that he WAS involved in 9-11? The burden of proof lies with those who claim that this is true, not the other way around!

Here is what I DO know. The Bush gov't told us after 9-11 that Osama was behind the attacks, and they offered concrete evidence to back that up. Moreover, Osama has taken full responsibility for the attacks, so there seems to be no question that we have a definite culprit.

On the other hand Osama has repeatedly denounced Saddam and his secular regime. So not only is there a lack of evidence that Saddam was (also) behind the attacks, but there is evidence to CONDTRADICT such an allegation (as that would mean Saddam was working with someone who wants him overthrown)!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>...do you know that he is not a threat to us?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If YOU think there are other reasons for going to war, I am more than happy to discuss that. But if you look at my original post, my point was about how so many Americans in general believe that Saddam was specifically behind 9-11 in spite of the lack of evidence.

EricNY

04-01-2003, 03:00 PM

j4king, nothing personal, really.

This is how I feel:
1) I personally hate war!!!

2) 9-11 or not is not the point, I feel that Sadaam is a threat to ALL free nations, and needs to be stopped, before he can promote any terrorist activity.

3) I have faith, maybe it is blind faith, but faith none the less, that our government has valid reasons for the current strike.

4) I believe that we have tolerated his activity for far too long. And the time has come to act,no more chances.

These are my opinions, and I respect yours, and believe that everyone else has a right to thiers. That is what makes this country great, and worth fighting for.

Respectfully,
ercNY

j4king

04-01-2003, 03:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ercNY:
9-11 or not is not the point <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But for so many Americans that is EXACTLY the point. I simply cannot understand why you don't care that so many Americans have based their support for war on this faulty assumption. Just because they happen to arrive at the same conclusion as you (attack Iraq), does that mean it is irrelevant how they get there?? When I hear people make arguments against the war that are based on faulty assumptions I get equally upset, regardless of the fact that their conclusion is the same as mine.

Let me make it clear, I don't hold YOU responsible for what OTHER Americans think. Nor am I trying to say that because of their faulty reasoning your stand on Iraq is incorrect. I am simply saying that I have yet to hear a pro-war person (on this forum) acknowledge that there are many Americans who support the war based on complete nonsense. But as the saying goes, truth is the first casualty of war.

Suntied

04-01-2003, 03:44 PM

J4king,

I will have to take a stronger case than ErcNY... you are sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong!

Events with terrorist threats by the VP of Iraq prove they back terrorist actions. We are not just fighting *** uama the big Dumb a**... we are fighting terrorism!

Get a grip on reality J4king!

We are fighting to STOP THE KILLING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Death of our innocent civilians... death of their innocent civilians... and DEATH BY WAR IN THE END!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When we are done... WAR WILL BE NOMORE!!! Yes you have made me very angry about your little wimpy accusations and I apologize? if I have offended you, but the above is what is real and justified and there is no other country with the arrogance to try it... or complete it! World Peace! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would have thought you had got it by now,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

j4king

04-01-2003, 04:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suntied:
Events with terrorist threats by the VP of Iraq prove they back terrorist actions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said they did not back terrorist actions. Please reread my post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>When we are done... WAR WILL BE NOMORE!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you REALLY believe this war will end all wars? History says otherwise!

Suntied

04-01-2003, 06:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by j4king:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said they did not back terrorist actions. Please reread my post.

I have re-read, re-read, and re-read your post(s). I am still astonished by how unpatriotic you are. Brave men and women are diing and being resqued in this war... yet they send suicide boomers (causing our troops to kill innocent civilians)... and your post is calling them, OUR HEROES, wrong for fighting there. They are not wrong, however, you are. We must fight to find the peace that we have found here in the Western Hemisphier. Fighting now equals peace sooner... not later. Death and destruction was brought to us... we did not start the fight for peace. Simply sitting back and watching is not an option. We will finish the fight for peace, by ridding the world of evil of the likes of Saddam.

[/QUOTE]Do you REALLY believe this war will end all wars? History says otherwise![/QUOTE]

Has history ever seen a military force that has been revealed to all of us on TV? My friend, J4king, we are some BAD A** Mothers when it comes to stomping out the bad people of the world. You should be proud to be one of us, instead of making up silly excuses to put the rest of us BRAVE AMERICANS down by downing our president, government and the war that we mostly, all are behind.

