US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- MeatShield
by MeatShield » Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:55 pm
Has anybody else heard the quotes from the Iraqi military...saying that if the US does attack, they will use gas??
How many times now have they been saying this?? But wait, the UN inspectors never found any gas, so I guess this is an empty threat..
never mind then..
Wednesday will be a very interesting day to see exactly what Saddam comes out and says, and even better.. what his army says when the try to defect!!!
How many times now have they been saying this?? But wait, the UN inspectors never found any gas, so I guess this is an empty threat..
never mind then..
Wednesday will be a very interesting day to see exactly what Saddam comes out and says, and even better.. what his army says when the try to defect!!!
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:40 pm
*dusts himself off*
Man...delete the wrong thread to this place and it's nigh on impossible to get back into.....
I have to say that the piece written by the monty-python actor was VERY funny. And helpful. I now realize that irksome old widow living across the road in that run-down house is, given her firtive looks into the street, up to no-good. She's doing it even more now that I have the tank parked out front. Definately something going on there. I'll give her 48 hours to leave the city or I'm a comin' in Hoss!
I only have a brief moment in here, just enough to say--Wow! Great amount of responses last week or so.
Yes, you have to love the Canadian Govt's 'official' position--not to help in an attack on Iraq without U.N. sanction. Meanwhile, they've sent several ships, a bunch of military gear, and a dozen or so jets.
Did I hear correctly the other day during a speech by Bush that he said something like: 'When we're done with this Iraq problem, we're going to work on the French situation'. Doesn't that warm the soul.
It's control of resources. Lets not forget that. It's not about Saddam being a very nasty evil man. There are millions of nasty evil men--many of them in U.S. penetentiaries. Bukkake, despite his sand-paper soft demeanour, calls it pretty close to the mark when he talks about securing vital interests.
Man...delete the wrong thread to this place and it's nigh on impossible to get back into.....
I have to say that the piece written by the monty-python actor was VERY funny. And helpful. I now realize that irksome old widow living across the road in that run-down house is, given her firtive looks into the street, up to no-good. She's doing it even more now that I have the tank parked out front. Definately something going on there. I'll give her 48 hours to leave the city or I'm a comin' in Hoss!
I only have a brief moment in here, just enough to say--Wow! Great amount of responses last week or so.
Yes, you have to love the Canadian Govt's 'official' position--not to help in an attack on Iraq without U.N. sanction. Meanwhile, they've sent several ships, a bunch of military gear, and a dozen or so jets.
Did I hear correctly the other day during a speech by Bush that he said something like: 'When we're done with this Iraq problem, we're going to work on the French situation'. Doesn't that warm the soul.
It's control of resources. Lets not forget that. It's not about Saddam being a very nasty evil man. There are millions of nasty evil men--many of them in U.S. penetentiaries. Bukkake, despite his sand-paper soft demeanour, calls it pretty close to the mark when he talks about securing vital interests.
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:32 pm
Hey Keek check out the movie: 
http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=1828b1b5-5d2b-4d5a-9692-3416fc88df20
http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=1828b1b5-5d2b-4d5a-9692-3416fc88df20
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:47 pm
Nice to see ya again Keek. Need somebody in the opposition who is a little competent, ya know?
First off, these comparisons to WWII are a little ridiculous. It was a different time, a different world and different people running the various countries who took part in the conflict. It is not even close to comparable.
Second, what (or who's) rules have we broken? Anybody? The geneva convention? Nope. The UN security council? There are sixteen(!) resolutions since the end of the Gulf War that could be construed as authorization for force. The US congress? Bush got their approval last year. The american people? Polls show the the people are in the neighborhood of 65% for war with Iraq. What is left? Do we have to go the doorstep of every country in the world and explain our case to them and then get their approval? Where does it say that we need to do this?
Out of courtesy, we tried to work through the UN to get what we wanted, but that did not work. On this issue, compromising US goals is unacceptably dangerous. Who makes this determination? Well, who knows what is dangerous to the US better than the US? The French? If they knew of a danger to the US, I don't believe they would give us that information unless it was in their own interest.
Floppy, before you accuse the US of rule breaking and sinister intentions, let's see a few verifiable facts. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
By the way, Mr Monty Python Guy fails to include in his analogy his neighbor's history of taking over other neighbors houses, how he treats his own family, and what his relatives say about him. I can only assume he left out this info because it didn't support his opinion.
First off, these comparisons to WWII are a little ridiculous. It was a different time, a different world and different people running the various countries who took part in the conflict. It is not even close to comparable.
Second, what (or who's) rules have we broken? Anybody? The geneva convention? Nope. The UN security council? There are sixteen(!) resolutions since the end of the Gulf War that could be construed as authorization for force. The US congress? Bush got their approval last year. The american people? Polls show the the people are in the neighborhood of 65% for war with Iraq. What is left? Do we have to go the doorstep of every country in the world and explain our case to them and then get their approval? Where does it say that we need to do this?
Out of courtesy, we tried to work through the UN to get what we wanted, but that did not work. On this issue, compromising US goals is unacceptably dangerous. Who makes this determination? Well, who knows what is dangerous to the US better than the US? The French? If they knew of a danger to the US, I don't believe they would give us that information unless it was in their own interest.
