Mobilization/Irak

[Tietäjä]

As we all well know, George W. Bush jr. is preparing his own groupe for a war against Iraq, and has already asked 50 nations (Britain, Danmark, ...) to start mobilizing their armies and preparing to help USA hit Iraq, when the time comes. As what comes to the UN inspectors, the US government (and media) seems to have a serious problem with respecting their professional skills on disarming Iraq.

The problem is, George W. Bush jr has already stated that if Iraq doesn't give Blix & Co. (Blix has been mocked a bit in US media btw., as far as my sources go) their mass-destructive weaponry, US and allies will launch an attack on Iraq. This means, if Blix & Co doesn't find mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq, Bush will assume Saddam is hiding them (rather than trusting in the inspectors' skill and concluding that if the inspectors find no such weaponry in Iraq, there is no such weaponry there) and will launch an attack on Iraq.

Think about that. There are three (mkay, four) ways the crisis may purge.

1. Blix & co. finds the weaponry (stated above) in Iraq, and takes them away pleasing Mr. Bush greatly - though not satisfying Bush's bloodlust. With this, Iraq would be disarmed and the USA couldn't attack Iraq without making a fool of itself in fron of the UN - offensive war without good basis is not actually what the UN aims for (even if Iraq was disarmed from weapons they had, USA could still attack but with no good reason).

2. Blix & co. finds no mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. There really are none of them in Iraq. The Yankees decide to attack Iraq with their allies. They crush Iraq back to Stone Age and they are all very satisfied of their achievements. Even after crushing Iraq they find out that Saddam had no scary weaponry after all - the Americans will defend the attacks by saying 'Saddam was no trustworthy, he COULD have had weaponry even if the inspectors of UN did not find them, we had to make sure they didn't.' With this, the USA will make itself ridiculous in front of the national society - it'll seriously harm their position as the head nation of the world, and likely embarasses the nations helping USA attack too.

3. Blix & co finds no mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. Saddam has truly mass-destructive weaponry. He spams them around the nearest target (Israel?), and then gets squashed by the Americans. Americans are proud of being right, and getting Saddam's butt nailed, and the UN will be made ridiculous - and the people who the Iraq **** spams at will be ****ed, but hey, life's tough?

4a. Blix & Co finds no weaponry in Iraq. USA is satisfied with the solution. Nobody attacks Iraq. Iraqi are happy.
4b. Blix & co finds mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. Iraq truly did have the weaponry. USA is satisfied with the UN inspectors (who obviously failed in this case), and the Iraqi are happy not being attacked and Saddam celebrates getting to keep his weaponry. And continues being a threat, even if thought otherwise.


Pick your fetish. How do you people think the situation will solve?

[[GAP]Obiwan]

It won't be solved until the first nuke is launched, (i'll put money on bush pressing the red button first) and iraq will be Wiped out completely, this is the only scenario i can see

Isn't Blix & Co that toymaking company?

[Tietäjä]

Dunno bout toymaking companies, but Hans Blix is the one leading the weapon's inspectors.

Bush will assume Saddam is hiding them (rather than trusting in the inspectors' skill and concluding that if the inspectors find no such weaponry in Iraq, there is no such weaponry there)

Bush's policy is not quite clear, but it would not be outside reason to "assume" that Iraq has WoMD, after experiences the inspectors have had before. (I.E. seeing military cargo trucks pulling out of the back of a building that they were going to inspect as soon as they arrived. This happened almost ritualistically. Also, when they would arrive at some buildings, guards would ask them to wait a half hour or so before coming in. time they used to dispose of chemicals and other things that the inspectors were searching for. Also remember that, for a while, no inspectors were let into the country when they were scheduled to go in.)

mkay

You're not Mr. Mackie.

USA could still attack but with no good reason

And wouldn't.

The Yankees decide to attack Iraq with their allies.

I notice that you, in this instance, went out of your way to point out that the US is spearheading any anti-Iraq campaigns. Surprise surprise, it was a hypothetical instance where the US would have made a mistake. This is also a prime example of the mods being bias pieces of ****. ("Yankees"). If I were to call you a eurotrash ******, this post would be deleted.

the Americans will defend the attacks by saying 'Saddam was no trustworthy, he COULD have had weaponry even if the inspectors of UN did not find them, we had to make sure they didn't.'