This is the land of the FREE, and... the .. home ... of.... the.. BRAVE! (did it read like I was singing it)

Suntied... Bart... Patriot!

MaxUK

04-02-2003, 03:26 PM

Hey Suntied,

you said:

Simply sitting back and watching is not an option

Really?? So why WAS sitting back and watching an option for the USA in so many other conflicts over the past few years??? (ie. Kosovo, Balkans, Rwanda etc.)

Look - I was in the UK military at one time and I pray for the guys and gals out there at this time. But I think the USA is extremely selective over what it proclaims is a JUST reason to engage in conflict, and what it once just considered a 'European problem'

The argument that the US are in Iraq to somehow free the common Iraqui people from oppression is, frankly, rubbish - the facts are there for all to see - ie. what is the difference between freeing the Rwandan people from oppression and freeing the Iraqui people?? - Nothing, that is the answer.

They are ALL some foreign race of people, in some foreign land, that you won't really give a hoot about in 6 months. So - why Iraq?? Why now??

Forgive me for being blunt, but while the US considered itself immune from danger over the past 20 years or so, you guys across the pond didn't give a second thought to what was happening in Europe or the Middle East - why should you ?? It was all a million miles away.
Then 9/11 happened and it's suddenly the no. 1 thing on the agenda.

Lets get this into perspective - it's not just about ridding the world of a mad, despotic dictator or the US would have been more involved in world affairs years ago.

It's not just about Weapons of Mass Destruction or the US would have been more involved in world affairs years ago.

It's about reacting - reacting to 9/11 in a way that the world will sit up and notice.

If 9/11 had never happened, would the USA be waging war on Iraq now?? I think we all know the answer to that one, even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not.

Max

Suntied

04-02-2003, 05:37 PM

HEY MAXX!!!!
WE AGREE!!!!

I am so excited that some else feels that 9/11 had something to do with this war. YES, during the Clinton administration, we sat back and watched many bad things happen. Hell we even let Saddam break the rules set by the previous admin.

I too, would have just sat back and watched all you people across the pond deal your own problems.

September Eleveth, in the year Two Thousand and One... CHANGED EVERYTHING!

An unpresidented force has been released by those events, and it is not the military that is kicking the crap out of Saddam (not Iraq). It is PRIDE! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Most of America is behind our envolvement and proud of our military... the fighting, the hospitalized, the imprisoned, and the dead.

When this war is over... how many of those little regimes that you mentioned are going to feel safe in comitting the tortures they do? How do think a dictator is going to react when the USA or it's president calls and warns him to put down his weapons? How are the french going to feel when they can't get anymore of Iraq's oil since they decided that we are BAD AMERICANS and BRITS. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I don't have all the answers, but I have pride and it is obvious we will liberate Iraq and move on from there since a tiger has been awaken on 9-11-01. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ATaurusJoker

04-02-2003, 06:24 PM

Liberate Iraq????? Is thats what going on over there. To me it looks like they are just bombing the S@8# out of it.

I thought I would point some of you in the news group that is doing some of the best articles on this War that is all about pride and BLAH BLAH BLAH! I support the troops which means we should bring THE HOME!!!!

Heres that news group
www.theonion.com (http://www.theonion.com)

The onion is the best THE BEST source for commentary on the happens of the day. Of course the articles aren't real but its a humor paper

I highly recommend you war lovers read "Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy"

Suntied

04-02-2003, 07:03 PM

I support the troops which means we should bring THE HOME!!!!

Taruasjoker,
Should we load houses on the planes instead of bombs?

I don't find my American Pride as BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. You send a joke link to a serious subject... where is your pride?

ATaurusJoker

04-02-2003, 07:31 PM

::rolls his eyes:: Yeah your last post was HILARIOUS. We're all rolling on the floor because you pointed out that I forgot to type M on the end of them.

I've debated millions of topics over the net and I've watched millions of debates. I've always noticed that the people who don't know what they're talking about are the ones that focus on everyones typing errors. Boy am I proud that I've got better things to comment on that whether or not someone typed a letter M.

Anyway...

As for sending a joke link...

