US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:03 am
A simple question: If there is absolutely no proof that Saddam has chemical weapons, why then does he continue to threaten the Kurds with gas attacks if the US invades?
And here we go again, believing a mad dictator over a publicly elected official. I don't know about any of you, but I would even trust Ted Kennedy over Saddam Hussein, as sad as that is.
And back in '98 I bet some of you (distrusters of Bush) believed Clinton over Hussein. How times change with just a mere switch in office.
And here we go again, believing a mad dictator over a publicly elected official. I don't know about any of you, but I would even trust Ted Kennedy over Saddam Hussein, as sad as that is.
And back in '98 I bet some of you (distrusters of Bush) believed Clinton over Hussein. How times change with just a mere switch in office.
by Kristov » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:24 pm
Keekano, the missiles in question were outlawed in the original resolution, they weren't added later. And the range is a bit more then 50km....
Saddam stated, publically in that little interview he did, that these missiles did NOT exist, the US was lying about them just to further their war agenda. Then he turns around and says, 'oh, you mean THESE missles...yeah, we have them, and we'll destroy them to stay in accord with the resolution we agreed to', and destroys, publically, 10 out of the 100+ he has. Then he stops, saying 'why should I destroy them, I'll need them to stop the US if they attack'. Despite the fact that the US was going to back down if Saddam starts acceding to the resolution!
The crazy SOB WANTS us to attack him! He wants to show the Arab world that he can stand up to the rest of the world, and that he can, once again, 'win' such a confrontation. After all, according to Saddam, Iraq WON Desert Storm, not the Coalition forces. Or did that little claim of his escape you guys again?
Saddam stated, publically in that little interview he did, that these missiles did NOT exist, the US was lying about them just to further their war agenda. Then he turns around and says, 'oh, you mean THESE missles...yeah, we have them, and we'll destroy them to stay in accord with the resolution we agreed to', and destroys, publically, 10 out of the 100+ he has. Then he stops, saying 'why should I destroy them, I'll need them to stop the US if they attack'. Despite the fact that the US was going to back down if Saddam starts acceding to the resolution!
The crazy SOB WANTS us to attack him! He wants to show the Arab world that he can stand up to the rest of the world, and that he can, once again, 'win' such a confrontation. After all, according to Saddam, Iraq WON Desert Storm, not the Coalition forces. Or did that little claim of his escape you guys again?
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Wed Mar 05, 2003 10:07 pm
A very good article. If it has been posted before, I apologize.
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
- Anton
by Anton » Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:18 pm
Kristov mumbles...."(Anton's)...long and boring post...which says absolutelyl nothing."
I'm sorry to have to always get down to this level at the beginning of every post...but...
Kristov....you're either clearly in denial or simply haven't the wit to know when you're being peppered with both insight and good literature....
As for all this talk about "weapons of mass destruction"...
Let's see, who spends more (and has more) WMD than *the rest of the world combined*?...(and as Keekano pointed out, "Who *uses* it")....Take one little guess....
You got it .....Imperial America.
Who undermined the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention by announcing (in July 2001) that it would not endorse a verification and monitoring protocol, which would require all signatories to submit to international inspections to ensure their compliance? .....Care to take stab?
You got it......the good 'ol USA.
What country (a helpful clue.....under the Clinton Administration...) initiated a secret new germ weapons program known as Project Bachus (second clue....which was later embraced by a certain G. Bush)?.....
...the US.
What country officially withdrew (in Dec., 2001) from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty?...
...the US.
What rogue nation initiated a new global arms race two years ago by reviving the "Star Wars" plan (which far from being a 'defensive' program is designed to give the US first-strike nuclear capability by attempting to remove the threat of retaliation by other nuclear powers)?
...the US.
What crimianlly insane administration produced a new nuclear policy (a leaked copy of which was printed in the Los Angeles Times in March of 2002), entitled, "Nuclear Posture Review", which reveals that Washington has now officially decided in favour of pre-emptive, nuclear first-strikes against any nation which it feels is, not threatening it militarily, but which threatens its *global hegemony*?
