War on Iraq

[Mubbers]

America has now reached a point of showing to the world that the ego is to big to admit that others are right.

I'd counter that by saying there are some people and countires in the world that would refuse to support America even if they were right. I know people who in any normal circumstances would support the action being taken right now in the Middle Eas, however they are stuck in an Anti-American groove that sometimes really defies logic.

Comments made early about America behaving like "big brother" are double edged. Personally I could have done with a big brother a few times when I was at school and intervention by the US and others in hotspots around the world has undoubtedly saved lives - Balkans / Somalia.

But even in these cases perfection is hard to achieve.

Mubbers

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by dealer
I for one, love the results of all of the posturing and saber rattling, and so far, these efforts are well done indeed.

if this was the intention...congratulation Mr Bush.

if however, his intention is to start a war, let's point out;

When our presidents Father started the war against iraq, iraq was actively agressing other countries...this was a new threat, and needed to be dealt with as it was dealt with....except that the original effort stopped short of the desired result.

however, This president is the person that's bringing a new threat, and this president is (it seems) trying to start a war in iraq when iraq is clearly less of a threat then ever before.

he thinks he can do this because we were attacked by another country on september eleventh...and he thinks that Americans are now looking for revenge, so might as well take revenge on his fathers folly.

in other words, just a war for the sake of a war, and not the war for the sake of any new threat.

so, if no war comes from this saber rattling, then Mr Bush did a fine job.

if war does come

then this president is the agressor, and not iraq...clearly in an attempt to distract his constituants from the results of his presidency

he will either create a great accomplishment and legasy

or he will be the instrument in starting an unprovoked war, for no new threat

iraq claims that kuwait is its own part of a soverign state... much like china claims taiwan and a few other countries also have similar claims... war is often a result... but the gulf war was fought less so for the STATE Of kuqwait but for the rights to the oil fields in the region... the us has had a puppet government installed or supported in the middle eastern countries that have oil for a long time now.. its a fact...

concerning the whole issue with iraq... there is no doubt the matter could have been handled diferently... I sincerly doubt bush intended to go in and NOT have support... I am sure he thought in his typical cowboy-esque persona that if he went in guns ablazing he would get a lot of other peoples to join in and have some fun also... this did not turn out to be the case unfortunately..

has saddam complied with some of the stipulations... yes... but what? the missles being destroyed are only being done so because they violate UN guidelines for ranged weaponry iraq can produce... and that too only by a FEW miles... not a coupla hundred or whatever... just a few... BUT iraq complied...

I am no fan of saddam mind.. I do not like him in the least... but the unilateral action the us seems to be trying to take here does not seem like it is going to work... the world does not support this action because the iraqi state is not considered a THREAT to world security... there are far bigger threats around teh world... and iraq is not perceived...

also... britain/france/russia/the united states and other countriesare all guilty of playing the UN security council for fools... THEY sold the WMD to iraq... THEY know exactly how many there should be and therefore should cooperate FULLY to help alleviate the situation...

how can they say iraq is evil when the very countries that have sold bio-agents and WMD to this 'evil' country are not providing info pertinent...

war is not the solution in this case... it is WAY overkill to suggest it.. also the us state cannot support this war economically... I for one refuse to compromise MY future for the sake of bush and the republican parties political agenda's and their PR campaign to get the man re-elected...

IF bush had shown the same amount of vigor and had used the funds he is freely bribing other countries with domestically.... the economy would not STINK as bad as it does...

bush needs to get his priorities right before he can claim to be trying to clear the world of evil doers... his own people are not exactly all peachy...

 

[kilroy]

It seems that with the involvement of the US in Iraq we are ignoring a few important issues. This build up against Sadam is partially due to our interest in the world oil. Let me explain.

Sadam has always been hellbent on controlling all the surrounding countries, he wanted to conquer iran years ago. and he was gearing up to conquer the rest of the surrounding nations. If he did that he would not only control all of the arab states but he would control the majority of the worlds oil. We went after him with GW to stop him. it was in the worlds interest to not let him continue. He had the funding, the backing and the military might to conquer all of middle east and asia.

The mistake GW Senior did was to not take him out of power then, politically the US lost public backing after we had defeated him. and we didn't continue to take him out of power all together.

Now he knows that the only way to keep a large country like us off his back is to keep us at bay with nuclear threats. What do you think a nutcase like sadam would do if we didn't oppose him.

He would take over all the worlds oil and then would have a massive income for waging terrorism around the globe.

If you let someone like sadam continue then you would have another hitler.

So GW who is completely backed by the US, gets involved and goes after terrorism with OSAMA. At the same time Sadam has not been complying with the UN resolution to keep track of his military and weaponry and the UN began to suspect he was trying to purchase biological and Nuclear armorment. So the US decides while we are over there kicking the **** out of Sadam for 9-11, we should enforce the UN's decision on sadam to disarm him. He doesn't get the hint, he was conquered once and the world community let him stay in power. So then he starts lyin again, he starts another build up. and he is building up way more than a nation defense, he is building for the offensive.

So we are over there. we are going to finish was GW Senior didn't becaue we as a nation LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES and there need to be a change of power from the beginning.

The US isn't interested in taking the oil for themselves, we are only interested in letting iraq control there own oil and use it for public good for iraq and not for some nutbags military conquest of all surrounding nations, of terrorism around the world. and the build up of nuclear armament by someone who wouldn't flinch about using it on anyone in his way.


Next,
In wwII we were not directly in a war with germany, but we supported all allies opposing germany, Japan saw us as a major threat to there way of life if we where to go full scale involvement, and they choose an opportunity to lay a decisive blow to us. they rocked most of our fleet, killed thousands and thousands of our boys, including civilians.

So just like 9-11, we went back at them with whatever we had. We had a crippeled navy, and we in danger of not being able to protect our own boarders, and with this type of aggression we had no idea of what they would plan next, we did not want them continueing, and we as a country where fricken pissed. Someone just sneaked up and killed hundreds of your family military and civilians, so the US now being brought into WWII full scale did what we had to to win. We didn't come to a war with rules of who we couldn't shoot, who we could, there are no rules to war if you are decided that your going to win it, then do it and do it right. and so we dropped the bomb, it was an amazing outcome and beforehand we thought it was the proper response to what they did to us. And even then they continued, so we dropped the second. finally then end of the war and japan had lost interest, germany was on the outs. also if we hadn't supported the rest of the world against germany. hitler would of conquered most of europe and maybe even threatened the us eventually.

It is traggic the loss of life under those bombs, and we are saddened by the outcome of war, but that is what it is, war, and death and destruction. you don't go to war and say i will do what it takes to win if the other guy does this or that. if you make the decision to go, you go full scale. no half ass ****, and thats what we did.

My attitude is we did the right thing to shock the world and stop japans continueing advancement in WWII. we made the mistake not taking out Sadam the first time, and since he was not complying with UN restrictions and the obvious build up of weapons of mass destruction, we decided to bring him into compliance after we took care of OSAMA. If you let Sadam go about what he pleases you would see the same results as Hitler, and not to mention hitler with nuclear weaponry in control of the worlds oil. he could choke off most of the worlds production for everything, from your daughters toy to defensive weapons. Don't ignore that he is a madman who enjoys war. and the little man that wants to rule the world, and who sees that he could if he can stop the UN and US from being involved.

i have more to say but i will add it later.
cheers.................

 

[XP Abuser]

let me point somethign out:

there is a hidden agenda of these anti-war countries

1) france is against war as stated in an earlier post that they want to complete some dodgy deal with saddam, not too sure what tho.

2)Russia is opposed to war as it has gotten all to familiar with the boosting of its economy (from oil exports) thus they dont want the good times to end, and result in their country turning into the slum it was. this would damage them as when the yanks seize oil fields and out the regime they'll set up deals with the food for oil thing. this will see a barrell of crude oil go from 33$ a barrell approximately what it is now down to around 12$ a barrell. now you can see why russia is so opposed to war.

3)and germany doesnt want war cuz it is struggling with its economy from the crappy euro.

and i think N korea is the next in line but im pretty sure it wont be as aggressive. There will be diplomacy within diplomacy. as also stated they have nothing to lose but north korea has worse human rights than iraq but they dont do nothing to stop it. yet.

but id like it if they could walk into iraq capture saddam put him in a van and infront of a war crimes tribunal. but it aint gonna happen. so war is inevitable but its for the good of the people a finally lift the long standng sanctions imposed so they can get back to normal. somehow.


just have to add something-------> saddam has agreed to destroy the al sammoud missiles to throw weapons inspectors of the bigger fish so to speak

 

[Sazar]

the agenda of the us should not be perceived as being so clear cut... i LIVE here... I lost friends in 9/11... its not like I am a huge fan of terrorism...

but to say the us does not seem to have a slightly warped idea of attacking saddam ? I am not so sure... bush has a personal vendetta and he NEEDS this war more than you can imagine.. can you imagine trying to get re-elected with his domestic agenda... he has done nothing since he came to power but destroy whatever was left in terms of confidence in the economy... thats all...

concerning world war II.. the us issued an ultimatum to the japanese... the japanese acted in the best way they saw fit... I am sure if the us had NOT issued the ultimatum... the japanese/us conflict would not have started as it did...

and no the navy was NOT crippled... thats why we won the war... sure the cruiser and battleships were hammered... BUT the air craft carriers survived and lead to the eventual victory of the US v/s the japanese... we didn't really have our backs against the wall... and to compare pearl harbor to 9/11 is BS... how can you equate the 2 ?

loss of life is never good but when you start to romanticise and compare 2 completely different events and provide the same significance to them you are cheapening the lives lost and the events themselves IMO...

just because of 9/11 terrorism has become the no.1 government agenda.. what was their stance before.. why was the system so flawed that information was not processed adequatley to deal with the threat ?

other countries in the world have had to deal with terrorism for many many years... and in a variety of ways... let us not forget that...

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Sazar

other countries in the world have had to deal with terrorism for many many years... and in a variety of ways... let us not forget that...

It's a good point you make there Sazar but there is a crucial difference betwen 9/11 & the other countries you compare this with.

9/11 was an act of agression by an organisation external to the United States - if one link to a foreign government (sponsorship) were confirmed this would have been a clear act of war as it stands it's pretty close [not close enough for some though].

Most of the other acts of terrorism around the world are internal issues. Britain / IRA, Spain / Basque, Italy / Mafia, Russia / Chzechnia (spelling!) etc...

Thus the way of dealing with 9/11 is bound to be different to that of how Britain has dealt with the IRA (for example).

The other important difference is one of scale. Had 9/11 merely been a 'minor' nightclub bombing things would certainly been different. BUT and it's a big but, terrorism always escalates.

Many years ago the IRA assasssinated Lord Mountabatten and years later we arrive the horrors of Enniskillen and Omagh. So our starting point is the murder of one man which eventually becomes mass slaughter.

What is your starting point? Where will it end?

What I'm trying to say is what exactly are these 'pacifists waiting for? To get nuked? To have a bio-weapon devastate half their country (the world)? Or are they hoping that it'll only be another couple of skyscrapers before they become convinced of the need for tough action?!

They doubt that Iraq is the source, fine then leave 'em be. Forget the whole thing and go back to the shopping malls.

Mubbers

 

[Perris Calderon]

I'll tell you what us pacifists are waiting for.

pretty darned simple

we're waiting for people to stop using 9 11 as an excuse to start a rediculous war that has nothing to do with september eleventh

iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9 11, so puhleeeze do not use ththe day in the middle of september as a tool to start a war unrelated to it.

shame for this

we're waiting of the ONE PERSON (and his chronies) that wants to start this war to show us the proof he has time and again made believe he has that we are soemhow in greater danger then we were before he took office

we are waiting for the ONE PERSON that wants to start this war to prove to us that there is a new threat...to prove that there is a danger now that is eminent

we are waiting for the ONE PERSON, THE ONE WAR MONGUER, to show us how we are in any kind of danger more then we have been since his daddy stopped short of ending this iraqy regime

pretty darned simple

pretty easy to accomodate us

that's what us pacifists are waiting for

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by dealer
I'll tell you what us pacifists are waiting for.

pretty darned simple

we're waiting for people to stop using 9 11 as an excuse to start a rediculous war.

iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9 11, so puhleeeze do not use that tragedy as a tool to start a war unrelated to it

we're waiting of the ONE PERSONS that wants to start this war to show us the proof he has time and again made believe he has

we are waiting for the ONE PERSON that wants to start this war to prove to us that there is a new threat

we are waiting for the ONE PERSON, THE ONE WAR MONGUER to show us how we are in any kind of danger more then we have been since his daddy stopped short of ending this regime

pretty simple

pretty easy to accomodate

that's what us pacifists are waiting for

Hey dude it's more than just me that's supporting this impending war! One recent poll in UK said 78% in favour of action without 2nd resolution!

Anyway I digress.

we're waiting for people to stop using Pearl Harbour as an excuse to start a rediculous war.

Well OK I messed with your words but the point is clear. You seem prepared to just do nothing until they walk right up to you and attack you personally? Is that right? How many people are you needing to see killed until you become convinced that action is required? Personally I thought that nearly 3000 was ample, especially at one sitting.

According to the information I can find:

Pearl Harbour:
2,395 deaths including 54 civilians

World Trade Center Attack 9 / 11 / 2001:
2812 killed or presumed dead, I'm sure somebody was in the military...

iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9 11, so puhleeeze do not use that tragedy as a tool to start a war unrelated to it

There are not many people who can know this for certain... would you like to list them Dealer? Are you one of those people?

But I thought this was about WOMD that Iraq possesses / may possess.

And in respect to this everyone knows Iraq had large quantities of WOMD and so far Iraq has not been able to prove they have all been destroyed. Given that inspectors have never been given co-operation in determining the truth the only logical answer is that Iraq has something to hide.

And why do you always refer to a new threat? Is the old one not good enough anymore? Does VX & Anthrax have a shelf life? Does Plutonium go 'mouldy' after 10 years?

Of course not! All of these weapons are designed to be stored until required for use. Which makes any requirement to see a new threat proven a convenient way of dodging the real issue which is that in all liklihood Iraq still has WOMD and remains a rogue state capable of using them almost anywhere in the world through direct or state sponsored terrorist action.

Mubbers

 

[ZipTriX]

Originally posted by Mubbers
Hey dude it's more than just me that's supporting this impending war! One recent poll in UK said 78% in favour of action without 2nd resolution!
Anyway I digress.

Contridiction. "It's more than just me supporting this......anyways I disagree."

How many people are you needing to see killed until you become convinced that action is required? Personally I thought that nearly 3000 was ample, especially at one sitting.

There is action being taken for the 3000 people that were killed. Hence the so called "War On Terrorism". The action does not and should not be pointed at Iraq, until there is solid evidence proving otherwise.

There are not many people who can know this for certain... would you like to list them Dealer? Are you one of those people?

The CIA, FBI and a majority of the political leaders have admitted that there is no concrete proof linking Iraq to Al Queda. It is all speculation.

And in respect to this everyone knows Iraq had large quantities of WOMD and so far Iraq has not been able to prove they have all been destroyed.

The US and Britain have not been able to prove that Iraq has them.

Given that inspectors have never been given co-operation in determining the truth the only logical answer is that Iraq has something to hide.

Iraq destroying missiles is not cooperation? Iraq providing documentation of chemicals being destroyed is not cooperation?

Yes America has a big ego and will not admit when wrong. 30 yrs and still no "official" statement calling Vietnam a mistake.

 

[Perris Calderon]

ziptrix, that is one great post.

mubbers, are you serious?

when japan bombed pearl harbor, did we chase after turkey?

no, of course not...it's a rediculous comparison to bring up pearl harbor as an analology.

iraq is not associated with the day in the middle of september.

President Bush is actually taking the day in the middle of september, and he is itrying to finnish daddys war...

it's sick

there is no chance whatsoever that Bush would even consider finnishing his daddys war if it weren't for the day in the middle of september

not one chance

for you to ask the question "how do we know for sure" that iraq wasn't involved with the twin towers

omfg ...

we'd better know for sure before we start a war mubbers...we'd better

and please mubbers, I'm not sahying you are the only person that supports this war.

plenty of people support president bush

I'm saying President Bush is the only head of state on this planet that insists that war is the only solution here...HE JUST WANTS WAR, AND NOTHING ELSE IS SATISFYING HIM...NOTHING

he's been saying it since it didn't look likely he could win a re election.

right now, as far as heads of state, it is president bush that wants to have a litlle war, and absolutley no one else.

there are other heads of state that support president bush, but there is no other head of state that is agressively trying to start this war.

doesn't this give you any pause at all?

oh, I guess president bush jst knows more then eve3rybody else..
that's why he wants the war isn't it...he just knows more then everybody else

please

 

[ZipTriX]

Questions that everyone wants answers to:
1) Why did Colin Powell strongly advise against war, then days later do a complete 180 on his advisement?

2) Why does Bush keep linking Saddam to Al Queda without providing solid evidence?

3) Why does the US keep playing "tattletale" on Iraq? Each veto in the UN, and the US brings another "excuse" to attack Iraq. It started with weapons of mass destruction, then went to nukes, then went to links with Al Queda, now it is at drones. Why not present all the problems at once to the UN, instead of "stair stepping" it?

4) Why is the US offering to provide other countries with money, yet can't provide for our country? 6 billion to Pakastain......trying to offer 26 billion to Turkey....

5) Why did the US provide so called "evidence" about "chemical" and "biological" bunkers/labs, yet the UN inspectors couldn't locate them? Yes I know they are mobile, but the US "knows" where they are located.

6) Why did France provide Iran with uranium?

7) Did Bush think it was smart to say "I don't care how many people march, it won't stop me."?

I wonder when the day will come when I am at McDonald's ordering "freedom" fries. lol

 

[Mubbers]

no, of course not...it's a rediculous comparison to bring up pearl harbor as an analology.

I don't see why Pearl Harbour is a ridiculous analogy, both were surprise (air) attacks against the US, both by foriegn powers that had previously not declared war on the US and both caused a similar amount of casualties. That seems to fit the bill of what an 'analogy' is supposed to be...

Anyhow the point I was making with Pearl Harbour was not a justifcation for war on Iraq as I later said:

But I thought this was about WOMD that Iraq possesses / may possess.

Using the Pearl Harbour/911 analogy I was questioning just what it would take for a 'pacifist' to get off the fence and support their country - it's a simple question.

They way you talk about 9/11 is as if you are bored with it and that it has ceased to be relevant. Now we've sorted out Afghanistan we can all go home and forget it ever happened!

The CIA, FBI and a majority of the political leaders have admitted that there is no concrete proof linking Iraq to Al Queda. It is all speculation.

OK I'll give you that but I did not say that the Iraq thing was about 911.

The US and Britain have not been able to prove that Iraq has them.

I believe your logic is flawed. Iraq has definitely posessed WOMD. There is no argument over that. So far we have not seen proof absolute that these weapons have been completely destroyed. Therefore WOMD probably still exist.

This belief is further re-inforced by the track record of Iraq during the lengthy process of inspection:

Co-operation only under duress,
Incomplete declarations,
Undeclared hardware (missiles, drone),
Incomplete access to scientists.
etc...

In normal circumstances when applied to any kind of investigative process this would indicate that the suspect has something of importance to hide.

Iraq destroying missiles is not cooperation? Iraq providing documentation of chemicals being destroyed is not cooperation?

Iraq destroying those ridiculous missiles is not co-operation. Missiles are not WOMD. WOMD = VX, nuclear materials & bio-weapons. The very fact is that a weaponised biological agent can be deployed from an aerosol can and that drones similar to the one we have recently seen are more likely to be used to deploy chemical and biological weapons in the west than one of those high profile missiles.



You see the crux of our disagreement really boils down to this:

I believe that the WOMD posessed by Iraq in 1991 still exist because they are unable to provide proof of their complete destruction. Furthermore the very nature of their co-operation or rather lack of it gives me the belief that they most cetainly have something to hide i.e. WOMD.

Your stance (I feel) is that the 1991 WOMD are no longer relevant and that Iraqi co-operation thus far is sufficient to prove that they are not a threat.

I'm not going to change my opinion, are you?

 

[Perris Calderon]

I can't believe mubbers you are sticking to pearl harbor as an analogy.

we had a war against the people that attacked us when we were attacked at pearl harbor

iraq did not attack us on that day in the middle of september...sheesh...I guess bush using that day as an excuse to start his daddys war really did work.

I'll say this one more time as loud as I can

IRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN...WE CANNOT START A WAR ON IRAQ, BECAUSE AFGHANISTAN ATTACKED US...or can we...USING SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH AS AN EXCUSE TO START A WAR ON A COUNTRY UNINVOLVED IS SICK

only a TROUBLED mind would try to take such rediculous advantage of the pain of september eleventh.

You seem to be saying that becuase 9/11 was a surprise attack, and pearl harbor was also a surprise attack, that this means we can start a war with whoever we don't like at the moment, even though they are not involved with the surprise attack...hard to believe this is what you are trying to say

who else don't we like?

well, now we don't like France, so I guess we can attack them next...hell...there is 9/11 to think about...I surely don't want a surprise attack from france...that would be worse then a surprise attack from iraq...I mean, france is much more capable of doing harm here then iraq is, that's for sure

yep

we were attacke on 9/11

and I don't like france anymore, cause they didn't agree with bushes war.

yep

france is a good target next

I guess this strategy of propaganda works as a justification to some peopel

hey...My store got robbed the other day...I think I'll burn my neighbors house down, I don't like him

yea...that's the ticket...some people will even agree with me on this too


sorry

doesn't hold

and sorry...when a country cooperates, that is cooperation

as iraq bewcomes less and less a threat, war should loom further and further away.

don't you think?

don't forget mubbers

the inspectors have found that america forged much of the "proof" that bush claimed we have.

well...I'm out.

hopefully, as england also sees THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT AGREE THAT IRAQ IS A THREAT, perhaps bush will stop trying to finnish his daddys work

 

[Mubbers]

mmmhh I guess you did not read the first part of my preceding post. Perhaps I was not very clear. I was using the analogy of Pearl Harbour vs 9/11 to see whether or not something like that would be a good reason to go to war - something that might spur your average pacifist into action.

I did actually say afterwards that the Iraq thing was not about this! Please check back - I haven't edited the posts.

Anyway. perhaps being British I have a unique persepective on starting wars with france, after all we used to do it every second Sunday at noon for while!! (Hundred Years War - that was us and them ).

But yes you are right of course if Iraq does co-operate and fully disarm then we don't need to have a war.

But this is where we disagree I think they haven't and won't and you think they are and probably already have.

I'm not prepared to find out the hard way and you are!

You say tomato & I say tomato (mmh not work that one!)

Which kind of brings me back to the analogy thing. If we are prepared to go to and remain at war with terrorism over 9/11 then how can you let a clear threat to the world slip past you when it stands in open defiance of UN resolutions up to and including 1441 which clearly state that Iraq must disarm?

Mubbers

P.S. It also worries me coz I'm not immune to Anthrax or VX & my skin ain't thick enough to block gamma rays!

 

[Perris Calderon]

on this we agree mubbers

a pacifist needs to find out the hard way before he is willing to put his sons and his daughters, and his friends, and innocent people, to death by declaring war.

on this we do agree

 

[mbunny]

Mubbers... ur argument did not work on many points that dealer said.

We had better damned well disarm US after all this crap. It is so full of CRAP. If anyone followed the Australian line of reasoning, John Howard is under EXTREME scrutiny for having made the dumbass mistake of making a connection between Iraq and the Bali Bombings. I'm pretty sure that the citizens of the US are also quite pissed off with what George "dumbya" Bush said.

We are on a crusade to stop terrorists. JIHAD ON ALL TERRORISTS. GW GWB

PS: I'm sorry to say that ALL human beings (which include Iraqi's believe it or not) have a problem with bullets and their skin. It worries me that the japanese people were not immune to extreme heat and alpha, beta and gamma radiation from the two bombs that the US dropped.

 

[ZipTriX]

Originally posted by Mubbers
both by foriegn powers that had previously not declared war on the US and both caused a similar amount of casualties.

Actually Al Queda declared war on the US during the first attack on the World Trade Center.

Using the Pearl Harbour/911 analogy I was questioning just what it would take for a 'pacifist' to get off the fence and support their country - it's a simple question.

Bush has to prove to the people of the US that there is a reason to go to war with Iraq. So far there is no proof.

OK I'll give you that but I did not say that the Iraq thing was about 911.

Actually my statement was in response to this:

Dealer said: Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9 11, so puhleeeze do not use that tragedy as a tool to start a war unrelated to it

Mubber said: There are not many people who can know this for certain... would you like to list them Dealer? Are you one of those people?

ziptrx said: The CIA, FBI and a majority of the political leaders have admitted that there is no concrete proof linking Iraq to Al Queda. It is all speculation.

I believe your logic is flawed. Iraq has definitely posessed WOMD. There is no argument over that. So far we have not seen proof absolute that these weapons have been completely destroyed. Therefore WOMD probably still exist.

Actually my logic is far from being flawed. There has been no proof provided by the US and Britian that Iraq has WMD. I've heard a lot of talk about Iraq having them, yet UN inspectors have not found them. Just because Iraq hasn't proved that the chemicals have been destroyed from 1991, does not constitute for the US and Britian to declare war. Also, YES Iraq will be providing documentation that chemicals and biological have been destroyed.

In normal circumstances when applied to any kind of investigative process this would indicate that the suspect has something of importance to hide.

This is not a normal circumstance, so you can't play it has one. Iraq has every right to act the way they are. Bush and Blair wants freedom to inspect whereever they want to in Iraq. Iraq has every right to protect it's top secret documents from the hands of its enemies.

Iraq destroying those ridiculous missiles is not co-operation.

Err wrong. It is cooperation. Bush and Blair cried about how the missles were against the UN resolution. Iraq is destroying them, so therefore it is cooperation. If Bush and Blair can provide this evidence, more than likely the UN will support the coalition. Why do you think the UN has been wanting more time for UN inspectors? It's so they can search for the so called "existing WMD". The UN wants this proof.

WOMD = VX, nuclear materials & bio-weapons. The very fact is that a weaponised biological agent can be deployed from an aerosol can and that drones similar to the one we have recently seen are more likely to be used to deploy chemical and biological weapons in the west than one of those high profile missiles.

Where is the proof that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons? Like I said, there is a lot of talk about Iraq having them, yet there is no evidence. Also the odds of Iraq sending a drone to the "West" are slim.

Your stance (I feel) is that the 1991 WOMD are no longer relevant and that Iraqi co-operation thus far is sufficient to prove that they are not a threat.

No. My stance is: if you are going to delcare war on Iraq for the reason being WMD, then prove to the world that they have them. Stop talking about it, provide the photos. Point the UN inspectors right to the chemical labs and let them see that the labs exists. If that can be done, then action should take place. Not before hand. Also, if you are going to delcare war on Iraq due to WMD, then stop commenting on Sept 11 in the same debate.

I'm not going to change my opinion

Noone is trying to change your mind, but please have all the facts.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by Ziptrx
My stance is: if you are going to delcare war on Iraq for the reason being WMD, then prove to the world that they have them. Stop talking about it, provide the photos. Point the UN inspectors right to the chemical labs and let them see that the labs exists. If that can be done, then action should take place. Not before hand. Also, if you are going to delcare war on Iraq due to WMD, then stop commenting on Sept 11 in the same debate.

and this is the best point of all, and this is what the majority of pasifists are waiting for.

we will agree that action is nessessary if bush stops making believe he has proof, and actually proves that he has proof.

then we will agree

 

[Mubbers]

Yep I was wrong. Sorry.

I've decided that I'm going to live in Iraq with my wife and two young children.

We're going to start a new life in the North and live with the oppressed peoples of that region. I'm going to bring to them the values of democracy and Christianity.

We'll form an opposition party to Saddam Hussein and debate in public the issues about which the world must know.

I'll speak to the scientists and the generals and ask them to help me understand that Iraq (my new beloved country) is infact a peaceful benign state of heavenly perfection and does not, as indeed we all know posess any weapons of mass destruction.

I can't wait for my new life to begin!

Mubbers

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by mbunny
Mubbers... ur argument did not work on many points that dealer said.

We had better damned well disarm US after all this crap. It is so full of CRAP. If anyone followed the Australian line of reasoning, John Howard is under EXTREME scrutiny for having made the dumbass mistake of making a connection between Iraq and the Bali Bombings. I'm pretty sure that the citizens of the US are also quite pissed off with what George "dumbya" Bush said.

We are on a crusade to stop terrorists. JIHAD ON ALL TERRORISTS. GW GWB

PS: I'm sorry to say that ALL human beings (which include Iraqi's believe it or not) have a problem with bullets and their skin. It worries me that the japanese people were not immune to extreme heat and alpha, beta and gamma radiation from the two bombs that the US dropped.

Interesting post mbunny.

Full of invective but not a single idea. Do you have any ideas on how to deal with global Islamic terrorism or do you perhaps think it really isn't worth bothering about?

Oh and while you're thinking about that perhaps you can share with us your plans on how the Pacific War should have been ended in 1945?

Mubbers