WHERES MY PRIDE. YES I LAUGH AT THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A WAR! I don't laugh at the victims I don't laugh at the people getting hurt (you know all those Iraqi's but hey who care AMERICAS FINE! ::shakes his head in shame:: ) . Being some one who's actually worked in comedy for a number of years I know quite a bit about it. I know when to laugh and when not to laugh. I am young and not perfect but am more knowledgeable than not. TRUST ME, There are many things to laugh at in this war, Bushes "heroism" is one of my favorites. Humor is one of many things that make life worth living. It is obvious to me that your knee jerk reaction to my sending a humor link comes from an absence in understanding about the nature of comedy or its higher purpose. Humor can help carry us through this terrible time, remind us why we fight in the first place, and through biting commentary show these "patriotic" people the truth THIS WAR IS WRONG! I support the troops so one day they may laugh with family and friends again. I also support all those Iraqis who are getting killed for the same reason. EVEN THE POPE THINKS THIS WAR IS A SIN! IT DOESN'T GET BIGGER THAN THAT! By the way, did you even look at the link? Probably not which means your wasting my time because you don't know what your talking about.

Steven

P.S. If you had looked at the link you might have noticed a few digs on the anti-war movement. They are FARRRRRRRRRR fewer than the digs on pro-war (after all the onion is not only funny but veryyyy intelligent)

Bartamus

04-02-2003, 08:45 PM

ATaurusjoker: Here..here. A fine missive. Thanks.
(the preceding is the opinion of Bartamus and not
necessarily the International Naturist Association)

Suntied

04-02-2003, 10:43 PM

Wow... I was joking about the letter M, but I think I got you fired up (and of coarse Bartamus never likes anything I say that is pro-war)

ATaurusJoker,
I do not beleive all the rederick about oil... bad Bush heroics... and America the bullies. I feel strongly about this and probably couldn't have cared less before 9-11. However, since the towers fell, the Pentagon was damaged, and heroes(civilian) gave there lives to take a plane down in PA... I beleive Bush and his administration are doing what is best for this country and the world. Before that, I hated all polititions. Now, as we aproach Baghdad, I find it completely unacceptable for any AMERICAN to deny the fact that they are an AMERICAN and not support the war since you and I do not know who is right. You are not marching across the Euphraitis(sp?) River right now and I have not sat in on any White House meetings. The Onion you find so comical is just another way to confuse the subject. That was all I meant.

Guess I'm just not funny when it comes to being a patriot.

ATaurusJoker

04-03-2003, 06:05 AM

The problem is how much of this is about 9/11?

THATS THE PROBLEM! Bush is not going in there because of 9/11 hes going in there to "stop weapons of mass destruction". It is the people who tricked into thinking that this is about 9/11. We already went after Bin Laden! Yes there is speculation as to whether or not we succeded but we went after him! Thats done! The war lovers are SEVERLY uneducated in the topic of this war because none of them are thinking past 9/11.

Everyone is angry about 9/11. I am too, but I will not allow my anger to lead me to supporting a war that is commiting just has many horrible atrocities. You maybe a fighter for americans but I am a fighter for people. JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISH OUT REVENGE TO INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO DIE! I'm sorry but I am an american and I am sickened by everyones patriotism. You are not patriots you are revenge seekers. If this were revenge against Bin laden I might understand but noooooooooooooooooo this is revenge against Iraqi.

All you patriots should be very happy weve already killed LOTS of Iraqis

Oh and Bartamus doesn't like what you say about the war. SOunds to me like hes got some sense in him

Steven

P.S. We at least agree that this is not about oil. IT'S ABOUT BLOOD THIRSTY REVENGE

04-03-2003, 07:35 PM

Naw, it isn't about anything but religion....

He thinks he's doing god's work.... (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/5534236.htm)

ATaurusJoker

04-04-2003, 07:06 AM

Yeah which is interesting because even the pope says that this war is wrong. People will even ignore the Pope in the name of patriotism.

Steven

nudist_in_Tn

04-04-2003, 09:18 AM

It looks as though I've opened quiet a can of worms with the original poll I posted,but it seems as if we have gotten a bit off track here from the original questions of the poll , have we all cast our votes in this poll?
Thanks for all the input on this subject and lets remember to pray for all of our troops fighting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rick & Chris

04-04-2003, 06:36 PM

Bear in mind; a State that polices the world is, by definition, a police State!

In common with many Americans (and other Vietnam Vets), I support our troops--but I cannot in conscious support this war. We are invading a sovereign nation in an attempt to overthrow it's government and, regardless of the nature of that nation's government, we don't have the legal or moral right to do so.

