true but unlike you there are many others who do give a toss :)
besides, I also tend to look at from where those nutters came from and what made them nutters, which is something many refuse to do. Part of the solution lies there.
Printable View
true but unlike you there are many others who do give a toss :)
besides, I also tend to look at from where those nutters came from and what made them nutters, which is something many refuse to do. Part of the solution lies there.
I agree there. But the speeches of GWB and many other signs indicate that the US simply wants to attack Iraq no matter what. And that's what I'm worried about.Quote:
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.
They did have a civil war, didn't they? And don't tell me they had a peaceful governance thereafter too.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
??? 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.
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.
OK, granted the people there were more focussed on their lives and development of things such as computers.
Now, I know this is off the main topic of the thread, what do you think would have happened if we had had our first Apple Mac 10 years later than we actually had? I suppose some tribes would have been wiped off the face of the earth? Or let's say McDonalds didn't open their chain stores across the globe for a few more years. Sure, you would be starved without those burgers!!
The entire life of US itself is pretty small, as a country. Although they have achieved tremendous material growth in this period, it is yet to be proven that it had a favourable impact on the world. Perhaps they got so greedy it reflected on their economic policies with the other world? Perhaps they tried to eliminate possible competition from the developing nations by introducing international trade agreements and pacts, thereby discouraging a real free trade?
There are many questions that can be raised about the foreign policies of the US, some of which can be answered now, and some cannot. Therefore to say that the US has created a favourable impact on the world as a whole, or to say that its economic and other development has really bettered things for the other nations is very premature at this stage. Being in one of the developing nations, I can confidently say at this stage that in the short term at least, WTO and other such pacts are proving disasterous for the developing economies. And I do regard this as a ploy by the US to take over our economies. Because the US itself is not adhering to a free market policy here.
Coming closer to the thread topic, I still don't see if the US did anything good, it earned the right to arbitrarily assume certain things and impose war upon a nation on its own. I still think it's something of a miracle the US stopped short of actually bombing Iraq. Maybe we all should cheer US up because it did moot a proposal in the UN about Iraq and didn't straightaway go ahead with its plans?
.
Your not seeing this right... but... maybe the Mac would be come the popular hardware? Another example, if I create some revolutionary way of managing data, and becomes a computer standard, will someone else create it if I don't? McDonalds not opening there stores across the globe for a few years could lead to a rival taking hold, and making Mcdonalds only a small fry company.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
They did have a civil war, didn't they? And don't tell me they had a peaceful governance thereafter too.
OK, granted the people there were more focussed on their lives and development of things such as computers.
Now, I know this is off the main topic of the thread, what do you think would have happened if we had had our first Apple Mac 10 years later than we actually had? I suppose some tribes would have been wiped off the face of the earth? Or let's say McDonalds didn't open their chain stores across the globe for a few more years. Sure, you would be starved without those burgers!!
Just to point out, a country can go to war with another whenever the hell it likes, for whatever reason. The US could simply have ignored the UN, defending itself from an Iraqi threat, but it choose the go the way of the UN, by far, slower, and risking the lives of Inspectors, and neighbouring countries if suspect items were found.Quote:
Coming closer to the thread topic, I still don't see if the US did anything good, it earned the right to arbitrarily assume certain things and impose war upon a nation on its own. I still think it's something of a miracle the US stopped short of actually bombing Iraq. Maybe we all should cheer US up because it did moot a proposal in the UN about Iraq and didn't straightaway go ahead with its plans?
I think the US should have bombed Iraq straight away if it thought it was in the best interests of its country/world.
Although I think if this is the actions being taken against Iraq, then similar/worse should be taken against North Korea. Blackmail isn't on, espically when it involves nuclear weapons.
Blackmail???? Nobody has black mailed anyone as yet and you cant actually prove that that plant will turn out any bombs, let alone any succesful ones. They are treding a thin line and know it, and you need to have caution with these people. They havent commited any international crimes (i dont think so anyway) and so they can use the 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card' by stating this to neutral countries.