Floppy, before you accuse the US of rule breaking and sinister intentions, let's see a few verifiable facts. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
By the way, Mr Monty Python Guy fails to include in his analogy his neighbor's history of taking over other neighbors houses, how he treats his own family, and what his relatives say about him. I can only assume he left out this info because it didn't support his opinion.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:10 am
It's late. Just thought I'd drop off this gem from John Cleese--bulstering his peer's earlier comments.
Comments from John Cleese, following George W's 'State of the Union' address...
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."
THE AXIS PANDEMIC
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.
Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
Comments from John Cleese, following George W's 'State of the Union' address...
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."
THE AXIS PANDEMIC
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.
Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
- DrunkenDruid
by DrunkenDruid » Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:17 am
Nice. And I’ve got to say this once to anyone that opposes the U.S.A. Find your food and resources somewhere else!
Please don’t respond.
I don’t care what you think.
If I did I wouldn’t’ spare you
And I won’t
You are lost and that is all
Sorry.
U.S.A Citizen
Druid
Please don’t respond.
I don’t care what you think.
If I did I wouldn’t’ spare you
And I won’t
You are lost and that is all
Sorry.
U.S.A Citizen
Druid
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:38 am
This is why John Cleese has a career after Monty Python and all those other guys don't. Now that's funny. I can picture him delivering these lines in his faux newsman voice. A la Kevin Nealon on SNL.
Maybe Ireland, Russia and The Netherlands will form the Axis of Too Drunk(and/or Stoned) to Care.....
Maybe Ireland, Russia and The Netherlands will form the Axis of Too Drunk(and/or Stoned) to Care.....
- MeatShield
by MeatShield » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:13 am
Many may have already read this article, but I thought it may be a good "reality check" to what we need to expect on our own soils.
I am by NO MEANS alerting all against Muslims, but just to open our eyes a little wider.
Soda, pizza and the destruction of America
As the time nears, am I the only one who is becoming more fidgety? I do pray that this will be swift and final.
My prayers and thoughs go out to all of our men and women on the front lines of this attack... Even though we still have 40hrs and 49min (thanks to MSNBC..), We are moving in!!!
I am by NO MEANS alerting all against Muslims, but just to open our eyes a little wider.
Soda, pizza and the destruction of America
As the time nears, am I the only one who is becoming more fidgety? I do pray that this will be swift and final.
My prayers and thoughs go out to all of our men and women on the front lines of this attack... Even though we still have 40hrs and 49min (thanks to MSNBC..), We are moving in!!!
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:24 am
A different approach to the discussion.
Let's start off by accepting as a given something that Anton and Keekano would certainly be the first to point out: America didn't get into the Second World War to stop the Holocaust or to liberate France. Instead, under this hypothetical, the U.S. didn't lift a finger to help others, only to help itself. Even if we accept this fact, does it mean that the War was not just? With that in mind, I think that those who are more afraid of George W. Bush, or the United States, or the affect that either of the first two will have on French or Belgian pride should read the article attached below.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
Even if we assume that America's current intentions toward Iraq aren't completely altruistic, even if we assume it's all about oil or whatever other ridiculous conspiracy you favor, explain to me again how it is wrong. Please explain to me how Bush or the U.S. is worse than Hussein. Explain to me how the French solution (if there really is one) to the current situation is better than war.
Feel free to start with some defense of national sovereignty, but it will sound awful hollow coming from such "citizens of the world." Or maybe you'll start with some lack-of-UN-consensus argument. Feel free to enlighten me as to how the approval of such enlightened countries as Russia, China, or Angola, would magically transform war into a just cause. You might say, "well France is against it too," but maybe the question shouldn't be why the U.S. is disagrees with France, but why France sides with the world's despots.
Finally, I'll add a preemptive (to use a topical term) answer to the cry that war is illegal without a second UN resolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm
Let's start off by accepting as a given something that Anton and Keekano would certainly be the first to point out: America didn't get into the Second World War to stop the Holocaust or to liberate France. Instead, under this hypothetical, the U.S. didn't lift a finger to help others, only to help itself. Even if we accept this fact, does it mean that the War was not just? With that in mind, I think that those who are more afraid of George W. Bush, or the United States, or the affect that either of the first two will have on French or Belgian pride should read the article attached below.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
Even if we assume that America's current intentions toward Iraq aren't completely altruistic, even if we assume it's all about oil or whatever other ridiculous conspiracy you favor, explain to me again how it is wrong. Please explain to me how Bush or the U.S. is worse than Hussein. Explain to me how the French solution (if there really is one) to the current situation is better than war.
Feel free to start with some defense of national sovereignty, but it will sound awful hollow coming from such "citizens of the world." Or maybe you'll start with some lack-of-UN-consensus argument. Feel free to enlighten me as to how the approval of such enlightened countries as Russia, China, or Angola, would magically transform war into a just cause. You might say, "well France is against it too," but maybe the question shouldn't be why the U.S. is disagrees with France, but why France sides with the world's despots.