Oh, you must mean the attacks that will only happen if justified, and in that example would be defending the attacks that won't happen.

the people who the Iraq **** spams at will be ****ed, but hey, life's tough?

That's what the hippies seems to be rooting for. They are making it difficult for the governments to carry out a good, morally sound idea by sending in people armed with clipboards instead of the military.

and the Iraqi are happy not being attacked and Saddam celebrates getting to keep his weaponry. And continues being a threat, even if thought otherwise.

That's about as realistic as would be the notion that zebras would start falling out of the sky. If WoMD are found, people won't join hands and dance in a circle on a grassy hill.

[Ste]

well in the paper yesterday a US plane was fired upon in the no-fly zone (a very frequent occurence for those who haven't been following the news) the US tried to use this as an excuse for military action. Every other country (including UK) told them to shut-up.
The US have shown that they want to go to war and will use any excuse. They would probably plant weapons just so they could go to war and get control of that lovely oil.
They have little backing in the world community and despite there claims of not needing the UN's backing I don't think they are stupid enough to do anything without it.

[Lakhim]

Originally posted by Ste
well in the paper yesterday a US plane was fired upon in the no-fly zone (a very frequent occurence for those who haven't been following the news) the US tried to use this as an excuse for military action. Every other country (including UK) told them to shut-up.
The US have shown that they want to go to war and will use any excuse. They would probably plant weapons just so they could go to war and get control of that lovely oil.
They have little backing in the world community and despite there claims of not needing the UN's backing I don't think they are stupid enough to do anything without it.

Oh yes, destroying millions of dollars of machinery and killing lives over and over again is not cause for war.

Yes. Sure.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Lakhim

Oh yes, destroying millions of dollars of machinery and killing lives over and over again is not cause for war.

Yes. Sure.

we've been at war for over 10 years.
oh and nothing has been destroyed and noone has been killed (on our side anyway) we were shot at while we were bombing them.

US want to invade and get the oil. simple as that.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Think about that. There are three (mkay, four) ways the crisis may purge.

1. Blix & co. finds the weaponry (stated above) in Iraq, and takes them away pleasing Mr. Bush greatly - though not satisfying Bush's bloodlust. With this, Iraq would be disarmed and the USA couldn't attack Iraq without making a fool of itself in fron of the UN - offensive war without good basis is not actually what the UN aims for (even if Iraq was disarmed from weapons they had, USA could still attack but with no good reason).

2. Blix & co. finds no mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. There really are none of them in Iraq. The Yankees decide to attack Iraq with their allies. They crush Iraq back to Stone Age and they are all very satisfied of their achievements. Even after crushing Iraq they find out that Saddam had no scary weaponry after all - the Americans will defend the attacks by saying 'Saddam was no trustworthy, he COULD have had weaponry even if the inspectors of UN did not find them, we had to make sure they didn't.' With this, the USA will make itself ridiculous in front of the national society - it'll seriously harm their position as the head nation of the world, and likely embarasses the nations helping USA attack too.

3. Blix & co finds no mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. Saddam has truly mass-destructive weaponry. He spams them around the nearest target (Israel?), and then gets squashed by the Americans. Americans are proud of being right, and getting Saddam's butt nailed, and the UN will be made ridiculous - and the people who the Iraq **** spams at will be ****ed, but hey, life's tough?

4a. Blix & Co finds no weaponry in Iraq. USA is satisfied with the solution. Nobody attacks Iraq. Iraqi are happy.
4b. Blix & co finds mass-destructive weaponry in Iraq. Iraq truly did have the weaponry. USA is satisfied with the UN inspectors (who obviously failed in this case), and the Iraqi are happy not being attacked and Saddam celebrates getting to keep his weaponry. And continues being a threat, even if thought otherwise.


Pick your fetish. How do you people think the situation will solve?

I'm surprised that you managed to completely miss the most obvious scenarios. According to the latest UN security council resolution, Iraq must produce a complete list of all of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile development programs by December 8th. Iraq has agreed to meet that deadline and provide such a list.

The casus belli will probably hinge on discrepancies (particularly omissions) between what's on that list and what the inspectors find.

Another likely scenario is that Iraq will impede the inspectors to such a degree that, while no or few discrepancies are found, the presumption will be that Iraq is nonetheless hiding such facilities. This is basically what Iraq has done in the past.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
(Blix has been mocked a bit in US media btw., as far as my sources go)

Our mainstream media hasn't talked about anything but the JLo and Ben Affleck engagement.

However, you are right about less mainstream news sources.

Of course he's going to be mocked after what happened last time.

5. Bush decides to invade iraq anyway, but cant find anyone who knows where the iraq is

(ah, come on, someone had to post this)

well in the paper yesterday a US plane was fired upon in the no-fly zone (a very frequent occurence for those who haven't been following the news) the US tried to use this as an excuse for military action.

Well, I've had my doctor recommended daily dose of bull**** for the day. There have been something like 35 of these incidents, and in most of the cases, the SAM batteries were destroyed by the plane or allied ones. We don't try to use this as a reason to go to war.

Every other country (including UK) told them to shut-up.

Yes, I'm sure this happened.

They would probably plant weapons just so they could go to war and get control of that lovely oil.

Hooray! Baseless presumption time: Iraqi forces have probably taken over all of Europe in secret, and are controlling those buck-toothed puppets in everything they do. Those eurotrash pieces of **** probably all like it in the ass!

despite there claims of not needing the UN's backing I don't think they are stupid enough to do anything without it.

Tell me you don't actually believe that UN backing is necessary for everything. Or that you don't actually believe that the US is not a part of the UN.

US want to invade and get the oil. simple as that.

Hooray! Bull**** stated as fact time: Iraqi forces have taken over all of Europe in secret, and definitely are controlling those buck-toothed puppets in everything they do. Those eurotrash pieces of **** all like it in the ass!

[Ste]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...843667,00.html

Originally posted by MonotoneMan


Well, I've had my doctor recommended daily dose of bull**** for the day. There have been something like 35 of these incidents, and in most of the cases, the SAM batteries were destroyed by the plane or allied ones. We don't try to use this as a reason to go to war.

read the article. the US did.
"The Bush administration claims anti-aircraft fire by Iraq constitutes a breach of the UN security council resolution on Iraq and, potentially, is a trigger for war."

Yes, I'm sure this happened.

"Washington found itself isolated: no support for its position could be found among the other 14 members of the security council, not even Britain. "

ok - i exaggerated, but still.

Hooray! Baseless presumption time: Iraqi forces have probably taken over all of Europe in secret, and are controlling those buck-toothed puppets in everything they do. Those eurotrash pieces of **** probably all like it in the ass!

I seriously would not put it past them to plant weapons to trigger a war.

Tell me you don't actually believe that UN backing is necessary for everything. Or that you don't actually believe that the US is not a part of the UN.

not necessary for everything, but for this war it is. US is part of the UN obviously, however it has more UN violations than even Iraq.

Hooray! Bull**** stated as fact time: Iraqi forces have taken over all of Europe in secret, and definitely are controlling those buck-toothed puppets in everything they do. Those eurotrash pieces of **** all like it in the ass!

as much as you might hate to hear it, it is a well known fact that the US is after the Iraqi oil.
FFS - the US companies have already divided up (between themselves!) the oil that's there. seriously! A lot of other countries will have lost out on oil that they originally get from Iraq so the US can get there hands on it.

EDIT - found the link to that too: http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/stor...825099,00.html

Do I get to be the first to point out the spelling of Iraq in the thread title?

[WarFalcon]

I dunno about the rest of the tripe, but I find being called a 'Yankee' quite offensive ;\ Still, call away, its a free country (at least where I live)

[JonnyBGood]

1) There are not 4 ways there are an infinite number.
2) Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction as he most definitely possesses chemical weapons.
3) Iraq is a dictatorship. I'm hoping I won't have to explain the negative connotations that this has for such far-out hippy ideals as freedom and equal opportunity.
4) Your overall tone is insidious and rather pretentious to put it mildly. You seem to have stated a number of possible outcomes and facts and put them together to come up with a unified theory. I would compare this to one seeing three black dogs and concluding that all dogs are black.
5) Finally I would once again remind you of the fact that as a moral human being in a country where human beings are being mistreated it is perfectly allowable, but not compulsory, to help them achieve their freedom. (Any shiet comparisons complaining about other countries who violate human rights will result in me referring you the the above clause of "allowable but not compulsory").

[Archi]

Now I remember why I dont look at these forums often. It seems there is always one or two threads trashing my country. From the German Justice minister comparing Bush's methods to Hitler's, to the Canadian Prime minister's spokesman calling Bush a moron. What is with you people? Do you have to resort to name calling? Is it penis envy? After all we have done for the world (winning WW2 and the cold war), not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars we give away in aid yearly. Ask the people in Afghanistan if they like the Taliban better than what they have now. So I ask, why does the world hate the American people so much?

Originally posted by Archi
Do you have to resort to name calling? Is it penis envy?

Hypocrite.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by Archi
Now I remember why I dont look at these forums often. It seems there is always one or two threads trashing my country. From the German Justice minister comparing Bush's methods to Hitler's, to the Canadian Prime minister's spokesman calling Bush a moron. What is with you people? Do you have to resort to name calling? Is it penis envy? After all we have done for the world (winning WW2 and the cold war), not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars we give away in aid yearly. Ask the people in Afghanistan if they like the Taliban better than what they have now. So I ask, why does the world hate the American people so much?

Shroedinger said something to the gist of "You show me the relation between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks and I'll support your war." And now Bush won't talk to him. Tell me, does something look wrong here?

btw, Bush is a moron.

And please don't mumble about ww2 here. And the Cold war was never really 'won'.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

Originally posted by Mirai
Shroedinger said something to the gist of "You show me the relation between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks and I'll support your war." And now Bush won't talk to him. Tell me, does something look wrong here?

Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. That doesn't take away the necessity to get rid of Hussein though, does it? Also, any European or other country's contribution to the war, with the exception of Britain, would be marginal at best.

Originally posted by Mirai
btw, Bush is a moron.

That's quite an assumption to make when all you've seen of him is carefully selected sound bytes from a biased media.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship


Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. That doesn't take away the necessity to get rid of Hussein though, does it? Also, any European or other country's contribution to the war, with the exception of Britain, would be marginal at best.

I see no reason to get rid of Hussein. Seriously. We're taking a big risk by trying to oust him, for we cannot tell for certain what the public reaction to this war will be.

That's quite an assumption to make when all you've seen of him is carefully selected sound bytes from a biased media.

I take it you watch Fox News all the time. Get a grip man, all media is biased. Fortunately we have both Right wing biased and left wing biased medias, so if you watch both, like I do, you get a more even understanding of events.

But it's not only the sound bytes that cause me to base my accusation - it's his actions above all else.

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship

That's quite an assumption to make when all you've seen of him is carefully selected sound bytes from a biased media.

But isn't Mirai an American too? Surely he would have seen enough Bush to form his own opinion?

[Cuddley_Battleship]

Originally posted by Mirai

I see no reason to get rid of Hussein. Seriously. We're taking a big risk by trying to oust him, for we cannot tell for certain what the public reaction to this war will be.

One less dictator around, more oil, freedom for the Iraqis?

Originally posted by Mirai
I take it you watch Fox News all the time. Get a grip man, all media is biased. Fortunately we have both Right wing biased and left wing biased medias, so if you watch both, like I do, you get a more even understanding of events.

I hate Fox News. Worst of them all. Their quality is probably worse than that 'pr0n' news program I heard of a while back.

Originally posted by Mirai
But it's not only the sound bytes that cause me to base my accusation - it's his actions above all else.

His actions to date on the topic have actually been quite well. He got the thing through the UN security council, didn't he?

[Archi]

And please don't mumble about ww2 here. And the Cold war was never really 'won'.

Hmm I guess the Berlin wall coming down was a figment of my imagination along with the 8 Eastern block countries (including 3 former Soviet provinces) joining Nato this week. I guess since we did not have our tanks rolling in Red Square we didnt win. There are more ways to win other than just military might. I have been to Eastern Europe and seen the mark of the bear's paw, if that is the standard of living you want you are welcome to it.

Regarding WW2. If you think I am mumbling, perhaps I should make myself more clear. If we had your attitude we would have only fought Japan and told Europe to screw themselves and solve their own mess. Indeed at the beginning of our part of WW2 there was a movment to do exactly that, until Hitler declared war on us. Winston Churchill once said "that without American intervention there would have been a United States of Europe, dark and evil in design". I guess though in your opinion we were being imperialistic and after Europe's resources there too.

As far as George W. goes if you think he is a moron you are grossly underestimating him. Ask his political enemies here that just got their clocks cleaned in the elections a couple of weeks back.


Regarding Iraq I guess it doesnt matter that he is laundering oil money to Belloruss for Alquida or that he is cutting checks to the families of the suicide bombers of Hez-bala. Prompting families to send their children to die for coin. Where do you think the terrorists will go shopping to get their N.B.C. weapons? I for one dont want another 9/11. Maybe when your country loses several thousand people in a terrorist attack you might understand.

We have made our mistakes (Vietnam is the big one that comes to mind) what country doesnt? However you consider us so evil, but the world would be a HELL of a lot worse off without us than with us.

I am not asking you to kiss my American arse, (tempting thought). I am just sick of the anti-American rhetoric I constantly see on these forums.

read the article. the US did.

He wasn't trying to use one incident as a warrant for war. There have been dozens of these incidences and, collectively, he was saying that theym, together, are "a trigger for war".

ok - i exaggerated, but still.

I don't find it surprising that they recieved no support, but they weren't harshly dismissed.

I seriously would not put it past them to plant weapons to trigger a war.

I would. I don't think anybody in power desires to go to war; in George W. Bush's case, I think he's getting frustrated at the lack of support for his proposition, and maybe just too eager to be completely sure that Iraq is no threat. I don't think this has anything to do with his dad. Also, it would be a real bitch of a task to plant a nuclear weapon or anything of the like.

not necessary for everything, but for this war it is. US is part of the UN obviously, however it has more UN violations than even Iraq.

Such as?

as much as you might hate to hear it, it is a well known fact that the US is after the Iraqi oil.

Then post a link to a reliable source that states this. We're not going to war to get oil.

the US companies have already divided up (between themselves!) the oil that's there. seriously! A lot of other countries will have lost out on oil that they originally get from Iraq so the US can get there hands on it.

This is only those companies. They don't have seats in Congress. They may benefit from the war, but tons of people would. They can't send us to war.

Do I get to be the first to point out the spelling of Iraq in the thread title?

Yes, but you might not be the first to notice it. I saw that the first time I saw the thread, but you may have seen it before me.

I dunno about the rest of the tripe, but I find being called a 'Yankee' quite offensive ;\ Still, call away, its a free country (at least where I live)

**** the mods.

1) There are not 4 ways there are an infinite number.
2) Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction as he most definitely possesses chemical weapons.
3) Iraq is a dictatorship. I'm hoping I won't have to explain the negative connotations that this has for such far-out hippy ideals as freedom and equal opportunity.
4) Your overall tone is insidious and rather pretentious to put it mildly. You seem to have stated a number of possible outcomes and facts and put them together to come up with a unified theory. I would compare this to one seeing three black dogs and concluding that all dogs are black.
5) Finally I would once again remind you of the fact that as a moral human being in a country where human beings are being mistreated it is perfectly allowable, but not compulsory, to help them achieve their freedom. (Any shiet comparisons complaining about other countries who violate human rights will result in me referring you the the above clause of "allowable but not compulsory").

Well said Jonny.

btw, Bush is a moron.

That is an opinion. I cite your incorrect usage of a statement even though, from what I have seen, I agree. To an extent.

And please don't mumble about ww2 here. And the Cold war was never really 'won'.

Then please don't mumble about Bush here. For that matter, don't mumble about anything that helps your case, anywhere, ever.

And why don't you think the Cold War was ever won? The Soviet Union fell. Hey, actually, I think you're right. It never was won. Neither was the American Revolution. I guess America isn't a country then, is it?

I see no reason to get rid of Hussein.

That doesn't mean there are no good reasons. How about his invasion of Kuwait in 1992?

Seriously. We're taking a big risk by trying to oust him, for we cannot tell for certain what the public reaction to this war will be.

So since a few people might not approve, we shouldn't take a chance?

Originally posted by Archi
As far as George W. goes if you think he is a moron you are grossly underestimating him. Ask his political enemies here that just got their clocks cleaned in the elections a couple of weeks back.

i think its perfectly fine to compare his propaganda methods to those of hitler, i mean, starting a war to make the public think of that instead of economical problems, take away your freedom for the greater good, etc. doesnt sound all that nice to me.

Regarding Iraq I guess it doesnt matter that he is laundering oil money to Belloruss for Alquida or that he is cutting checks to the families of the suicide bombers of Hez-bala. Prompting families to send their children to die for coin. Where do you think the terrorists will go shopping to get their N.B.C. weapons? I for one dont want another 9/11. Maybe when your country loses several thousand people in a terrorist attack you might understand.

and where did that information come from? right out of your ass?
in case you didnt notice: saddam is no fundamentalist muslim, hes an insane dictator, no voubt, but MAYBE you should finish one war before starting another, shouldnt you?

We have made our mistakes (Vietnam is the big one that comes to mind) what country doesnt? However you consider us so evil, but the world would be a HELL of a lot worse off without us than with us.

do you actually belife this **** you are talking all the time? look around in the world ffs, all those nbice organizations your goverment supported, like in chile, central america, afganistan, etc. or look at saddam himself, who gave him that weapons that are that evil now? Rummsfeld himself delivered biological weapons to saddam, and that even after he used chemical weapons on the kurds, not to talk about iran

I am not asking you to kiss my American arse, (tempting thought). I am just sick of the anti-American rhetoric I constantly see on these forums.

im sorry, but its people like you with their arogance and their simple black and white thinking that causes these reactions

[Archi]

As usual in these conversations, the name calling comes out. I will in my "arrogance" attempt to address these points.

i think its perfectly fine to compare his propaganda methods to those of hitler, i mean, starting a war to make the public think of that instead of economical problems, take away your freedom for the greater good, etc. doesnt sound all that nice to me.

How did George W. start the war? I dont think he had secret service agents fly those planes into those buildings? It really offends me personally that you think so.

and where did that information come from? right out of your ass? in case you didnt notice: saddam is no fundamentalist muslim, hes an insane dictator, no voubt, but MAYBE you should finish one war before starting another, shouldnt you?

I guess you never heard of the Assosiated Press. It also does not matter if Saddam is a fundamentalist or not. Have you not ever heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I guess not all you can do is personally insult me.

do you actually belife this **** you are talking all the time? look around in the world ffs, all those nbice organizations your goverment supported, like in chile, central america, afganistan, etc. or look at saddam himself, who gave him that weapons that are that evil now? Rummsfeld himself delivered biological weapons to saddam, and that even after he used chemical weapons on the kurds, not to talk about iran

Look, I am not saying we are squeaky clean, what country is? but I guess giving Panama the canal back, liberating Haiti, insuring fair elections in Nicaragua and El Salvador, saving the Bosnians from genocide, were all pretty evil. As far as Rumsfeld goes I knew he went to Iraq in the 80's, but now it is my turn to ask you where you get your info, about the biological weapons.

im sorry, but its people like you with their arogance and their simple black and white thinking that causes these reactions

and I am sorry we cant have an intelligent debate without insults being hurled.

Originally posted by Archi
How did George W. start the war? I dont think he had secret service agents fly those planes into those buildings? It really offends me personally that you think so.

and how in gods name are iraq and al quaida related ?? all i hear in the news is that saddam is evil because he still has those bc-weapons our goverments gave him in the first place, nothing at all about any al quaida realtion

I guess you never heard of the Assosiated Press. It also does not matter if Saddam is a fundamentalist or not. Have you not ever heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I guess not all you can do is personally insult me.

when do you think saddam is more likely to give his weapons to people he dont like? if you attack him or if you leave him alone?
another question: will a war on iraq help to increase the image of the western world in those muslim countries and therefore decrease the support of terrorism or will it do mor4e damage than good?

Look, I am not saying we are squeaky clean, what country is? but I guess giving Panama the canal back, liberating Haiti, insuring fair elections in Nicaragua and El Salvador, saving the Bosnians from genocide, were all pretty evil. As far as Rumsfeld goes I knew he went to Iraq in the 80's, but now it is my turn to ask you where you get your info, about the biological weapons.

maybe you should check some newssources then

[Saitam]

Originally posted by Archi



Hmm I guess the Berlin wall coming down was a figment of my imagination along with the 8 Eastern block countries (including 3 former Soviet provinces) joining Nato this week. I guess since we did not have our tanks rolling in Red Square we didnt win. There are more ways to win other than just military might. I have been to Eastern Europe and seen the mark of the bear's paw, if that is the standard of living you want you are welcome to it.

Regarding WW2. If you think I am mumbling, perhaps I should make myself more clear. If we had your attitude we would have only fought Japan and told Europe to screw themselves and solve their own mess. Indeed at the beginning of our part of WW2 there was a movment to do exactly that, until Hitler declared war on us. Winston Churchill once said "that without American intervention there would have been a United States of Europe, dark and evil in design". I guess though in your opinion we were being imperialistic and after Europe's resources there too.

As far as George W. goes if you think he is a moron you are grossly underestimating him. Ask his political enemies here that just got their clocks cleaned in the elections a couple of weeks back.


Regarding Iraq I guess it doesnt matter that he is laundering oil money to Belloruss for Alquida or that he is cutting checks to the families of the suicide bombers of Hez-bala. Prompting families to send their children to die for coin. Where do you think the terrorists will go shopping to get their N.B.C. weapons? I for one dont want another 9/11. Maybe when your country loses several thousand people in a terrorist attack you might understand.

We have made our mistakes (Vietnam is the big one that comes to mind) what country doesnt? However you consider us so evil, but the world would be a HELL of a lot worse off without us than with us.

I am not asking you to kiss my American arse, (tempting thought). I am just sick of the anti-American rhetoric I constantly see on these forums.

Ask the ppl of the south american dictatorships what they think of USAs help (as it was with US funds that helped kill and tourture those ppl).

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by Archi
Now I remember why I dont look at these forums often. It seems there is always one or two threads trashing my country. From the German Justice minister comparing Bush's methods to Hitler's, to the Canadian Prime minister's spokesman calling Bush a moron. What is with you people? Do you have to resort to name calling? Is it penis envy? After all we have done for the world (winning WW2 and the cold war), not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars we give away in aid yearly. Ask the people in Afghanistan if they like the Taliban better than what they have now. So I ask, why does the world hate the American people so much?

"All we a have done for the world"... how come you americans are so damn retarded.
Ask that question to the people of South-America, Hiroshima&Nagasaki, Indo-China and Africa... and they will reply, calling you a bunch of mass-murders!

Ironicly, Milosovic is standing trial for his murders, while the average america president who under the cold war is responisble for just as many murders, is running around free...

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
*snip*

I'd recommend you do some real research before you start making wild accusations. What *YOU* think is hardly equated to what those people think.

Oh and as to selling bio/chem weapons to Iraq, no, that never happened. Regular arms were sold to prevent Iran from winning the war which would have created an extremely bad situation for western interests (including lives) considering Iran was the largest terrorist state at the time.

[Archi]

All we a have done for the world"... how come you americans are so damn retarded.Ask that question to the people of South-America, Hiroshima&Nagasaki, Indo-China and Africa... and they will reply, calling you a bunch of mass-murders! Ironicly, Milosovic is standing trial for his murders, while the average america president who under the cold war is responisble for just as many murders, is running around free...

Ok where to begin here.....
South America, I agree is retarded. The war on Drugs is a joke, however last time I looked we didnt have any boots on the ground there oppressing the masses.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, dont make me laugh, it is easy to point fingers in hindsight saying it was evil. The estimated casualties for the invasion of Japan was 1 million American lives and 10 million Japanese, so you tell me which you would rather have. I can go on and on about that one.

Indo-China was originally a French mess, that we had to get into because of Cold War demands, which turned into good intentions gone horribly wrong. Not even a superpower can get everything they want. However we currently enjoy good relations with the Peoples govt of VietNam and as far as I know there is lot of interaction and trade between our peoples.

Africa I have no clue what you are talking about, I think you are mixing us up with the British or something. /me shrugs. Those people there are good enough on committing genocide on each other without any outside help.

Malosovich, well when a U.S. president sets up camps for the express purpose of killing people then I guess you might have a point. You diss on the cold war, ask someone that has lived under the gentle touch of the Soviet Union what they think of the U.S. It is easy to make the U.S. the origin of evil in the world, but I think that argument is a cop out, some people need to use their grey matter some and consider the alternatives. For instance w/o the U.S. we wouldnt even be having this conversation bc, the communist country you would be living in would not have computers, not to mention telephone lines.

[Nadar]

Solution about Iraq: Kill Saddam! =)
I cant believe the americans and FN gets tricked each time when Saddam says they can get into his country to look after biological weapons or a-bombs. He only hides it. BOMB him. Only way to get rid of that problem

btw...USA is making a big mistake helping the id*ot Ariel Sharon. I cant believe Sharon is saying that Arafat is a terrorists when the truth is that Sharon is the terrorist and USA believes him.

Sharon is telling Arafat to jail terrorists in Palestina. Then Arafat jails 'em. But what then happens? Yes, Sharon bombs the jails in Palestina so the terrorists can escape. lol? Stupid Israelits!! Point is that USA should'nt go with Israel, but Palestina!