Europe was never keen on America (Britain Excluded) because they want to be seen as an equal power that can stand alone. Many European countries have distanced themselves from then and therefore in many ways cannot be taken seriously when they show no concerns for the welfare of American people. In many ways they want America to be wrong because that will prove them right and place them high up in the order of control in the world.
its so easy to sit in your warm cosy chair and criticize another country, isn't it honeybee.
I fail to understand that when Saddam has continuously shown (throughout history) how aggressive he can be, why the sympathy for him?? This man doesn't think twice before launching attack. I demonstrated my point with the scud missile example. All Saddam needs is the means. And he is getting there fast. He has chemical and bio weapons already. All he needs is that nuke (which many intelligence agencies across the globe admit that he very close to).
The US has a perfect case to disarm Saddam. However they have chosen to go through the world body. if the world body fails, the US attacks and gets rid of that arsehole. Simple? The US hasnt attacked Iraq yet. They are getting ready if they need to. So tell me, what the hell is wrong with this approach?
Good point. I shall suggest to my boss to provide me with a cosy chait. It's already warm from some ... urmm never mind :DQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
its so easy to sit in your warm cosy chair
I think the scud missile example you quoted was during the Gulf War, when Iraq fired a couple or a few scuds towards Israel because it wanted Israel also to get involved, so the rest of the Arab nations which are hostile to Israel would join war on Iraq's side and then it could take an entirely different angle.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
I fail to understand that when Saddam has continuously shown (throughout history) how aggressive he can be, why the sympathy for him?? This man doesn't think twice before launching attack. I demonstrated my point with the scud missile example. All Saddam needs is the means. And he is getting there fast. He has chemical and bio weapons already. All he needs is that nuke (which many intelligence agencies across the globe admit that he very close to).
The US has a perfect case to disarm Saddam. However they have chosen to go through the world body. if the world body fails, the US attacks and gets rid of that arsehole. Simple? The US hasnt attacked Iraq yet. They are getting ready if they need to. So tell me, what the hell is wrong with this approach?
I don't remember any other instance post Gulf war where Iraq has fired any scuds on Israel, so you have to please provide me with some reference if you are talking about such instances.
Post-Gulf war I have to really think hard if Saddam has been any trouble to the international community in a major way. In fact it's like the world has woken up to the fact of Iraq holding WMDs after GB Jr started the topic. So, again please enlighten me on this aspect: Did the Clinton administration do anything about the possible threat of Iraq using WMDs?
How many years does it take for a country to acquire the chemical and biological weapons? Assuming Iraq stocked them up during the Iran-Iraq war, where the US itself supplied it with such WMDs, I think it's ages since that war has stopped, and again the US waking up to this threat now seems a "little" dubious.
Assuming Iraq didn't have much of the WMDs left after its war with Iran, it probably used them up all in the war, what did the US do about the Irani people against whom the chemical weapons were used? Also why did America supply such weapons to Saddam to fight Iran, in the first place? As per the newspaper reports quoted above (ref: The washington post link posted by Wally) the US did supply these weapons to Iraq. What responsibility does the US have in this respect? Does it have the moral right to speak against Saddam's use of WMDs when it was the one which made the WMDs available to Iraq? There are other points raised from the article like how Mr. Rumsfeld could ever get elected to be a Defence Secretary, but we can go into that later.
Assuming the US is as moral as a pros (if it assumes no responsibility about the supply of WMDs to Iraq and if the Washington Post news articles are true) what proof does the US have that Iraq indeed has some WMDs stocked up? If Iraq does possess WMDs capable of posing a world danger, surely there must have been hard evidence of it somewhere, perhaps some photos, any materials found on the people's clothes or skins or hair or in the dustbins, changes in the climates and environments around the weapons factories which the US satellites should have picked up instantly? Some hard evidence which doesn't have to be denied to the world under some flimsy pretext of exposing its intelligence sources?
