Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I would partially consent to search on a personal level because I like to have my privacy, whether that privacy is hiding anything or not. On a diplomatic level: you have no proof that I have anything and no right therefore to search my country. If I recall correctly the chief inspector from the UN released a report saying that he had not found anything and believed that saddam was following what he was told as necessary.

---

Bullsh*t. According to MY (I'll retract if I'm wrong) understanding the UN had the right to inspect the entire country if even the slightest suspicion was aroused. Saddam was against his own resolution. I might not have proof, but I have credible cause and on a global level, credible cause is enough.

This is not the US where you need a search warrant to search a building. Remember that. We're on a global level now.

Wasn't the "proof" documentation of chem/bio weapons from inspections conducted in the early '90s, and then when the later inspections were conducted, after noticing these chem/bio items were missing, when asked about proof of those specific lots later on, there was no accounting for their disappearance/destruction?



:wave:

The primary issue came about as Saddam denied the UN inspectors access to key facilities and locations. He then kicked the UN Inspectors out of the country for a time, until Clinton started the bombings again, then Saddam let them back in, after many speculate he cleaned (moved incriminating evidence) from those previously denied locations to locations that had already been inspected. Thus leading the UN Inspectors on a goose chase of hidden weapons. The UN inspectors had to provide Saddam with a list of locations that they wanted to search, so Saddam already knew ahead of time which facilities were going to be inspected. Not a smart idea on the UN's part. All they did was give Saddam advanced warning to move whatever he may have been trying to hide.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
Bullsh*t. According to MY (I'll retract if I'm wrong) understanding the UN had the right to inspect the entire country if even the slightest suspicion was aroused. Saddam was against his own resolution. I might not have proof, but I have credible cause and on a global level, credible cause is enough.

This is not the US where you need a search warrant to search a building. Remember that. We're on a global level now.

---

I was not talking about the UN inspections, I don't disagree with them at all, back to the analogy the UN was the first search and the US was the second much more destructive one. To continue on the analogy further: My parents came in my room, took away most of my property and still didn't find anything. They didn't give me my property back instead they stayed there and watched me like a hawk 24/7 continually saying they would give me my room back but not leaving.

I disagree with us going there. The UN inspected, found nothing, released an official report saying there was nothing and then refused to support us if we went to war. We did it anyways and found exactly what the UN said: there was nothing there. We searched the buildings the UN inspectors didn't, there was nothing their either and no proof that their had been anything there in the immediate past. Things like biological weapons cannot be just up and moved without leaving detectable traces of their existance behind.

I saw this on another message board and thought i'd post it here.

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in
perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush
was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try
to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan
did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950 -1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965 -1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We
lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

What you just posted is flat out bullsh*t.

In response: Lets clear up one point, Iraq did not attack us. They did not give refuge to Osama, they have absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror. I do not disagree with the war in Afghanistan, the real war on terror.

Germany was a direct threat to us. After Germany had conquered Europe, which almost certainly would have happened were it not for our fresh soldiers and new ideas, they would have no reason to not attack us and would have most likely had the manpower to destroy us. We intervened to stop them from being able to threaten us and also to back up our allies. Not to mention we also nuked Japan, getting them back for when the did attack us. Point destroyed

According to the closing paragraph Bush "liberated" 2 countries, by that same definition Truman liberated South Korea. Point destroyed by own hypocritical nature.

Nobody can claim that the vietnam conflict was a correct thing to do and since I have little historical background involving this conflict I will not attempt to argue a point. I will however bring up the fact that they did not just happen to have one of the worlds largest oil fields and kennedy did a great deal more for our country other than starting a war. He was a very beloved president to many. Point crippled

This war is also inexplicable as far as I am concerned, there were reasons for it but none good enough in my opinion to warrant the loss of American lives. However Clinton also did a great deal for our country, this article assumes that the only thing any of these presidents did while in office was start a war and then just leave. That actually further proves that people like this are idiots and are incapable of noticing that home isn't the perfect place either. Many of these presidents did screw up yes, but many of them did great things for our country also, which Bush has not. He has drafted a tax plan to save the rich more money, he has all but destroyed the economy and since this article is so centered on wars, he has started two of them. Point obliterated.

