"Syria has chemical weapons" ... so what ?

[plenderj]

Bush is now complaining about Syria having chemical weapons.
So what ? Where's the problem here ?

[mendhak]

Dammit... I was betting on Iran to be next! :mad:

[KayJay]

The problem is only the US is permitted®© (by the US :D ) to have and produce and use any and all WMD®©.

We lesser mortals can only extend our hands to beg for and recieve the AID® from the only and right Protector®, Redeemer® and Saviour®, the Holy Three®© being the One and Only One® Uinited States of America®©, leader of the Free© World®

Statutary Warning: Permission, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saving, Right, Redemption, Freedom, Power are registered copyright of the United States of America. Further all rights to include and any and all Nouns in the above list of copyright is expressly rserved by the United States of America. Any usage without the explicit permission of the aforesaid nation will lead to instant and immediate Decapitation, which permission may be withdrawn without any initimation whatsoever

Thats why!

[MerrionComputin]

I don't think that Syria will be next - this thing is strictly alphabetical: Iraq->Ireland:eek:

[plenderj]

We have chemical and biological weapons too.
Every friday night have the population's guinness'd up ;)

[KayJay]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I don't think that Syria will be next - this thing is strictly alphabetical: Iraq->Ireland:eek:
We are saved!

[Arc]

Syria messed up when they became our enemies friend, which by default makes them our enemy. Don't expect to supply weapons to our enemy and aid and abed our enemy and send in people to help fight with our enemy during a war and not expect something to be said about it.

[MerrionComputin]

It is confusing when you have a vengeful nation such as the US.

When Syria and Iraq first co-operated the US were friends with Iraq and encouraging them to attack Iran because they believed that a secular dictatorship was a better ally than an extremist muslim republic. At the time Syria was a moderate muslim republic.

Then Iraq attacked Kuwait (an Islamic totalitarian monarchy) and they became the enemy of the whole world because they had invaded another country in contravention to the rule of UN law. Syria supported the removal of Iraq from Kuwait but not the destruction of Iraq because that is what the UN mandate stipulated.

Then an exiled Saudi Arabian (moderate Islamic monarchy) terrorist leader, financed by the Saudi Arabians, and living in Afghanistan (formerly a communist satelite state) sent terrorists to attack the US. This action was condemned by most of the Arab countries.

Then the US invaded Afghanistan to liberate the people they had liberated from the communists from the people who had taken over when the communists were defeated and who were protecting the Saudi Arabian who had attacked the United States and they defeated the latter and liberated the former (or vice-versa - it is difficult to keep up).

However the Saudi Arabian who had attacked America was not found and the most likely explanation was that he had escaped to Pakistan (military Islamic dictatorship and known to posses weapons of mass distruction) so the Americans put pressure on the Iraqis (still nasty government but not really part of the story up till now) to hand over the weapons of mass destruction that they knew they possesed (because they and their allies had supplied them with the weapons) but which they said they had destroyed.

This didn't happen so the Americans and their allies invaded the country (without a UN mandate) that had previously invaded another country against a UN mandate and which had previously used weapons of mass destruction supplied by the US and her allies to (a) liberate the Iraqi people form their (secular dictatorship) regime and (b) prevent the Iraqi government (still secular dictatorship) from using the weapons of mass destruction that they had.

The Syrian government had sold night scopes and other non-offensive military equipment to the Iraqi regime as these were not banned by any UN mandates at that time. So the question is: at what point did Syria become an enemy of the US - and how did Syria precipitate this?

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by plenderj
We have chemical and biological weapons too.
Every friday night have the population's guinness'd up ;)

Fire a few ICMBs full of that stuff this way. Re-invent the term Beer Delivery Service.


Syria messed up when they became our enemies friend, which by default makes them our enemy. Don't expect to supply weapons to our enemy and aid and abed our enemy and send in people to help fight with our enemy during a war and not expect something to be said about it.


True but, Hey we pretty much just flushed Syria's economy(or lack there of) right down the crapper. Of course there will be resentment on their part. How stable can an econmy be if it has been depending on handouts from Iraq for the past 12 years. It's the same boat Russia, China, France and Germany are in, only it's devastating for Syria.


We lesser mortals can only extend our hands to beg for and recieve the AID® from the only and right Protector®, Redeemer® and Saviour®, the Holy Three®© being the One and Only One® Uinited States of America®©, leader of the Free© World®


:rolleyes: Yup americans are only here to repress you. Wo don't want people to think for themselvs and run their own government. If fact, if possible, We'd like to chain you up and make you pull our cars for us so we don't have to give them dirty Arabs our money any more. Don't worry about holding your hand out for aid. That is not part of our world domination plan. Were not going to feed you. You'll just pull our car until you drop dead and we'll make more nukes out of the depleted uranium in you from shooting at you with anti-tank shells. If you are a really good "lesser Mortal" we might let you join our military. We will tape you to the wings of our fighter jets and make you flap you dirty little arms so our planes will fly. Jet fuel is more expensive than starving you. :rolleyes:

[Xanith]

It is confusing when you have a vengeful nation such as the US.
How so?

