quote:
Beaukat a.k.a Nibbles had this to say about Punky Brewster:
I know that, it's just I don't want to see anyone killed. I dont' care if there's a reason or not.
Flowerpower strikes again!
Getting Serious
Questions for the peaceniks.
BY PETE DU PONT
Friday, March 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Protests against war in Iraq have been raging all across America and England as well as Continental Europe. Passionate peace protests are nothing new; we saw them in 1933 when the British Oxford Union declared it would "in no circumstances fight for its King and country," against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and in 1983 against NATO's proposal to install Pershing missiles to defend Western Europe against Soviet Russia.
So the signs, slogans and emotions are familiar. And so are the questions we ought to be asking the peace protesters.
Peace is important, but is peace without freedom acceptable?
The Soviet Union was at peace between the two world wars and from 1945 until its collapse in 1989, and in those times managed to shoot, starve or kill in the gulag more than 20 million of its own people. In Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution, China killed and starved many millions more. Pol Pot in a Cambodia at peace killed two million Cambodians. Zimbabwe is at peace, but dictator Robert Mugabe is starving his subjects. North Korea is at peace, and enslaving and starving its people. Iraq is, likewise, oppressing its people.
To quote columnist Andrew Sullivan, "War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing." Enslaved peoples and peace without freedom are worse.
If you believe peace is paramount, which of the following wars would you not have fought:
The Gulf War of 1991, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and terrorism?
World War II against Nazi Germany?
The American Revolutionary War?
The Civil War?
The Korean War?
The war that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?
And if at the height of the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Soviet army had attacked West Germany, Belgium and France, would you have opposed an American military response?
Why will appeasement succeed with Saddam Hussein when it has failed with so many other dictators?
In the 1930s, European powers pursued collective security through the League of Nations, which they thought preferable to war. But when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, the league did nothing. In 1938 Britain and France appeased Hitler by giving him most of Czechoslovakia, and Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming to cheering crowds that Britain had achieved "peace for our time." Hitler had built a massive army and air force, but British policy was pacifist; the government assured its citizens that Hitler was a reasonable fellow and had given his word in Munich, so he wouldn't use his newly constructed, powerful military. The League of Nations failed, appeasement failed, and World War II followed.
Collective security through the United Nations failed in Bosnia in the 1990s. For three years the U.N. sent food and passed resolution after resolution while the Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslims. No air strikes were allowed against the Serbs since that would mean the U.N. "might be taking sides." Gen. Ratko Mladic then took 350 U.N. peacekeepers hostage and chained some to military targets to prevent attacks. NATO and the Clinton administration finally authorized air strikes in 1995, and the Bosnian terror ended in a few months. Appeasement failed while American-led military action succeeded. It ended ethnic cleansing and freed people from systematic oppression and murder.
Appeasement is failing in Iraq too, where Saddam Hussein has defied 17 U.N. resolutions over 12 years. Iraq is remains in material breach of Resolution 1441, and its dictatorial leader has not been disarmed.
May the United States take action to prevent attacks--before they occur--on its territory or people?
Two months before Pearl Harbor FDR ordered the Navy to aggressively patrol the North Atlantic to defend against German submarines. He said: "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack." He was right; prevention of attacks is a sound idea.
If not America, who? If not now, when?
The UN has not disarmed Saddam. Will France? Belgium? Saudi Arabia? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam possesses VX nerve agent and probably large quantities of smallpox and anthrax as well as the capability of making much more. He also has the missiles to use them against other nations. There is no question that Saddam would use these weapons. (Why else would he be holding onto them at risk of being removed from power by the United States?). He has used some of them before, in Iran and against other Iraqis. Saddam's leading enemy--the big target--is the United States of America. He won't attack France; he'll attack us. So the risk is ours, and the responsibility is ours.
The objectives of America's security policy are first, to protect America and Americans; second, to prevent terrorist attacks against other democratic nations. Ending state sponsorship of terrorism--by Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea--goes a long way to meeting the first and second objectives. America's security objectives also call for changing the failed political culture of the Arab region.
People in these nations hate America because they envy us. Their societies have failed while democratic capitalism has succeeded. Such societies have failed in the Middle East because of a restrictive religion, the lack of education, the subjugation of their population (especially women), socialist economies and government control over of information. In their rage, subjugated people strike back at Americans and Jews, who have done much better than they have. Have we not the right to protect ourselves against such attacks--and also to address the tyranny that is their root cause?
Finally, Abraham Lincoln said there was no middle ground between freedom and slavery. Can there be a middle ground between freedom and terrorism?
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.
Oh and for what it's worth, the Russians aren't going to be dicks about the war. I read a news report today quoting President Putin as saying that although they think the war is wrong, they will not start an anti-American campaign over it. They view their relationship with us as being more important than a difference of opinion over Iraq.
quote:
Blindy McBlinderson stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Flowerpower strikes again!
I so did not expect that from you.
Very funny, though.
quote:
Suddar said this stupid crap:
1441.
Are you suggesting that the US is violating 1441? Because if you are, maybe you're not clear on what it means.
1441: Iraq must IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY surrender all Weapons of Mass Destruction, provide evidence of their destruction, give up its nuclear program, and halt the production of more WMDs or face "Serious Consequences."
Over the past twelve years, Iraq has failed to give them up. How's that for "immediately"?
As for "unconditionally", Saddam Hussein has issued several demands to the UN in exchange for cooperation.
Tell me, how is Saddam complying?
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I can at least respect Canada for not being Dicks about how they stand on this issue.
Unlike the French, Germans, and Russians.
Last report I heard (no more than about 90 seconds ago on radio) said Canada was siding with the French and Russians.
quote:
In the end the War will save lives.
Don't you think that this war could be the reason of new terrorist attacks on the US soil? Bin Laden will probably use it to show how America is the great Satan, and the ennemy of Islam and Arab nations, and it could refuel a fire that kind of died down after september 11th and the US' war on terrorism.
My second question is: Why do most americans say that this war is justified because Saddam doesn't listen to the UN, and never complies to the resolutions that the international community agrees on, whereas on the other side of the Gulf Israel, America's biggest ally in the middle east, totaly ignores the UN on just about every resolution they set to protect the Palestinian population, and nobody seems to care. Don't tell me that Sharon is any less dangerous than Saddam, Sharon has WMDs, he has very effective secret services, and I think that his policy on Palestine shows that he believes that might makes right. [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Kildace ]
It is not a flame, I am not hateful, I would really like to be able to understand
quote:
Kildace's account was hax0red to write:
Don't you think that this war could be the reason of new terrorist attacks on the US soil? Bin Laden will probably use it to show how America is the great Satan, and the ennemy of Islam and Arab nations, and it could refuel a fire that kind of died down after september 11th and the US' war on terrorism.
In my view, bin Laden didn't need an more reasons (in his own sick, twisted world view) to consider further attacks against America or American interests. It is likely, I think, that yes, more terrorist attacks are going to happen within a matter of days of any Coalition troops crossing the borders into Iraq.
But is this a reason to say that the world should sit on its hands and allow Saddam to continue on the path that he so obviously is following?
In 20 minutes, my local radio station has now taken in excess of 5000 calls 
, and 83% of the respondants are saying "Hell no, Saddam must go."
I don't like war. But I'd rather see a war now, one that is justified, than one later when it may be too late.
"Tyranny thrives when good men stand idle."
quote:
My second question is: Why do most american say that this war is justified because Saddam doesn't listen to the UN, and never complies to the resolutions that the international community agrees on, whereas on the other side of the Gulf Israel, America's biggest ally in the middle east, totaly ignores the UN on just about every resolution they set to protect the Palestinian population, and nobody seems to care. Don't tell me that Sharon is any less dangerous than Saddam, Sharon has WMDs, he has very effective secret services, and I think that his policy on Palestine shows that he believes that might makes right.
I'm prolly gunna get flaemed up the kazoo for what I'm about to say, but the following is my honest opinion (mistaken as it might be), given the little information I know about the whole situation...
The US won't take action against Israel, regardless of how many UN resolutions the Israelis break (or how many WMDs they have/use, or whether or not the Mossad still practices the assassinations of suspected terrorists) because the Jewish lobby in the US is far too strong and holds too much influence over American politics...
*ducks and covers*
quote:
Kildace had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
My second question is: Why do most american say that this war is justified because Saddam doesn't listen to the UN, and never complies to the resolutions that the international community agrees on, whereas on the other side of the Gulf Israel, America's biggest ally in the middle east, totaly ignores the UN on just about every resolution they set to protect the Palestinian population, and nobody seems to care. Don't tell me that Sharon is any less dangerous than Saddam, Sharon has WMDs, he has very effective secret services, and I think that his policy on Palestine shows that he believes that might makes right.
It is not a flame, I am not hateful, I would really like to be able to understand
Maybe because unlike the Arab countries, Israel is democratic free market country and not a religious/socialist dictatorship? Maybe because unlike Iraq even though they have weapons of mass destruction they've never used chemical weapons or fired ballistic missiles at Arab cities? Maybe because while Israel has in the past offered to trade land for peace and live with its Arab neighbors, most Arab countries deny Israel's right to exist to this very day? Maybe because the UN passes incredibly ignorant resolutions like the one equating Zionism with racism? For an organization that prides itself on being neutral and not taking sides, they sure blew that one down their leg. And finally, maybe because after 3 millennia of getting crapped on by everyone and their dog, they realize the only people they can count on are themselves?
quote:
Abbikat wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I'm prolly gunna get flaemed up the kazoo for what I'm about to say, but the following is my honest opinion (mistaken as it might be), given the little information I know about the whole situation...The US won't take action against Israel, regardless of how many UN resolutions the Israelis break (or how many WMDs they have/use, or whether or not the Mossad still practices the assassinations of suspected terrorists) because the Jewish lobby in the US is far too strong and holds too much influence over American politics...
*ducks and covers*
Added postscript..
I am not anti-Israeli. I have a lot of sympathy for the shit they go through (see list in Callalron's post, following).
I just believe that there is a significant force making sure the US looks the otherway when anyone tries to push action against Israel..
This was supposed to edit onto the end of my other post.... but I got pwned by UBB... again... [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Abbikat ]
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Mr. Crabs said:
Are you suggesting that the US is violating 1441? Because if you are, maybe you're not clear on what it means.1441: Iraq must IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY surrender all Weapons of Mass Destruction, provide evidence of their destruction, give up its nuclear program, and halt the production of more WMDs or face "Serious Consequences."
Over the past twelve years, Iraq has failed to give them up. How's that for "immediately"?
As for "unconditionally", Saddam Hussein has issued several demands to the UN in exchange for cooperation.
Tell me, how is Saddam complying?
No no, I meant exactly that.
quote:
Well for what it's worth, Jean Chretien has already come out and said that without a UN resolution, Canada will NOT be fighting in the upcoming war, something that doesn't surprise me too much.
quote:
Maradon XP had this to say about the Spice Girls:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more mportant than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."--John Stuart Mill
That's a damn handy quote.
it is, considering you flash it all the time from where you ripped it from my sig -shakes fist-
My best friend is in Kuwait. I pray for him and all the soldiers.
quote:
Suddar had this to say about Captain Planet:
No no, I meant exactly that.[QUOTE]Well for what it's worth, Jean Chretien has already come out and said that without a UN resolution, Canada will NOT be fighting in the upcoming war, something that doesn't surprise me too much.
Allrighty then! 
By the way: [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Crabs ]
I know how you feel Parce. One of my best friends is in an undisclosed location in the Middle East right now. 
quote:
Kildace spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I have a question.
I'm french, I don't hate america as much as you all seem to hate France.
I am also not against war, I understand the reasons beyond oil (because don't kid ourselves here, oil IS a reason, the US need a new oil source to be able to distance themselves from Saoudi Arabia that is a haven to Terrorists), but I have a honest question, well two questions
Correction, the middle east supplies the US with the least beneficial crude oil and least output of any of our subsidiaries foriegn and domestic. It accounts for less than 7% total. This is why we didn't just take them and keep them after Desert Storm ( We easily could have) since they are in some part at least a finacial income for the people of Iraq. Argentina is our largest and most important foreign supplier of crude oil which is superior in every way to the middle eastern import crude. This is also negating the fact that over 85% of the well's right here in Dallas remain functional, and handle the stockpile of the for any US shortages. We are also currently working on resolutions for Alaska (Also a domestic controled provider) which should soon go underway. Oil is nothing, blaming oil as being in anyway a reason for us going to war is uneducated and wrong. Oil is more a reason for France, Germany, and Russia for staying OUT of the war since they signed deals after Desert Storm and previous too for cheaper prices and a better deal. France and Germany have serious vested interests in Iraqi crude. The US has none. Bad case point to make a stand against war there.
quote:
Don't you think that this war could be the reason of new terrorist attacks on the US soil? Bin Laden will probably use it to show how America is the great Satan, and the ennemy of Islam and Arab nations, and it could refuel a fire that kind of died down after september 11th and the US' war on terrorism.
Wrong again, Terrorism from that part of the world was going on well before most people here at EC were even born, and some of the worst happened the year before I was born in 1974 all throughout the 80's. They don't need reason to attack, they don't need provokation. They are going to do it anyway, to ELIMINATE the threat, or at least cause som pest control, in that area of the world is even all the MORE reason to go to war. Since it is US "fairness" and Presidential/Political fear of foreign and domestic opinion on violence that has kept the US from taking much of a firm hand against the poeples of these nations. Which has of course led them to years of practice, buildup, anger, and planning to become as bad as they are today.. It is BECAUSE the US has been 'too' NICE to these people for over 3 decades that things are as bad as they are today. Left unchecked, they will only get worse, as has been proven, again, over the last 3+ decades. Bad point to make a peace statement on too.
quote:
My second question is: Why do most americans say that this war is justified because Saddam doesn't listen to the UN, and never complies to the resolutions that the international community agrees on, whereas on the other side of the Gulf Israel, America's biggest ally in the middle east, totaly ignores the UN on just about every resolution they set to protect the Palestinian population, and nobody seems to care. Don't tell me that Sharon is any less dangerous than Saddam, Sharon has WMDs, he has very effective secret services, and I think that his policy on Palestine shows that he believes that might makes right.
It is not a flame, I am not hateful, I would really like to be able to understand
Call ansewered this one better than I could.
quote:
Tarquinn impressed everyone with:
Sorry Tarquinn, I like ya, and I like Germany (Lived there was beautiful, even have a hand carved Bar by a German Artisan. )
But both France and Germany have been dicks about the whole Issue.
France even came out and so far as said, " We don't care what you propose, or what reasons you give. We are going to veto it anyway." Almost litterally.
And for the record, I abor violence, and am very pacifistic, but unlike Ghandi I know and understand unlike most of these anti-war hippie protestors (Specific types mind you, mostly these ignorant kids who don't have a clue the "OMG Bush=Hitler!" ones) that you can only sit under a tree and wave your peace flag for so long before you're really full of shit.. and they don't make a laxative strong enough.
Our place is not in Iraq right now.
quote:
Nicole probably says this to all the girls:
All I will say is that I am happy with Canada's place in this.Our place is not in Iraq right now.
Nations, historically, who have taken that stance and said that in conflicts such as this have been quickly invaded and torn apart for several years..
Of course Canada doesn't have to worry too much, because they'd have to go through the US to get there...
Canada probally won't be invaded.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris impressed everyone with:
Nations, historically, who have taken that stance and said that in conflicts such as this have been quickly invaded and torn apart for several years..Of course Canada doesn't have to worry too much, because they'd have to go through the US to get there...
'zactly.
Canada just isn't a giant military power. In Iraq, we'd be of little to no use; we'd rather keep our military at home for the minor crises that pop up now and again here, and honestly... I'm kinda happy Canada isn't a military power. We've got a lot of land to cover here, and not a lot of people, so we don't have as much free money to pump into it, and I'd rather see it go into health care and such. Plus the fact that a LOT of our citizens don't support the war in Iraq, and... yeah.
As said, our place right now isn't in Iraq. Note I didn't say we have no place there at all.
If Canada dosen't help out after the war I will be very disappointed in my country. That's our place... to help those who have suffered due to the war and to aid the setup of a political system there that bloody well works. Honestly... I see much talk of an Iraqi regime change, and that's not bad, but little talk about what that regime will change into.
Of course, I'm, like, really naive and don't watch the news... my two cents, at least. Right now, I'm happy with our stance.
quote:
Kinanik wrote this stupid crap:
This is Canada we're talking about.Canada probally won't be invaded.
Yup 
.
No one's standing around in the middle of the desert going "CANADA... CANADA IS SATAN!!"
If it wasn't for the US, most countries of the world would not have advanced as well as they have, and they will not function as well at all without us. If the US falls, either slowly by homeland attacks through terrorism, or quickly in a war. The rest of the world will crumble, at least for a very long while, with us.
It's also funny that Countries that are backing out from us, or turning thier backs on us are all countries that litterally would be stuck in utter destruction if it wasn't for us.
Germany. WE rebuilt Germany, like it or not, it's the truth. After WWII and Hitler was removed, it was economic aid, and social reform fronted by the US that rebuilt Germany. France is the same. Also the countries who we have aided when they cried over causes less severe, with less change of a horrible outcome if they went unchecked, or just whined, with military or financial aid now turn away when thier is a SERIOUS threat to the entire world bordering on a rise. A shitload of the US National Debt is from 'loaning' money to foriegn aid which has to this day not been repaid, at all. Germany being the biggest one. France again being in that list, and Russia to a smaller degree.
Sorry, I may not agree with Bush on a lot of things, but some of the things he said were right. Nobody is willing to help us, so it's time we helped ourselves and quit helping so many others. Americans will take care of Americans, and we will remember those who came to OUR aid for a change.
And US may be the Unofficial and self appointed world police. But without us, if someone wants to invade most of the nations that are backing out and ignoring the whole thing, will most definitely be easy prey. Especially if the US falls first.
My little sister brought up a point the other day that I had to correct her (sorta) on.
"I bet if Clinton were president, we wouldnt be at war right now"
I told her, 'How do you know, Melissa? Clinton wasnt president when the trade towers fell in ruin because of the terrorist attacks. You dont know how he would react unless he was actually president so you cant just say that we wouldnt be at war. That attack was a huge blow to our nation in terms of civilians.. to say that the US wouldnt respond is being very naieve about it."
I think I got that through her head but it is true. You can only push people so far before they reach that breaking point. Personally.. I think that Bush is handling it very well.. he has tried the peace approach.. but in the end.. Saddam isnt going to change his stripes. He is what he is and there is no budging him on it.
Fae is right.. Tyrrany.. if left unchecked.. can be devastating. Remember Pearl Harbor? The United States stand on this was keep to ourselves and our own affairs. Stay out of WWII.. what happened? Japan attacked us and 'awoke a sleeping giant'.. fortunately we had a military to back us up but Id honestly hate to think about what would happen to countries like Canada and Russia should America and our allies begin to falter in this coming war. =(
I dont like war either.. but at the same time I dont like the fact that I have to worry about a possible attack on our own soil. Pearl Harbor was a military attack.. 9/11 wasnt.. huge arse difference there. Ever since 9/11.. I havent felt safe at all during my time in Jersey.. moving back home to El Paso still wont make me feel any safer.
*hops off her soapbox and wanders out*
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Sorry Tarquinn, I like ya, and I like Germany (Lived there was beautiful, even have a hand carved Bar by a German Artisan.)
But both France and Germany have been dicks about the whole Issue.
quote:
France even came out and so far as said, " We don't care what you propose, or what reasons you give. We are going to veto it anyway." Almost litterally.
[ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]
quote:
Tarquinn enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
quote:
Fae said this too:
Germany. WE rebuilt Germany, like it or not, it's the truth. After WWII and Hitler was removed, it was economic aid, and social reform fronted by the US that rebuilt Germany. France is the same. Also the countries who we have aided when they cried over causes less severe, with less change of a horrible outcome if they went unchecked, or just whined, with military or financial aid now turn away when thier is a SERIOUS threat to the entire world bordering on a rise. A shitload of the US National Debt is from 'loaning' money to foriegn aid which has to this day not been repaid, at all. Germany being the biggest one. France again being in that list, and Russia to a smaller degree.
^_^
[ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]
And that "SERIOUS threat for the whole world" part is just laughable.
Hussein may be is a threat for his own population. And in a few years(like ten) he may a threat for his neighbors. But for the whole world?!
Sorry.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Tarquinn said:
How's that different from saying,"We don't care about the resolutions or votes. We are going to attack anyway"?
Big difference in that we have not been harboring terrorist reform, and ignoring political agenda and UN resolutions, demands for the last decade. While Saddam has lied to, cheated on, killied his own people to cover up, as well as continued to do exactly what he was ordered NOT to do over a decade ago.
And ALSO concidering the fact we GAVE The UN every opportunity to settle this diplomatically, and they got nothing accomplished except to uncover even MORE weapons and an arsenal that Saddam lied about having. Hell even when Bush finnaly DID say, okay we are coming to kick your ass if Saddam doesn't get out he gave the bastard 48 hours to get out of Iraq in order to avert war. Yeah.. We are unreasonable.. go us.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Faelynn LeAndris said:
Big difference in that we have not been harboring terrorist reform, and ignoring political agenda and UN resolutions, demands for the last decade. While Saddam has lied to, cheated on, killied his own people to cover up, as well as continued to do exactly what he was ordered NOT to do over a decade ago.And ALSO concidering the fact we GAVE The UN every opportunity to settle this diplomatically, and they got nothing accomplished except to uncover even MORE weapons and an arsenal that Saddam lied about having. Hell even when Bush finnaly DID say, okay we are coming to kick your ass if Saddam doesn't get out he gave the bastard 48 hours to get out of Iraq in order to avert war.
Yeah.. We are unreasonable.. go us.
Er, guess I wasn't clear enough.
I meant France, not the Iraq.
How is what the US government doing different from what the french government is doing?
Except for the fact the US goverment isn't follwing the rules it is trying to enforce?
[ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Suddar ]
quote:
Suddar had this to say about Robocop:
This isn't about diplomacy! It's about OIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLL
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwww
No, Bush is an altruist, didn't you know?
He's just thinking of the children.
quote:
Tarquinn's fortune cookie read:
Er, guess I wasn't clear enough.
I meant France, not the Iraq.
How is what the US government doing different from what the french government is doing?
Except for the fact the US goverment isn't follwing the rules it is trying to enforce?
Because the French started out saying that, and have been against any action allowing force since this started, and said as much. We at least tried diplomatic routes, and followed peacefully for a while behind the UN. The French havn't supported anything proposed from the US or it's allies, we at least tried.
Germany no so much so, but they were almost as bad. Russia was the most decent about thier withdrawl. The rest of the world pretty much either agree's with the US, or is staying nuetral until they see who is gonna come out on top before they make thier bets.
After everything we have done for the French and Germans, it's more a we helped you for things less important and severe, and now you turn your backs on us, kinda thing.
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about pies:
And that "SERIOUS threat for the whole world" part is just laughable.
Husseinmay beis a threat for his own population. And in a few years(like ten) he may a threat for his neighbors. But for the whole world?!
Sorry.
Let's see. What facts are we ignoring here?
Fact : Iraq HAS the missiles. If they didn't, what were they destroying to appease the security counsel? Ask yourself how many Saddam had and how many of those are left after those he destroyed. Don't know the answer? Neither does the UN.
Fact : Iraq has cluster bombs capable of spreading chemical and/or biological agents over a wide area. He also has the drone aircraft capable of dropping said bombs.
Fact : Iraq has used chemical and biological agents against Iran in the past. How much of those does he still have? Enough for biological attacks?
And the ties between Saddam and terrorism. here's a man who's been PROVEN to have such weapons, who's had ties with terrorist organisations such as the Taliban. The group that held no reservations about slamming planes into our skyscrapers. Let's think about what happens when they get their hands on some bigger toys. Hmmm. Fun thinking material there.
Y'know Tarquinn, I think you're right. I think Saddam poses no threat to the world. Let's just call off this silly little war and let him do whatever he pleases. That'll really work out great ^_^ [ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Khyron ]
quote:
Tarquinn wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Khyron: Yeah, I've read that.
So we're never again allowed to disagree with the US government because they helped us?
Cool.
And that "SERIOUS threat for the whole world" part is just laughable.
Husseinmay beis a threat for his own population. And in a few years(like ten) he may a threat for his neighbors. But for the whole world?!
Sorry.
Yeah and Hitler was an okay guy, so Europe left him alone... Guess what happened?
Saddam is as much the threat Hitler was, and I state again. At least we KNEW how far Hitler's reach was. Irag supports NUMEROUS Terrorist networks, not ALL of which we are entirely sure about. We STILL don't know just how heavy his arsenal REALLY is, because why? Because he has lied, hidden, and covered up everything he could for the last 12 years. To say he is not a world threat is both niave, and ignorant.
It's a lot different to watch a wild dog from behind an iron cage than it is one where you don't actually know how contained the cage really is.
Oh, and by the way Tarq, he already has the arsenal to destroy his neighbors. He has had for quite a while, it's part of how he was able to cower so many. Give him ten years unchecked, and I can almost guarantee he'd be globally capable.
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
No, Bush is an altruist, didn't you know?
He's just thinking of the children.
The US sure loves its oil! Specially down in Texas!
YEEHAW
quote:
Bajah wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
[QUOTE]Lenny was listening to Cher while typing:
[qb]fake Saddam's voice
How dare you use my name in vain! Shame on you man!
Ozius