Its funny how many times this article mentions how other nations never attacked us before other presidents declared war on them yet fails to mention how Iraq never attacked us either. Also funny how the wording suddenly changes, Bush did not go to war with these countries but liberated them by means of bombing and shooting them. While crushing the Taliban he killed hundreds of innocent citizens in afghanistann, another fact conveniently left out in this. Al Queda is not crippled, if anything they are more active in their mission to destroy us now because of what we did to them and the country that they had ruled. All we managed to do was force them to relocate, we hassled them quite a bit sure but we did not cripple them by any means. Anyone who thinks we killed all of the al queda members and destroyed the only place that any of them lived is an outright fool. Again Saddam is called a terrorist incorrectly also, and if killing your own people is allowing for the name terrorist consider this: Mr. Bush has had major cutbacks on welfare programs which in the long run will leave many people with less money than they need to live and they will die. Less violent sure but I would much rather be shot or injected with poison than starve to death because our president spent so much money on a war that didn't need to be fought.

For the most part the UN is responsible for the nuclear inspectors, maybe whoever wrote this should try giving credit to the proper people. He also did not stop any terrorists, they have not attacked because they have chosen not to attack. Very few terrorists have been found in America, a majority of them have been found overseas where foreign officials have captured them and allowed us right to interrogate them. Even the ones that were found in American had naught to do with Bush, they had to do with the CIA, FBI, and local police forces. Are we going to give Bush credit for putting the fires out after 9/11 also??

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I disagree with us going there. The UN inspected, found nothing, released an official report saying there was nothing and then refused to support us if we went to war. We did it anyways and found exactly what the UN said: there was nothing there. We searched the buildings the UN inspectors didn't, there was nothing their either and no proof that their had been anything there in the immediate past. Things like biological weapons cannot be just up and moved without leaving detectable traces of their existance behind.

---

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

That completely shoots down everything you've said. And who says biological weapons cannot be just "upped and moved?" If tanks can be flown out, I'd imagine mustard gas barrels can be, too.

The UN was inspecting. They weren't done, meaning that the UN never could have said, with 100% certainty, that there was nothing to be found in Iraq because they were searching themselves. After all the run-arounds they were being given, Bush finally got fed up with the BS and quit playing games.

Nice post, rdove.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

That completely shoots down everything you've said. And who says biological weapons cannot be just "upped and moved?" If tanks can be flown out, I'd imagine mustard gas barrels can be, too.

The UN was inspecting. They weren't done, meaning that the UN never could have said, with 100% certainty, that there was nothing to be found in Iraq because they were searching themselves. After all the run-arounds they were being given, Bush finally got fed up with the BS and quit playing games.

Nice post, rdove.

---

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

Oooops, sorry

Read my reply to rdove's post. People think I am opinionated in what I say but I at least attempt to back up my arguments with a reasonable way of thinking whether or not the arguments themselves can be considered very reasonable. That thing he posted was so full of contradiction it was ridiculous.

rdove's post goes onto another discussion. Maybe another thread.

Well, from your link I got these counter-points to what you're saying:

• ...Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. These things don't disappear into thin air. Something happened to the weapons - even the UN says so. So what do you propose to that?
• Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not
• The Bush administration [used] inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia This was not the U.S. acting alone.
• Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.
• Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant. Dormant, as in "temporarily inactive." Not non-existant.

Let's face it - it's just a matter of opinion. I like the fact that terrorists have one less haven to sit and plan things out against the US and I can sleep easier (not that I was ever losing sleep in the first place, but you know what I mean) knowing that my country has helped free the Iraqi people.

I'm sure you appreciate it too, but your opinions reflect otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
rdove's post goes onto another discussion. Maybe another thread.

---

Can do If you would like...lemme know

Whatever you want to do. It's not my forum. ;)

MY TURN!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
What you just posted is flat out bullsh*t.

In response: Lets clear up one point, Iraq did not attack us. They did not give refuge to Osama, they have absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror. I do not disagree with the war in Afghanistan, the real war on terror.