When Syria and Iraq first co-operated the US were friends with Iraq and encouraging them to attack Iran because they believed that a secular dictatorship was a better ally than an extremist muslim republic. At the time Syria was a moderate muslim republic.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t papa Asad a dictator in Syria just like his son is now? And the US didn’t “encourage” Iraq to attack Iran. It was Saddam’s decision to attack Iran in 1980.

Then Iraq attacked Kuwait (an Islamic totalitarian monarchy) and they became the enemy of the whole world because they had invaded another country in contravention to the rule of UN law. Syria supported the removal of Iraq from Kuwait but not the destruction of Iraq because that is what the UN mandate stipulated.
This is true. That is also the reason why the US didn’t push on to Baghdad and removed Saddam then, because the UN didn’t mandate it and it would have met with strong opposition to some of the coalition partners such as France and Syria.

Then the US invaded Afghanistan to liberate the people they had liberated from the communists from the people who had taken over when the communists were defeated and who were protecting the Saudi Arabian who had attacked the United States and they defeated the latter and liberated the former (or vice-versa - it is difficult to keep up).
You can just focus on why the US went into Afghanistan recently if that countries history is too hard to follow. It was to capture/kill terrorist leaders of Al Quida and to remove the terrorist sympathetic Taliban government that was brutally oppressive to its own people.

However the Saudi Arabian who had attacked America was not found and the most likely explanation was that he had escaped to Pakistan (military Islamic dictatorship and known to posses weapons of mass distruction) so the Americans put pressure on the Iraqis (still nasty government but not really part of the story up till now) to hand over the weapons of mass destruction that they knew they possesed (because they and their allies had supplied them with the weapons) but which they said they had destroyed.
Again you are mistaken in your facts and how you present them. The disarmament of Iraq was agreed on at the UN by the Security Council and 17+ resolutions were passed by that body to get Saddam to comply and disarm. Why do you think the world agreed on this? Probably because he had invaded Iran and Kuwait 2 of his neighbors and had used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. Not only that Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people and was the leading mass murderer still in power in the world. Now is this a guy you want developing Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons?
As for the US supplying Iraq this is largely overrated and overblown by Anti-US people. What people fail to even look at were the Russian, Chinese, French, and German connection and their supplying of weaponry to Iraq. This includes biological, chemical, and nuclear technologies and equipment. This doesn’t include all of the other weaponry these same countries sold Iraq AFTER the Gulf War in violation of UN sanctions. Russia still had military advisors in Iraq and were training their spies still as documents are now revealing.

This didn't happen so the Americans and their allies invaded the country (without a UN mandate) that had previously invaded another country against a UN mandate and which had previously used weapons of mass destruction supplied by the US and her allies to (a) liberate the Iraqi people form their (secular dictatorship) regime and (b) prevent the Iraqi government (still secular dictatorship) from using the weapons of mass destruction that they had.
The US invaded Bosnia as well without a UN mandate to stop the ethnic cleansing that was going on because the UN was impotent to do anything. I suppose that was wrong too? Or was the US going in to colonize or take their oil? Oh wait the US didn’t stay and colonize and Bosnia doesn’t have any oil.

And the WMD’s used by Iraq were supplied in most part by the Russians. These same Russian arms dealers sold chemical and biological weapons to both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. Nice of them huh.

The Syrian government had sold night scopes and other non-offensive military equipment to the Iraqi regime as these were not banned by any UN mandates at that time. So the question is: at what point did Syria become an enemy of the US - and how did Syria precipitate this?
Syria is a known harborer of terrorists and is a dictatorial government much like Iraq used to be. Selling arms and sending support to a nation in wartime can be seen as a hostile act. I don’t know why you can’t understand that. Seems a rather simple concept.

X

[Memnoch1207]

The quote wasn't that Syria has WMD's, as in their next to be attacked.

The actual quote was that Syria has the weapons from Iraq...Suspecting Syria of holding WMD for Iraq so they couldn't be found by the UN inspectors.

Get the quotes right before going off the handle.

[MerrionComputin]

Now is this a guy you want developing Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons?

I don't want anyone developing them but I am a wishy-washy liberal like that. However it is duplicituous to hold the view that Syria must not develop nuclear weapons but that it is OK for Isreal so to do.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I don't want anyone developing them but I am a wishy-washy liberal like that. However it is duplicituous to hold the view that Syria must not develop nuclear weapons but that it is OK for Isreal so to do.
Israel already has them, you can't stop what’s already done. And I don't feel safe in a world with more nuclear weapons in them especially in the hands of dictators and terrorists. That is why it is important to stop the spread of them while we can before it's to late.