Assuming that Iraq indeed possesses the WMDs which only your president could smell one quiet night, why is the US rushing ahead with its war propaganda even before they decided to bring the UN into picture? To the best of my knowledge, their proposal about Iraq presented to the UN had to be re-phrased because the other nations in the UN security council didn't like the harsh tone of it (read: the aggressive language and threats of war). So, why did the US start on the offensive in the first place? Without waiting for the UN inspectors to return and declare their findings? Wouldn't it be a little unfair to the Iraqi people of being accused of intending to destroy the world and being denied a fair trial? Another point is as soon as Iraq talked about presenting its arms declaration, the US said it was only an attempt to mislead the world. Why such a hasty conclusion, when I am sure even the English text in the declaration had not been read halfway through. The US can't even prove it's an attempt to buy time, but yet wants the world to believe it's so. Isn't that a bit "unfair"?
If Iraq does indeed have built a reputation for itself for being such a worse nation that it should be punished even without thinking twice about whether it's guilty or not, why is the world not towing the US line on Iraq? Surely if the world cared about its own existence the UN would have immediately sanctioned the first draft of the US proposal and Iraq would've been what Afghanistan is today, right? So why is the world trying to commit suicide?
North Korea has openly admitted to closely persuing its nuclear program. That means it's soon going to acquire or already has acquired nuclear weapons. The US itself has proof that Pakistan aided North Korea in achieving this feat. Is the US going to talk tough to N Korea or Pakistan? Bless my soul, no! We need a diplomatic approach there, don't we? Disregarding the fact that the North Korea has actually thrown out the UN inspectors, and charged the US of piracy on high seas for capturing its ship carrying scuds to Yemen. Surely North Korea has committed a number of crimes for which it needs to be wiped off the earth, but we need a diplomatic approach here. And where only the US says Iraq possesses WMDs, we need war! Don't you find it a bit "funny"?
True, all Saddam needs is a means. And the US is such <whatever> that it's giving it exactly what it wants, a war. Saddam will then rise in the eyes of the Arabs, US will invite more 9/11-like incidents, will start attacking nations suspected to be involved in these attacks, and eventually we shall perish. Could we just ask the US not to be the starters? At least I would die happier knowing the Iraq started it all, instead of knowing the US started it all.
.
"Innocent until proven guilty." Isn't that part of the US constitution? And now they're claiming that Iraq is guilty without any proof.
HB is damn right, the scuds on Israel were during the Gulf War. Saddam undoubtly later still posessed scuds, but did he fire any? He had the means to attack Israel with a devastating amount of scuds, yet he didn't. Because he had no reason to, unlike during the Gulf War where he had the reason that HB gave.
Wait a moment. Are you aware of what you said?Quote:
Just to point out, a country can go to war with another whenever the hell it likes, for whatever reason. The US could simply have ignored the UN, defending itself from an Iraqi threat, but it choose the go the way of the UN, by far, slower, and risking the lives of Inspectors, and neighbouring countries if suspect items were found.
The problem is that the only thing that prevents one country from attacking a weaker one is that the UN or other nations would come to help the weaker, see Kuwait.
But what if the attacking country is as strong and has as much influence as the USA? We'd expect such a country to be responsible enough not to start a war if not necessary, but your statement weakens my trust in the US citizens. The US does have the means to simply start the war without caring about the UN and the international implications, but then they'd be no better than Iraq.
So mind your words.
people suck... all of them... face it... we all suck
Oh yes but some are really good at it (good thing my g/f isn't currently watching or I'd have a bruised shin) ;)
For all we know the governments might already know that Saddam has WMD's (If He Has) and may be discussing war already. They wont tell us until they have to and that hasnt come yet, 27th may be that time but what you can guess is that no government starts a war without gaining from it wether it is for wealth (Saddam) or for protection (US etc). We need to trust the government WE elect to make the right decisions and fight for whats right. There is nothing more we can do now :) :) :)
Bodwad:
There is. All democracies expose ways in which the people can do more than just voting for one party/guy. To sit back and say "I have voted, now I have to obey everthing the elected person says" is wrong. We should constantly question what they do, be it only so that we can make a better choice next time.