---

Nothing to do with the war on terror? Answar Al-Islam a known associate of Al-Qaida was based in Northern Iraq! The camp this terrorist group abandoned after being bombed, tested positive for Ricin and Anthrax. Answar Al-Islam was making chemical weapons in Northern Iraq. Nothing to do with the war on terror. Get your facts straight.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Germany was a direct threat to us. After Germany had conquered Europe, which almost certainly would have happened were it not for our fresh soldiers and new ideas, they would have no reason to not attack us and would have most likely had the manpower to destroy us. We intervened to stop them from being able to threaten us and also to back up our allies. Not to mention we also nuked Japan, getting them back for when the did attack us. Point destroyed

---

Germany was never a direct threat to us, because it never got that far. The U.S. was asked repeatedly by Great Britian to get involved in WWII as the beginning and Roosevelt refused. Pearl Harbor is what lead us to war. The U.S. was fighting in Southeast Asia, North Africa, and Southern Europe all at once.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

According to the closing paragraph Bush "liberated" 2 countries, by that same definition Truman liberated South Korea. Point destroyed by own hypocritical nature.

---

Truman did not liberate South Korea. If he had, there wouldn't be a DMZ on the 37th Parallel right now, with North and South Korean soldiers mirroring each other. It was a cease fire.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Nobody can claim that the vietnam conflict was a correct thing to do and since I have little historical background involving this conflict I will not attempt to argue a point. I will however bring up the fact that they did not just happen to have one of the worlds largest oil fields and kennedy did a great deal more for our country other than starting a war. He was a very beloved president to many. Point crippled

---

Vietnam got started over the fear of communism spreading, that's it. I respect Kennedy and think he was a good president, but if his dirty laundry had been made public, he probably would have faced impeachment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

This war is also inexplicable as far as I am concerned, there were reasons for it but none good enough in my opinion to warrant the loss of American lives. However Clinton also did a great deal for our country, this article assumes that the only thing any of these presidents did while in office was start a war and then just leave. That actually further proves that people like this are idiots and are incapable of noticing that home isn't the perfect place either. Many of these presidents did screw up yes, but many of them did great things for our country also, which Bush has not. He has drafted a tax plan to save the rich more money, he has all but destroyed the economy and since this article is so centered on wars, he has started two of them. Point obliterated.

---

Freedom isn't worth the loss of lives? Living without fear of terroristic type attacks isn't worth the loss of lives? Liberating a country and its citizens. that were ruled with fear, torture and murder isn't worth the loss of lives? If none of these reasons is worth the loss of a human life to achieve, then what is? BTW, one of my best friends is in Afghanistan right now. He and the rest of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan think their lives are worth losing in the fight for freedom and safety from terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Its funny how many times this article mentions how other nations never attacked us before other presidents declared war on them yet fails to mention how Iraq never attacked us either.

---

Yep, but they invaded Kuwait, murdered anyone who opposed them, took american hostages, and threatened the overall peace of not only the middle east, but the world entire.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Also funny how the wording suddenly changes, Bush did not go to war with these countries but liberated them by means of bombing and shooting them. While crushing the Taliban he killed hundreds of innocent citizens in afghanistann, another fact conveniently left out in this.

---

Unfortunately, the death of innocent people will always be a fact of war. Bush never declared war. Congress has to approve a declaration of war. It was considered a war because there was armed combat involved, but it was never classified as a war.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Al Queda is not crippled, if anything they are more active in their mission to destroy us now because of what we did to them and the country that they had ruled. All we managed to do was force them to relocate, we hassled them quite a bit sure but we did not cripple them by any means. Anyone who thinks we killed all of the al queda members and destroyed the only place that any of them lived is an outright fool.

---

Al-Qaida is on the run, they are being hunted in just about every major country in the world. Many top members have been captured or killed. We may not have crippled them, but have we had anymore attacks since 9/11??

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

Again Saddam is called a terrorist incorrectly also, and if killing your own people is allowing for the name terrorist consider this: Mr. Bush has had major cutbacks on welfare programs which in the long run will leave many people with less money than they need to live and they will die. Less violent sure but I would much rather be shot or injected with poison than starve to death because our president spent so much money on a war that didn't need to be fought.

---

YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND TO COMPARE BUSH TO SADDAM HUSSEIN!
Bush didn't murder hundreds of thousand of his people.
Bush didn't attack entire cities with chemical weapons, killing women and children.
Bush doesn't have unmarked mass graves where he has buried those who would oppose him.
Bush hasn't lured defectors of his family back to him and then had them executed.
Out of all your posts in this thread, that is about the ****ing dumbest thing you have posted. You must be out of your ****ing mind!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8

For the most part the UN is responsible for the nuclear inspectors, maybe whoever wrote this should try giving credit to the proper people. He also did not stop any terrorists, they have not attacked because they have chosen not to attack. Very few terrorists have been found in America, a majority of them have been found overseas where foreign officials have captured them and allowed us right to interrogate them. Even the ones that were found in American had naught to do with Bush, they had to do with the CIA, FBI, and local police forces. Are we going to give Bush credit for putting the fires out after 9/11 also??

---

There have been many arrests since 9/11, that have uncovered and prevented plots for more terrorist attacks, so yes, attacks have been prevented.
Whose presidency allowed these individuals to come into the country with invalid green cards and expired VISA's??? It wasn't Bushes administration. The hijackers had been in the country for over a year, before the 9/11 attacks took place. Don't try to place blame on Bush for allowing things to happen that could have been prevented by Clintons administration.

Okay...They buried their own Jet Fighters...now who thinks the WMD's can't be buried also???

Iraqi Jet Fighters Found Buried In Desert

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Germany was never a direct threat to us, because it never got that far. The U.S. was asked repeatedly by Great Britian to get involved in WWII as the beginning and Roosevelt refused. Pearl Harbor is what lead us to war. The U.S. was fighting in Southeast Asia, North Africa, and Southern Europe all at once.

---

Germany attacked US shipping going between the US and Britain. And I do believe U-Boats were close to the US eastern coast? :dunno:

All I can do is laugh, Im not going to take the time to write up another response because no matter what anyone says we will all have our own opinions.

Maybe al-queda can come "liberate" us from president bush too, of course then it would be considered an act of war not a liberation. Its only liberation when its convenient for you to label it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
Maybe al-queda can come "liberate" us from president bush too, of course then it would be considered an act of war not a liberation.

---

You're a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
You're a moron.

---

How so??

Does people thinking that a person's actions are wrong actually make them so?? Were the loyalists who didn't believe in our type of government not persecuted after the revolution??

Im not going to bother arguing this anymore because you are all closed minded blind idiots. I can talk to myself and at least try to give myself an intelligent answer and not resort to simple name-calling. Simple words come from simple minds.

You're likening Bush to a terrorist. You also seem to think that Al-Qaida's actions are justifiied. I respect different opinions, but some things are just ridiculous.

Errrmmmm... Im talking about Iraq not afghanistan... wrong war.


I never said al-queda's actions were justified, I simply tried to use an analogy to prove that the article was indeed telling the truth, but it used different words to make certain aspects of it sound better or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Why did we have to Attack Iraq? Cause Saddam was killing thousands of Iraquies on a daily basis.

---

Saddam was killing thousands on a daily basis? How long was he doing this? What's the population of Iraq?

Let's just guess that the population of Iraq is...60,000 (may be more, may be less). If he's killing thousands on a daily basis (lets just go with a thousand), then that must mean he's only been doing it for about 60 days, or two months.

Seems like other people are telling me he's been doing bad things for years.

Would the population of Iraq be like...whiped out by now?

Color me confused.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hobo
Saddam was killing thousands on a daily basis? How long was he doing this? What's the population of Iraq?

Let's just guess that the population of Iraq is...60,000 (may be more, may be less). If he's killing thousands on a daily basis (lets just go with a thousand), then that must mean he's only been doing it for about 60 days, or two months.

Seems like other people are telling me he's been doing bad things for years.

Would the population of Iraq be like...whiped out by now?

Color me confused.

---

:lol:

I believe the Iraqi Population was somewhere between 20 and 30 million? :unsure:

I have rised a good cloud of dust here.

posted by The Hobo:

Quote:

---

Saddam was killing thousands on a daily basis? How long was he doing this? What's the population of Iraq?

---

Killing thousands on a daily basis.
Do some math: killing a few people (say 3) yields 10960 ten thousands in ten years.

I am not defending a killer like Saddam, but jhow many iraqis were killed since the invasion? And how many americans (and Englands, Spaniards, Italians...)?

War is no solution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Juan Carlos Rey
Killing thousands on a daily basis.
Do some math: killing a few people (say 3) yields 10960 ten thousands in ten years.

---

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It was Arc that stated he was killing thousands daily.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I believe the Iraqi Population was somewhere between 20 and 30 million? :unsure:

---

Yeah, you're correct. 24,001,816 (July 2002 est.)

So that would mean it would take about 66 years (given 365 days a year) for Sadam to kill the population of Iraq, by Arc's numbers.

Well by thousands I would take that as a number larger than 1,000 and less than 10,000. I'll give a conservative estimate of 2,000 on the low end of things.

2,000 people per day *365 days/year = 730,000 people/year

~24,000,000 people in Iraq/730,000 = 32.8 years to kill everyone (this is of course not completely correct because there would have been less people when saddam came into power as the population has a tendency to grow which I am sure is no different in Iraq so it would actually take much less time than that). According to some quick research saddam came into power sometime around 1970, which according to my calendar was 33 years ago, meaning that the entire population of Iraq is already gone. This is all one big conspiracy, we are just pretending there are people there, they have all died by now... or maybe is it possible that Arc is an idiot and doesn't know jack **** about Iraq or its history??



Take a look here: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Comment...303madsen.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
You're likening Bush to a terrorist. You also seem to think that Al-Qaida's actions are justifiied. I respect different opinions, but some things are just ridiculous.

---

the Al-Quada believed they were justified and Bush is a terrorist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by davebat
the Al-Quada believed they were justified and Bush is a terrorist.

---

And Charles Manson hasn't apologized for what he's done. What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Al-Qaida is on the run, they are being hunted in just about every major country in the world. Many top members have been captured or killed. We may not have crippled them, but have we had anymore attacks since 9/11??

---

Of course you are excluding the almost daily car bomb explosions in Iraq, the latest train explosions in Spain et cetera out of this, right? :D

Personally I think the report in BBC that the whole "war on terror" propaganda is dividing the US and its allies and also the Muslim nations is quite serious. I know I shall be ridiculed and my opinion won't change anything, even then I must say that Afghanistan and now Iraq have started something which the US cannot end. Sometimes I fear the prophecy of Nostrademus that the Muslims and the Christians will fight each other and perish is about to come true, and these are the times seeds for such a conflict have been sown.

To be precise, the US is not being any different from bin Laden, because both of them are saying the same thing: If you are not with us you are against us, and if you are with us you can't turn around and get out. That's what the comments about "appeasement" reflect. The US simply doesn't seem to have any concern and respect about the sovereignty of a nation and its ability and freedom to make its own choices. And frankly I doubt if Spain pulls out any other nations are going to contribute troops.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Of course you are excluding the almost daily car bomb explosions in Iraq, the latest train explosions in Spain et cetera out of this, right? :D

---

I don’t remember him saying they were finished only that they were crippled. Also you are assuming that the bombings done in Iraq were all from Al Queda which I don’t understand because I thought you believed there was no link between Iraq and terrorists.

Also I would love to hear your opinion on Islamic terrorists and your own country of India and how you feel they should be dealt with. That and how you feel about what should be done in what’s left of Kashmir. I just want to find out if you have a different opinion in how the US is dealing with it as opposed to how you think your country should deal with it. I have asked this before but you have never answered...I would still love to hear your opinion on this.

X

One would hope they will take the view of Ghandi and do it peacefully - historically it seems to be the most successful way of sort these kind of issues out...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
One would hope they will take the view of Ghandi and do it peacefully - historically it seems to be the most successful way of sort these kind of issues out...

---

Yeah the whole Neville Chamberlain thing worked out great against Hitler. Even after he annexed the Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia most of Europe still believed that Hitler could be dealt with peacefully. Unfortunately this was not the case. Historically speaking of course not very successful huh.

X

Methinks some people have a Third Reich fetish. Tell me, do you have soiled pants every time you type the name Hitler ?

Must be because you seem to do little else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah the whole Neville Chamberlain thing worked out great against Hitler. Even after he annexed the Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia most of Europe still believed that Hitler could be dealt with peacefully. Unfortunately this was not the case. Historically speaking of course not very successful huh.

X

---

Heard of Prescott Bush?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah the whole Neville Chamberlain thing worked out great against Hitler. Even after he annexed the Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia most of Europe still believed that Hitler could be dealt with peacefully. Unfortunately this was not the case. Historically speaking of course not very successful huh.

X

---

Any other examples? Because I can list scores of incidents where a violent approach did not succeed. One swallow does not make a spring, my condescending friend.

Prescott Bush anyone? Know him?

That's nothing new. Businesses have always dealt with totalitarian regimes on numerous occasions.
Even today with less than democratic China.

American business are no exception. They never have been. GM and Standard Oil did trade with Germany in the '20s and '30s right up until the Trade with the Enemy Bill of 1942.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I don’t remember him saying they were finished only that they were crippled. Also you are assuming that the bombings done in Iraq were all from Al Queda which I don’t understand because I thought you believed there was no link between Iraq and terrorists.

---

Bravo. This statement reminds us that peaceniks like to speak out of both sides of their mouths. First they say Iraq and Al Quaeda have no relation, then they say Al Queada is winning in Iraq???? They confuse themselves with their lies. When you lie, you never can remember what lie you told to who.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
Prescott Bush anyone? Know him?

---

Personally, no, but I do know of him. I guess sheit really does roll down hill. Even when I comes to gene pools.

how do you spell illuminati?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Okay...They buried their own Jet Fighters...now who thinks the WMD's can't be buried also???

Iraqi Jet Fighters Found Buried In Desert

---

The Jets were found. The WMDs were not!

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I don’t remember him saying they were finished only that they were crippled. Also you are assuming that the bombings done in Iraq were all from Al Queda which I don’t understand because I thought you believed there was no link between Iraq and terrorists.

Also I would love to hear your opinion on Islamic terrorists and your own country of India and how you feel they should be dealt with. That and how you feel about what should be done in what’s left of Kashmir. I just want to find out if you have a different opinion in how the US is dealing with it as opposed to how you think your country should deal with it. I have asked this before but you have never answered...I would still love to hear your opinion on this.

X

---

As far as I remember of the reports I read of the latest Iraq bombings, the US officials in Iraq are saying they bear the hallmark of Al Qaeda. Since the beliefs of the US officials count much more than an outside individual like me, I thought it best to believe them, whether right or wrong. So if you think there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, please explain why the US officials are making such comments. And if you believe Iraq and Al Qaeda do have some connection, there's no dispute here then :)

As far as the policies of the Indian government go with respect to Kashmir, our stand has been the same throughout: Pakistan should return the occupied Kashmir to India, and then we can resolve the issue through bilateral talks. The act of Pakistan to capture part of Kashmir itself was illegal and amounted to invasion. Study some history and also study how the Indian and Pakistani political and economic cultures have developed, and then you will realize that while Pakistan focussed only on the Kashmir issue to sow hatred among its people towards India and strengthen the hold onto the power, India has achieved remarkable progress in developing itself as an emerging economic power. Even the free-trade-seeking US is now seeking to ban certain types of trades. All this while tackling the issues of militancy on almost all borders.

Before the Kashmir issue, we faced the Khalistan issue in Punjab. It was tackled not by force, but a combination of force and peace. Mere force would never achieve anything. Our government successfully convinced the people that violence was not the right way. The conflict cost us one prime minister.

In Kashmir too, the Indian government has held state assembly elections recently, under the observation of international observers, and there is a democratically elected government working towards constructive measures to restore Kashmir to its earlier state. The government is also in talks with all the major political parties in Kashmir to resolve the issue peacefully. And that includes parties like Hurriyat Conference which were directly funded by the ISI of Pakistan and which openly advocate breaking away from India.

Sending a cricket team to Pakistan, opening up of air, rail and road links, the Agra Summit are all initiatives taken by our government in order to resolve the issue peacefully.

And while you are on to comparing the Iraq conflict with Kashmir, don't forget that whatever happens in Kashmir happens in our own country. Whatever happens in Iraq is thousands of miles away from the US.

After all you are facing terrorism just now, and that too outside your homeland. We have been facing it in our homeland since years, and personally I can say that we are tackling it much better than you.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HardCode
Bravo. This statement reminds us that peaceniks like to speak out of both sides of their mouths. First they say Iraq and Al Quaeda have no relation, then they say Al Queada is winning in Iraq???? They confuse themselves with their lies. When you lie, you never can remember what lie you told to who.

---

Why can't both be true? Extremist factions find it easier to pray on the weak, like Iraq is at the moment, like Hitler did to the Germans after their economy slumped, after Franco did to the poor Spaniards. There's no reason why Al Quaeda can't come from Afghanistan yet try recruitment in Iraq. No?

As for lying, I doubt that so-called "peaceniks" (actually I'm just against unwarrented force) are even close the the US/UK government's lack of intergrity. At the moment teh UK governemnt is haveing a crisis over something called "trust". There's not smoke without fire....