The problem of Saddam _could_ have been solved in the United Nations by the simple expedient of sending in peace keeping forces to monitor a free and independent election (bear in mind, Iraq's Constitution emphasizes a democratic means of selecting it's leadership). Unless the people of Iraq actually _wanted_ Saddam as President (and if they did--that IS their right), he would easily have been removed. That was the legal, mature, and responsible response to the issue. Invasion is a political act performed not with the interests of the Iraqi people (or our own citizenry) in mind, but rather for political gains.

I served my country for two tours of duty in Vietnam, which turned out to be a monumental waste of American lives and potential. I don't want to see my son--or anyone else's--die for George Bush's political ambitions!

Rick (of Rick & Chris)
NakedTouch@direcway.com

ATaurusJoker

04-04-2003, 06:52 PM

Thanks Rick! You really had some great stuff to say.

If the Pro-War movemnt is sooooooo concerned with helping the Iraqis then why am I only hearing about praying for our troops. I will be praying for all who are involved in this senseless war. Lets not forget that loooooooooots of Iraqi have been killed in our supposed quest for democracy and freedom.

AussieBeachBoy

04-04-2003, 09:48 PM

Yep, according to one of our papers today (the most pro-war local paper), over 500 Iraqi civilians alone have been killed (putting aside the troops). At one stage the coalition had killed more Iraqi civilians than Iraqi soldiers - I don't know if that's still the case.

Rik

04-05-2003, 12:26 AM

Rick

Well said.

Rik

florida-david

04-05-2003, 06:05 AM

cyndia-ann

great artical and even written in our state were king w.'s brother was re-elected (not by me)

Suntied

04-05-2003, 07:10 AM

Hello everyone? I?m back. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif First I will make you all happy by letting you know that this will be my last post on this subject. I know I get a bit carried away at times and I apologize. I do not come across many who feel the way you do in my ?real life?, and I feel strongly about supporting the actions taken by our government and Military. I guess, that is part of the fun in this forum.

I am going to ask a series of questions to your replies and if you have a reasonable answer that is antiwar or anti-Bush, then feel free to explain. I apologize for the length of this post, but here goes:

ATaurusJoker,
You said, ?THATS THE PROBLEM! Bush is not going in there because of 9/11 hes going in there to "stop weapons of mass destruction".?

When did Iraq break the sanctions put in place as a peace agreement to the Gulf War? When did the United States Government (not Bush) decide to re-establish these sanctions and why? How much time did the UN waste before they agreed to do the enforcement of the sanctions and what good did they do in enforcing them? Why did the American Government (not Bush) bring all this up again? Wasn?t it around or shortly after 9/11/01? ?or have you forgotten?

Then you said, ?JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISH OUT REVENGE TO INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO DIE! I'm sorry but I am an american and I am sickened by everyones patriotism.?

So you honestly believe that the President of the United States of America is acting on his own to finish what his daddy didn?t out of some personal vendetta against Saddam? If we (American World Policy) were to just sit back and let Saddam do what he was trying to do and atrocities he was dishing out to the people of his own country, how many innocent undeserving deaths would that make? No, I?m sure this is just some stupid revenge thing put in place by Bush to help his daddy and please God (according to Cyndiann). I?ll stop loving my country now for it seems there is a mad man in charge without any control whatsoever. ?He rolls his eyes?? i.e.; sarcasm.

You also said, ?Yeah which is interesting because even the pope says that this war is wrong.?

What does the Catholic Church have to do with the United States World Policy?

Rick & Chris (I believe it was just Rick though, right)

You said, ?We are invading a sovereign nation in an attempt to overthrow it's government and, regardless of the nature of that nation's government, we don't have the legal or moral right to do so.?

I thought we warned Saddam to abide by the law laid down when he invaded a sovereign nation. Are we really just invading a country or are we following through on countless threats made to a mad man to try to insure peace in the world? Did our government vote to use Military force if the laws were not followed? Have morals ever played a part in a government that separates church and state? I would say that it is immoral to tell someone they had better straighten up or else this will happen? and this doesn?t happen? this time this did happen!

Then you said, ?The problem of Saddam _could_ have been solved in the United Nations by the simple expedient??