.....Washington.
What nation is presently running a chemical weapons research and development program that violates the Chemical Weapons Convention?
..(Yawn).....the US......
And for that matter...
What country has sponsored (at the infamous 'School of the Americas' - name now changed to protect the 'inocent' - at Fort Benning, Georgia, over 80,000 Latin American elite soldiers and officers, 80% of whom have been found to be complicit in the death squad ridden pogroms (at least a half-million civilians murdered in the last quarter century alone) of their respective countries?
....the US.
Still with me?
What country poured over $4 billion dollars into the creation of an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentlism in central Asia and 'destabilize' the Soviet Union?.....An operation run by the CIA in cahoots with the ISI (Inter Sevice Intelligence - Pakistan) ...and called, Operation Cyclone....which oversaw the setting up of Islamic training schools in Pakistan. And which saw young zealots sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Quaida were taught sabotage skills ..i.e. terrorism?
And where others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn...within sight of the World Trade towers.
All this in aid of 'sticking it to' the Soviets (which it did) , but which also destroyed the first progressive secular gov't ever in Afghanistan...A gov't which had granted equal rights to women, established health care and literacy programs, and set out to both break the hold of the feudal war lords and the heroin mandarins.....
Yep.....little 'ol America the Brave.
Tell me something.....can you spell,
H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y ?
Anton
I'm sorry to have to always get down to this level at the beginning of every post...but...
Kristov....you're either clearly in denial or simply haven't the wit to know when you're being peppered with both insight and good literature....
As for all this talk about "weapons of mass destruction"...
Let's see, who spends more (and has more) WMD than *the rest of the world combined*?...(and as Keekano pointed out, "Who *uses* it")....Take one little guess....
You got it .....Imperial America.
Who undermined the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention by announcing (in July 2001) that it would not endorse a verification and monitoring protocol, which would require all signatories to submit to international inspections to ensure their compliance? .....Care to take stab?
You got it......the good 'ol USA.
What country (a helpful clue.....under the Clinton Administration...) initiated a secret new germ weapons program known as Project Bachus (second clue....which was later embraced by a certain G. Bush)?.....
...the US.
What country officially withdrew (in Dec., 2001) from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty?...
...the US.
What rogue nation initiated a new global arms race two years ago by reviving the "Star Wars" plan (which far from being a 'defensive' program is designed to give the US first-strike nuclear capability by attempting to remove the threat of retaliation by other nuclear powers)?
...the US.
What crimianlly insane administration produced a new nuclear policy (a leaked copy of which was printed in the Los Angeles Times in March of 2002), entitled, "Nuclear Posture Review", which reveals that Washington has now officially decided in favour of pre-emptive, nuclear first-strikes against any nation which it feels is, not threatening it militarily, but which threatens its *global hegemony*?
.....Washington.
What nation is presently running a chemical weapons research and development program that violates the Chemical Weapons Convention?
..(Yawn).....the US......
And for that matter...
What country has sponsored (at the infamous 'School of the Americas' - name now changed to protect the 'inocent' - at Fort Benning, Georgia, over 80,000 Latin American elite soldiers and officers, 80% of whom have been found to be complicit in the death squad ridden pogroms (at least a half-million civilians murdered in the last quarter century alone) of their respective countries?
....the US.
Still with me?
What country poured over $4 billion dollars into the creation of an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentlism in central Asia and 'destabilize' the Soviet Union?.....An operation run by the CIA in cahoots with the ISI (Inter Sevice Intelligence - Pakistan) ...and called, Operation Cyclone....which oversaw the setting up of Islamic training schools in Pakistan. And which saw young zealots sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Quaida were taught sabotage skills ..i.e. terrorism?
And where others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn...within sight of the World Trade towers.
All this in aid of 'sticking it to' the Soviets (which it did) , but which also destroyed the first progressive secular gov't ever in Afghanistan...A gov't which had granted equal rights to women, established health care and literacy programs, and set out to both break the hold of the feudal war lords and the heroin mandarins.....
Yep.....little 'ol America the Brave.
Tell me something.....can you spell,
H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y ?
Anton
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:46 pm
France. Germany. Belgium. Mexico. Russia. China.
These are a few, if more notable, countries opposing the States' desire to attack Iraq.
Media sources around the world are now full of anti-war sentiment. Many are making reasonable attempts to reveal what 'other' reasons the States may have for establishing a military presence on Iraq soil.
I'm afraid those 'conspiracy left-wing-nut theories' are bursting the dams of the worlds patience.
Humans are, on the whole, a meek species. Most will follow whoever or whatever seems the stronger. They will mouth inane political rhetoric just to keep going the status-quo. They will come in here and say blisteringly banal things like 'we should have kicked Saddams ass ten years ago'.
Soon they will be coming in here (but they can't, can they--they've already revealed the depths of their knowledge; not to worry, billions more can fill their shoes) and saying equally empty, politically correct things like, 'We don't want to hurt no babies. We should make friends with them'.
"You're either with us or against us." Said the cowboy Evangalist. He counted on the world being sufficiently cowed by the nations military lethal potential that all other nations would meekly step into line.
Well, 'he', 'Bush', 'America', 'Corporate interest', still has that lethal potential. Let us hope that the sheer enormity of the gathering world-wide opposition to this up-coming attack is strong enough to burst the dam of your media. Let spill unto your populace those 'conspiracy left-wing-nut theories' so that they too will rise up and drown this military expansionism before it triggers the Last War.
I make a prediction. I predict that in the coming weeks, we'll see more votes on the 'no' side in this forum. Far more.
These are a few, if more notable, countries opposing the States' desire to attack Iraq.
Media sources around the world are now full of anti-war sentiment. Many are making reasonable attempts to reveal what 'other' reasons the States may have for establishing a military presence on Iraq soil.
I'm afraid those 'conspiracy left-wing-nut theories' are bursting the dams of the worlds patience.
Humans are, on the whole, a meek species. Most will follow whoever or whatever seems the stronger. They will mouth inane political rhetoric just to keep going the status-quo. They will come in here and say blisteringly banal things like 'we should have kicked Saddams ass ten years ago'.
Soon they will be coming in here (but they can't, can they--they've already revealed the depths of their knowledge; not to worry, billions more can fill their shoes) and saying equally empty, politically correct things like, 'We don't want to hurt no babies. We should make friends with them'.
"You're either with us or against us." Said the cowboy Evangalist. He counted on the world being sufficiently cowed by the nations military lethal potential that all other nations would meekly step into line.
Well, 'he', 'Bush', 'America', 'Corporate interest', still has that lethal potential. Let us hope that the sheer enormity of the gathering world-wide opposition to this up-coming attack is strong enough to burst the dam of your media. Let spill unto your populace those 'conspiracy left-wing-nut theories' so that they too will rise up and drown this military expansionism before it triggers the Last War.
I make a prediction. I predict that in the coming weeks, we'll see more votes on the 'no' side in this forum. Far more.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:54 pm
"rogue...", "imperial...", "criminally insane administration"--
Those are strong words from someone who claims his "views are both complex and taken from across a wide spectrum of political ideologies and thought." Your messages here continue to say otherwise.
Those are strong words from someone who claims his "views are both complex and taken from across a wide spectrum of political ideologies and thought." Your messages here continue to say otherwise.
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:57 pm
Keek, when you come up with a Country with whom's opinion I give a shit, I'll let you know.
Even you Keek, should know the reasons why they are against a Saddam ousting. Could it be that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China (the last 2 always side against US, so they really dont count) have higher morals than we. That they are for peace and love or is it because they stand to lose millions if not billions, from the loss of everybody's favorite Dicktator.
By the way, in the coming weeks as you say, it'll be all over.
Even you Keek, should know the reasons why they are against a Saddam ousting. Could it be that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China (the last 2 always side against US, so they really dont count) have higher morals than we. That they are for peace and love or is it because they stand to lose millions if not billions, from the loss of everybody's favorite Dicktator.
