quote:

Originally posted by occrider I never realized there was a statute of limitations on what constitutes a threat.

Sure there is--a "statute" that's based on common sense and logic.

Follow me:
Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening?

In essence we're simply going to bombing a heavily civilian (and cosmopolitan) city because Saddamm is a bad guy.

Occrider, are you suggesting that any country that has ever engaged in militaristic belligerence constitutes a threat? I assumme you see where this flawed logic would lead...

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens.... So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/....... SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right.....

your idiocy is firmly cemented and noted

quote:

Originally posted by occrider N. Korea, Iran, and Pakistan aren't prohibited by sanctions from possessing WMDs. Just like India, Israel, France, Britain, etc.

Two points: first, N. Korea and Iran have a tacit agreement that is supossed to inhibit nuclear activity--hence all the jittery nerves recently when N. Korea broke the UN seals on their reactors and started them up; second, if you're going to invoke broken UN sanctions as justification for the war, you're implicitly recognizing that the UN has enforcement authority.

If it's the UN's rules (sanctions) that have been violated, let the UN enforce discipline--not maverick nations.

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Sure there is--a "statute" that's based on common sense and logic. Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening? Occrider, are you suggesting that any country that has ever engaged in militaristic belligerence constitutes a threat? I assumme you see where this flawed logic would lead...

Actually I would say that common sense dictates that he is still a threat. If you were Kuwait would you feel comfortable having open borders with Saddam? I believe that you're misconstruing his "restraint" as stemming from his newfound benevolence when it's more likely that he fears retalitory strikes from the US. He, as a matter of fact, DID murder his own people following the gulf war when they staged an uprising. Despite his people starving around him he maintains the 5th largest army in the world and spends $1 billion on his military a year. I would say that all things considered he is a threat.

No I'm not implying that any country that has ever done anything hostile should be considered a threat, I'm implying that Saddam's lack of "hostile" activity over the past 10 years is not a sign of him turning over a new leaf.

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin your idiocy is firmly cemented and noted

as is yours with your "anticheese alliance" sig...what are u a 12 year old girl?

Tiesto14 your a total dipshit, please do the world a favour and die. I would advise you to grow up, get a brain and feed it with some intellectual thoughts but hey, fuckit your not worth it so just rid us of your foul presence and make the world a better place, you piece of shit.
sincerily yours,
Prodigal

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Sure there is--a "statute" that's based on common sense and logic. Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening? In essence we're simply going to bombing a heavily civilian (and cosmopolitan) city because Saddamm is a bad guy. Occrider, are you suggesting that any country that has ever engaged in militaristic belligerence constitutes a threat? I assumme you see where this flawed logic would lead...

um Saddam is in violation of Resoutions 687 and 1441...that in itself is grounds for the U.S. to go in....case closed

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Actually I would say that common sense dictates that he is still a threat. If you were Kuwait would you feel comfortable having open borders with Saddam? I believe that you're misconstruing his "restraint" as stemming from his newfound benevolence when it's more likely that he fears retalitory strikes from the US. He, as a matter of fact, DID murder his own people following the gulf war when they staged an uprising. Despite his people starving around him he maintains the 5th largest army in the world and spends $1 billion on his military a year. I would say that all things considered he is a threat. No I'm not implying that any country that has ever done anything hostile should be considered a threat, I'm implying that Saddam's lack of "hostile" activity over the past 10 years is not a sign of him turning over a new leaf.

Anybody who's a crazy dictator is theoretically a threat: I was just pointing out that 12 years of a combination of UN inspections/sanctions/and the threat of international force has done a pretty good job of keeping the guy in line. That's why it doesn't matter whether he has WMD or not--he would never use them (and anything he does have is bound to be miniscule). Saddam knows that any show of force on his part would doom him, and so like the multitudes of other dictators in the world (most of whom exist with our backing--a topic for a later date), he minds his business.

As far as his army is concerned, I would check the stats on the "5th largest" figure--it's probably including potential civilian conscriptions. And while the $1.5 billion he spent last year on defense sounds like a lot, the US spent slightly over $400 billion. I'm fairly certain no one at the Pentagon is quaking with fear

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 um Saddam is in violation of Resoutions 687 and 1441...that in itself is grounds for the U.S. to go in....case closed

Those are UN resolutions not US resolutions -- i hope you understand the difference and the implications...

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Two points: first, N. Korea and Iran have a tacit agreement that is supossed to inhibit nuclear activity--hence all the jittery nerves recently when N. Korea broke the UN seals on their reactors and started them up; second, if you're going to invoke broken UN sanctions as justification for the war, you're implicitly recognizing that the UN has enforcement authority. If it's the UN's rules (sanctions) that have been violated, let the UN enforce discipline--not maverick nations.

What tacit agreement are you talking about? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Nations are not obligated to sign the treaty. And it's purely voluntary. IT's more or less a sign of good faith. With regards to the second statement, the UN brokered the truce agreement between the US and Iraq, but that doesn't imply recognition that the UN has full authority. The UN was not dictating how the war was to end and the US essentially had authority over what was acceptable terms for an Iraqi surrender.

Cheers to tiesto14!

as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up.

oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about.



>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Those are UN resolutions not US resolutions -- i hope you understand the difference and the implications...

well the UN resolutions said he HAD to disarm....did he?...NO...so it's HIS fault...or where those resolutions just for fun?