That would have been nice, but I don?t think you can use the words ?simple and expedient? with the UN in the same sentence. They just don?t go together. My question is; how long were we supposed to let Saddam deceive the UN? Does the UN have the Military power to follow through on its threats or punishments?

Then you said, ?I served my country for two tours of duty in Vietnam, which turned out to be a monumental waste of American lives and potential.?

Thank you for your service sir, however, that war was not handled properly by the government (from what I know) and the timid ness in which war was wagged did cause a lot of wasted life. Do you feel that the military force shown by the United States Military today is anything at all ?timid? as it was back in your day? Although some will die (innocent and heroes), do you feel that they are fighting this war because they are forced to fight out of fear or fighting to enforce fear into other evil cruel leaders? Or, are they just doing what they are told? What exactly is Bush gaining politically?

My final comments:
We all want peace here in America, but some of us realize that peace is unobtainable unless force and actions are carried out. The force that I am seeing on TV is not going over there targeting civilians and it is most certainly not timid or half a**. The big picture on this war is that we are carrying out a threat made against a man or his r?gime and nothing more. Yes innocent civilians will die and brave men and women of both sides will die, but all that really had to happen before the forty bombs blasted that one building was for Saddam to say, ?Okay, I lied. Here are my chemical weapons, here are my missiles, and here are all the secret locations of my illegal military weapons. Now leave me alone and let me get back to killing and raping and starving my people?, and this war would have never started.
Goodbye and good luck in getting any true American to see your point of view. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

God Bless America and you too,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Bart/Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

gamblefish

04-05-2003, 03:10 PM

Here! Here! Well spoken, Suntied.

EricNY

04-06-2003, 12:27 AM

http://www.funstun.com/categories/inspiration/never-forget/index.cfm

Rik

04-06-2003, 05:34 AM

Suntied,

An American warplane has bombed a Kurdish convoy in northern Iraq which included members of US special forces. At least 10 people are dead and others wounded.

I hope you are proud of your "heroes".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm

Rik

j4king

04-06-2003, 09:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
I hope you are proud of your "heroes".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rik, as you know, I am just as anti the Iraq war as you are, and am just as wary of mindless patriotism as you are. However I was a bit surprised by your last post. Obviously the bombing was a mistake. Do you think our soldiers made no mistakes in WWII? Surely you are not saying they weren't heros, are you? Even if you don't agree with me here, surely you can agree with me that your last post is just going to raise the emotional level of this discussion rather than add anything helpful. Sorry to pick on you--it is just that I hold you to a higher standard because I usually agree with you :-)

Rik

04-06-2003, 10:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by j4king:
Obviously the bombing was a mistake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course it was a mistake and I would not suggest otherwise. Here's a list of other mistakes:

6 April: US/Kurdish convoy attacked by US jet
3 April: US soldier killed by US ground forces
3 April: US ground forces attacked by US jet, 3 killed
28 March: UK vehicles attacked by US jet, 1 killed
25 March: UK tank fires on another British tank, 2 killed
23 March: UK jet shot down by US missile, 2 killed

Just how many more cases of coalition forces killing coalition forces will it take for people to understand the horrific reality of war. How long can we go on pretending to liberate Iraqis by bombing their homes and murdering their women and children?

I'm sorry if you think I'm emotional about this but frankly I am.

Rik

j4king

04-06-2003, 04:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
Just how many more cases of coalition forces killing coalition forces will it take for people to understand the horrific reality of war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do I understand correctly from this that you believe war is never justified? I certainly respect those who hold this view, although I probably would disagree.

I guess my real problem with your previous post was that I was assuming your position is that THIS particular war is unjustified though SOME wars may be justified (and so when you provided an example that can be found in ANY war I thought you were contradicting yourself).

Just shows why one should never make assumptions--my apologies.

04-06-2003, 08:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Naw, it isn't about anything but religion....

He thinks he's doing god's work.... (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/5534236.htm) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another link that says religion is a major factor
right here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm) .

Snoboy

04-07-2003, 11:12 AM

Nerve agents and mustard gas were found today. What does that say about Saddam, NOW?

04-07-2003, 04:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
Nerve agents and mustard gas were found today. What does that say about Saddam, NOW? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You should make sure you know what was really found before you post....

they were pesticides! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd)

The US does have such gases.... what does that say about Bush now?

florida-david

04-07-2003, 07:04 PM

considering how hard the u.s. is looking for "EVIDENCE" in Iraq, and they still have found none, i would have to say that Bush better start thinking of another excuse for causing this war. there are many other tyrants/oppressors out there that we have not attacked yet. maybe king w. should come out of the closet and admit his faults and his real reason for starting this war.

Naxet Erab

04-08-2003, 12:39 PM

Cyndiann is half right. Right reason, wrong religion. Frankly, I was unimpressed with Mr. Haught's diatribe. I saw ad hominem invective and unprofessional psycho-babble, but little in the way of relevant facts, much less trenchant argument. I would have expected less heat and more light from a man who has made a career of belittling all religion as irrational and, therefore, harmful. So is it OK to reason with your heart instead of your head if you're an agnostic? Lets see: we went to war because Bush used to be a drunk and now he's a born-again Christian who believes in the concepts of good and evil. Gosh! Such cogent analysis ...NOT!

Try this: the USA is the "Great Satan" in the eyes of radical Islam because we are decadent, wasteful, immoral, non-Muslim, and support Israel. And despite all these faults, we are wealthy and at ease instead of being punished by Allah as we deserve. So if He won't do it, they will - hence 9/11. A sober and visionary President Bush, recognizing the danger, decides to protect the USA by reducing the threat capabilities of our sworn enemies. (Hey, I've got just as much right to assign motives to Bush as Haught does). With the Taliban gone and now the Ba'athists going, there is a chance for real progress in the Middle East. Only time will tell if the plan represents prescience or hubris. Under a best case scenario, we will be left alone long enough to collapse from internal dissolution, as most bloated super-powers have in the past.

gamblefish

04-08-2003, 01:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Naxet Erab:
Try this: the USA is the "Great Satan" in the eyes of radical Islam because we are decadent, wasteful, immoral, non-Muslim, and support Israel. And despite all these faults, we are wealthy and at ease instead of being punished by Allah as we deserve. So if He won't do it, they will - hence 9/11. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES!!
Actually, Saddam and Co. believe that Allah is punishing us...through them.

04-08-2003, 04:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Naxet Erab:
Cyndiann is half right. Right reason, wrong religion. Frankly, I was unimpressed with Mr. Haught's diatribe. I saw ad hominem invective and unprofessional psycho-babble, but little in the way of relevant facts, much less trenchant argument. I would have expected less heat and more light from a man who has made a career of belittling all religion as irrational and, therefore, harmful. So is it OK to reason with your heart instead of your head if you're an agnostic? Lets see: we went to war because Bush used to be a drunk and now he's a born-again Christian who believes in the concepts of good and evil. Gosh! Such cogent analysis ...NOT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He's not just a born again christian... he's a deep fundie with ties to the rabid religious right. He's also a dry drunk. He's got all the classic signs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Try this: the USA is the "Great Satan" in the eyes of radical Islam because we are decadent, wasteful, immoral, non-Muslim, and support Israel. And despite all these faults, we are wealthy and at ease instead of being punished by Allah as we deserve. So if He won't do it, they will - hence 9/11. A sober and visionary President Bush, recognizing the danger, decides to protect the USA by reducing the threat capabilities of our sworn enemies. (Hey, I've got just as much right to assign motives to Bush as Haught does). With the Taliban gone and now the Ba'athists going, there is a chance for real progress in the Middle East. Only time will tell if the plan represents prescience or hubris. Under a best case scenario, we will be left alone long enough to collapse from internal dissolution, as most bloated super-powers have in the past. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And so we have two radically religious men against each other.... once again we are in a war over religion.

Just what danger did bush see that we had to rush right out and start bombing people because of what one man did?

04-08-2003, 04:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
Actually, Saddam and Co. believe that Allah is punishing us...through them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And bush believes that his god is punishing them through us.

wannabenaked2001

04-08-2003, 07:02 PM

Cyndiann, Just what do you mean by "dry drunk"?

I have been sober for 7 years 2 months and 23 days. You say "dry drunk" like it's a bad thing. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

04-08-2003, 08:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Cyndiann, Just what do you mean by "dry drunk"?

I have been sober for 7 years 2 months and 23 days. You say "dry drunk" like it's a bad thing. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's wonderful! Being sober does not mean you are a dry drunk... there is a difference.