I'm no genius (as many can attest to), but if I was Saddam, and I knew that weapons inspectors where going to be crawling all over my country looking for an excuse to destroy me, I'd have gotten rid of the WMD's years ago.
Then, when America attacks he can throw his arms up in the air and cry "foul warmongers" thus raising Arab hatred of the US. I find it suspicous that the UN inspectors have not yet found any evidence of WMD.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam is not a nice man. But ultimately if it comes to war, it's the poor innocent Iraqi citizen who's going to end up dead. It'll be their children who's bodies are buried under buildings or hit by cross fire. It'll be some poor farmer out in a field shot by a gunship while his family wonder why their father isn't home yet......
Do you think this apporach is fair on them? Do you think it will stop terrorist attacks against the US?
HB, I'm not going to argue with you over Iraq. No one has attacked Iraq yet. The US has made it's position very clear. As soon as the UN proves they are producing these weapons they will attack. You do not know what the inspectors have or have not found. Due to the fact that we are already moving troops there, I am guessing they have already found them. The troops are there to stop Iraq from launching them after the info is made public. You know the second that the announcement is made that they have WMD Iraq is going to fire a few off at Israel. Why do you think Saudi is staying out of it. They know he has them and dont want any fired at them. Any way, Neither of us know *** we are talking about and we won't until it has already happened.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
North Korea has openly admitted to closely persuing its nuclear program. That means it's soon going to acquire or already has acquired nuclear weapons. The US itself has proof that Pakistan aided North Korea in achieving this feat. Is the US going to talk tough to N Korea or Pakistan? Bless my soul, no! We need a diplomatic approach there, don't we? Disregarding the fact that the North Korea has actually thrown out the UN inspectors, and charged the US of piracy on high seas for capturing its ship carrying scuds to Yemen. Surely North Korea has committed a number of crimes for which it needs to be wiped off the earth, but we need a diplomatic approach here. And where only the US says Iraq possesses WMDs, we need war! Don't you find it a bit "funny"?
As far as North Korea goes. I'm guessing the US will completly pull out of South Korea. The second the US leavs South Korea the North will invade. And I do mean the "Second" the US pulls out. North Korea already has nukes. They've had nukes for years. The entire world knows they have them, why don't you? I'm betting that Korea will turn into China very soon. The US and China both know it and that is why the US isn't attacking North Korea. Gotta scratch China's back for signing a certain resolution.
Nothing like letting a dictator build up his weapons and army and then waiting until he does something. So you could die in peace if we didnt do anything about Iraq now and waited till they say nuked Israel? Yeah that would be much better :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Could we just ask the US not to be the starters? At least I would die happier knowing the Iraq started it all, instead of knowing the US started it all.
As MasterBlaster stated we dont know what the inspectors have found nor do we know what information the UN currently has about Iraq's weapons programs. Nor are we privy to secret satellite photo's or other intelligence agency information. What we do know is Saddam has a history of aggression with his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons on his own people.
So, you're basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was right to attack the world trade centre and the pentagon. After all, as far as they are concerned George Bush is a warmonger who hates muslims, so they figure attack him first. Pretty much the same as what you're saying.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Nothing like letting a dictator build up his weapons and army and then waiting until he does something. So you could die in peace if we didnt do anything about Iraq now and waited till they say nuked Israel? Yeah that would be much better :rolleyes:
They must have some form of evidence or they coudnt hold it back!!!!! :D :D :D
Why are the posts not going to the bottom????????
I want to know exactly what you call a history of aggression with his neighbours. I have only known about the Iran - Iraq war, and the Iraq - Kurdish conflict, which for me is internal to Iraq and the Kurds. The third and the last I know is the Gulf war. Something like an 8-year old war is not going to be triggered now, because it needs a similar strong reason, which I don't think is there today. Something like a Gulf War however is looming ahead, but that's thanks to the over-enthusiastic approach by the US. :rolleyes: So, is this what you call a "history of aggression"?Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
... we dont know what the inspectors have found nor do we know what information the UN currently has about Iraq's weapons programs. Nor are we privy to secret satellite photo's or other intelligence agency information. What we do know is Saddam has a history of aggression with his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons on his own people.
And just because he has a bad reputation, you are going to take him down without any proof? From the remarks of the US president and other government officials, it seems to me that they think the UN inspectors are wasting time in Iraq.
.
Quote:
The third and the last I know is the Gulf war. Something like an 8-year old war is not going to be triggered now
Be wary WWII was started because of WWI!!!
I recall many months back when all this started seeing on the news a photograph released by american officials from a spy plane or something. They said it was a large missile silo that was likely to be made with the idea of using nukes in it. No nukes have been found in it i believe. (informations not entirely accurate i fear)
If i was Saddam (A US Hater and mad man) i might want to go out in flaming "Glory" as it were, i might want to be remembered as a hero for many others. Was Hitler not made immortal by what he did (Memories)
If we know he has weapons then they are likely to strike after the inspections are complete, to get our people out and not show any signs of knowing where they are.
The attacks would need to decisive and quick to take out the WMD's that he has to prevent him from using them.
Never ever give away your war plans to an enemy and never give them the ability to destroy you, following these rules means that we as a government would NOT tell the public everything (Yet) and would strike very shortly after our people had left, we would strike with stealth planes and destroy the arsenals we know he has before he can react.
You are condeming what a government does when you dont even know all the facts, trust your government to use the information they have wisely and to co-operate with other countries accordingly. You elected them because you trusted them (Your Nation Did Anyway :rolleyes: ) to do their job.
For all of you fearful of George Bush, remember he can NOT do anything alone and although he seems ummmm well "dramatic" he doesnt really have the power needed to send a whole country to war based on his father. The people out of the line of sight have the information and co-operation of many nations and will make the decisions that may well save the lives of many.
I agree but unfortunately if you live in a country that is oppressed and do nothing about it then you (Very Unfortunately) end up in the middle of a conflict.Quote:
it's the poor innocent Iraqi citizen who's going to end up dead. It'll be their children who's bodies are buried under buildings or hit by cross fire. It'll be some poor farmer out in a field shot by a gunship while his family wonder why their father isn't home yet......
Hopefully because we are not likely to us WMD againt iraq these people will not be hurt or killed, Western techniques have ruled out striking civilians and actually condemn them therfore only military targets should be struck, with little loss (if any) of civilian lives.
What everyone must see is the bigger picture, if we wait for Iraq to strike (if it is going to) with WMD then before long the world will be in a nuclear winter. The WHOLE world is effected by this and would be effected even if only one nuke was launched. The damaged caused of letting this happen would be too costly for us to repair. You must see that if it is going to happen then now is the only time to stop it.
WWII could have been prevented earlier but was not because people wanted peace, this led to war. If nukes were involved in that then we would not be here now!!!!
Should we not learn from history and make what may appear drastic measures to prvent the world from effectively ending????
:confused: :confused:
Do you even sleep well at night ?
As for the inspectors argument, how about this :
if they found something don't you think that the Iraqis know that too ?
You see, if I have some device made and stored in a factory and I see that factory on a list or I see inspectors moving that way, I would've done something about it. I would protest, try to move them away or (if all else fail) fire them at the inspectors or american troops in the neigbouring countries because then I'd realise it was going to be war one way or another (so it makes sense to use them with pre-emptive strikes).
You can't inspect the country without them knowing about it.
And if that info about alleged sites is passed on to the inspectors they should've visited it by now and found something.
You see, if I were Iraq I would've chucked it all away or sold it to willing buyers in the months with the arguments about the new resolution so that I could say "come in, inspect, you'll find nothing".
So maybe they've found something, maybe not but don't you think you should await their report (even if you're convinced that , with or without the report, he's lying and hiding things) ?
Very well why shouldnt I????Quote:
Do you even sleep well at night ?
The UN inspectors arent actually telling them where their going they are just turning up and tests are being made on chemicals and objects found at these locations. They are probably innocent but saddam may not want war yet, he is not ready and he may be hoping that nothing turns up. He is surrounded by US troops, he knows that if he strikes the weapons inspectors then the whole world will be against him. Apart from the fact do you genuinly believe there are no spies in Iraq watching for the movement of weapons. for all we know they may be waiting to get the weapons in an exposed location.
What i said was they are going to wait, namely because they are not going to put the weapons inspectors at risk by firing on Iraq. I think they will wait but they will know the answer way before us and (if there going to) will strike the moment the inspectors are out. They must protect their own and they will you can count on that.Quote:
So maybe they've found something, maybe not but don't you think you should await their report (even if you're convinced that , with or without the report, he's lying and hiding things) ?
My god, why doesn't the US simply wipe out all other nations, and start building a new world afresh?
Sooner or later you will find each nation will have some kind of a conflict or another, which may or may not affect the rest of the world. Going by probabilities and the increasing friction between nations, you could say there may be about 3-4 countries which are likely to go to war in the near future, including N Korea, Pakistan, India and such, some of whom have nukes. So why not be a little extra-cautious and delete these countries from the map, so whoever remains can enjoy the bounties of mother earth a few years longer? :D
I just read some remarks by the President of the US the other day about following a diplomatic path with North Korea. The language he used could only mean one of two things: He is not sure people know what he is talking about, so he asserts and then re-asserts what he said, or two: he really is a moron. That's no way an international leader talks. If you can't find a good president, you could at least find some decent speech-writer for him, couldn't you?
.
So you condemn the US for trying to be peacefull with North Korea but you also dont ever want a war
Make your mind up!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:
Ummm no. Bush is not a dictator and the US’s weapons are already built up and if he felt the same way so what, good for him. He and his organization are now suffering the consequences of his action.Quote:
So, you're basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was right to attack the world trade centre and the pentagon. After all, as far as they are concerned George Bush is a warmonger who hates muslims, so they figure attack him first. Pretty much the same as what you're saying.
So attacking Iran, the Kurds, Kuwait, and Israel is not a good enough history of aggression?? Gassing his own people, oppressing his people, and executing members of his own family I suppose is not aggressive either. Maybe you should nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.Quote:
I want to know exactly what you call a history of aggression with his neighbours. I have only known about the Iran - Iraq war, and the Iraq - Kurdish conflict, which for me is internal to Iraq and the Kurds. The third and the last I know is the Gulf war. Something like an 8-year old war is not going to be triggered now, because it needs a similar strong reason, which I don't think is there today. Something like a Gulf War however is looming ahead, but that's thanks to the over-enthusiastic approach by the US. So, is this what you call a "history of aggression"?
And how do you know there is no proof? All you read about is what is released to the major media. Do you honestly think and believe that there is no other information to be had anywhere? A little naive on your part I think.Quote:
And just because he has a bad reputation, you are going to take him down without any proof? From the remarks of the US president and other government officials, it seems to me that they think the UN inspectors are wasting time in Iraq.”
Yes that is what a logical person would have done. We are not talking about a logical person I’m afraid.Quote:
You see, if I were Iraq I would've chucked it all away or sold it to willing buyers in the months with the arguments about the new resolution so that I could say "come in, inspect, you'll find nothing
Hey didn’t Neville Chamberlain sign a Non-Aggression pact called the Munich Pact with some guy named Hitler? He came back to England and proudly stated he had achieved “Peace in our time”. A few months later Hitler completed his total disregard for the treaty and took apart Czechoslovakia. All the while England and France did nothing. Several months after that he invaded Poland and WWII began. And you still think leaving Saddam alone is a good thing? Don’t you learn anything from history?Quote:
If I ever land up in such a situation, I shall throw out the UN inspectors, charge the US of piracy and other crimes, and demand an apology from it, get a no-aggression pact signed by dragging the UN in and then simply continue with making N-weapons and other things.