X

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I don't want anyone developing them but I am a wishy-washy liberal like that. However it is duplicituous to hold the view that Syria must not develop nuclear weapons but that it is OK for Isreal so to do.

Actually it is not OK for Israel to have Nuclear weapons if I am not mistaken. I'm not sure what the UN's stance on that is, I'll look it up later. Problem is, if Israel didn't have nukes they would be exterminated by their neighbors. Israelis are looked at by the rest of the region the same way you and I look at cockroaches (Not sure if you have them in Ireland but U get my point). It would be a jewish slaughterfest in Jerusalem. Any way, I agree ther should be no need for nukes but that is not possible. To many Religous nutjobs and powerhungry basterds in the world still. Personally I wouldn't trust Israel with a sling-shot let alone tactical nukes.

This BS about painting the US as bloodthirsty imperialists that's floating around is hogwash. Yea the US was the only nation to use Nuclear weapons. The people who use that point as an argument always forget prior to that conventional carpet bombing in Japan killed quite a few more people. They also forget that our government has changed hands 10 times. Hell, a black man couldn't even drink in the same pub as me or wash his hands in the same sink back then. 20 years prior to that an Irish man in America was not much above the status of a slave. That was a differen't country then. Of couse were not perfect but we are smart enough learn from our mistakes and fix them. The US has shown restraint more than you would like to believe in quite a few situations. We showed restraint in the Iraq for twelve years. If we were bloodthirsty war mongers we would have leveled Iraq after Saddam kicked the inspectors out the first time. Hell, It only took us 3 weeks to take saddams regime out this time, 12 years ago we could have probably done it in less than a week. Problem now is that people are forgetting who their "true" friends are. Go ahead side with Iraq and Syria and all of the terrorist dictatorships in the world. If you ever need them to have your back when the sheit hits the fan I wouldn't count on them being there when you look over your shoulder. I spose with the EU having its head crammed up the Russian, Chineese, and middle east's arse you don't need us any more though.

[KayJay]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster

..........
:rolleyes: Yup americans are only here to repress you. Wo don't want people to think for themselvs and run their own government. If fact, if possible, We'd like to chain you up and make you pull our cars for us so we don't have to give them dirty Arabs our money any more. Don't worry about holding your hand out for aid. That is not part of our world domination plan. Were not going to feed you. You'll just pull our car until you drop dead and we'll make more nukes out of the depleted uranium in you from shooting at you with anti-tank shells. If you are a really good "lesser Mortal" we might let you join our military. We will tape you to the wings of our fighter jets and make you flap you dirty little arms so our planes will fly. Jet fuel is more expensive than starving you. :rolleyes:
Of course, it is sheer oversight that you chose to respond to the second paragraph of my post :rolleyes:

[MerrionComputin]

Go ahead side with Iraq and Syria and all of the terrorist dictatorships in the world. If you ever need them to have your back when the sheit hits the fan I wouldn't count on them being there when you look over your shoulder. I spose with the EU having its head crammed up the Russian, Chineese, and middle east's arse you don't need us any more though.


This is the logic of the school yard, not the international stage. I do not side with or against a country - I am siding against the idea that you can invade some countries to destroy their chemical/biological/nuclear programs whilst tolerating and even encouraging the same in other countries. I would consider myself broadly a friend to the US and I think that the declaration of independence is one of the most important political texts ever written but that does not mean unquestioned obedience...if you've ever had a dog you'd know that loyalty is earned, not enforced.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by plenderj
Bush is now complaining about Syria having chemical weapons.
So what ? Where's the problem here ?

The problem, Jamie, is [hushed voice]they probably don't have them[/hushed voice].

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I don't think that Syria will be next - this thing is strictly alphabetical: Iraq->Ireland:eek:

OldSpeak dictates the alphabets in such a way that Iran, and not Ireland, would be next :rolleyes:

However I doubt if anyone in the White House speaks OldSpeak, so I think Syria might be a good choice.


Plus, it's too much hassle to move the troops back onto the planes and ships and transport them to Ireland. I think it's a smart move to wipe clean the neighbourhood while the marines are still there :p

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Arc
Syria messed up when they became our enemies friend, which by default makes them our enemy. Don't expect to supply weapons to our enemy and aid and abed our enemy and send in people to help fight with our enemy during a war and not expect something to be said about it.