Try reading this for an explanation. (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html)

Or this. (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html)

gamblefish

04-09-2003, 05:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
And bush believes that his god is punishing them through us.[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, Bush is removing a blood-thirsty tyrant who murders his own people from power. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Naxet Erab

04-09-2003, 08:11 AM

Cyndiann, just for the record: I am a Christian and the congregation I attend could be considered fundamentalist (is that what "fundie" means?) And I tend to lean right politically (philosophically I'm a libertarian). Thus far, however, I have exhibited no symptoms of hydrophobia. And the fact that I'm also a member of AANR and "git nekkid" whenever I can probably makes me atypical of the mind-set you decry. I can only imagine the abuse you have endured from "holier-than-thou" types which, perhaps, engendered your mistrust of the "religious right", and Bush in particular. As a Christian, I am ashamed of those who claim to serve a loving God by being hateful.

Even so, I still contend that it is a dicey thing to psychoanalyze someone long-distance. (Of course, if it ever catches on, there'll be a lot of shrinks who's income will plummet). I doubt that you would appreciate someone who doesn't even know you confidently asserting what your motives were for your actions. Calling Bush a "dry drunk" may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not an argument against the war. "What did he see?" Well, he said Iraqi had WMD, were developing more, and there was a danger they would pass them on to terrorists. Was he telling the truth? Only time will tell. (Early evidence seems to lend some credence - unless all those atropine injectors, gas masks, and chemical suits were there just to protect the farmers from pesticides. Who knew Saddam was so compassionate?)

I suppose after 8 years of Clinton, it's no wonder our first instinct is to suspect the president is lying. (Sorry, that was a cheap shot. I am guilty of what I accuse you of, but hey, nobody's perfect). There may be valid reasons for opposing war at this time, but impugning motives and name calling are not among them. Besides, it is a moot point. The war is, I pray, almost over. Now the truth will begin to come out, and either Bush will be vindicated or pilloried - but on the basis of facts and evidence, not supposition and innuendo.

The deck is stacked against us: People who just want the government to leave them alone don't go into politics, so the field is left to meddlers.

04-09-2003, 01:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
And bush believes that his god is punishing them through us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, Bush is removing a blood-thirsty tyrant who murders his own people from power. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you fail to mention (maybe because you don't know) is that many of the countries on the coalition list are also guilty of doing terrible things against their own people. How in the world does that make sense? Have you seen the Amnesty International website? Do you know how many countries are out there that torture people?

Bush is not the president of the world, only the US and had no business butting in when there are so many other countries out there doing exatcly what Saddam was doing. It was a UN problem and if he didn't like how they were handling it he could have dealt with it from within the UN.

Now that bush has made enemies of many of our former friends worldwide and totally pissed off the real terrorists we really need to worry.

Bush tried saying we were in immediate danger if we didn't fight but nobody can tell me what this danger was.

04-09-2003, 01:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Naxet Erab:
Cyndiann, just for the record: I am a Christian and the congregation I attend could be considered fundamentalist (is that what "fundie" means?) And I tend to lean right politically (philosophically I'm a libertarian). Thus far, however, I have exhibited no symptoms of hydrophobia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then you hold the answer to the difference between the RRR and a christian.... the RRR hides behind religion to force others into being what they want them to be and use unscrupulous means to get there. They hide behind names that make them sound legit like American Family Association and Council of Conservative Citizens. They would sooner jail all nudists than consider that there are other points of view and that everybody does not need to believe in the same manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> And the fact that I'm also a member of AANR and "git nekkid" whenever I can probably makes me atypical of the mind-set you decry. I can only imagine the abuse you have endured from "holier-than-thou" types which, perhaps, engendered your mistrust of the "religious right", and Bush in particular. As a Christian, I am ashamed of those who claim to serve a loving God by being hateful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See? You know the difference. We probably draw the line between the rabid and the devoted in different places but otherwise we are in agreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Even so, I still contend that it is a dicey thing to psychoanalyze someone long-distance. (Of course, if it ever catches on, there'll be a lot of shrinks who's income will plummet). I doubt that you would appreciate someone who doesn't even know you confidently asserting what your motives were for your actions. Calling Bush a "dry drunk" may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not an argument against the war. "What did he see?" Well, he said Iraqi had WMD, were developing more, and there was a danger they would pass them on to terrorists. Was he telling the truth? Only time will tell. (Early evidence seems to lend some credence - unless all those atropine injectors, gas masks, and chemical suits were there just to protect the farmers from pesticides. Who knew Saddam was so compassionate?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There has been no evidence except for some protection against these chemicals and gasses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I suppose after 8 years of Clinton, it's no wonder our first instinct is to suspect the president is lying. (Sorry, that was a cheap shot. I am guilty of what I accuse you of, but hey, nobody's perfect). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah I'd say so since the Republicans spent such an outrageous amount of time (years!) and money to dig up whatever dirt they could find and merely found a blowjob. Problem is he never lied. The definition of sex as determined by that court did not include oral sex. I don't even know why they even bothered bringing that up in court. What difference did it make on how he did his job?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There may be valid reasons for opposing war at this time, but impugning motives and name calling are not among them. Besides, it is a moot point. The war is, I pray, almost over. Now the truth will begin to come out, and either Bush will be vindicated or pilloried - but on the basis of facts and evidence, not supposition and innuendo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why is it that those of you defending the war keep telling us that we have a moot point when we don't? Are you afraid that we might have a few good points? Dry drunk is a term used for people who quit drinking without working out the problems that are behind the drinking and is not "name calling". It is just as highly possible that bush is a dry drunk as there is a chance there are WMD, maybe more. And motivations are very valid reasons for the opposition.... we surely didn't do it because of WMD because there has been no evidence of any and might not ever be. Even if something were found there is no way to determine they were to be used against the US. This whole war is a joke! We had no facts or evidence on the way in, none at all. We beat Saddam's *** because bush thought he just may do something one day.... what is that?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The deck is stacked against us: People who just want the government to leave them alone don't go into politics, so the field is left to meddlers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

florida-david

04-09-2003, 01:59 PM

wars should not be started until someone actually does something to the other country to start the war. iraq and saddam are suspected of doing things, but there is no proof. how can the remainder of the world sit back and let the u.s. decide to rule the world? shouldn't someone kick us (the u.s.) out of the u.n. for the actions of a non-elected president (bush)? we should not be allowed back into the u.n. until we are ready to listen to international law and elect a real president into power (assuming there is someone real out there in the political arena).

who shall we bomb next? i'm sure bush is looking for his next victim (i mean, looking for the next country in need of liberation). surely it won't be china or anyone in asia because we WILL get our *** kicked over there. no, let's take out the easy tyrants and leave the real tyrants in power (not that saddam was a nice guy, but there are worse).

read the article that cyndi-ann enclosed, its great.

gamblefish

04-09-2003, 02:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
What you fail to mention (maybe because you don't know) is that many of the countries on the coalition list are also guilty of doing terrible things against their own people. How in the world does that make sense? Have you seen the Amnesty International website? Do you know how many countries are out there that torture people?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This war was started because Iraq refused to disarm and was in direct violation of the UN resolution to do so. This, as we all know, has gone on for 12 years now. The weapon inspectors were not there to play hide and seek, they were there to verify that Hussein had destroyed the weapons that violated that resolution. Evidence was found that he had not (Al Samoud missiles). More evidence is still being found. The US and the UK are the only ones with enough balls to stop playing footsie with Hussein and do something about him. The fact that he will no longer be around to slaughter his own people is just a fringe benefit.

04-09-2003, 07:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
What you fail to mention (maybe because you don't know) is that many of the countries on the coalition list are also guilty of doing terrible things against their own people. How in the world does that make sense? Have you seen the Amnesty International website? Do you know how many countries are out there that torture people?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This war was started because Iraq refused to disarm and was in direct violation of the UN resolution to do so. This, as we all know, has gone on for 12 years now. The weapon inspectors were not there to play hide and seek, they were there to verify that Hussein had destroyed the weapons that violated that resolution. Evidence was found that he had not (Al Samoud missiles). More evidence is still being found. The US and the UK are the only ones with enough balls to stop playing footsie with Hussein and do something about him. The fact that he will no longer be around to slaughter his own people is just a fringe benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do something about what? Those missles could not have reached the US so what was the problem? They were able to go just a few miles further than what the UN allowed. And how does this answer my post about the coalition being peppered with other human rights violators? We cannot overthrow countries because of what we think might happen one day. That is ludicrous.