X
I made up my mind :)Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
So you condemn the US for trying to be peacefull with North Korea but you also dont ever want a war
Make your mind up!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:
If I ever land up in such a situation, I shall throw out the UN inspectors, charge the US of piracy and other crimes, and demand an apology from it, get a no-aggression pact signed by dragging the UN in and then simply continue with making N-weapons and other things.
Because if I didn't have any nukes, if I let the UN inspectors humiliate me in the name of search and if I kept complying with rules, I would end up in a war against the world.
Feeling better now ? :D
:rolleyes:
.
We'll hear them on the 27th. then we'll know what they may or may not have found. Shall we at least wait for that ?
The everlasting problem of good intelligence...
But obviously there is information they can submit to the inspectors and I appreciate that they do it. But why not earlier?
You have to be a spoilsport, don't you, Wally? :pQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
We'll hear them on the 27th. then we'll know what they may or may not have found. Shall we at least wait for that ?
You are right of course. It's for the US and the Iraq and the UN to decide :) We are probably wasting time on this fruitless discussion where both sides are just locked into a debate, and are trying to heap abuses and finding new reasons to criticize the others.
Alright, I am waiting till the UN inspectors to return. But then nobody can stop me! Whether Iraq has WMDs or not, whether US attacks Iraq or not! I have made up my mind!!
OK, just wanted to see how it feels to be the most powerful leader in the world :p
.
what really bugs me is that no-one bothered with Iraq after the Gulf war. Oh, there were inspectors who destroyed almost his entire capability of wmd making. In the 2-4 years after, not a peep.
And now, after 9/11, the elections it's all over the news. Suddenly he's sitting on nukes et al. Couldn't we have figured that out 3 years ago then ? But no, apparently not ...
Everyone seems locked up in war talk, terrorists and wmd.
I said it before and I say it again : Bin Laden has accomplished what he set out to do. Now he's waiting for the holy war to start.
OBL doesn't care about Saddam. In fact, he'd gladly see him go, it's the Iraqis and more precisely, the Shiites he's concerned about. He hopes they will rise up against the western aggressor and drag along the muslims in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east in a holy war against the Judeo-Christian complot against muslims. Part one (striking fear in the hearts of the enemy) is already complete. Part 2 he hopes will follow shortly.
Oh and by the way, what do you think will happen when the alliance forces leave Afghanistan ? Do you honestly think Karzai can keep together his band of warlords ? The taliban you've 'destroyed' is simply waiting in the mountains (Afghanistan, pakistan) biding their time of return and as soon as the alliance leave they'll try to regain power.
1-0 to Bin Laden, whether you like it or not.
Finally we're seeing some other comments than the war talk from the white house.
This is how it should be handled. Give them more info to 'zero in' on the alledged activities and let's hear what they have to say on the 27th.
I had raised this same point earlier, but in the "heat of the discussion" there are many points which are never addressed/answered :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
what really bugs me is that no-one bothered with Iraq after the Gulf war. Oh, there were inspectors who destroyed almost his entire capability of wmd making. In the 2-4 years after, not a peep.
And now, after 9/11, the elections it's all over the news. Suddenly he's sitting on nukes et al. Couldn't we have figured that out 3 years ago then ? But no, apparently not ...
Everyone seems locked up in war talk, terrorists and wmd.
I would mark it 2-0 for bin Laden, although sadly. However considering the US have never ever fought on their homelands, it's not difficult to see them panick so much after 9/11. The so called security measures they are following are almost to the point of being hilarious, although definitely insulting to the Asians.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I said it before and I say it again : Bin Laden has accomplished what he set out to do. Now he's waiting for the holy war to start.