By the way, in the coming weeks as you say, it'll be all over.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:50 pm
Bukkake...we're civilized. We remove the antlers first. If you look very carefully in that pic, on the right, perched atop the book-case, you can just make out one of the antlers. (I use it for carving).
What's the old adage....never ever talk about religion or politics. People get too heated up.
Personally, I normally avoid politics (not religion, but that's another issue), as I don't bother to sift through the mountains of disinformation which flow, on a daily basis, from this or that gov't, and so can't really give an informed opinion. (Doug and Kristov will have a field-day with that latter statement, lol).
Still, this attack on Iraq isn't a small thing. This has the potential of initiating a very drastic polarization of world power. Even if it doesn't go into extreme 'un-Amercian' displays, it will surely spark a massive grass-roots anti-American sentiment around the world.
Naturally the countries opposing this invasion stand to lose massive amounts of wealth. Oooops...are we now agreeing that it IS about world control of resources? What happened to the 'Saddam eats live children and tortures supporters of democracy on pubic television every night' argument?
Naturally they're going to do all they can from stopping America intervening in their interests. I'm rather concerned where all that might lead.
What's the old adage....never ever talk about religion or politics. People get too heated up.
Personally, I normally avoid politics (not religion, but that's another issue), as I don't bother to sift through the mountains of disinformation which flow, on a daily basis, from this or that gov't, and so can't really give an informed opinion. (Doug and Kristov will have a field-day with that latter statement, lol).
Still, this attack on Iraq isn't a small thing. This has the potential of initiating a very drastic polarization of world power. Even if it doesn't go into extreme 'un-Amercian' displays, it will surely spark a massive grass-roots anti-American sentiment around the world.
Naturally the countries opposing this invasion stand to lose massive amounts of wealth. Oooops...are we now agreeing that it IS about world control of resources? What happened to the 'Saddam eats live children and tortures supporters of democracy on pubic television every night' argument?
Naturally they're going to do all they can from stopping America intervening in their interests. I'm rather concerned where all that might lead.
by Kristov » Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:20 pm
Anton...should I try and list all the little black ops the Canadian government has been part of? Or the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany, etc? Got a few years to read them all?
Yes, America opted out of those treaties..why don't you explain WHY that was done? Because it ruins the impact you are trying to make, that's why.
Yes, America helped arm Middle Eastern militias, some of whom happened to END up being Muslim extremists, not the majority. If you want to toss facts around, at least get them straight.
Your messages are very clear Anton..you hate America and what it stands for. That's been clear from your first post on out.
Keekano...America could care less if France and Germany make money...it's HOW they are making the money that is the issue. THEY don't want the world finding out what they've done, and that's why they oppose any action against Iraq. It has nothing to do with morals or even just the loss of revenue, it has to do with the repercussions of their breaking of the UN sanctions they approved of. France and Germany don't want to have to be spending money for the infractions THEY'VE committed..and they sure as hell don't want the world to find out they've been helping a country build WMD after they tried to stop said country from doing just that.
Hey, Anton..I can spell it..and I can recognize it when I see it in action. Obviously, you can't or won't..take your pick.
Yes, America opted out of those treaties..why don't you explain WHY that was done? Because it ruins the impact you are trying to make, that's why.
Yes, America helped arm Middle Eastern militias, some of whom happened to END up being Muslim extremists, not the majority. If you want to toss facts around, at least get them straight.
Your messages are very clear Anton..you hate America and what it stands for. That's been clear from your first post on out.
Keekano...America could care less if France and Germany make money...it's HOW they are making the money that is the issue. THEY don't want the world finding out what they've done, and that's why they oppose any action against Iraq. It has nothing to do with morals or even just the loss of revenue, it has to do with the repercussions of their breaking of the UN sanctions they approved of. France and Germany don't want to have to be spending money for the infractions THEY'VE committed..and they sure as hell don't want the world to find out they've been helping a country build WMD after they tried to stop said country from doing just that.
Hey, Anton..I can spell it..and I can recognize it when I see it in action. Obviously, you can't or won't..take your pick.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests