TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Satan lives in Iraq, lets bomb them!!
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Narcotic Mind you are so full of shit, they have a police force, weach, as i remind you last year helped the civilians torturing two soldiers, handing guns to terrorist groups and children weach were by the way given to from our very army. besides that they just sit at home and fart all day. oh yeah and those apaches are bought by millions of dollars, not donated...

Which*

quote:

fact: saddam is satans son

...and bush is his brother....

My good friend works for CBC News here in Canada, and what she tells me about the Palestinians, as reported by Rueters News Agency, is quite sad. The Palestinians are truly the suffering people.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King My good friend works for CBC News here in Canada, and what she tells me about the Palestinians, as reported by Rueters News Agency, is quite sad. The Palestinians are truly the suffering people.

i dont doubt they are suffering... since they are why dont they do something about it? all they have to do is ban and oust all hamas, islamic jihad, al aqsa martyr brigade... and the few other terrorist organiztions that reside and function within the west bank and gaza. if all the terrorism were to stop and not exsist, palestain would have been an indepent country long ago, and will in the future as soon as that happens.

project T, sorry if what i said was unclear. all i meant to say is there was a period where palestinians had complete autonomus control to govern themselves, without israeli influence but yet terrorism still occured, thus proving that terrorism is the obsticle to peace, not israel.

but anyways back to the original topic. Iraq and Saddam
1) do you guys feel despite of the evidence presented by history and the british dossier that iraq should not suffer a more strict and rigid UN resolution or even an ultimatum?
2) do you think that if/when the UN weapons inspectors go to iraq they will successfully remove all weapons of mass destructions from saddams hands? (if not then whats the point of sending them?)
3) how will we stop saddam's involvement in terror?

As I said before: The side who is to blame for the Israel/Pali mess are WE as the "civilized" world, first of all Israel of course, they do the "things", but this Israel-mess is all a product of the inability of the United Nations! UN "founded" practically Israel, but now it doesnt give a shit whats going there. There are tons of resolution there, but nothing happens. Lets see the actual situation as of now: One side there is Israel. A wealthy country, supported by many of the western front, especially the USA, the nation with the 4th biggest army i guess around the world. A country where the "normal" guy has more or less the same lifestandard as say a Swiss like me. On the other hand there is the Palistenians side. A folk with no sovereign state!!! So they are a bit autonom (but really just a bit), but they are basically citizens of Israle with no real rights. On there "territory" there is enforced settlement from the Israelis, so that in gaza, West bank, etc, there are big points or better regions of jewish settlement which cant be left alone (for obvious reasons). So like the former discussion of a sovereign pali-state, there are Big difference. The sttelemtn basically needs to disappear, because elsewhere the country of Palestina will not be a coherent place, instead it will exist just of points here and there.

now what to do? If you believe a solution between Israel and Palestinians could be reached without involvemtn of say the EU and USA, you are wrong. Palestina cant accept a country as the new homeland which basically is not a country just some regions not even bent with each other. A country if its to exist, has to be coherent, has to be one piece, and not small pieces spreaded everywhere. So on the other hand, Israel just cant tell their settler: "yeah we subvent you to install new settlements, but no its time to leave your place and come back to your homeland. Sharon would be lynched by his own people.
=> So the only reason is, that the UN has to say, here and here are the lines, we seperate the country from here to here and all Palistinians there have to go back to their sid, and the settler have to go back to Israel. But this must involve all bigger countries like USA, Russia, EU, etc. because especially Israel will not be "forcing" the return of their settler, they will do nothing...

The problem is, that Israel is a really force in the world!!!!!!!!! And therefore all together must help to solve this proble, The palistinian side is no problem, they have no weapons, just stones and dynamit, and when the two states are seperated just make a "now-entry" for palistinians to Israel and the suicide will dissappear or jsut happen at the borders. On the other hand Israel is a real force and therefor it will need an international alliance of peace to force the return of the settlers.

But unfortunately I think this mess will never be sold and we will fight in 100 years about the same things there, OR and this the other outcoming: the palestinian folk is "being swept" away from the state of Israel, but thats a genocide and will not really happen.

Sad, really sad

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy but anyways back to the original topic. Iraq and Saddam 1) do you guys feel despite of the evidence presented by history and the british dossier that iraq should not suffer a more strict and rigid UN resolution or even an ultimatum?

Yes, i do. In other words, I believe that weapons inspectors should go back in, that and that all weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed.

saddamn has accepted this without conditions.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091601.htm

However, this did not prove satisfactory to the United States and Britian. They demanded a stronger resolution, and Bush has repeatedly stated his goal of "regime change".

(Note that this is in direct contravention of the UN charter)

I have read the dossier published by Blair, and in my opinion, it provides no proof that war is justified. It merely restates the estimates of saddamns arsenal. There is also notably absent any proof that iraq is supporting terrorism.

As for history, Iraq has used chemical and biological weapons in the past, and those weapons should be taken away, by agents of the United Nations.

However. Iraq is NOT the only country that should have it's weapons removed. Many nations posess these same weapons, in much greater quantities. in fact many nations, including china, india, pakistan, and israel, also possess nuclear weapons.

Of course, the largest collection of weapons of mass destruction lies in the USA. The US has a devasting power at it's disposal, in all kinds of weapons, including chemical, biological, and nuclear.

Further more, the US (like iraq) has also shown that it will use these weapons for it's own gain. In fact, the US is the only nation to ever have used nuclear weapons on a civilian popuplations.

To put things in perspective for you, where is the security council resolution demanding that washington have it's weapons of mass destruction destroyed? Somehow, i don't think that is going to happen.

My belief is that ALL weapons of mass destruction should be removed, not only from iraq, but from the rest of the world as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy 2) do you think that if/when the UN weapons inspectors go to iraq they will successfully remove all weapons of mass destructions from saddams hands? (if not then whats the point of sending them?)

Well, it is hard to say, i'm not in Iraq. I believe that his capability would be seriously degraded, if not eliminated completely.

There is someone who might have a better idea though, Scott Ritter, former head of the UN weapons inspection team. He has alread declared that 95% of iraqs capability was destroyed by the team prior to 1998. He has gone on record saying that there is no reason to go to war. He has also disclosed that "Inspectors aren't in Iraq today, but not because Saddam kicked them out, but because the United States ordered them out in 1998."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/13/ritter.cnna/

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy 3) how will we stop saddam's involvement in terror?

[/QUOTE]
I don't see how saddamn is involved in terror. I have seen many headlines with the words iraq, and terror in them. I have seen many indirect links saying that iraqi officials and alqaeda may have been in the same place at the same time. But, i have seen no direct connection. And you can bet, that if there was, it would be all over the news.


Well, those are my answers to your questions izzy. You may be able to tell, i am a pacifist, and i do not support war with iraq. My opinion is obviously biased just like anybody elses.

I have been watching you post, and i respect you, and your opinions, and i hope you respect mine.

As well, I apologize for my lack of sources. I was navigating the UN site, and there are numerous errors, broken links, redundancies, etc. I can provide better sources with more time.

Here are a few more reasons why i don't think the US should go to war with iraq:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Well, those are my answers to your questions izzy. You may be able to tell, i am a pacifist, and i do not support war with iraq. My opinion is obviously biased just like anybody elses. I have been watching you post, and i respect you, and your opinions, and i hope you respect mine. As well, I apologize for my lack of sources. I was navigating the UN site, and there are numerous errors, broken links, redundancies, etc. I can provide better sources with more time. Here are a few more reasons why i don't think the US should go to war with iraq: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm

hehe, i was going to thank you for answering those questions and that i respect them, even before i read that part... cool deal... btw it may seem like im this obsessed nut when it comes to this issue but honestly i love to talk and debate politics and the middle east is the one im most passoniate and care most about.

anyways ya my opinion differes then yours let me get back to you on one thing though, you said:

quote:

don't see how saddamn is involved in terror. I have seen many headlines with the words iraq, and terror in them. I have seen many indirect links saying that iraqi officials and alqaeda may have been in the same place at the same time.

well i say that theres is proof based on the new reports that have been made public by the israeli itellegence (both IDF and Mossad). after the first siege of arafats compound israel confinscated all paperwork and databases prettaining towards palestinian intellegence, finance and eductaion. papers are coming to light showing how money weapons, training and operatives were being brought in by iran and iraq. to that affect they also had some control over what arafat was supposed to do. this came to light to the american public during the season premiere of 60 minutes. anyways there are documents with arafats own signatures showing he was aware and had authorized these illegal activities.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain523604.shtml
here is the whole transcript:
http://www.aipac.org/60minutes.pdf
now i will take that as fact for i belive that the israeli intellegence community will not 'make up' all of this, nor fabricate those papers (in fact arafat has made a formal request to get those documents back - fat chance).
proof (documents caught) also exsist that the iraqi governments has payed money as rewards to the famalies of suicide bombers.
furthermore a few militant palestinians that have been caught and interigated admit they were trained in al-quida camps inside iraq. and saying that iraqi officials may be aware of this, in my opinion means that it is directly responsible of saddam, as he and his regime are one in the same. it is highly unlikely that saddam is not aware of what his 'officials' are doing

quote:

Originally posted by Vanilla I dont understand why most americans dont see that this whole war mess got started right as Bush's approval rating was plumeting again. Coincidence? Maybe but, then Iraq granted full access of facilities to UN weapons inspectors....yet bush still wants to attack.

I personally don't like him but that's just me. I do think it's funny how he is talking about war and his re-election is coming up. War presidents are hard to oust. I also hear gore is reseeking nomination... get ready for voting circus 2004


topside

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Izzy

hehe, i was going to thank you for answering those questions and that i respect them, even before i read that part... cool deal... btw it may seem like im this obsessed nut when it comes to this issue but honestly i love to talk and debate politics and the middle east is the one im most passoniate and care most about.

[quote]

good. me too, i am an obsessed nut on this stuff.

unfortunately, i missed the showing of that 60 minutes, i did want to watch it. I did print the transcript however, i will read it tonight.

as for the proof.. well, there may be proof that arafat supports terrorism.

I condemn the actions of the palestinian suicide bombers. However, i also condem the actions of israel.

it is a tough situation, just like the one in Northern Ireland, and i doubt there is much anyone can do to stop it now.

However, i have still seen no proof that iraq supports this. Maybe you can find me some, i'd be interested to view any documents that show saddamn hussein or his regime support terrorism or al-qaeda.

one more thing, because there may be terrorist training camps in iraq does not mean that iraq supports it.

have you perhaps heard of the "american school of terrorism" the School of the Americas? it is now called WHISC though, that was changed after people started cathcing on to what it does.

http://www.soaw.org/new/

peace.

quote:

Originally posted by http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-04.htm 1. A War Against Iraq Would Be Illegal 2. Regional Allies Widely Oppose a U.S. Attack 3. There Is No Evidence of Iraqi Links to Al Qaeda or Other Anti-American Terrorists 4. There Is No Proof that Iraq Is Developing Weapons of Mass Destruction 5. Iraq Is No Longer a Significant Military Threat to Its Neighbors 6. There Are Still Nonmilitary Options Available 7. Defeating Iraq Would Be Militarily Difficult Conclusion

btw i didnt have time to read all of this thoroughly but i managed to skim parts

1. probably true in terms of the UN, but honestly i give the UN very little weight in taking military desicions. Illegal yes, but in this case i belive not acting because it is illegal is worse then attacking and breaking 'the law'.
2. of course, so is most of the world, BUT most of the regional allies have agreed to let US use military bases in their countries. and honestly i belive a few arab countries would privately be very happy if saddam was ousted
3. I belive that line is complete BS
4. How in the hell does anyone know that? no one has been in there to monitor what they have been doing since 1998. furthoremore the US and Russian intellegence agencies have said that iraqi official have sought out and aquired military grade uranium from africa.
5. also BS it takes one direct hit from a scud in the center of tel-aviv to cause SERIOUS damage (and he has tried in the gulf war, whats to stop him from doing it agian?)
6. they have been tried and have failed, but the difference lies in the fact that i belive there needs to be a regime change, not just desctruction of WOMD. and for that there is no way saddam will ever step down without a military showdown.
7. LoL, thats ridiculous as well. there air defense is almost down (as from the recent air raids that have begun this summer). i dont belive the iraqi military is any challenge for the american forces.