OBL doesn't care about Saddam. In fact, he'd gladly see him go, it's the Iraqis and more precisely, the Shiites he's concerned about. He hopes they will rise up against the western aggressor and drag along the muslims in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east in a holy war against the Judeo-Christian complot against muslims. Part one (striking fear in the hearts of the enemy) is already complete. Part 2 he hopes will follow shortly.
Oh and by the way, what do you think will happen when the alliance forces leave Afghanistan ? Do you honestly think Karzai can keep together his band of warlords ? The taliban you've 'destroyed' is simply waiting in the mountains (Afghanistan, pakistan) biding their time of return and as soon as the alliance leave they'll try to regain power.
1-0 to Bin Laden, whether you like it or not.
Karzai recently forced the neighbouring nations, India, China, Pakistan and Russia to sign a treaty whereby Pakistan has been kept out of the picture. I don't have the exact details of it right now, it's been a month or so, but Pakistan's intentions of meddling in the new Afghan government have been forced to be put on hold because of it. And since Afghanistan is using more Indian assistance, the Pakistani unrest must be growing. Also there are reports that although the Afghan warlords have been compliant so far, Karzai doesn't really have any controlling powers on them, until a centralized military force is raised in Afghanistan. Once this force comes into existence, Karzai can have the military means to curb the warlords' powers. Till then he has to walk a tight rope. Going by the present situation, there's every chance the Talibanis will strike back sometime this year. Too late will allow the US forces and force the Pakistani forces to track them down, and too soon will lead to another defeat. Me too thinks they are waiting for the US to attack Iraq when the Muslim countries will turn hostile to the US and the Al Qaeda can use these countries as their new shelters.
.
That's a very shallow conclusion. WW2 was started for various reasons. WW1 was not one of them, only the burdens the victors laid on Germany. The payments to France were an enormous burden for the Germna economy and in addition they lost the coal areas which had always been the most productive part of Germany.Quote:
Be wary WWII was started because of WWI!!!
If I am to go further back in history I could also draw parallels between the UN inspectors and the start of WW1. Saddam has a point when he calls them spies. (Not that I think we should withdraw them.)
If the UN or the US already had real proof that Iraq has WMDs then they'd not wait for the 27th but instead immediatly withdraw the inspectors and strike. There'd be no time to lose. And if they don't have evidence then I wish Bush would stop his stupid war talk.
He can order bomb strikes on any country he wishes. How's that for nothing?Quote:
For all of you fearful of George Bush, remember he can NOT do anything alone...
One way or the other US is going to lose this war. There might be no winner, but if there is US won't be it.
Ah, enough of the debates now. Let's all wait till the 27th, let the UN inspectors report what they found there, and then let's reopen the debate then.
Anyonce fancy a pint?
.
He requires permision from other cabinet members first!!!!!!! These are far wiser than that loony bushQuote:
He can order bomb strikes on any country he wishes. How's that for nothing?
And this was the result of............Duh Duh Duh Duh Duh Duh DUUUUUUHHHHHHHH WORLD WAR ONEQuote:
The payments to France were an enormous burden for the Germna economy and in addition they lost the coal areas which had always been the most productive part of Germany
Many germans hated terms of the treaty made after WWI and wanted it gone. Many Germans also felt like had been stabbed in the back by their politicians who had signed the agreement (Hitler was one of the Pis**d off soldiers). Because of WWI many Germans felt they had to prove that Germany was great and so signed up on the war crusade. WWII was a result of WWI, if WWI hadent happened then no hatred and need for power would be present and WWII would not have occured!!!!!:D
in simple their defeat in WWI caused tensions in the German people that innevitably came out in war (WWII)
Quote:
Anyonce fancy a pint?
Hmmm lets head for the Virtual Pub on these forums
Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Hmmm lets head for the Virtual Pub on these forums
Naah, you do that. I don't drink :p
.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: