Sorry i write like that in comments to make it more noticible, oh and my brain just dont work so i get carried away :D :D :D :D :D
The inspectors will find something soon but they take so dam long, at least they havent been thrown out!!!! YET :eek:
Printable View
Sorry i write like that in comments to make it more noticible, oh and my brain just dont work so i get carried away :D :D :D :D :D
The inspectors will find something soon but they take so dam long, at least they havent been thrown out!!!! YET :eek:
Still, their report is due on the 27th and then we'll know the new status.
Will We?????
Depends if they actually tell us all of it or just selected parts :( :(
It is also still a long time, i mean how long have they been there???:confused:
Well the interesting thing is that the UN haven't found anything... would they tell the world straight away that they found something to start the campaign, or wait to the 27th? Thats the odd thing...
They would tell all countries that need to know but then we the public will be the last to know :( :(
How do you expect your argument to be taken seriously if you not only jump to conclusions based on patriotism, but throw in defammatory remarks at the same time?Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
That is the most ignorant thing i have ever read. Do you think the U.S. Is in the market of selling biological weapons?!?!?! You are out of your freeking mind. Do you think Rumsfeld would be where he is today if he had sold Biological weapons to IRAQ?!?!
Good lord what a moron.
Please read the Washington Post article posted by Wally and get back to me on this "moron" tag you have unfortunatly labelled me with. I want an apology.
Oh, and your comment:
Well, your presidential entourage is riddled with people who you could say "do you think he/she would be where the are today if..."Quote:
"Do you think Rumsfeld would be where he is today if he had sold Biological weapons to IRAQ?!?!"
Let's just take a random company, like, erm, oh, Enron, and see who in the higher eschelons of US government has been employed, held shares, or received funds in Enron shall we?
* George W Bush, President of the USA.
* Dick Cheney, Vice President of the USA.
* Lawrence B Lindsey, economic adviser to US President.
* Donald H Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary, former ambassador to NATO.
* James A Baker, former Secretary of State. Enron reportedly paid him more than US$2 million in "consulting expenses" last year.
* Frank Wisner Jr, a former Pentagon official. An Enron deal maker, played an important role in Enron gaining contracts in India and the Philippines.
* Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Department of Justice is carrying out a criminal investigation into Enron. Ashcroft and his chief of staff have had to remove themselves from any involvement in the official investigation because of their links with Enron.
* Michael T Shelby, US attorney for southern Texas. The entire US
Attorney's Office in Houston has also been removed from the case because of personal ties to current or former employees of Enron.
* Thomas E White, now Secretary of the Army, was an executive with Enron for 11 years. Held US$50 million in Enron shares, sold most of them before the collapse. White was hired to bring business and other expertise to the military. He is a retired brigadier general and decorated Vietnam veteran (23 years of
military service) and Cold War warrior.
* Karl Rove, Chief of Staff and Bush's top adviser. Rove owned a block of Enron stock once worth US$250,000.
* Robert Zoellick, Bush's Trade Representative, also on Enron's payroll in an "advisory capacity".
* Marc Racicot, Republic National Committee chairman, former Montana Governor and Enron lobbyist.
* Lee Rosenthal, Federal judge, has removed herself from all Enron lawsuits, apparently just three days after denying a motion to freeze assets held by Enron executives and board members.
* Senator Phil Gramm, one of the biggest recipients of Enron campaign donations. Wasn't sure whether he should drop out of congressional investigations into Enron.
* Dr Wendy Gramm, Senator Gramm's wife, chair of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988-1993. Played a major role in exempting the trading of energy products from government oversight greatly benefiting Enron. Then left the Commission and joined the board of Enron and its audit
committee.
* Billy Tauzin, Republican Representative, chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee inquiry focusing on Enron and Arthur Andersen. Received campaign money from Enron and Arthur Andersen.
and the list goes on....
Arc, you really shouldn't be so naive...
Oh man, could you just get hold of your senses? We are talking chemical and biological weapons here, not baby diapers, for whatever's sake! If the mere suspicion of a nation holding WMDs (remember, only suspicion and no proof) is enough for that country to be wiped off the earth (not exactly, but there's no other word to describe it), the US companies indulging into the trade of such weapons WITHOUT the US government knowing about it can only mean one of the two things: One the US government really is so stupid, the rest of the world needs to take over the US and change the regime so a more intelligent leader can be elected there. Two the US wants to earn money from the weapons trade, but also wants the purchasing nations to scrap the weapons as soon as they acquire them. Nice going there :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The actions of people inside a nation is hardly to be considered the will of the people, or the government. I'm yet to hear if the government had any knowledge of chemical trades.
Trading isn't a crime, Australia was trading scrap iron to Japan in WW2, and only stopped when they entered SE Asia. Later on in the war we were being bombed by our own metal.
Thats not a crime, stupidity, maybe, but not a crime, and is hardly worthly of attacking America, saying its out to steal Oil.
If you think your government was stupid enough not to know about the weapons dealings, I think your government should be hanged to death because their stupidity is going to cause a nation very dear.
NK chose to live under oppression. The exact words from you. So if it's their choice, why do you want to mess with them? If they didn't make the right choice, they will suffer for it. You don't need to be the messiah of the world. Your government is full of enough sh it that you will take years to clean up, so I think you should undertake the cleaning of your own house before looking at others'.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
NK choose to live under oppression. The majority of the world seeks to create a democratic society, were people are able to speak freely. Why should these democratic societies congratulate other countries who do not allow people to have there rights?
The important thing, you manage to forget, is they talk sense, they talk reality. You only talk imaginary things. You imagine Iraq holding secret WMDs. Your satellites or the UN inspectors have yet to come up with a piece of evidence as much as bird's crap.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The UK who admit its mistakes?? I believe it took them 20-30 years to admit that they did nuclear testings in the Australian outback on Australian soldiers, and they are still yet to clean up the mess that the left there.
Somebody mentioned Cuba up above, I think. So if you presented the world with the evidence, where's the evidence now? Or just because you were right then, you are right now too?
.
That report makes me sick. Bloody US government! :mad:Quote:
.
Let's start attacking Iraq while the UN inspectors finish their work. Then if they don't find anything, we can always fund the rehabilitation programme for the Iraqis, like we did in Afghanistan, can't we? :D This way, we won't lose time if they really have hidden some WMDs somewhere.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Sorry i write like that in comments to make it more noticible, oh and my brain just dont work so i get carried away :D :D :D :D :D
The inspectors will find something soon but they take so dam long, at least they havent been thrown out!!!! YET :eek:
.
honeybee, id just like to point out that it is very well possible that a US company could have exported sensitive marterials to Iraq, without the knowledge of the government. I'd cite an example from India itself. I recently read that an Indian company was caught exporting something (dont know what) to Iraq (via a gulf nation). That stuff they were exporting could well have aided Saddam's WMD. So back in 1980, the US probably didn't have very strong export checking and regulation (i dont know for sure).Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
If you think your government was stupid enough not to know about the weapons dealings, I think your government should be hanged to death because their stupidity is going to cause a nation very dear.
Now, to the debate. I don't get it? Look at Saddam's track record. He has constantly shown hostility to neighboring countries. I mean this guy had scud missiles fired upon Israel. He clearly knew that he would be retaliated against and heavily injured. That would be my foremost point in saying that Iraq could attack anyone (even the brits) if they had the means. And they could have these means very soon. So ok, lets go into the future. Suppose the US minds it own business and doesn't poke its "long" nose into international affairs. What would happen in two years time? North Korea would have a full Nuclear arsenal and they are exporting it to developing countries. Soon, every country on this globe has a missile pointed at someone. And by this time, even Iraq has its own set of bio, chemical and nuclear weapons. They'd be threatening Iran and Kuwait again (coz there would be no US to bully them if they did). Now all we would need is a minor conflict in some part of the world and one rogue leader to light up a nuke. Thats it. World War III has started and guess what? We won't be talking anti US then... honeybee and Wally pip would be hiding in their bunkers sweating it out.. hoping that the worst would steer clear of them...
what a beautiful future.
I know where you're coming from, but just because war is inevidable doesn't mean that everyone has to get on-side with the US/Brit governments. It's not just pacifists/unpatriots who are goingto be sweating it out in their bunkers....Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
World War III has started and guess what? We won't be talking anti US then... honeybee and Wally pip would be hiding in their bunkers sweating it out.. hoping that the worst would steer clear of them...
I personally don't mind the US and little brother Blair acting at global policement and sticking their nose in. I do object, however, to a number of things:
1. The hippocracy. Who has broken more UN resolutions, Iraq or Israel? (Clue: It doesn't end in the letter "q")
2. The hippocracy. Oil, Western armoury, Western involvment in supporting Saddam during Iran, Western objection to Terrorism after 500 years of heinous acts of attrocity...
3. The hippocracy (did I mention this before?).
4. The tenuous link between Saddam and Bin Laden. As far as I know, many of Bin Laden's allies were used in teh war against Saddam in teh Gulf war - have a guess where bin Laden was trained? Go one, one guess.... errrrrrrrr, the Land of the Free?
The West has the power to appease everyone peacefully. Let's use the brains, not the brawn....
you all go on hating america all you want... bottom line is you wouldn't be posting on this board right now if it wasn't for us... the worlds economy as you know it would not exist without america.
when your the top nation it is common for other nations to want to knock you down... but we won't let it happen
i'd agree with the last point of kliemna. No country in the world has faced more criticism than the US for its policies. I mean look at China (with no reference to its people). They have followed a policy of aggression and ruthless surpression. Rarely does the world look at this. It is the US that faces the most criticism because of its military and economic power. We have been detaining people in military camps because not only the US, but the world view them as dangerous men. But just because of anti US sentiments harbored by many people, the issue of human rights has surfaced in these camps. Human rights?? Has any country in the middle east received so much criticism? A person speaks against the government, and he is sentenced to death. Yet voices remain silent... but when it comes to the US, without even any significant evidence of human rights abuses, the world is pounding on us. They want them released. The fact is that these people are getting better food and living conditions then they would have ever got from the place they have come from. They even have a mosque in these camps.
Coming to Iraq and Israel. Which one of them has threatened their neighbors? (hint, it does end with a "q")
Now, the US has done some wrong things. But how many good things has it done? When was the last time the US bailed out a fellow country by giving it money? and when was the last time the US was praised for that. The fact is the US has done more good to other nations then any country in the world. trust me, we are crying about hippocracy... but imagine a world without the US... without a bully to keep dangerous countries from attaining WMD... without a bully that went to great depths to stop weapon proliferation.. without a bully that wanted a more safter middle east and south asia.. without a bully that has contributed more to the world than all the other countries combined.