If ya'll are accusing Iraq on terrorsim based on the accusation that Al-Qaeda has been training in Iraq, and that bin Laden and Hussein cooperate with each other, you must have forgotten that bin Laden deems Hussein a 'bad muslim'.

http://www.unicef.org/media/newsnotes/02nn34opt.htm


look who's suffering now , little palestinian kids ...

Actually I do not understand why the Americans are so agressive...
FBI is not able even to find Osama's location...
Sure, it's 100% easier to bomb Saddam now because he's here and not going to hide from Bush.
Terrorist N1 is now not the object of the current USAs interests?

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 http://www.unicef.org/media/newsnotes/02nn34opt.htm look who's suffering now , little palestinian kids ...

the same ones that would be reading this in their school books? what kind of f***ed up propoganda are they being brainwashed with?
the official textbooks for Palestinian school children (published by the Palestinian Ministry of Education) are innundated with anti-semetic messages and praise of martyrdom and Jihad (read: suicide bombings).

quote:

quote: "Islam has forbidden flight from the battle and regards this as a grave sin. (Islamic Education for Eighth Grade #576 p. 176)

Eighth graders are told that peace is morally wrong.

quote:

quote: "Determine what is the subject, and what is the predicate, in the following sentences: -The Jihad is a religious duty of every Muslim man and woman." (Our Arabic Language for Fifth Grade #542, p. 167)

Fifth graders are taught that they have a duty to fight religious wars in their grammar lessons.

quote:

quote: "...Martyred Jihad fighters are the most honored people, after the Prophets..." (Reader And Literary Texts for Tenth Grade #607, p. 103)

Tenth graders are assured blessing and honor as martyrs.

read up on how badly the children of palestain are being abused, indoctrinated and exploited by their own PA:
http://www.operationsick.com/report..._mediawatch.htm

and you cry about them not going to school, you're right that is wrong too but compare that to what they are subjected to by thier own people and here-in lies the trajedy

Izzy... this is not education, its the muslim religion. They're not supposed to teach their kid their religion anymore?

I don't think you would like to have the stuff written in the Torah about the goyim published in here...

lets just say its not any better.

history repeats itself?

I recentely read something rather interesting in a news periodical. Basically the article was about the 1930's and the general perspective of world opinion at the time. At that time there were a lot of media reports of the buildup of a "ghost" army, navy, and weapons program in Nazi Germany during the 30's. However, the majority of the world dismissed these facts as unfounded rumors since there was no concrete evidence at the time. Germany had hid much of its military buildup for the duration of the 30's. The battleship Bismarck, the largest battleship in the world, was built at the HEIGHT of treaty restrictions on the German naval fleet. Then a policy of appeasement was adopted by Britain and the allies in order to avoid war at ALL possible costs even though it encouraged Hitler. So I ask you ... IS history repeating itself? Are we all merely appeasing Iraq in an effort to avoid war?

UN weapons inspectors currentely have access to everything EXCEPT 8 different palace complexes. These are one of the key components US diplomats are fighting to have access over. How hard is it to hide a nuclear/biological/chemical wepaons complex in 8 different sites? It's clear Iraq had a WMD program in the past ... if Iraq has nothing to hide why are they not allowing unrestricted UN access to these sites? We KNOW Sadam is not peaceful and civilized in any respects ... he wants to exterminate his own people (the Kurds) for God's sake. He used CHEMICAL GAS on them. Civilians for crying out loud! If he had nuclear or biological weapons what makes you think he woudn't use them on us? I would hate for a tragedy to occurr and for me to come back and tell all of you I told you so ...

well, i think it's wrong that they are teaching them that stuff in school. on BOTH sides, don't tell me that the israelis aren't taught to hate the palestinians.

I am glad to live, in canada, so proud i am sometimes ashamed how lucky i am. They had to take the lords prayer out of schools because it was religious..

there was even a debate over the words in "Oh Canada", some people wanted to take out "God keep our land, glorious and free"

I say, that's going a little far, i am agnostic myself, and used to be an atheist, but i don't mind singing those words.

So, it's horrible that children are taught to hate, on both sides.

By the way, even if it is not in the textbooks, another huge part is played by the media.

take a listen to these:

http://www.fair.org/counterspin/mp3.html

peace.

You cant compare Saddam to AH, or Iraq to Germany, there are worlds between them!

As for the war against terror:

I say finish what you have begun! Find OBL and bring him to justice, or find a proof that he is dead. Osama was clearly enemmy #1 a year ago, now all of sudden that title has wandered to Saddam! Is Afghanistan safe? No, by all means!

I think that the war on Iraq show us the inability of the bush administration! Bush failed to capture OBL (or have I missed something??), now he is going against a madman he has a good chance to get somehow, because, hey Saddam represent a country so there is not much other place he can be. Bush wants to end what his daddy has begun and foremost he wants a success, the Iraq regime is much more beatable as say the al-Qaida network who in my opinion still exist, yes its not so strong as before, but its still exist!

Bush cant fail on more time, a win over Iraq could safe hime the votes and his job, another war against some multilateral network who coulkd hardly be won would arise critic around the nation. And as far as I can see, foreign policy is the only thing this administration has achieves so far, beside economy scandals involving cabinet members.

People who live in the more economized counties like UK, US, AUS etc need to sit down and realise that the facilities or economy that has been built around us which give us easier access to necessary stuff that we take for granted shouldn't be overlooked...just put your self in the shoes of those who are surrounded by war like Iraq, Afgah, Pakistan etc and just think to your self...Is this war really necessary.


Hope you understood what i meant.

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 Satan and Saddam are having gay sex in hell , let's bomb Saddam weeeeeeee

south park the movie !! great stuff

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Izzy... this is not education, its the muslim religion. They're not supposed to teach their kid their religion anymore? I don't think you would like to have the stuff written in the Torah about the goyim published in here... lets just say its not any better.

good point there malek ...

I don't have time to write a lot here, but I'm still unclear about some things.

To all those advocating an invasion of Iraq, I really do not understand what is to be gained from such an action. As I will continue to restate, war should be the last resort in a desperate situation and should not be entered into whimsically, especially in such a volatile region as the middle-east. George Bush has made it quite clear that he is not interested in exploring diplomatic options: he is much more intent on invading the state of Iraq and replacing its leader with one who will better suit the needs of the US government (the man they have lined up, by the way, is facing serious charges in an International Court in Denmark). The aim, I suspect, is not to ensure the national security of the US (as Saddam does not have the means to attack the US and I doubt, even if he did, that he'd be stupid enough to try) but to simply strike out - in typical, paranoid US bandwagon fashion - at a man they believe represents a cause that they are eager to stamp out. They failed dismally in bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, so - in order to be seen as doing something - they did the next best thing in their eyes and ousted the Taliban government. Now, with Bin Laden still on the loose (or dead, I suppose we can't really be sure) they have set their sights on a man who has done little over the past 11 years to warrant such paranoid scrutiny.

Now the US is using the term "terrorism" - which it applies very loosely - to justify military action against a man, who, when all is said and done, they just don't like very much. But this is how it is now - just as, in the 50's, 60's and 70's where the US went blindly to war against an enemy it simply knew as "communism", now it enters this new century with a desire to irridcate something it calls "terrorism", and it is willing to disregard international laws that it has both signed and instigated to acheive this aim. So, in order to justify war on Iraq, all George Bush needs to do is associate Hussein's name with terrorism (he would have probably called him a communist 40 years ago) to strike fear in the chords of the world-wide community and, with the events of Sept 11 still fresh in their mind, persuade them emotionally into committing themselves to this new war. Yet, as JohnSmith said, virtually no evidence exists to suggest that the state of Iraq is a threat to any other country (with the weapons it has currently, it is only capable of attacking those states directly adjescent to it) nor that it is funding the operations of terrorist factions such as the Al Quieda. Iraq, so far as we can ascertain, is not a threat to anyone (we cannot be certain, though, because the US - not Iraq - that is not agreeing to terms that would allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq).

But Saddam is still evil though isn't he? Look at how he treats his own people! That should be reason enough to oust him, right?

Perhaps, but then you'd have to oust other leaders such President Mugabe of Zimbabwe who's racist policies have left hundereds of white farmers dead and the Zimbabwean economy on its knees - yet America turns a blind shoulder. And even if the US were to oust Hussein, it's no guarantee that the new leader will be any better. As I said earlier, the man they have in line to replace Hussein has a dubious moral spectrum as well. And America's past record in such matters is hardly brilliant - we only need to look at the mess that is the Afghani "government" one year on to see evidence of this. Or perhaps we could go back further and look at the US led coup in Chile that left the American-sympathiser General Pinochet in charge, where he went on to murder tens of thousands of his own people. But at least he liked America, right?

Quite apart from all this, a war in Iraq will destablise the Middle-Eastern region even further, and will almost certainly eliminate what little Arab support the US has there. Dropping bombs on an Arabic country - in these sensative times - will be to stir up a hornets nest that could lead to something bigger occurring, and something that is of a far greater threat to the US than Saddam himself will ever be. The US must learn at some point, that the rest of the world isn't going to put up with its neo-empirialistic cock-shafting for much longer, and that if it continues to act in such an ignorant, xenophobic manner with regards to its foregin policies then it must, at some point, expect a backlash.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

I think the main point that I'm trying to get across here, is that there is no point discussing all the pros and cons of an Iraqi invasion until someone can explain to me one thing that we stand to gain from such an offensive (keeping in mind all that I have said above). Until then, I can't really see any point in continuing this conversation. War is an evil that should not be entered into without several extremely good reasons, and I can fail to think of even one as to why we (not just the US) should attack Iraq.

*nods*

so.. about that piece..

And the latest news flash
Bush says:
DIplomatically if we can
Force,if we must.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, i think it's wrong that they are teaching them that stuff in school. on BOTH sides, don't tell me that the israelis aren't taught to hate the palestinians. So, it's horrible that children are taught to hate, on both sides. By the way, even if it is not in the textbooks, another huge part is played by the media. take a listen to these: http://www.fair.org/counterspin/mp3.html peace.

i can tell you straight up that the israeli education system does NOT teach hatered. let me tell you my personal story in all of this, that way you can better understand where im coming from. Highschool in israel did all it can to promote peace as it would benefit the entire country. we took time out of classes to watch live the signing of all the peace accords. first with arafat at the white house, then with jordan and egypt followed by the oslo accords. We weeped and had vast ceremonies in school when PM Radin - a true peace pioneer, was assasinated. the halls were filled with murals of white doves and olive branches. we took feild trips to spend some time with arabs at their highschools (i went to nazareth). as you can see the educations system did all it could to promote peace... and in fact looking back i could honestly say that i was brainwashed into being a left wing passifist peace hippy, hard to belive now, but i really was... (no offense btw). but as time moved on and after the failed camp david talks, terrorism continued and even intensified. things started going downhill and i saw things for what they truly are. sept 11 (which i experinced from within the US) also added to my dissillusion. now i have become a realist. i understand that there are certain things one most never allow to happen and to never justify. Sure, i too would like to see the whole world rid of all WOMD (as someone said, you?) but in reality i know that will never happen, there will always be those looking for them to seek power. I have come to accept and even endores certain countries to posses them in order to preserve the standards and rights i belive in. I belive that terrorism is unnacceptable for ANY reason and stopping it should be a pre-requesite to any negotiations.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Izzy... this is not education, its the muslim religion. They're not supposed to teach their kid their religion anymore? I don't think you would like to have the stuff written in the Torah about the goyim published in here... lets just say its not any better.

those are not quotes directly taken from the koran, those are straight up from grammar books and such. furthermore, it is widely known that the hammas (a recognized terror group both by the US and UN) finances educational institustions in palestine for kids of all ages.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith By the way, even if it is not in the textbooks, another huge part is played by the media. take a listen to these: http://www.fair.org/counterspin/mp3.html

i listened to the first one... what BS... they said that while the media claimed there was calm up until the two sucide bombings that happened two or so weeks ago, the palestinians were under cerfews and other oppressive actions... sure i dont doubt that but what they failed to say was why this was happening, of course there was no calm during that period. i followed the news then (and now). at the time there were still many rocket attacks by palestinians into surrounding israeli settlements, there were many snipers shooting at israeli cars driving around the west bank, there were infiltraters who would sneek into jewish villages and kill their civilians, why didnt they say anything about that? the israei army is only in there as a rection and detterent to terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade They failed dismally in bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, so - in order to be seen as doing something - they did the next best thing in their eyes and ousted the Taliban government. Now, with Bin Laden still on the loose (or dead, I suppose we can't really be sure) they have set their sights on a man who has done little over the past 11 years to warrant such paranoid scrutiny.

at the time, the taliban and ossama were one in the same, even clinton had pleaded with the taliban (personal contact with omar forget the rest of his name - the spiritual leader of taliban) and he refused to throw ossama out, to add to the insult he asked clinton that he should join him in ousting the true evil power in the world, the jews (this was all seen last night on 60 minutes II http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain523750.shtml)
now ossama may or may not be dead (i belive he is) but in all practicality he's dead. he's no longer a real threat to america, ossama is probably more focused and hiding and staying alive rather then planning out some evil plot, there are still on going operations to seek him out.

quote:

George Bush has made it quite clear that he is not interested in exploring diplomatic options: he is much more intent on invading the state of Iraq and replacing its leader with one who will better suit the needs of the US government (the man they have lined up, by the way, is facing serious charges in an International Court in Denmark). The aim, I suspect, is not to ensure the national security of the US (as Saddam does not have the means to attack the US and I doubt, even if he did, that he'd be stupid enough to try) but to simply strike out - in typical, paranoid US bandwagon fashion - at a man they believe represents a cause that they are eager to stamp out. Yet, as JohnSmith said, virtually no evidence exists to suggest that the state of Iraq is a threat to any other country (with the weapons it has currently, it is only capable of attacking those states directly adjescent to it) nor that it is funding the operations of terrorist factions such as the Al Quieda. think the main point that I'm trying to get across here, is that there is no point discussing all the pros and cons of an Iraqi invasion until someone can explain to me one thing that we stand to gain from such an offensive (keeping in mind all that I have said above). Until then, I can't really see any point in continuing this conversation. War is an evil that should not be entered into without several extremely good reasons, and I can fail to think of even one as to why we (not just the US) should attack Iraq.

Look George Bush, even though he wants a regime change, is OK with inspectors as long as iraq follows the rules. they have not been from 1992 to 1998. there-fore a stronger resolution that allows total freedom in inspection, needs to be inacted in order to allow harasher outcomes if it fails agian. no place should be off limits, no lies should be tolerated, iraq must fully comply and aid the inspectors when they as for it. that is why a new resolutions is needed.

Furthermore, yes iraq does posses a national security danger to the US, that is why they are going after him rather then some sleeze bag in Zimbabwe, there are probably many more leaders who need to be sent away. Saddam is danger to the US (and in my point of view to the entire region). I am trying to prove that yes, there is enough facts pertaining to how saddam is seeking weapons grade nuclear material. yes his government has aided the terrorism in israel, yes there is involvment with al-queda. but even if it werent saddam DOES carry missles that can reach, all the countries in the regine (including israel which is not a direct neighbour) and it poses a DIRECT threat to the US in the following way: say he does aquire a dirty bomb or some weapon carrying chemical or biological agents, i am not nieve enought to think that he wont sell these to organizations that would like to see thier use on the US. the weapons risk getting into the wrong hands, and being used for inappropriate actions.

listen if saddam were truly willing for peace and wants to end all of this, he could come out publicly, document and show all the WOMD he posses, then destroy them and allow weapons inspectors to check that he has no more and will not have the means of making them agian. how about a personal world tour showing and saying how he is ready for peace and what actions he has taken and will take in the future.
if only i wasnt dreaming.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.