Originally posted by wu_trax

take away your freedom for the greater good, etc. doesnt sound all that nice to me.

this from some who advocates the EU being able to shut down links to sites they deem 'undesirable'?

[G.K Zhukov]

Sandsnake and Achi:

Since you two have no clue about history it seems, let me take give you a fresh reminder:

South-America: USA supported local dictators (in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Peru) with arms, intel (incl. names on people who should be shot) and training for soldiers/officers. This have led to : Guatemala: The army killed approx 300 000 - 500 000 people. Chile: Agusto Pinochet terror regime. Argentina & Brazil: Miltary coups, with the oppression of everony who fought for soscial rights and freedom.

Indo-China: Vietnam, supporting a puppet-regime, killing approx 3mill civilians, polutioning with chemicals (who still couses deaths and kids born with defects), tearing the country apart by mass bombing. Laos: Massivly bombing, killing approx. 400 000. Kambodia: Massivly bombing, killing of approx 500 000 to 750 000 people.

Africa: Playing a game with the Soviet Union for control over african countries. If the CCCP supported the gov. in one country, the US would fund a rebel movemtent in the same country/and vica versa. Countries who got money to fund a war from the USA: Zaire-Kinshasa, Angola, etc etc.

GET IT?
Capitalism/Imperialism isnt a nice thing, its a bloody mess of mass murder of civilians.

[Umbrall]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship

Also, any European or other country's contribution to the war, with the exception of Britain, would be marginal at best.

The Russians would probably be...suprised to hear that. As would the Norwegians. And the Germans, whose contribution to the war was rather more than marginal. I'd call it essential.

Do not forget option 6: The allies go to war against Saddam, and find he did have weapons of mass destruction. And have been smuggeling them into the US for some time. This is the 21st century, the time of really big weapons easily aqquired, and very complex and frail structures keeping things working.

The fact is, Saddam really, really needs to be removed. Ask some of the people of Iraq if you don't believe it. Like the Kurds.
The problem is, Bush comes across with such a combination of arrogance and ignorance that one really wants to see him come a cropper. Then you step back a bit, and realize how many average, likable Americans would loose their lives if that happened.

The problem is, both countries deserve better than their present leaders.

[acropolis]

Hey y'all, the carnival called, they want their freaks back!

HAHAHAHAHAH

(kudos to me)

No, just kidding. Obviously nothing is more directly related to the coming weapons inspections of Iraq than American involvement in South America in the early 1970s. Obviously.

Originally posted by Umbrall

Ask some of the people of Iraq if you don't believe it. Like the Kurds.

the really funny thing is: go and ask the kurds, you will be surprised what you hear. atm the kurds have their almost-independence because of the non-flight zone in the north, with a new goverment in bagdad that will be gone and they will be part of iraq again

starting a war to make the public think of that instead of economical problems,

You've managed to name one stupid thing that he hasn't done.

when do you think saddam is more likely to give his weapons to people he dont like? if you attack him or if you leave him alone?

He'll never hand them over and apologize for being so stubborn. You overlook that the entire idea behind the anti-Iraq campaign is to take and WMD out of the country, not hold out our hand and ask.

another question: will a war on iraq help to increase the image of the western world in those muslim countries and therefore decrease the support of terrorism or will it do mor4e damage than good?

1) They already ****ing hate us. That's why people like Osama bin Laden have *******s fly planes into buildings for them.
2) Are you suggesting that we should let the world remain in jeopardy simply because of public image? Are you worried about the walking turbans with AK-47's sticking out?

how come you americans are so damn retarded.

Peer pressure from useless pieces of eurotrash like you.

when a U.S. president sets up camps for the express purpose of killing people

Good example of something that never happened.

Nadar

Swim?

The Enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.

I know I saw the first post to say something about that, but I can't find it now, so I quoted yours instead. In WWII, the enemy of the Allies' enemy was Russia, but they were not allies with Russia. If you need an example of this, how about the Cold War.

Obviously nothing is more directly related to the coming weapons inspections of Iraq than American involvement in South America in the early 1970s. Obviously.

Staying on topic is overrated.

[JBOY]

there are so few constructive comments and so many 'slight' racism's, stereotypes and unjustified bias in this that its getting closed.

a proper rational thread on the matter with a sensible justified debate might have a chance of surviving.......