Wow, running for presidency next, I think ;)

There are no WMDs to be found in Iraq, and I very much doubt if there are any chemical weapons in Syria. Tell your president and his puppets to at least use some good excuses to cover up their real intentions ;)

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
How so?
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t papa Asad a dictator in Syria just like his son is now? And the US didn’t “encourage” Iraq to attack Iran. It was Saddam’s decision to attack Iran in 1980.
My goodness, you really believe that, won't you? I guess you also believe in Santa then :p


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
This is true. That is also the reason why the US didn’t push on to Baghdad and removed Saddam then, because the UN didn’t mandate it and it would have met with strong opposition to some of the coalition partners such as France and Syria.
I don't think the UN mandated it now, but the US still went ahead with the modern colonization :p


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
You can just focus on why the US went into Afghanistan recently if that countries history is too hard to follow. It was to capture/kill terrorist leaders of Al Quida and to remove the terrorist sympathetic Taliban government that was brutally oppressive to its own people.
Al Qaeda still exists, Al Qaeda activists still exist and Osama bin Laden is still at large, probably laughing his ass out with General Musharraf somewhere in Pakistan. While Afghanistan is soon to be torn between the various warlords and factions claiming a stake in the power. I wonder what exactly it was that made the US invade and destroy Afghanistan. (The US troops "mistakenly" bombed a house in Afghanistan killing 14 civilians. Wow! I guess it must be eyeing the Guinness Book of World Records for misfirings and friendly fire :D)


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
Again you are mistaken in your facts and how you present them. The disarmament of Iraq was agreed on at the UN by the Security Council and 17+ resolutions were passed by that body to get Saddam to comply and disarm. Why do you think the world agreed on this? Probably because he had invaded Iran and Kuwait 2 of his neighbors and had used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. Not only that Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people and was the leading mass murderer still in power in the world. Now is this a guy you want developing Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons?
The UN didn't agree on a "regime change" or a "war against Iraq", though :rolleyes: And for a fact, many won't trust Mr. Bush with all the nuclear and chemical weapons in the US. He has already demonstrated on two occasions he can't make the right decisions with all that power he has.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
As for the US supplying Iraq this is largely overrated and overblown by Anti-US people. What people fail to even look at were the Russian, Chinese, French, and German connection and their supplying of weaponry to Iraq. This includes biological, chemical, and nuclear technologies and equipment. This doesn’t include all of the other weaponry these same countries sold Iraq AFTER the Gulf War in violation of UN sanctions. Russia still had military advisors in Iraq and were training their spies still as documents are now revealing.
The US did have its share of supporting Saddam Hussein. Therefore you don't have any right to point a finger at other nations. Which goes to prove the US is nothing but a selfish government. At least Russia and France tried to stick their necks out for Iraq ;) Just goes to show you can't trust the US as a friend or as a foe :).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
And the WMD’s used by Iraq were supplied in most part by the Russians. These same Russian arms dealers sold chemical and biological weapons to both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. Nice of them huh.
Yeah, because they probably denied the US weapons companies a fair share of profits :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xanith
Syria is a known harborer of terrorists and is a dictatorial government much like Iraq used to be. Selling arms and sending support to a nation in wartime can be seen as a hostile act. I don’t know why you can’t understand that. Seems a rather simple concept.
So is Pakistan, but the US doesn't seem to do anything other than issue empty warnings, and write off huge loans to Pakistan. Pretty neat, eh? I should say the US is indirectly encouraging and fuelling the cross-border terrorism and infiltration into India from the Pakistani land.


.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
Wow, running for presidency next, I think ;)

There are no WMDs to be found in Iraq, and I very much doubt if there are any chemical weapons in Syria. Tell your president and his puppets to at least use some good excuses to cover up their real intentions ;)

.
LOL welcome back HB. I missed you and your little droplets of wisdom :)

X

[Xanith]

My goodness, you really believe that, won't you? I guess you also believe in Santa then
What’s funny is you actually believe the US was behind the war. If you read the history of that war you will find socio and economic reasons as well as Saddam’s own vision of himself as a great Arab leader being the reasons Iraq started that war. I know it’s very hard for you to understand facts as they are but just for once try to.

I don't think the UN mandated it now, but the US still went ahead with the modern colonization
LOL the US is not a colonial power like the UK and France used to be. If you look at all the history of conflicts the US goes in and does what it has to do then leaves. Once again blind to the facts that stare you in the face.

Al Qaeda still exists, Al Qaeda activists still exist and Osama bin Laden is still at large, probably laughing his ass out with General Musharraf somewhere in Pakistan. While Afghanistan is soon to be torn between the various warlords and factions claiming a stake in the power. I wonder what exactly it was that made the US invade and destroy Afghanistan. (The US troops "mistakenly" bombed a house in Afghanistan killing 14 civilians. Wow! I guess it must be eyeing the Guinness Book of World Records for misfirings and friendly fire )
Well we have severely crippled Osama and his network of terrorists. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of them since the US started putting on the pressure and its only a matter of time before Osama is captured as well.

As far as Afghanistan goes, I suppose you would have rather seen the brutal Taliban government in charge? And Afghanistan was ruined long before the US went in there. The US is now providing money to build up the infrastructure of Afghanistan as well as a democratic leader that will uphold the rights of all the Afghani people.

As far as for killing civilians I take it the reason you put mistakenly in quotes is that you somehow believe the US was intentionally targeting civilians. In conflicts mistakes do happen but if you really believe the US was targeting innocent civilians on purpose then you really are one diluted individual.

The UN didn't agree on a "regime change" or a "war against Iraq", though And for a fact, many won't trust Mr. Bush with all the nuclear and chemical weapons in the US. He has already demonstrated on two occasions he can't make the right decisions with all that power he has.
The Iraqi people seem to have a different opinion. They seem to be happy to be free of the butcher of Baghdad Saddam Hussein and his other thugs. And the UN sat idly by while 800,000 people died in Rwanda doing nothing. The UN sat idly by and watched thousands die in Bosnia and Im very happy the US defied the UN and went in to stop the ethnic cleansing that was going on there. And the UN sat idly by watching the biggest mass murderer still in power gas his own people and develop WMD’s and defy 17+ UN sanctions. I’m very happy and very proud my country decided to go in and do something about Saddam. And I am proud of my president for taking a tough stand when it seemed so many were against him. It’s a good time to be an American :)

The US did have its share of supporting Saddam Hussein. Therefore you don't have any right to point a finger at other nations. Which goes to prove the US is nothing but a selfish government. At least Russia and France tried to stick their necks out for Iraq Just goes to show you can't trust the US as a friend or as a foe .
I swear you have such a warped sense of morality. So let me get this straight it wasn’t OK for the US to go into Iraq without UN mandate as you put it (which I think they did according to resolutions already passed but that’s another argument) but it was OK for countries such as France, Germany, and Russia to defy the UN and sell weapons and provide military support to Iraq?

And the US support for Iraq was so minor when compared to countries like France, Russia, China, and Germany. I know you anti-US people love bringing that up but compared to the aforementioned nations the US support for Iraq was so tiny as to be almost insignificant. And the US didn’t sell arms or provide support to the leading mass murdering dictator after the Gulf War as the aforementioned countries did in violation of the UN, an organization you seem to hold dear.

Yeah, because they probably denied the US weapons companies a fair share of profits
:rolleyes:

So is Pakistan, but the US doesn't seem to do anything other than issue empty warnings, and write off huge loans to Pakistan. Pretty neat, eh? I should say the US is indirectly encouraging and fuelling the cross-border terrorism and infiltration into India from the Pakistani land.
Pakistan is helping in the fight on the war on terrorism with the US, so in that respect they are an ally. However I don’t think the US government trusts Pakistan as far as they can throw them. I sure have no love for Pakistan either and actually do sympathize with India’s problem with terrorists. Which is why I can’t understand why you don’t sympathize with the US.

X

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by KayJay
Of course, it is sheer oversight that you chose to respond to the second paragraph of my post :rolleyes:

Nope wasn't an oversite. I'm just tired of countering that point. But if you insist... There are 5 Nations Legally Posessing Nuclear weapons. The US does not have a problem with this. Shortly before September 11th the "Big 5", as they are sometimes called, were working on a deal to reduce the number of weapons in their stockpile. The biggest sacrifice coming from The US and the former Soviet Union. All Responsible parties agreed and this was the first significant step to the removal of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. Terrorist supporting Dictatorships are now getting old sloppy nuclear technology leaking out of Russia due to their lack of security (and most recently from france but that is greed motivated not lack of security). WMDs are not a joke my friend. a terrorist nation firing one off in haste WILL end life as we know it on this planet. Syria/Iraq/Iran can't even take care of it's own people let alone be responsible with that kind of power. Keep the fact that another nuclear power, Israel is right next door to Syria. I'm not sure of the exact date, Ask Honeybee, If he was old enough to understand I'm sure he can tell you right were he was standing when It happend. A major earthquake rocked Pakistan and India, both fledgling nuclear powers at the time, and this caused serious unrest. Neither side had accurate missel detection systems and it was believed by both that the other had launched a nuclear attack. Both went to full alert and we almost saw a full scale nuclear war. If something similar happened in Syria, I doubt their dictator would be a reserved as India was. A nuke fight between Israel and anyone will most definatly plunge the world into global thermo-nuclear warfare. Now please think really long and hard about the consiquences of the likley scenario I just painted for you.

[KayJay]

1) "Legally"? What law? Who's the arbitrer? Where's the judiciary?
2) Quite well aware of the threats to humanity by WMD, but to quote a "Law", "Guns don't kill. People do." There is no point in deploying thousands of cruise missiles, displacing 24 million people (displacing does not neccessary mean geographic displacement) and eroding a quarter century of history, however tainted such history maybe, all in the name of preventing the same horrors. It changes the players, not the game. Further, Iraq could not have, under even any far-fetched circumstances, been a threat to anyone in March 2003. It was a dead snake, at least dying. It was a sheer case of retribution and punitive action. Calling it "pre-emptive" was a gross misrepresentation of Her Majesty's tounge.

Nevertheless, had the US of A stuck to its stance of "Protecting Ourselves" rather than "Liberate You" and "Give you a better life" and "Make your country safer", I'm sure we all would be less antagonostic and more appreciative of your "need" to wage war. Actions without motivations are for animals. Not humans. And there are "right" motivations and "wrong" ones. You may laugh at me or flare up, but the fact is, I, along with a vast number of people of this world, feel that, no one has the moral or leagl right to dictate (or take punitive action against me for) what I do in my house.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by KayJay
1) "Legally"? What law? Who's the arbitrer? Where's the judiciary?

The Nations who already have Nukes and are trying to keep themselvs for ever having to use them.

2) Quite well aware of the threats to humanity by WMD, but to quote a "Law", "Guns don't kill. People do." There is no point in deploying thousands of cruise missiles, displacing 24 million people (displacing does not neccessary mean geographic displacement) and eroding a quarter century of history, however tainted such history maybe, all in the name of preventing the same horrors. It changes the players, not the game.

Absolutly agreed, I do not support the invasion of Iraq "only" on the basis of liberating the Iraqi people. If you do not earn your freedom yourself it is meaningless. I compare that to a child will take better care of a toy he had to work for than one given to him as a gift.

Further, Iraq could not have, under even any far-fetched circumstances, been a threat to anyone in March 2003. It was a dead snake, at least dying. It was a sheer case of retribution and punitive action. Calling it "pre-emptive" was a gross misrepresentation of Her Majesty's tounge.

Again I ask you, where is the Anthrax and VX that was verified to be in Iraq's arsenal at the end of the gulf war? Pray they find it now and it is not in the wrong hands. A national leader posessing these things and who is willing to deal with terrorist orgnazations is a very dangerous mix.

Nevertheless, had the US of A stuck to its stance of "Protecting Ourselves" rather than "Liberate You" and "Give you a better life" and "Make your country safer", I'm sure we all would be less antagonostic and more appreciative of your "need" to wage war. Actions without motivations are for animals. Not humans. And there are "right" motivations and "wrong" ones. You may laugh at me or flare up, but the fact is, I, along with a vast number of people of this world, feel that, no one has the moral or leagl right to dictate (or take punitive action against me for) what I do in my house. [/B]

Your getting that from the press, not the US Government. It is sad that some jackarses on TV have the power to sway world opinion like that. Yes it is nice that the Iraqi people seem to be happy, that is great and I am happy for them. Gen. Franks did a good job keeping civilian casualitys to the absolute minimum. I have always been consistant in my stance that any measure necessary to protect the US and it's allies should be taken in Iraq regardless of the consiquences to the Iraqi people. Unfortunatly the months spent bickering with the UN gave Saddam ample time to get his Anthrax and VX out of the country. That was a mistake(possibly hopefully they'll still find it in Iraq). Now we find ourselvs in the same boat with Syria all because we tried to appease european left wings. That is BS. Regardless of the outcome of this Bush will not get a vote from me again next election. American's safety and not European Left wing's opinion should be the concern of the president of the United States.

What you do in your own house is your own busisnes. Same goes for me. However, if you are doing something in your house that is going to kill myself, family and friends then plan on having a truck load of pipe swinging SOBs kicking down your door in the near future. I would expect you to do the same if the situation was reversed.

[KayJay]

No qualms whatsoever with your previous post, MasterBlaster. None at all.

Just a coupla observations.

The whole WMD business: If, God Willing, they are found, excellent. But it would be a miracle if the did. And those who, God Forbid, have it now, have more than enough hate/shame/anger to make use of it. More so than in March 2003. Of course, its your word and mine against BBC/Al-Jazeera/CNN/The Hindu/The Times as to their existence. So I can't say much about that "fact"

And I really did not see any evidence of Iraq wanting to blow up New York, or Redmond or Chicago or London or Manchester or for that matter Chennai. 3 years of Regime Change Regime Change Regime Change Regime Change, suddenly its WMD and "we are afraid for our friends and families". It just did not fit. It still does not.

[Memnoch1207]

There are more than 1000 (latest reports say close to 2000) sites that need to be investigated for WMD's in Iraq...The last time I heard we had inspected about 19 or 20 of them. That leaves apporximately 980-1980 sites left to be checked.

For some reason people are of the opinion that there is only 1 primary reason for why we attacked saddam and his regime. There are multiple reasons.

1) Violation of UN resolutions
2) Verify proof of WMD's and destroy them
3) Liberate the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddams Regime.
4) The war on Terrorism

those are just the primary ones I can think of.

Others claim it is a contradiction for the US to order another countries to destoy its WMD's while we still have them. Let's look at the facts.

If Saddams army was as strong as the United States virtually all of the middle east would have been invaded by Saddam by now.

There is no power in trying to negotiate from a position of weakness. We have WMD's, we have proved we will use them if necessary (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Therefore, for the US to end its WMD programs would be inviting other countries or organizations to attack us. We have them for defense, and we stand in a position of power and strength.

Then I hear about "Well Israel has violated UN resolutions too". You're right, they have, but why have they violated them???
If israel didn't have its weapons, it would be invade within a week, by Iraq or Syria or Iran or whatever country got to the borders first. They refuse to comply out of the sheer necessity for their countries survival.

BTW...I heard the coalition troops just shut down an oil pipeline that led into Syria...hehehe

I suspect that if Bashar Assad continues to say one thing and do another, they will/should be next.

I, along with a vast number of people of this world, feel that, no one has the moral or leagl right to dictate (or take punitive action against me for) what I do in my house.

I agree...and there you have the definition of a dictatorship! Which is what Saddams Regime was. And the Iraqi people felt the same way as you do...They don't want to be told what they can and can't do.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
What’s funny is you actually believe the US was behind the war. If you read the history of that war you will find socio and economic reasons as well as Saddam’s own vision of himself as a great Arab leader being the reasons Iraq started that war. I know it’s very hard for you to understand facts as they are but just for once try to.
The only justifiable reason for a war, to me, can be an imminent threat to the nation, in this case the US. Considering the amount of resistance the Iraqi military put up (I mean your guys killed their own troops more than the Iraqis did, the fall of Tikrit etc. plus no WMDs found so far, no aerial existance and about a handful of missiles) I just can't buy the argument that a war was necessary to find out and destroy the WMDs, if there were any. Iraq was NOT any kind of a threat to the US directly, and so there was absolutely no need for a unilateral strike. "Regime Change" and other reasons are plain bullsh it because the US doesn't have the right to tell other nations whether to have democracy or not.

LOL the US is not a colonial power like the UK and France used to be. If you look at all the history of conflicts the US goes in and does what it has to do then leaves. Once again blind to the facts that stare you in the face.
Well, this time the US doesn't seem to be in a mood to leave :)

Well we have severely crippled Osama and his network of terrorists. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of them since the US started putting on the pressure and its only a matter of time before Osama is captured as well.
There's no proof, apart from absence of any action, that the Al Qaeda network has actually been disbanded. They may simply be waiting for another chance to strike. After all 9/11 did happen out of the blue. Laden certainly won't declare where his next strike is going to be. So unless you round him up and every other member of Al Qaeda, I don't think you can say it has been crippled.

As far as for killing civilians I take it the reason you put mistakenly in quotes is that you somehow believe the US was intentionally targeting civilians. In conflicts mistakes do happen but if you really believe the US was targeting innocent civilians on purpose then you really are one diluted individual.
I didn't say the US forces did it intentionally, but all these instances show that the US military is simply incapable of such delicate tasks. When they can't distinguish between civilian and military targets, when they can't distinguish between friendly and enemy targets, and more importantly when they can't decide how to tackle a group of civilians, they are as dangerous as WMDs with Laden.

I swear you have such a warped sense of morality. So let me get this straight it wasn’t OK for the US to go into Iraq without UN mandate as you put it (which I think they did according to resolutions already passed but that’s another argument) but it was OK for countries such as France, Germany, and Russia to defy the UN and sell weapons and provide military support to Iraq?
Your government could have given proof, instead of repeating allegations, that these countries were defying the UN resolutions. Hell, you should also have given proof of WMDs actually existing in Iraq before you ordered the first troop movement. But it seems the US doesn't believe in evidences anymore :rolleyes:

And the US support for Iraq was so minor when compared to countries like France, Russia, China, and Germany. I know you anti-US people love bringing that up but compared to the aforementioned nations the US support for Iraq was so tiny as to be almost insignificant. And the US didn’t sell arms or provide support to the leading mass murdering dictator after the Gulf War as the aforementioned countries did in violation of the UN, an organization you seem to hold dear.
Donald Rumsfeld did visit Baghdad, didn't he? I doubt if he was there on a sight-seeing tour.

Pakistan is helping in the fight on the war on terrorism with the US, so in that respect they are an ally. However I don’t think the US government trusts Pakistan as far as they can throw them. I sure have no love for Pakistan either and actually do sympathize with India’s problem with terrorists. Which is why I can’t understand why you don’t sympathize with the US.

I do sympathize with the US as far as the effects of terrorism are concerned. However I don't sympathize with you or agree with you when your own actions to annihilate terrorism are concerned. If you are a law-abiding citizen, it's your duty to exhaust all legal means available to you to seek righting of whatever wrong has been done to you. Also you must be ready to pay for your own mistakes. The US doesn't seem to be doing so. Its treatment of Iraq and Syria, as against Israel and Pakistan clearly shows that it has motives other than stopping terrorism in its actions. If you believe Iraq was a threat to the world peace, countries like Pakistan are more so, because Iraq at least didn't send suicide squads, planted bombs and commit other terrorist acts, it went to war openly with Iran and then with Kuwait. Pakistan is playing a proxy war by sending in terrorists from across the border. The US is talking of financial and diplomatic sanctions against Syria, I wonder why not against Pakistan?

Why do you think India has not been resorting to sending terrorists across into Pakistan, or waging war against it? Because it's not the right way to resolve the dispute. The Indian government has time and again stated it is ready for a dialogue with Pakistan, provided Pakistan ends the cross-border terrorism.


.

[Memnoch1207]

The only justifiable reason for a war, to me, can be an imminent threat to the nation, in this case the US. Considering the amount of resistance the Iraqi military put up (I mean your guys killed their own troops more than the Iraqis did, the fall of Tikrit etc. plus no WMDs found so far, no aerial existance and about a handful of missiles) I just can't buy the argument that a war was necessary to find out and destroy the WMDs, if there were any. Iraq was NOT any kind of a threat to the US directly, and so there was absolutely no need for a unilateral strike. "Regime Change" and other reasons are plain bullsh it because the US doesn't have the right to tell other nations whether to have democracy or not.


There were more reasons to this war than just WMD's. Go ask the iraqi people how they feel about having saddam out of power.
It wasn't UNILATERAL...my god people there are 40+ countries involved, how in any way, shape or form can that be considered unilateral? Once again ask the iraqi people if they would rather live as they were under saddams regime, or live under a democracy.

Well, this time the US doesn't seem to be in a mood to leave
The war hasn't even been declared over yet! And the US isn't just going to pull out without having some sort of government in place.



There's no proof, apart from absence of any action, that the Al Qaeda network has actually been disbanded. They may simply be waiting for another chance to strike. After all 9/11 did happen out of the blue. Laden certainly won't declare where his next strike is going to be. So unless you round him up and every other member of Al Qaeda, I don't think you can say it has been crippled.


Maybe not, but it would be awfully hard to plan a terroristic attack while your on the run!


I didn't say the US forces did it intentionally, but all these instances show that the US military is simply incapable of such delicate tasks. When they can't distinguish between civilian and military targets, when they can't distinguish between friendly and enemy targets, and more importantly when they can't decide how to tackle a group of civilians, they are as dangerous as WMDs with Laden.


I guess you missed the reports that the iraqi army, republican guard and elite republican guard were dressing in civilian clothing?
Yes, it would be hard to distinguish who is friendly and who isn't under those circumstances.


Donald Rumsfeld did visit Baghdad, didn't he? I doubt if he was there on a sight-seeing tour.


If your talking about his visit in the 80's. Gimme a break, like anyone could predict what saddam would do in 5-10 years!



I do sympathize with the US as far as the effects of terrorism are concerned. However I don't sympathize with you or agree with you when your own actions to annihilate terrorism are concerned. If you are a law-abiding citizen, it's your duty to exhaust all legal means available to you to seek righting of whatever wrong has been done to you. Also you must be ready to pay for your own mistakes. The US doesn't seem to be doing so. Its treatment of Iraq and Syria, as against Israel and Pakistan clearly shows that it has motives other than stopping terrorism in its actions. If you believe Iraq was a threat to the world peace, countries like Pakistan are more so, because Iraq at least didn't send suicide squads, planted bombs and commit other terrorist acts, it went to war openly with Iran and then with Kuwait. Pakistan is playing a proxy war by sending in terrorists from across the border. The US is talking of financial and diplomatic sanctions against Syria, I wonder why not against Pakistan?


Iraq did not invade kuwait openly, as a matter of fact in an interview with saddam shortly before he invaded kuwait a reported asked him if he had any intention of doing so...and he replied "Of course not"
Each country will be dealt with in time. Those that promote and aid terrorism will be dealt with either by economic sanctions or by acts of war. The US isn't the only country concerned about terrorism, nor is it the only country to experience a terroristic attack. But the forces of a combined coalition against terrorism have the power to stop it, and to deal with countries that promote or aid it.

India is just playing the good country role...."Look they attack us, and we just want peace." meanwhile Indian civilians are dying. How many Indian civilians have to die before India stops talking and starts acting?