Where would we be then? Spiralling into world of never ending power conquests, weapon proliferation and global arms races.
As long as we're talking bottom lines : without Europeans there wouldn't be a US to begin with. But anyway ...
I realise that we EU are the "lame" part in this discussion, that we don't possess the political and financial weight to swing it in our favour. I also acknowledge that this has resulted in anti-american sentiments and questioning.
I realise that many American decisions have proven to be a benefit. I realise that many countries in the past have done equally good and bad. I realise that sometimes a bully is needed to get things going.
I don't deny history, its merits and its faults. I only look at the whole picture because that is the only "good" way to look at it.
But where is it written that we can't criticise ? That we can't have doubts by every decision the UN, the US and every other nation on earth starting with ourselves makes ?
Do we have to lie down and take it as it comes even if we don't agree with it ? Do we have to take other's comments as undeniable truth and decisions without so much as a peep ? Can we have a different point of view without being branded as "anti-us" or worse "us haters" ? I believe we still can. But it seems that that is less and less likely.
All we ask is that we do it by the numbers, that we won't find ourselves in a situation that is worse than it is now, that we find ourselves in a siuation where f.i. Iraqis can point at us and say "look what you, the free and just, have done to us ! Look ! And without a just reason". It's easy to be wronged and it's not easy to be right, especially not when someone says "prove it".
I'm only saying that we have to begin and end with a strong position. It is now vitally important to do these things by the numbers or we may (and probably will) end up with more problems than we anticipated.
Give full reports and proof to the inspectors, give them all the room and space to work, let them discover and if they find nothing, then they find nothing. If at the same time Iraq complies then it complies and then Res. 1441 has been respected.
Leave the Iraqis to deal with their govt.
If they breach res. 1441 on both accounts (inspectors find something and Iraq fails to comply) then you have a reason for war. If Saddam decides to release his "arsenal" on another country then you have a reason for war.
If you're talking wmd and human rights as a reason then we should deal with at least 20 other countries such as (and not limited to) pakistan, N. Korea, several African nations, China, Russia, Turkey, Israel ... the list goes on and on.
That is my position. All the rest is meaningless propaganda from either side.
And for the last time : I don't hate America, I don't hate americans, I don't hate the US of A.
I only place a big
?
behind some of your country's foreign policy.
Is that clear now ?
Many nations have contributed to the state of the world today. You could argue that if it wasn't for Charles Babbage inventing the first "computer" in the 1800s that we wouldn't be posting on this board right now.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
you all go on hating america all you want... bottom line is you wouldn't be posting on this board right now if it wasn't for us... the worlds economy as you know it would not exist without america.
You could argue that if it wasn't for the industrial revolution in the late 1800s that our ecomnmy would not exist as we know it now.
You could even argue that if it wasn't for Italian entrepreneurs settling in London in the 1600s that the Banking system, thus free and fair trade, wouldn't exist now (Banco is Italian for "Bench". They used to loan money from benches on Lombard Street in the city of London (Lombard is a region of Italy). When they went out of business, they used to break up the benches, banco rupto [sic] )
So you are indeed a small cog in the the evolution of today's society.
As for "it is common for other nations to want to knock you down... but we won't let it happen", of course you wont let it happen, just like the Romans, the British, the Germans didn't...
Quote:
As for "it is common for other nations to want to knock you down... but we won't let it happen", of course you wont let it happen, just like the Romans, the British, the Germans didn't...
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
And Israel haven't threatened their neighbours?!?!? Errrrm...Quote:
Coming to Iraq and Israel. Which one of them has threatened their neighbors? (hint, it does end with a "q")
As for the poor souls above who feel hard done by with thsi anti-American feeling - I believe this discussion started off as a discussion on how to resove the Iraq situation peacefully. I have given facts that are undeniable in their truth, and completely unbiased in their targets - I've quoted the Britsih government in much of it, and if Mother Theresa was a suddenly proven to sell bugs to the Iraqis, I'd have a pop at her as well.
This is not anti-American, this is anti-agressor. Don't take it personally. Some of you must see the hippocracy present here. Reaping what you sow is the old proverb, right?
The Romans, the Brits, the Germans all strutted and pouted about how superior they were and how the world wouldn't be as it is now without them etc etc, and now they are all either extinct or neutered as world powers...Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
we defeated 2 of the 3 you just mentioned... lolQuote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
As for "it is common for other nations to want to knock you down... but we won't let it happen", of course you wont let it happen, just like the Romans, the British, the Germans didn't...
too bad the US wasn't around in Roman times
They also tried to take over the world.. we don't want to do that... we just need to police it a little.. because obviously someone has to...Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
The Romans, the Brits, the Germans all strutted and pouted about how superior they were and how the world wouldn't be as it is now without them etc etc, and now they are all either extinct or neutered as world powers...
AFAIK, your country is MADE UP of 2 of these 3 groups!Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
we defeated 2 of the 3 you just mentioned... lol
too bad the US wasn't around in Roman times
You might want to talk to Lebanese people on the ends with a "q" partQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Coming to Iraq and Israel. Which one of them has threatened their neighbors? (hint, it does end with a "q")
Well,fine go ahead and question. But please do draw a line between questioning and launching attacks. Why couldn't we have a more constructive debate rather than have honeybee and company coming up with calling the US "moron", "stupid" and "idiotic". Go ahead and criticize any US policy. But also do acknowledge the the "good" things the US has done. Also, I although some US policies might seem very sour to many, the fact is that the US has no choice. Many raise the question of why the continuing support of Pakistan? Do they have a choice? They can't capture Al Qaedia terrorists without the support of the pakistanis. Yet because pakistan has been accused of exchanging weapon technology with North Korea, not Pakistan but the US has faced criticism for it for its so called "double standards" (hear alot of that). The world is a place where to gain something, u must do something that isnt right too.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I don't deny history, its merits and its faults. I only look at the whole picture because that is the only "good" way to look at it.
But where is it written that we can't criticise ? That we can't have doubts by every decision the UN, the US and every other nation on earth starting with ourselves makes ?
Do we have to lie down and take it as it comes even if we don't agree with it ? Do we have to take other's comments as undeniable truth and decisions without so much as a peep ? Can we have a different point of view without being branded as "anti-us" or worse "us haters" ? I believe we still can. But it seems that that is less and less likely.
Well, go back in history again. Has weapon inspections ever helped? Have they ever succeded in stopping a country from making what they desire to? The fact is no, and everyone knows that.Quote:
Give full reports and proof to the inspectors, give them all the room and space to work, let them discover and if they find nothing, then they find nothing. If at the same time Iraq complies then it complies and then Res. 1441 has been respected.
Leave the Iraqis to deal with their govt.
If they breach res. 1441 on both accounts (inspectors find something and Iraq fails to comply) then you have a reason for war. If Saddam decides to release his "arsenal" on another country then you have a reason for war.
If you're talking wmd and human rights as a reason then we should deal with at least 20 other countries such as (and not limited to) pakistan, N. Korea, several African nations, China, Russia, Turkey, Israel ... the list goes on and on.
Ok, very interesting point u make there Wally. If Saddam "does" attack a neighbor, then the US has full reasons to go to war. OK, lets wait for that. Lets wait for them to make th A-BOMB and drop in on Israel. The world watches as massive mushroom cloud appears on world news. Now what happens? The US attack Iraq? Or are they too late??
To your list of countries. Once again as I pointed out in the case of Pakistan. They are doing something good by rounding up the Al Qaedia but are doing something bad by taking the support of pakistan. Are they being praised for their efforts against al qaedia? no. are they being critisized for supporting pakistan? yes.
But you expect a police force to be impartial, lawful, and fair.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
They also tried to take over the world.. we don't want to do that... we just need to police it a little.. because obviously someone has to...
How would you feel if you found out NYPD were selling guns to criminals and then threatening to kill them if they use them?
How would you feel if a senior NYPD official overseeing the invasion of Queens had been accused of "financial irregularites" and let off because "daddy brought one of his good ol' boy lawyers in to save his bacon?"
Isn't global policing what the UN is for?
Same here.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
And for the last time : I don't hate America, I don't hate americans, I don't hate the US of A.
I only place a big
?
behind some of your country's foreign policy.
Is that clear now ?
The quote goes "If you're liked by everyone, you're obviously not important enough" :)Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy But please do draw a line between questioning and launching attacks[/B]
(can't remeber who said it)
err.. should have changed that to attacked. Anyway, we can easily differenciate between Iraq and Israel. Don't tell me you compare them as the same kind. Israel is a democracy and Irag is a monarchy and has a history of attack and aggression. Certainly Israel doesnt have such a bloody history (except for the palestinian uprising).Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
And Israel haven't threatened their neighbours?!?!? Errrrm...
wait until you guys get attacked.. wait until someone flys some planes into your buildings.. see how you feel then.. and please don't throw some history at this post.. i am talking about RIGHT NOW... i am sick of all this.. yeah well back then this happened.. in 1836 they did this... i am talking about RIGHT NOW...
Just because Iraq may have been an ally at a point with the US.. why do you people think that it is so bad that we go to war now? they aren't our ally anymore it is as simple as that... maybe Saddam worked along with the US with bad intentions from the start.. just to gain power.. that is possible..
but wait until you have to hear that your family just died in a civilan attack... i bet your opinions will change just a bit
What part of "I don't hate America or Americans, I only question it's foreign policy " have you not understood ?
It is a double standard when you only have them as an ally to suit your purposes. It is a double standard when you have an ally that is sponsoring international terrorism, both by money and personnel but condemn another for having links with the same groups based on flimsy evidence.
It is a double standard when you have constantly had a one-sided approach in one struggle but expect everyone on board when starting another.
It's in fact time that we Europeans were more concerned with our own institutions, problems and people rathing than mouthing whatever the US whispers in our ear.
It's time our EU leaders were more concerned with the workings of our union rather than hopping behind the US like a small loyal yorkshire lapdog.
Inspections have failed in the past because the original agreement was not strong enough and both parties wanted more and more changes.
But now they are on the way, unhampered and have found nothing.
What will you say when their final report reveals nothing ? That they were inadequate ? Well, you should've given them more info, get more people in.
That they were kept away from key sites ? Considering they've been allowed to visit palaces, it's highly unlikely.
That the weapons are hidden in the desert ? The spotlight has been on Iraq for weeks and months. Some spy plane or satellite should've picked up something already.
And what after saddam ? Has anyone bothered to ask that question ? For all the evil and madness he is and has done he's still the glue that holds Iraq together, like it or not.
You know what ? Go to war, be just, be brave and be America.
Oh and by the way, buildings have been blown up here. We've had terrorist attacks here, even as far back as the games in Munich. Have we so soon forgotten about N.I., E.T.A. and various of other groups ? So don't play the emotional approach on us. It won't score you any points.
Go and have a war. See where it will get you in time. Don't complain afterwards.
You're obviously geared up for one and nothing we will post or say or think will change that.
The EU should stay out of it. My country should stay out of it. Sort out your own troubles.
LOL, I thought that was a mistake ;)Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
err.. should have changed that to attacked. Anyway, we can easily differenciate between Iraq and Israel. Don't tell me you compare them as the same kind. Israel is a democracy and Irag is a monarchy and has a history of attack and aggression. Certainly Israel doesnt have such a bloody history (except for the palestinian uprising).
I don't think I ever hinted that they were the same kind of situation. But one of the common UK/UK government mantras is that "Iraq had broken several UN resolutions", and you have to agree that Israel is historically a serial offender in breaking UN resolutions.
I think Iraq has had it tough to be honest. Here we have a Western-manufactured country who early in it's short history unsuccessuly tried for independence, had a monarchy imposed on them from the global police at the time (the Brits) of which it's king was Syrian, had a system of autocracy imposed on it by the aforementioned global police, which we still see today with Saddam's 100% majority, were sold masses of weapons by the new global police (the US) and then told it was against the law for then to actually use them!
I'd pretty pretty pissed off with teh West if I was an Iraqi...
something else :
With Bush's Them-or-Us policy we're in a no-win situation, even here on the forum. This started out about N. Korea and its non-agression pact and degenerated in a heated, for want of a better word, 'argument' about Iraq.
You see,
If we make statements contrary to Bush's policy we're anti-american but if we follow their doctrine to the letter we're nothing short of inadequate lap dogs.
If we have our own visions and remarks about the policy we're unilaterally criticizing the US while not giving a toss about the other side but at the same time we're expected to swallow away every and any criticism directed to us.
If we invoke history it doesn't matter, the now counts but when we talk about the now and future we're constantly reminded about history.
When we want to look at the whole picture we're urged to look at the important facts and when we waylay these important fact we have to look at the whole picture.
We're expected to stand on our own legs but when we try you come over and belittle us for 'being a good, promising lad'
We're constantly told to be equal partners right until where it matters, then we're expected to nod and sign.
Our ideas are 'interesting and sound good in theory' where it not that you're ideas are superior and therefore to be preferred whatever criticism we may have.
When we claim we're treated like children you're telling us to grow up and make it work for you but when we try to do that you reminds us we're always going to be second fiddle.
And we're tired of it. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of being accused as an anti-american moron with little grasp on reality just for having opinions that are a tad different. So much for your coveted freedom of speech.
So go ahead, do what you must but don't come asking for my sympathy afterwards and don't drag me into another year of new carroussels of media-led and commercially arse raped mass indignation and grief because I won't hop on board.
I've had enough. I'm all Sept. 11th'ed out.
Well, u still didnt get it did u? OK, lets go into the future again. The US dumped Pakistan and gives it the treatment it should have. After all, this is a very fair world we live in. Now, pakistan becomes hostile towards the US and to any activities on the border. What happens now? Nor can they carry out any successful operations in afghanistan (because they almost always escape into pakistan) nor could the FBI go around hunting for Osama on the streets of Islamabad.. What happens then? The US abandons its war on terrorism bringing even more criticism. So for the US, it likes a never ending story of criticism. If they do something right, people will almost always find something wrong with it and call it "double standards". If the US never showed these "double standards", rounding up terrorists would be impossible. I mean to capture anyone, you'd need the support of some country in that region. And unfortunately, almost every country in that region harbors some anti - US feelings. It may even be a monarchy like Saudi Arabia that long has been terrorist capital of the world along with pakistan. But do the US have a choice. Without Saudi Arabia, would any operations in the middle east be possible? And if the US doesn't poke its "long" nose in the region, and be an active leader against rounding up terrorists, be prepared for more innocent civilians being killed. And if the US completely removes itself from the International scenario, look into the future and u'd see one pretty similar to what I see.Quote:
It is a double standard when you only have them as an ally to suit your purposes. It is a double standard when you have an ally that is sponsoring international terrorism, both by money and personnel but condemn another for having links with the same groups based on flimsy evidence.
It is a double standard when you have constantly had a one-sided approach in one struggle but expect everyone on board when starting another.
All in all, whatever the US is going to do, they are going to face criticism. Whether it maybe from Wally or honeybee. To do something right, u almost always have to do something wrong in todays world. You must become biased. There is no other way. But in the end, the only thing that is keeping regimes like Iraq within their contours is the presence of the big global biased bully - the US
"You still didn't get it" ... yes, teacher, I still don't understand, please enlighten me ... :rolleyes:
Why do I even bother ?
Sure it was pretty hard on Iraq, thats why they had to take out some of their fustration on Kuwait. Certainly the global police of the past and present didnt bargain for that.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
LOL, I thought that was a mistake ;)
I don't think I ever hinted that they were the same kind of situation. But one of the common UK/UK government mantras is that "Iraq had broken several UN resolutions", and you have to agree that Israel is historically a serial offender in breaking UN resolutions.
I think Iraq has had it tough to be honest. Here we have a Western-manufactured country who early in it's short history unsuccessuly tried for independence, had a monarchy imposed on them from the global police at the time (the Brits) of which it's king was Syrian, had a system of autocracy imposed on it by the aforementioned global police, which we still see today with Saddam's 100% majority, were sold masses of weapons by the new global police (the US) and then told it was against the law for then to actually use them!
I'd pretty pretty pissed off with teh West if I was an Iraqi...
I had forgotten to quote u when giving that reply. It was to thisQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
"You still didn't get it" ... yes, teacher, I still don't understand, please enlighten me ... :rolleyes:
Why do I even bother ?
"It is a double standard when you only have them as an ally to suit your purposes. It is a double standard when you have an ally that is sponsoring international terrorism, both by money and personnel but condemn another for having links with the same groups based on flimsy evidence.
It is a double standard when you have constantly had a one-sided approach in one struggle but expect everyone on board when starting another.
"
Well, Sept 11 is history now, right? Don't get me started on this "feeling sorry for you" **** - me and my family are STILL going through **** in Northern Ireland that has been mostly funded from the US.Quote:
wait until you guys get attacked.. wait until someone flys some planes into your buildings.. see how you feel then.. and please don't throw some history at this post.. i am talking about RIGHT NOW... i am sick of all this.. yeah well back then this happened.. in 1836 they did this... i am talking about RIGHT NOW...
But why are we gonig to war with Iraq? Give me a reason...Quote:
Just because Iraq may have been an ally at a point with the US.. why do you people think that it is so bad that we go to war now? they aren't our ally anymore it is as simple as that... maybe Saddam worked along with the US with bad intentions from the start.. just to gain power.. that is possible..
but wait until you have to hear that your family just died in a civilan attack... i bet your opinions will change just a bit [/quote]
*Sigh, you poor thing. You'll no doubt have to get used to this,it being the first attack on mainland USA. Do you think you're the only ones affected by terrorism? Ask Gingernut what he thinks about his home country. Ask Honeybee about what goes on in his country and Pakistan. ETA, IRA, PLO, UVF. How about me experience this as a teenager
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/tro...ennibomb.shtml
Or my Diabetes instructor getting shot in the head in a quarry 8 years ago
Or my best friend getting blown to bits by a car bomb in Enniskillen when I was 11 years old?
yes teacher, keep on enlighten me teacher. Pour your infinite wisdom all over me. I implore you.
what I mean by calling you anti - US is that you are against US policies which is very true. If I missed out the word "policy" then forgive me please.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
If we make statements contrary to Bush's policy we're anti-american but if we follow their doctrine to the letter we're nothing short of inadequate lap dogs.
If you believe in what the americans do are right, and then equate yourself to an inadequate lap dog (because you are thinking so), Id call that extremely bad thinking. Infact I'd equate that to an admission that you are anti US (policy wise). Certainly you should think in terms of the right and wrong and not what would u be equated to if you supported american policies.
*sigh*
I don't make it that way, your govt's vision and policy make it that way.
If you can't see that then there's no sense in debating, is there ?
We've only been given 2 choices : put up or shut up, be with us or against us.
Europe is never going to be that good, face it there is a contant power battle to become the most influential country in the group. That is a major thorn in the system already.
A sign that America hasnt charged in guns blazing is because they also want the truth behind iraq and WMD's they are just stating that if they find them Iraq will face a war. There are always many sides to the succesful group when it comes to preventing war, one is ussually aggresive in its stance (America), one or more hold them back (Britain) then we need those against it trying to find out solutions (France, Germany etc)
Without this structure we would have
1) Complete war started in error and a major upset
2) Major strikes by genuinly dangerous countries
Everyone is playing their part possibly without even knowing it you see without one the world could have already collapsed into WWIII.
our govt's vision? How about you enlightening me and explaining me that "vision" of the US.Quote:
I don't make it that way, your govt's vision and policy make it that way.
If you can't see that then there's no sense in debating, is there ?
To that I can adhere and that I understand if it still were that way today (it was in the Clinton era) but it's the constant barrage of 'this 'n that is right and we do it this way, fook you all' that is getting on my nerves.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Europe is never going to be that good, face it there is a contant power battle to become the most influential country in the group. That is a major thorn in the system already.
A sign that America hasnt charged in guns blazing is because they also want the truth behind iraq and WMD's they are just stating that if they find them Iraq will face a war. There are always many sides to the succesful group when it comes to preventing war, one is ussually aggresive in its stance (America), one or more hold them back (Britain) then we need those against it trying to find out solutions (France, Germany etc)
Without this structure we would have
1) Complete war started in error and a major upset
2) Major strikes by genuinly dangerous countries
Everyone is playing their part possibly without even knowing it you see without one the world could have already collapsed into WWIII.
Possibly we've managed to delay the war but that's as far as credit we're likely to be given. For the rest we are unimportant outside our role of lap dog of the US. Is it wrong trying to change that ?
We'll see how long they'll wait after Jan 27th.
I absolutely agree with you. Everyone plays a major role. And so does the US. If anyone fell out of this structure, someone would have to take its place. But the thing is, the country that would be in the US's place would always face criticism, however vital its role may be.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Europe is never going to be that good, face it there is a contant power battle to become the most influential country in the group. That is a major thorn in the system already.
A sign that America hasnt charged in guns blazing is because they also want the truth behind iraq and WMD's they are just stating that if they find them Iraq will face a war. There are always many sides to the succesful group when it comes to preventing war, one is ussually aggresive in its stance (America), one or more hold them back (Britain) then we need those against it trying to find out solutions (France, Germany etc)
Without this structure we would have
1) Complete war started in error and a major upset
2) Major strikes by genuinly dangerous countries
Everyone is playing their part possibly without even knowing it you see without one the world could have already collapsed into WWIII.
Enlighten you ? You and others have displayed your govt's vision at work.
Look at your own words vis-a-vis mine and draw your own conclusions.
Ok, I'm gonna turn that around and say that you have displayed your govt's vision (or more of your anti US feelings) at work. Look at your own words vis-a-vis mine and draw your own conclusions.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Enlighten you ? You and others have displayed your govt's vision at work.
Look at your own words vis-a-vis mine and draw your own conclusions.
It apparently doesn't even matter what I say or do, I'm already branded.
Good boy. While you do that I'm going to concern myself with other things.
Polish your gun and enlist yourself. You'll make nice target practice.
u obviously cant keep the sarcasm out in what started to be a totally clean debate. Ive made my point. Im back to work, will rejoin tonite.
Nothing really to do with the discussion, but someone mentioned a page back that without America there wouldn't be this bulletin board.
1) The first programmable computer was built by Karl Zuse, a German.
2) The first WWW server was set up and maintained by CERN, a European physics lab and organization just at the border of Switzerland and France.
As for the often repeated question: "What if your family was killed by some terrorist plane?"
Well, if I'm president of Austria and a character like GWB then I'll accuse Finland of sponsoring the terrorists and building WMDs and threaten to attack them. I will, due to the pressure of the international community, let the UN send inspectors in but will still constantly proclaim that I have undeniable proof that Finland is a bad country. I will add it to the axis of evil and everyone who supports it will be on that axis too. Everyone who critizises me is an Austria-hater and I will consider using Austrias immense economical power to make life hard for those countries. Should the inspectors not find anything I'll claim that Finland hides their weapons in the ice marshes and attack them anyway.
Yeah, that's what I would do.
Oh wait, Austria doesn't have immense economical power or an army large enough to even reach the Finnish border! Damn...
i was just making a point that a lot of good does come from here too.. i wasn't trying to say we invented computers/internet/etc... but we certanly have helped it along a great deal...Quote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
Nothing really to do with the discussion, but someone mentioned a page back that without America there wouldn't be this bulletin board.
1) The first programmable computer was built by Karl Zuse, a German.
2) The first WWW server was set up and maintained by CERN, a European physics lab and organization just at the border of Switzerland and France.
well anyways.. i am not going to post in this debate anymore (at least not in a debating sence anyway) i will leave it at this... we all have our own views.. i don't blame you guys for having your own.. we come from different cultures and see things differently... all i want is peace of mind that my loved ones and myself are safe, and I need to put my faith in the country i live in to make sure of that. As do you. I need to support my country in the decisions they make that will allow me to live safely.. while i do not agree with all decisions they might make.. i also have no say other that once every 4 years...
unfortunatly the world has come further along in an existance of codependance on other countries and when there are conflicts of interest it makes it very hard to negotiate things...
While the United States might not make the best decision everytime, i have yet to see a nation that has... but we have also done a lot of positive things as well, and I for one am happy living here, just as I am sure you are all happy in your respected countries as well...
[shakes head in disbelief]
Okay, I don't usually get involved in such discusions, but here goes.
As an outsider reading this, I have to say that our American friends really need to learn their history and open their eyes a smidgeon.
I'm glad Gaffer has already addressed the whole "wait till people start bombing your homes..." comment. This shows an incredible lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. One of the reasons I left Ireland four years ago was to get away from the American sponsored IRA bombings. School kids, Foreign Students, Veterans, Taxi drivers, Brick Layers, all legitamate targets to them.
Another earlier comment was that the US needs to attack Iraq because they have been consistently aggressive. Would you say that the US is not an agressive nation? If not, then what is the difference? Didn't the US government just sign a law saying that they could kill anyone and claim that they are a combatant? So, surely this means that Iraq could do the same thing. They could just kill some Americans and claim that they are combatants. Maybe you feel that the attack on the Pentagon was fully justified. After all, it is a "military target"??? So which is it? Is it okay to attack military targets????
All I'm saying is open your eyes, ignore the warmongering from your leader and try to make an informed decision about the rest of the world for yourself. If you still disagree with these good people, then fine, that is your own opinion. But constantly stating ("You are all anti-US" etc.) just shows that you cannot justify your stand point, and fall back to insulting peoples intelligence. I know a lot of these people and they are not Anti-American. You're government is seen by the peoples of this world as Warmongers. Why do you think that is?
OK, so let's talk about RIGHT NOW. I want to know what Iraq has done in the last week which threatens the world. And please talk evidence. There's not even been any verbal threatening, I guess. On the other hand if you look at the troops movement the US is undertaking and the constant verbal threats issued by the US president and other officials and the so-called powers given to the UN inspectors, I am forced to conclude that RIGHT NOW, it's the US who's a war-hungry nation, trying to take out some personal revenge on the poor Iraqi people for no fault of their own. Remember, we are talking about RIGHT NOW.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
wait until you guys get attacked.. wait until someone flys some planes into your buildings.. see how you feel then.. and please don't throw some history at this post.. i am talking about RIGHT NOW... i am sick of all this.. yeah well back then this happened.. in 1836 they did this... i am talking about RIGHT NOW...
Just because Iraq may have been an ally at a point with the US.. why do you people think that it is so bad that we go to war now? they aren't our ally anymore it is as simple as that... maybe Saddam worked along with the US with bad intentions from the start.. just to gain power.. that is possible..
but wait until you have to hear that your family just died in a civilan attack... i bet your opinions will change just a bit
As for the "if US hadn't been there" part, I shall repeat that today most sensible people must be cursing Mr. Columbus Da Great for ever setting foot on America. And if you think nobody could ever have invented things which the US did, you are terribly under-estimating the intelligence of the rest of the world.
.
Hey, remember to take Kedaman out from there before you do that, we need that bloke :DQuote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
Well, if I'm president of Austria and a character like GWB then I'll accuse Finland of sponsoring the terrorists and building WMDs and threaten to attack them. I will, due to the pressure of the international community, let the UN send inspectors in but will still constantly proclaim that I have undeniable proof that Finland is a bad country. I will add it to the axis of evil and everyone who supports it will be on that axis too. Everyone who critizises me is an Austria-hater and I will consider using Austrias immense economical power to make life hard for those countries. Should the inspectors not find anything I'll claim that Finland hides their weapons in the ice marshes and attack them anyway.
Yeah, that's what I would do.
.
??? The US has been a stable country since its revolution, unlike other countries, such as Europe. The mainland has never been attacked, leaving the people to focus their life, and the development of things like computers, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
As for the "if US hadn't been there" part, I shall repeat that today most sensible people must be cursing Mr. Columbus Da Great for ever setting foot on America. And if you think nobody could ever have invented things which the US did, you are terribly under-estimating the intelligence of the rest of the world.
.
If the US had never existed, the development of the world would have take far longer. And, without the US's Military strength, we would never have some of our most things, for example, the Internet.
And just to clarify, I'm not a Yank.
If we look back in history we will see that the worst wars to take place happened because nations were too busy trying to make peace (appeasment in WWII) . What we really need to do is look at is saddam and wether he has already decided to strike or not, none of this will change his decision (May delay ot but that is all). All we can do is detect his intentions earlier and strike premeturely, yes it does seem drastic but it is better than waiting for another world war to start.
America is scared and lets face it they should be, nuclear weapons would be aimed at them if anyone wanted to strike the west, not Britain, France, Germany, Norway etc. They are seen by the enemys of the west as figure heads. They will make extreme moves and need to be held back but they are the ones that will cause concern enough for inspectors to be sent in.
IF (BIG IF) they do find weapons that are ready to be fired on the US or the west then we will be able to stop them before it is too late, if not then they should not attack as it undermines the point of alliances and the UN.
As a British citizen i am saying this, dont stab America in the back after all they are standing up for the whole of the west if America was destroyed who would be next???? I can garantee that country also becomes dramatic in it adventures with dangerous countries. Being on the front line of attacks would change your opinion of what America is doing and would cause you to live in fear!!!!:( :(
Terrorists always try to improve on themselves, what else is there now that can strike easily in civilian areas, to kill more than those on Sept 11 you would probably use a Nuke and that is scary. The question that we need to ask is, given a choice who would those terrorists really strike, i would say not America because they are already scared, they would strike a country that is beginning to forget what happened and have inadvertantly reduced their security. The attack on America was not a military one and was not expected, it was not an attack that would start a war it was one done by a coward who will hurt others to cause fear, it is one who would rule by fear in a oppressed nation given half a chance!!!!!:( :( :(
seems that they succeeded then. A lot of people are ruled by fear apparently. Excuse me for not falling for the same trap.
Yep, 1-0 to Bin Laden's team.
Maybe you shoud explain exactly what you mean by Trap??? (Just For Clarity) :D :D
I disagree. Their main enemy is America, striking at anyone else would only show the world that the terrorists aren't as good as they were, unable to beat the Amercian security.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
The question that we need to ask is, given a choice who would those terrorists really strike, i would say not America because they are already scared, they would strike a country that is beginning to forget what happened and have inadvertantly reduced their security.
by trap I meant that AQ (not going to type it out) planned and executed their attack in order to instill fear in their enemies.
numerous statements of theirs ("Planes will fall out of the sky. No-one will feel safe on the streets again." etc) reflect that.
Now, with widespread paranoia, inability to capture Bin Laden and all the rest of the side effects, lots of people have lost their nerve, are afraid and paranoid.
That's the trap I'm talking about. If you think he hadn't planned it that way you're fooling yourself. Everything is going more or less to his plan.
He must be grinning in his cave for months.
And I don't want to fall for it. I refuse to be scaremongered and I keep on looking for the whole story and the possible solutions in it. I don't give in to anger, fear and paranoia as many others do because that would mean that Bin Laden won over me.
And I think it's brave and good that our govt said exactly the same.
I really don't give an crap if we get attacked or not. Life is life, and you can't go around worrying about something which is out of your control. If some people are complete nutters, then theres not much you can do about it. :)