Finally, I'll add a preemptive (to use a topical term) answer to the cry that war is illegal without a second UN resolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:54 am
First off, I'm glad a few countries have finally stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility and have given this man a deadline, all he understands is force, hell, the inspectors would not even be in iraq if it was not for the hundreds of thousands troops surrounding him.
Second, the U.N. should not have the finally say on any countries right to sovereignty(sp?), I do not elect anyone in the U.N. therefore I do not want them to deciding on my countries future.
Third, I understand what france and the other countries are trying to do to the U.S., they are trying to undermine us and make us look weak because we are the only superpower left, which in some ways I can understand, but what saddens me, and this should be something for all you anti-war backers, is the fact that you and your countries have chosen the iraq situation to do this on, of all things to go against us on, this should not have been one of them. Lets leave a tyrant in power who kills his own people just for having conversations like the one we are having now, who gases his own people and many more nasty things too long to put in this sentence. You people stand on your high horse and tell the rest of us we are not compassionate enough and we will be murdering innocent civilians while completely ignoring what is really going on in iraq. Millions of people are looking forward to the day saddam is no longer around. I'm just saying that your countries should have chosen something else to get back at the U.S. on, leaving the iraqi people in the situation they are in just to slap the U.S. in the face is very pathetic.
Listen to what you are saying, it makes no sense, you blame the US for what we are about to do, yet we are doing exactly what the UN was founded for, it is the other countries...france, germany, russia, china...who are not doing what the UN was founded for. We are enforcing 12 years and many resolutions that have lead us to this point., the reason the league of nations did not work is for the same reason the UN is not going to work, they dont act on their judgments.
Also, to everyone in the European Union, just wait and see, the same thing will happen to the EU that is happening in the UN, every country will eventually start bickering about this and that and it will fall apart as soon as another country looks like it has all the power and everyone starts fighting over who really is in control. It may take several years, but it will happen. It would be in Britons best interest to stay out.
First off, if you are going to try to prove a point, do not use an actor, and for Gods sake, not someone from Monty Python.
Rule of Wrist. I noticed that also, funny how they leave out the main reason why we are in this situation.
Allister Fiend
Second, the U.N. should not have the finally say on any countries right to sovereignty(sp?), I do not elect anyone in the U.N. therefore I do not want them to deciding on my countries future.
Third, I understand what france and the other countries are trying to do to the U.S., they are trying to undermine us and make us look weak because we are the only superpower left, which in some ways I can understand, but what saddens me, and this should be something for all you anti-war backers, is the fact that you and your countries have chosen the iraq situation to do this on, of all things to go against us on, this should not have been one of them. Lets leave a tyrant in power who kills his own people just for having conversations like the one we are having now, who gases his own people and many more nasty things too long to put in this sentence. You people stand on your high horse and tell the rest of us we are not compassionate enough and we will be murdering innocent civilians while completely ignoring what is really going on in iraq. Millions of people are looking forward to the day saddam is no longer around. I'm just saying that your countries should have chosen something else to get back at the U.S. on, leaving the iraqi people in the situation they are in just to slap the U.S. in the face is very pathetic.
Originally posted by FLOPPY
Well accually it was invented to prevent this situation. After WW2 the allies founded the UN to prevent such thing (WW2) from hapening again. Back then it was Germany that could do what it wanted unpunished. And once Germany tasted that power, well... you know what happened. And now this could be happening again. More then half the world says NO WAR (yet) , but America says: I WANT A WAR RIGHT NOW. Guess what happens right now.
Listen to what you are saying, it makes no sense, you blame the US for what we are about to do, yet we are doing exactly what the UN was founded for, it is the other countries...france, germany, russia, china...who are not doing what the UN was founded for. We are enforcing 12 years and many resolutions that have lead us to this point., the reason the league of nations did not work is for the same reason the UN is not going to work, they dont act on their judgments.
Also, to everyone in the European Union, just wait and see, the same thing will happen to the EU that is happening in the UN, every country will eventually start bickering about this and that and it will fall apart as soon as another country looks like it has all the power and everyone starts fighting over who really is in control. It may take several years, but it will happen. It would be in Britons best interest to stay out.
Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
By the way, Mr Monty Python Guy fails to include in his analogy his neighbor's history of taking over other neighbors houses, how he treats his own family, and what his relatives say about him. I can only assume he left out this info because it didn't support his opinion.
First off, if you are going to try to prove a point, do not use an actor, and for Gods sake, not someone from Monty Python.
Rule of Wrist. I noticed that also, funny how they leave out the main reason why we are in this situation.
Allister Fiend
by bayotanzk » Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:14 am
Go to battlefield 1942 forum. MMmmgood has a post about french military history. It is sad. Don't know if we really want these fellows to help us!
486 dx 50 -32 megs ram -8 meg vid card -120 meg HD -14"vga monitor, dos 5.0
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:17 pm
Originally posted by bayotanzk
Go to battlefield 1942 forum. MMmmgood has a post about french military history. It is sad. Don't know if we really want these fellows to help us!
I believe our friend Ralph Wiggum posted something on France's military failures here.......earlier pages:D
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests