tattoes on neck and face != army?

[Xerces]

hooray for when i knew DOS commands. i remember reffering to win 2.8/3.1 and having people ask me waht that was.

halb, he does pose a threat. as soon as he is able to get as many nukes as he can operating, hes going to blow the hell out of israel(our buddies)which is why we need to stop him while we can, which means finding his weps so we can go after him.

[mag-hatter]

Originally posted by halB

and hatter, its not a question of whether or not he has the weapons, he probably does, the question is does he pose a threat? while we leave him alone the answer is no. he wants to stay in power. there are other countries out there that HAVE the weapons and that pose a much, much larger threat. yet we seem to be ignoring them for some reason...

im with bush on this one. i mean, this country has nukes, and is about to make more. so are some asian countries. BUT the reason we are going after him first is the terrorist network. if we cripple saddam we cripple terrorism.

[halB]

cripple terrorism? most terrorists are islamic, and muslims hate saddam. they jsut hate him. open ur eyes, theres only one reason why we're going after saddam ahead of the other countries, which we know have nukes.

[AcemanPB]

I know we shouldn't be having a political debate on these forums but I have to throw my opinion in...

I personally don't think Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. Bush claims he knows exactly where Sadam's hidding them, but it's a secert . While I don't know if Sadam should be rulling over a country or not, I certinally know that he is not nearly as "insane" as the media makes him out to be. Really the main reason I think King George II is going after Iraq is too finish up what his daddy, King George I, couldn't do.


EDIT - Bush is just using the "weapons of mass destruction" and "terroirsm" cards to get over into those country and I think the rest of the world getting tired of this. We trample through so many other countries then wonder why the feel so strongly agianst us...

[1stdeadeye]

Huh?

Originally posted by halB
cripple terrorism? most terrorists are islamic, and muslims hate saddam. they jsut hate him. open ur eyes, theres only one reason why we're going after saddam ahead of the other countries, which we know have nukes.

Saddam is Muslim!!
Gotta call you on this HalB. Get your facts straight. Not all Muslims hate Saddam. Islam has different sects, Shiite and Sunni. The sects hate each other. I can't remember which Saddam is, but the southern no-fly zone in Iraq protects the other group which is the minority in Iraq. The difference in Islamic Sects was one of the many causes of the Iran-Iraq conflict.
Think of Islam like Christianity. Both have different versions of basically the same religion.
State your personal opinion as such, don't try to justify it with garbage, or someone will call you on it!

P.S. Quoting the Sierra Club on environmental issues as gospel is kind of like asking Handgun Control, Inc. for hard numbers on handgun statistics. Remember figures don't lie, but liars can figure!

[1stdeadeye]

You're killing me!

Originally posted by AcemanPB
I know we shouldn't be having a political debate on these forums but I have to throw my opinion in...

I personally don't think Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. Bush claims he knows exactly where Sadam's hidding them, but it's a secert . While I don't know if Sadam should be rulling over a country or not, I certinally know that he is not nearly as "insane" as the media makes him out to be. Really the main reason I think King George II is going after Iraq is too finish up what his daddy, King George I, couldn't do.


EDIT - Bush is just using the "weapons of mass destruction" and "terroirsm" cards to get over into those country and I think the rest of the world getting tired of this. We trample through so many other countries then wonder why the feel so strongly agianst us...

Where to start....
Saddam supports terrorism and has admitted such. Fact: Saddam sends money to the families of Palestinian Suicide Bombers! This money helps to perpetuate the circle of violence over there. How many fewer bombers would there be if the would be murderers knew that their act would ruin their family instead of set them up for life.
FACT: Saddam used chemical warfare agents against the Kurds in northern Iraq! Saddam had to get those weapons somewhere. Think he still has some left?

Are you willing to take a chance that the next terrorist attack will impact your family or friends? I live in Jersey and we felt the impact of 9/11 first hand. Live in a glass tower if you want, but don't cry when someone knocks it down with a mighty big brick.

Finally, George H.W. Bush could not take Saddam out. His mandate from the UN was to free Kuwait, which he did in 100 hours! Don't you think he would have gone after Saddam if he could? The 1st President Bush did what the UN agreed to do. The 2nd President Bush is now enforcing what the UN has mandated!

P.S. I am not some arch-conservative republican. I am a Democrat with a bit of Common Sense!

[TransMan]

The one thing about the Islamic people hating each other is ofcourse true.They have hated each other for a LONG time and will most likely always hate each other. The thing is they all Hate us alot more then they hate each other so they are willing to help each other out if it means that we or our allies are being screwd.

The thing about the US not doing anything about north korea i have a feeling they are doing somthin. The media just doesnt care about that right now cause Iraq gets more viewers so they make more money.

[AcemanPB]

FACT: Saddam used chemical warfare agents against the Kurds in northern Iraq! Saddam had to get those weapons somewhere. Think he still has some left?

It's not like we haven't used chemical warfare before. So are you saying America is the only country that should be allowed with chemical weapons? I am fairly sure Sadam doesn't have any chemical weapons left, and even if he does is it really a threat to us?

Are you willing to take a chance that the next terrorist attack will impact your family or friends? I live in Jersey and we felt the impact of 9/11 first hand. Live in a glass tower if you want, but don't cry when someone knocks it down with a mighty big brick.

By going over and stomping through Iraq we create more of a threat then if we just left him and Iraq alone. The UN weapons inspectors found nothing, and I'm fairly sure Bush doesn't know anything either. I'm just saying we shouldn't be sticking our noses where it doesn't belong, America has had a bad habbit of this.

After reading this thread over, I hope everyone understands that all the terroist aren't from the middle east. Alot of people seem to believe the center of all terroist is the middle east and if we "take out" the middle east then we are terroist free.

I've done countless hours of reasearch on this and from what I found many countries have good reasons to hate the United States (although this doesn't justify any type of terroirst attacks)

:)

[Rooster]

You are wrong on both accounts. The whole US has nukes, so everyone should have them is BS pure and simple. Are children allowed to buy handguns? What about the mentally ill? Just becuase country A has something, doesn't mean country b should be allowed to have it.

Second a full invasion of Iraq will not solve its problems instantly, but it will solve a great many of them. Only pacifists beleive nothing can be accomplished by war. The simple fact is, war works. It gets things accomplished. Yes its horrible, but its as much a part of the human race as breathing oxygen.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Rooster
The simple fact is, war works. It gets things accomplished. Yes its horrible, but its as much a part of the human race as breathing oxygen.

Good point! We should just forget diplomacy entirely! Maybe this enlightened foriegn policy will spread to all the other countries in the world and we can blow each other to oblivion.

I actually believe in a strong military. There is a time when there is no other option but to rely on force of arms. You, however, seem to be suggesting it as a first alternative rather than a last alternative.

[oldsoldier]

Did everyone just ignore my posts? Removing Saddam goes a long way to stabilizng the whole region. Iran wants war...they want to take a second stab at Iraq. Removing him will allow a more liberal govt to step in. Not a western one, but one more tolerant of their neighbors. Fact; Saddam modernized health care in the mideast. Fact; Iraq has one of the most lenient views toward women. He started off ok...but the power went to his head. In the past 10 years the following has happened; he killed his son in law in a meeting; he killed an informant that gave us secrets about his nuclear program. He accom.plished thid by offering the guy millions of dollars and a complete pardon when he returned to Iraq. Fact; he was found shot in the head. Fact; he gassed thousands of Kurds, who live in squalor because of their ethnicity. Fact; he failed to provide his military, in a time of war, with the proper means to fight. No food, no water, little ammo. He told them Allah would see them through. Fact; he tortured and killed captive allied soldiers and pilots during and immediately after the gulf war. We still have one pilot missing. Fact; he denied, to the UN and to the US that he had ANY WMDs, yet was found with them. Immediately after, the inspectors were kicked out of the country.
So, you tell me; should this man be allowed to stay in power? Do we need another cold war? Can we afford it? War is pretty much the only answer now. Diplomacy has failed. It doesnt work when one party continually lies and deceives the other. People really need to read up on subjects before they post about this stuff. I'll say it again; this conflict has gone on for hundreds of years. It is a very complex situation, one that has to be dealt with on many different levels. The UN limited us severly in the gulf war. Our mission was the liberation of Kuwait. That was all. We fully expected Saddam's regime to fall within the year. The Clinton came in, and tried to make nicey nicey. Ten years of diplomacy didnt work. Should he get another ten? Where do you think we'll be then? He is a thorn in the side of humanity that needs to be removed.
And, I think Saddam is Shiite. I believe thats the dominant religion in Iraq.

[Rooster]

"Good point! We should just forget diplomacy entirely! Maybe this enlightened foriegn policy will spread to all the other countries in the world and we can blow each other to oblivion.

I actually believe in a strong military. There is a time when there is no other option but to rely on force of arms. You, however, seem to be suggesting it as a first alternative rather than a last alternative."

Diplomacy only postpones war, it doesn't stop it. Its just another tactic for one country to gain dominance over another by forcing them into an agreement they have no intension of accepting. They only exception is when the ruling party of a nation that signed the treaty is out. Ask North Korea just how much a treaty is really worth.

[1stdeadeye]

Dead wrong!

Originally posted by AcemanPB


It's not like we haven't used chemical warfare before. So are you saying America is the only country that should be allowed with chemical weapons? I am fairly sure Sadam doesn't have any chemical weapons left, and even if he does is it really a threat to us?:)

Name one time the United States used chemical warfare! It has never happened. Even during WWI, when the Germans, French, and British used Mustard Gas, the United States didn't. We also have never used chemical warfare on our own citizens! Yes the United States has a stockpile of chemical warfare agents in Aberdeen, MD, but we have never used them. Saddam has!!

Maybe you should be a UN weapons inspector since you are fairly sure he doesn't have any left.

He isn't a direct threat to the US mainland with those weapons, but the groups he could transfer them to are!!

I would love to see you post your "research" sources. Did you use the Sierra Club too?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Rooster
Diplomacy only postpones war, it doesn't stop it. Its just another tactic for one country to gain dominance over another by forcing them into an agreement they have no intension of accepting. They only exception is when the ruling party of a nation that signed the treaty is out. Ask North Korea just how much a treaty is really worth.

According to your logic we should have fought it out with the USSR (back when it was in existence). Forget all this diplomacy and cold war stuff. We should have just launched away since it was only delaying the inevitable. News flash for you....it wasn't inevitable was it?

Originally posted by Oldsoldier
So, you tell me; should this man be allowed to stay in power? Do we need another cold war? Can we afford it? War is pretty much the only answer now. Diplomacy has failed. It doesnt work when one party continually lies and deceives the other. People really need to read up on subjects before they post about this stuff. I'll say it again; this conflict has gone on for hundreds of years. It is a very complex situation, one that has to be dealt with on many different levels. The UN limited us severly in the gulf war.

Yeah it is a pain to work with the UN. You've got to get a consensus amoung the nations etc. You know what else is a real pain and limiting factor is democracy. It is much more effective to have one person decide everything without having to deal with all this voting and stuff (note sarcasm).

Don't tell us that we need to read up on stuff because some of us still want to work within the frame work of the UN. Note that we had a major hand in setting up the United Nations. Can we not follow the wishes of our forefathers?

[oldsoldier]

Well, the US doesnt need the "blessing" of the UN to do anything. However, acting without their consent makes us look like imerialists. And besides, we dont need the whole UN approval; only the 5 permanent members. Thats all. And the only one who always dissents is France. However, even they recognize the Iraq problem. So, we have UN backing to do what needs to be done. Bush is currently in the process of innoculating 500,000 US troops. Military action is inevitable. But, I think we are SERIOUSLY getting off topic here.