whoa! just found this on pbnation!

[TigerMan]

Originally posted by irbodden


We are talking about North Korea, he was searching for their Nuclear program up until 1998 and found nothing. When we all know now, they have a thriving nuclear program being devolped.

N.Korea probably did the same thing to inspectors that Iraq did with weapon inspectors that were there before '98. Inspectors come in one door, weapons went out the other. They'd simply move their weapons anytime weapons inspectors got close, that's why nothing was found really (at least from what I heard and have been told nothing was found the first go). When you have an entire country and a small group of inspectors, it's not going to be hard to hide something as long as it's mobile, which is what Iraq did, and most likely what N.Korea did.

[mag-hatter]

did anyone hear that 4 more of those warhead things have been uncovered? iraq admitted to having them yesterday. those idiots. they are being very stuborn. they signed like 2938 treaties saying they didnt have stuff like this and now they're coming out about it.

[aaron_mag]

Democracy works through participation and accepting the results. Those that say the UN has no power are correct if the US will not abide by the rules of the UN. Members of the SC have veto power. It is thought that France might veto a joint a renewed war with Iraq while China might veto an attack on N. Korea.

We were key in setting up the UN but we can't force them to be a puppet of our nation. We might be able to resolve things without attacking Iraq. I think they are starting to give more concessions. I hope for no war in Iraq. One strange thing is that Bush's forceful stance in spoiling for a fight might actually lead to a peaceful (relatively) resolution. It seems to be scaring them into compliance.

Oh and I am sick of Bush's speeches about the role of faith in government. He is opening a can of worms there that if he was smart (which by the way he is not) he would not want to touch.

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by lopxtc
Actually I believe it translates to ...

"All your base are belong to us!!!"

Oh come on I know I wasnt the only one thinking this.

Aaron

Of more relevance, I think you are slightly off and it becomes:

"Someone set us up the bomb!"

[bowser************]

before we let your counry drift out to the ocean and be nuked until all the hot pockets in the world come pre cooked

i like hot pockets, the ham and cheese ones r good

[joeyjoe367]

The bottom Reads "Begginning with the Americans, We will destroy"

The top reads "If they attack us"

Yes, I'm Korean. I wish the US would take initiative and unify Korea via force.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh


I'll try to dig up the article that says that over 5,300 Iraqi Children die each Month from preventable diseases and other things that can be helped with the lifting of our sanctions... yet we wonder why they don't like us?

and I'll post all the pictures you want of his OWN FRIGGING PEOPLE GASSED TO DEATH.

[Koosh]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


and I'll post all the pictures you want of his OWN FRIGGING PEOPLE GASSED TO DEATH.

I'll never deny that Saddam is a bad guy... hell he's right up there with Hitler when human rights violations come up. He even has men on his payroll whose only job is to RAPE women! Whether it is just a fear tactic, or he is trying to get information from the men they are married too, it is just disgusting what he does to his people.

The sanctions thing I brought up was to show that our policies are really not effecting Huessein himself, just all the poor people that make up Iraq. But even that information was a little biased seeing as how I got it from a VERY political type website...

[Collegeboy]

First, to Saddam, he did not gas his own people. He and Iran gassed Kurds, which are not considered Iraqis, but are actually considered as terrorist. But lets not get in how Saddam got the gas, that would be a huge debate waiting to happen.

Also I don't think anyone is saying that Saddam doesn't need to be put out. But by doing it by war you will not accomplishing anything. All you will do is to add to the hatred of the US, add to the number of terrorism, and just be back in a couple of years after the newly installed government gets overthrown for their being too western. Instability will swipe through the nation. A fundamentalist will come to power, and guess where we are back at. You guessed it square one.

By arguing that Saddam needs to be taken down, you are not saying anything new. You need to find out why we must do it by war.

[Jack_Dubious]

I just dont understand some of the reasoning behind certain justifications for the invasion of Iraq...

1. Weapons of mass destruction
I mean with the defeat of the gulf war, enforcement of the no-fly zones, sanctions, our technological abilities(spy satellites, etc), and Israeli intelligence.....Iraq has been able to keep up thier weapons research for the last 10 years??
People have said that the government knows much more than they are letting out to the public, and I agree with that. They definately know more than they talk about....but at least you could give some hints to UN weapon inspectors..

"pssst hey dude...check out the baby milk factory, on the corner of Baghdad Blvd and 7th St"

2. UN Resolutions
How many UN resolutions has Israel violated?

3. Terrorist Supporter
Theres been a real lack of evidence that Iraq has helped support terrorists that have attacked the US. Iraq is a pretty secular country. The terrorists are quite fundamental in thier beliefs. I dont buy the idea that Osama and Saddam are golfing buddies. Its like saying the KKK and The Salvation Army help each other out, just cause they are both Christian groups.
If i was looking for countries that support terrorists I would look to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc. How many Iraqis attacked the WTC?

4. Save the Oppressed People
Is Saddam a bad guy? Yeah he probably is, most people of power in a relatively non-democratic system, are. Would his people benefit from his removal? That is really hard to judge. Collegeboy is right about how things could just go back to the way they were. Different guy, same tyrant. What I want to know is how come close to a million people can get hacked to death in Africa and you dont see squat about it?

Am I missing any other important reasons to invade Iraq?

JDub

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
3. Terrorist Supporter
Theres been a real lack of evidence that Iraq has helped support terrorists that have attacked the US. Iraq is a pretty secular country. The terrorists are quite fundamental in thier beliefs. I dont buy the idea that Osama and Saddam are golfing buddies. Its like saying the KKK and The Salvation Army help each other out, just cause they are both Christian groups.
If i was looking for countries that support terrorists I would look to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc. How many Iraqis attacked the WTC?

I'm going to have to disagree with that. If saddam had the education of a 3rd grader (which I also have ) terrorism is EXACTLY how he would go about attacking the US. Gee, he gets all his anti-US objectives completed without having to have his face tacked onto the incident. How convenient.

On another note, think about World-War I and II. How did they start? Because nations were being too complacent. They only joined in when the conflict became much too close to home. What'll happen if we let Iraq or North Korea sit there and do whatever it is they want? We need to act.

As for civilian casualties that will be a byproduct of war, all I have to say is "Better them than us". I know it sounds harsh and you might ask me how I can put a price on someone else's life, but let me ask you this: Would you trade your own life for the life of an Iraqi? or a North Korean? let's be honest. I wouldn't.

You say that once Saddaam is gone, he'll be replaced with someone worse. Like I said... would you rather just sit there? Diplomacy is deffinatly not working. We need to ACT.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh


I'll never deny that Saddam is a bad guy... hell he's right up there with Hitler when human rights violations come up. He even has men on his payroll whose only job is to RAPE women! Whether it is just a fear tactic, or he is trying to get information from the men they are married too, it is just disgusting what he does to his people.

The sanctions thing I brought up was to show that our policies are really not effecting Huessein himself, just all the poor people that make up Iraq. But even that information was a little biased seeing as how I got it from a VERY political type website...

I'd agree with that.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367


I'm going to have to disagree with that. If saddam had the education of a 3rd grader (which I also have ) terrorism is EXACTLY how he would go about attacking the US. Gee, he gets all his anti-US objectives completed without having to have his face tacked onto the incident. How convenient.

I would tend to disagree, due to the fact I dont believe that terrorism would help Saddam. For instance, look at 9/11....if there was no 9/11 would we be mobilizing troops right now? Would there be any support for any kind of military action in the middle east? I really dont think so.
If there had been any any shred of evidence that Iraq had supported 9/11, we would have leveled Iraq last year.(and i would have fully supported it) Terrorism wouldnt help Iraq, it would just piss off America into action.
The fact is attacking the American populace directly is a big mistake.(just ask Japan) I dont think Saddam is that stupid. Hey he won the Gulf War didnt he?

Now religious fanatics...they are a different story...they are following the Word of God...

JDub



ps-But I agree about North Korea...we really need to do something about them.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious

If there had been any any shred of evidence that Iraq had supported 9/11, we would have leveled Iraq last year.(and i would have fully supported it) Terrorism wouldnt help Iraq, it would just piss off America into action.

Have to agree with this statement. People in power have two goals. First to keep their power and second to expand their power. Those in Afghanistan were directly helping terrorism by not handing over Osama bin Laden and now they are gone. This lesson probably hasn't been lost on other nations. I think Saddam is probably concerned with the first aspect (keeping power) rather than expanding it. After the last gulf war he has to realize that his military might is nothing compared to the combined United Nations (most prevalently the US).

I don't have a problem with a second war with Iraq but personally I'd like to see the US work within the framework of the United Nations. We were instrumental in setting it up and we should work within it.

[PolishSausage]

Re: and MY thread gets closed for this!

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
My views: I am an 18 year old college freshman, so please take my opinions as you wish. I haven't been out to see the world, so that could contribute to my ignorance

Clinton: Whats all the fuss about him? I believe the whole lewinsky thing wasn't that big of a deal. The President lied to a question that should not have been asked, and then everything blew up after that.

I STILL belive that misdirecting America's anger from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida to Saddam and Iraq was one of the biggest feats in history. Bush let america forget that we are still in Afghanistan and many other countries at this moment so he could try to get his popularity points up. Going after a weakened Iraq was a good way to get americans on his side. We will be doing the world good by getting rid of Saddam, yes, but war isn't the way to do it. And then who comes in after saddam? Its not like we are just going to remove Saddam from power, then let the country go. Whats going to happen is the US and UN is going to be investing Millions into setting up a new government, which in all honesty might not work. Hows that for the economy?



Hans Blixs is a very smart guy. He knows what he's doing. He is collecting all the evidence and then is going to report on it to the UN. If he were to tell us EVERYTHING he knows about EVERYTHING in Iraq, it very well might cause mass histeria in the rest of the world. Other things need to happen first, like the mobilizing of a UN security force. I don't really know about that though, those are just my guessings... Those who say the UN is weak should really learn about them. The UN isn't a war machine, they work for peace.

The UN is also not the US's puppet. They don't have to agree with EVERYTHING we do and say. That is what makes it great, it favors no nation over another. In the General Assembly every country has 1 vote. Only in the Security council does the US get SOME power over the others. There are 15 countries in the SC, 5 permanent with 10 countries rotating. I belive the 5 permanent members are Russia, US, France, Britain, and Canada, but I don't know 100%

But these are just my opinions...take them how you will

Let me start by saying :Mods's don't be jerks and close the thread because you don't like the debate going on, that'd be real mature

Iraq, weak? Where the heck have to been? I guess you think Afghanistan was weak too, oh, but that was before they killed 3,000 Americans.

Blixs is an idiot and should be canned. He's done nothing, other than try to hide evidence, for the Security Counsil as far as the US/Iraq situation goes. He is a weak kneed liberal who will do anything to save face and not have to actually do something for the first time and stop a threat to all nations, not just the US.

Liberals are the terrorists of America. Their weak knee'd policy and out looks are what has turned this country soft. I mean, sueing people over celebrating christmas, whilst at the same time
protecting some murderer in prisons right to an education.

Almost everything that is wrong in America the liberals have had their grubby little mits on