quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 yeah..uh huh... I don't see you participating in this discussion Genious besides your witty intelligent one-liners like that. hey why don't fill me in on your fantastic knowledge of politics and world events? JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION!!!

sure buddy, my opinion was voiced on the first page of this thread, seems like you don't read the threads but just go to the last post and add your shit.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek sure buddy, my opinion was voiced on the first page of this thread, seems like you don't read the threads but just go to the last post and add your shit.

Thats what you get from people who have pics of Bushs mom as their avatar.. utter STUPIDITY..

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King From what i ve seen.. the majority of Americans that have posted on this forum seem to be in favour of this war. Meanwhile.. almost everyone else is not. Dont you see a pattern?? I have read up on surveys and the only nation that has seem to stand out on a pro-war decision is the Americans...in fact.. an overwhelming amount of people compared to other nations...

This is because of 9/11. Americans support a war in Iraq because they have experienced first had the evil outcomes of terrorist activities. People outside of the United States, although for the most part sympathetic to 9/11, have not seen the capabilities of the terrorists first hand and therefore do not see them as much of an immediate threat, much less the ability for Saddam to arm them. For this reason, of course people do not want war. Nobody wants war for no reason! No, not even Americans.....or George W. Bush, which may be hard for a few of you to stomach. But on the other hand, most governments are lining up behind the United States as they can foresee the danger to world security Saddam presents. Do you recall the editorial taken out in a few major newspapers last week by European leaders that alienated France and Germany? The primary responsibility of each nation's government is to protect its own people, and I can't think of one government that does not see Saddam as a threat. France and Germany even acknowledge the threat, but for domestic reasons (I am not even talking about the billion dollar oils deals with Iraq) wish to settle the matter through nonviolent means. A nonviolent ending would be ideal, but I just do not see it as feasible. One way or another EVERYONE agrees that Saddam must go.... but without force, or the threat of force, I do not see him going anywhere.

there's no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq... unless Americans want to kill people and blow up stuff to vent a bit from 9/11.

But actually, its not even that. Its all about petrol, I'm even gonna a wage a bet that the next leader in Iraq will be another thug and criminal but favorable to the US. Remember this in a few years.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by 00GSR This is because of 9/11. Americans support a war in Iraq because they have experienced first had the evil outcomes of terrorist activities. People outside of the United States, although for the most part sympathetic to 9/11, have not seen the capabilities of the terrorists first hand and therefore do not see them as much of an immediate threat, much less the ability for Saddam to arm them. For this reason, of course people do not want war. Nobody wants war for no reason! No, not even Americans.....or George W. Bush, which may be hard for a few of you to stomach. But on the other hand, most governments are lining up behind the United States as they can foresee the danger to world security Saddam presents. Do you recall the editorial taken out in a few major newspapers last week by European leaders that alienated France and Germany? The primary responsibility of each nation's government is to protect its own people, and I can't think of one government that does not see Saddam as a threat. France and Germany even acknowledge the threat, but for domestic reasons (I am not even talking about the billion dollar oils deals with Iraq) wish to settle the matter through nonviolent means. A nonviolent ending would be ideal, but I just do not see it as feasible. One way or another EVERYONE agrees that Saddam must go.... but without force, or the threat of force, I do not see him going anywhere.

Excuse me. What about people in northern ireland who had to live with the constant threat of terrorism for near enough 30 years. or people in britain for that matter. What about israel and palestine where bombs seem to be going off every day. There was the situation in china not so long ago, when that guy walked out in front of the tank. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO ON.

Don't try and tell people that america is the only country that has experienced terrorism first hand because of 9/11. We all seen what happened that day and our sympathy lies with your nation, but to say nobody has experienced first hand the evil of terrorism is complete stupidity.

If america wants to stop terrorism, then why doesn't it do something about israel/palestine, why did they not send troops to northern ireland. Come on. This war isn't about terrorism or nuclear bombs, it's about bush wanting to finish what his father started 12 years ago.









Ok it might be about nuclear bombs.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco Excuse me. What about people in northern ireland who had to live with the constant threat of terrorism for near enough 30 years. or people in britain for that matter. What about israel and palestine where bombs seem to be going off every day. There was the situation in china not so long ago, when that guy walked out in front of the tank. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO ON. Don't try and tell people that america is the only country that has experienced terrorism first hand because of 9/11. We all seen what happened that day and our sympathy lies with your nation, but to say nobody has experienced first hand the evil of terrorism is complete stupidity. If america wants to stop terrorism, then why doesn't it do something about israel/palestine, why did they not send troops to northern ireland. Come on. This war isn't about terrorism or nuclear bombs, it's about bush wanting to finish what his father started 12 years ago. Ok it might be about nuclear bombs.

I am referring to “terrorism” as in global terrorism. The IRA vs. UK, Chechen Rebels vs. Russia, etc. are terrorist groups and need to be dealt with, but they are different threats as they are centralized and specific in demands (creating an ability for negotiations). Palestinians militants? Their goal is to kill all Jews. They have already stated that they will ignore any peace agreement and they will not stop until all Jews, or Israelis, are dead. Can you negotiate with that? That is why Israel is one of our greatest supporters in this Iraq situation, and we are the ones actually holding them back! Israeli intelligence officers are the ones who first broke the largely undisputed fact that Saddam trains/equips/and pays suicide bombers who carry out acts against Israel. You get rid of Saddam, you have a better chance for peace in the region. Why doesn’t the US do anything about Israel and Palestine? Are you serious? We have been involved in that quagmire for years now. There is simply no negotiation with the radical groups. Bin Laden and thugs? Their goal is to kill ALL NON MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD! Yes, that even includes you peace nicks. That is the difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda. The latter is a threat to the entire world! Yes they attacked America, but have also attacked many other facilities across the world. Do you think the World Trade Center was attacked simply because of its architectural design? No, it was symbolic. Wasn’t ricin just found in the UK? Wake up people, they are coming for your countries next. Getting rid of Saddam will not only help the Iraqi people (who marched for his birthday under a government mandate by the way, kind of like his 100% reelection a few months back) but it will be a step forward for the world fight against terrorism. If terrorist have no place to operate, no place to receive aid/equipment/and know-how, they will be less of a threat to ALL countries. That is why ALL governments know, including France and Germany, the Saddam must go. It is just a matter of how to get rid of him, and how much more time they need to be convinced that Saddam will never disarm unilaterally, so military action is needed. But that is for the diplomats to figure out...