Well.... every day its another warning, last night they had till noon... what is it today? I am not in favor of anybodies sons or daughters fighting or dying, but enough is enough. What amount of political bullshit will extinguish this problem?


Did i hear correctly that the inspectors found chemical weapon disbursement devices? empty ones? That is not conclusive proof? Thats like finding a gun with no bullets and saying it isnt a threat.


The U.N. is an ineffective platform for political masturbation on a global scale. Does it accomplish anything? even its "relief efforts" get fucked up.


I say do away with the U.N.

my favorite thing about this is that we want to go to war but we have no reason to do so.

this reminds me of mccarthyism.. no evidence = you must be hiding it too well??

i guess if my daddy was president and somebody tried to assasinate him i'd be a little upset too.

oh well. i have a couple little islands picked out if all hell breaks loose...

argh.

Hooper,

i think that is a wrong analogy. There is wrongdoing here. Complete disregard for rules made by the united nations 11 years ago. Flat out lines in the dirt that we said could not be crossed. It would be tantamount to japan building an army in 1955. These rules were made to keep the threat of biological, chemical or nuclear warfare to a minimumin a region that is not only severely unstable, but controls the lifeblood of the world.



For now 11 years, these rules have been broken, yet the punishment not enforced. our planes are shot at, no fly zones are broken every day. and the continued push towards production of the above mentioned Weapons of mass destruction, has violated every sanction imposed by the UN, yet the UN refuses to back it unilaterally. At what point is it time to stop hiding their eyes from it. They are like a battered woman, afraid to follow through.



IF the U.N. does not back up its sanctions, rules and punishment with enforcement of said rules, then it is a spineless organization with no future, a boy who cried wolf that will be ineffective in anything in the future.


The world is behind this effort, the only holdouts are those whos immediate economic future might be tight (germany, france).

Grimm

I have mixed feelings regarding a war. I don't think Bush has done a very good job of explaining to the public or other nations as to how Iraq constitutes a big enough threat to the US to attack. This doesn't mean there isn't a good enough reason.

The coming declassification of documents from the Bush administration that purport to show evidence of concealed weapons and evidence weapons programs will be interesting.

A country should always act in it's best interest and sometimes that will mean attacking a nation that hasn't necessarily "deserved it". This may not seem "fair" but might IS right. Survival of the fittest nation. I fully support war in the event the administration decides it is the best choice.

Hooper,
That McCarthism reference shows that you are part of that Liberal establishment that McCarthy was after.

As for the warnings thing...I guess I've heard a little more than most people. I know, for instance, that Germany and France have been deeply involved in Iraq's nuclear program; and that both have been buying 'bootleg' oil (oil sold in violation of UN sanctions) for years.

The UN? Examine it closely. If you are a REAL American (not a fifth-columnist), you will come to the conclusion that it is a toothless paper tiger depending on the US to give it credibility and a home. Its' reason for existence is now to bring the US down.

Reason for war? There are many. The attacks on our aircraft in the no-fly zone are enough. So is the denial of access to Iraqi scientists. Want more? How about the nuclear supplies and advice purchased from France and Germany? How about the interference with the inspectors that has given Iraq hours at certain locations to move/dispose of proof?

Personally, if there must be a 'smoking gun', I hope it shows up where Paris or Berlin used to be, not where Houston used to be...

Why do you say that?

Huh?

The shady dealings with France and Germany Aside. The direct attacks over the lsat 10 years of american aircraft are an act of war.


The continued production of chemical and biological and nuclear wepaons, and the continued push to get closer to those goals, in the face of U.N. resolutions strictly prohibiting that are another transgression that should lead directly to some form of military action.


They keep drawing "lines in the sand" and not backing them up when they are crossed, pretty soon, even now, these lines mean little or nothing to the Iraqi government.


Not to mention the slaughter and torture of the iraqi population, whatever happened to the humanitarian side of the U.N. if it does not exist to enforce the laws of the world, and does not exist to aid in humanitarian or socio-political relief, nor to enforce sanctions to further the progress of human civilization, then it isnt worth the rent on its office space.

-G

Why do you say that?[/b][/quote]
Those attacks are a violation of the existing resolutions.

Huh?[/b][/quote]
Whaddaya mean, "Huh?"?

C'mon, Colin! You playing dumb won't fly. Everybody knows you are too smart; and they gotta wonder...

The reason for the existence of the United Nations is to bring the US down? There are nearly 200 member nations in the UN - many of them the US' closest allies. I have no idea what you mean. You think all 190-or-so nations is the UN want to "bring the US down"?

Where was this decreed?

Does Australia want to "bring the US down"?
Does the UK want to "bring the US down"?

Please explain. Sorry if I have no idea what you are saying but you need to clarify. That statement is so vague I can't make heads or tails of it's meaning. It's like saying "government conspiracy" when one guy in Arkansas is hiding some documents.

The existance of the UN is not to bring the US down, but they are undermining our effforts to make them something more than a figurehead organization.

If Australia and the UK were the UN, the statement might be untrue. However, the majority of the countries in the UN are openly Communist or Muslim. Their answer to every problem is the US pocketbook. Recently, Sudan (where slavery is still practiced) was appointed to replace the US on the human rights council (or whatever it's called); and now, Libya has been put in charge of human rights. Almost every country in the UN is Anti-American.

Someone posted the other day that the UN could take the US on and win. I doubt it, because the US has historically supplied most of the power and money to back up the UN...



Last edited by Torone at Jan 28 2003, 11:19 AM

Torone.... read what you just wrote.


The US IS the UN in terms of money, fighting forces, economic force, etc.

What nations would rise up? would the US be called in to fight the US?:)

Bingo.

All I know is that I watched Blick's report to the UN yesterday. Iraq had the responsibility to prove they destroyed their chemical weapons. They say they have but offer no proof. We know what they had and their response is we got rid of them, just trust us. The inspectors also found 3000 pages of documents at a scientists house that weren't turned over to the UN further proving they are not being honest. Some people will never be convinced Iraq is evil until they do something horrific. I'm not one that falls into the let's just wait and see what they do camp. Blick came off much tougher on Iraq than I expected. He did everything but flat out say they are liars and can't be trusted. The way I look at it, we either deal with them now or deal with them later when they have even more time to develop who knows what. I don't understand the mentality that says we shouldn't strike first. Makes no sense to me at all.

Its a no brainer. sometimes you have to make tough decisions to guarantee a solid future. i am quoting a friend of mine on an unrelated (sort of topic) and he makes valid points about the wages of war, and long term impact as opposed to immediate...


he uses vietnam as an example, but the same could be said about japan, germany, the soviet union, etc.


"That said, reading <snip> post below reminds me that war is impersonal for
non-combatants until you personally know someone that died or came back
without limbs or with the thousand mile stare. I'd really like not to have
to send the armed forces *anywhere.* If it needs to be done, I'd sure as
hell like to know which State or Intelligence department f*cked up by not
heading off foreign issues at an impasse before the military had to get
involved.

America's biggest strengths are pop culture, economics and liberty (even
when there are major exceptions to these). As part of the menu for total
warfare, I wonder if these are not creatively utilized before it's too late
to get U.S. servicemen involved."


and in reply


"Well, having flown a fixed-wing gunship in Vietnam I can certainly identify
with the post. We had a magnesium flare stick in the flare launcher once, it
kind of started melting the whole back of the airplane. The
loadmasters/gunners were able to push the whole launcher out the back of the
airplane before all the flares cooked off. We landed without incident,
unless you count the 3rd degree burns some of the guys had.


IMHO, the U.S. economy has won more wars than the military. We, um, didn't
fare very well in Vietnam 35 years ago, but now it's becoming a bastion of
capitalism. Same can be said of Russia and China. What our military couldn't
do our market-based economy has.

Of course, none of it would have happened without our ability to defend
ourselves (and pretty much everyone else). So, the U.S. military has had a
pretty big say in the whole story."

Grimm I am impressed.... you are comnig around!!! :o

I too feel Bush has done a poor job laying out the issues in Iraq. While I understand them, I think the average American does not. Bush has used high rhetoric without any real foundation to it.

I hope tonight, he goes and lays down a foundation with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCIARY proof, just like in a court of law. I want to see or hear about specific inteligence we have captured of Iraq hiding weapons, testimony from IRaqis dissident scientiest, etc.... He needs to do this, or else he will have a lot of skeptics about the war.

Of course we should have handled this years ago, but we had a President who just put band-aids on major open sores in the past.

Iraq has never lived up to their Cease Fire agreement with coalition foreced from the first Gulf War - and of course firing on our planes is a violation as well.

Bottom line is, Bush is going to lay out real solid, irrefutable evidence of what has been going on -

Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War

We will then give a deadline, one that makes us look like we are giving oen last chance - something we can do since we need the month to get all of our troops in place.

Hopefully France and Germany will come around, and I have a feeling they will when they see it is inevitable that we are going to go in. Everyone likes to jump on side of winner to try and enjoy spoils of war.

War should last less then 2 weeks on the ground, air campaign might be another 2-3 weeks prior to it....

Hopefully there will be few casualties, especially on our side.

The American people will rally around the President, like they always do in war.

The press and pundits and democrats will hem and haw, look for things to criticize and attack Bush on.

But it will be a success, the US Military will end up staying in IRaq for 40-50 years.... but will stabilzie IRaq turn it into a democracy, anda free market economy. IRaq will be a beacon of freedom in all areas, and will put pressure on the dictatorships and oppresive regiems in the middle east.

People in saudi arabais, syria, iran, egypt will want to be like Iraq - free to do what they want, to live their lives, and of coure imprve their lives through FREE MARKETS and CAPITALISM.....

Yadda yadda yadda....


IF we shrink away from IRaq now, the US and the world is fucked.... PERIOD!

You know, I learned a long time ago that anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, who used the term "REAL American" has no credibility whatsoever. Thank you for proving my point. You have as much credibility as the morons on the other side who do nothing more than chant "stop the imperialist war machine."

Me personally, I think we probably need to do it. I happen to agree with that well-known fake American fifth columnist General H. Norman Schwarzkopf that President Bush has NOT made the case to the American people very well.

I'm with you Mike... I don't think anyone's really done a great job of explaining the hows and whys of anything. I truly hope that Bush gets out there tonight and lays it on the line, at least about what they *can* tell us...

Exactly my point.

Pd,
If I was as dumb as you try to make out, I wouldn't know that you are just baitin' me...

BTW, how many Pornodoggies are there on the 'net, now? At last count, I found over 4,000 Torones...I guess imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery (but I think I'm gonna get me another nick!).

Did any of you get a look at the Iraqi chief biological warfare director's "the germ lady" documentation the UN released today.

The Iraqis were testing biological weapons and delivery systems for them on animals in 1999. Saddam said it was a rogue unit that did it.
Do any of you think that a rogue unit of any kind in Iraq can opperate with enough secrecy to explode/release biological weapons deployed from planes? As this documentation states.

The question is not should we attack Iraq.

The question is what sort of response should we have when Iraq uses the WMDs (it doesn't have) on our troops?

yeah, we did...

http://consumptionjunction.com/feat/cc/det...9&type=3&page=1

Exactly my point.[/b][/quote]
:blink:

Umm, you said:
Its'[the UN's] reason for existence is now to bring the US down.

Then you said:
the US has historically supplied most of the power and money to back up the UN...

Then Grimm said:
What nations would rise up? would the US be called in to fight the US?

Grimm's comment in no way supports your previous comments....rather, it shows where your theory falls through.



Last edited by gigi at Jan 28 2003, 08:39 PM

Grimm I am impressed.... you are comnig around!!! :o



>Haha how is that?;)



I too feel Bush has done a poor job laying out the issues in Iraq. While I understand them, I think the average American does not. Bush has used high rhetoric without any real foundation to it.


>I agree with you here, i am largely unimpressed by the way the white house has handled dissemination of good solid information. but i do understand what is at stake and why war is necessary, if not inevitable.
I just dont think a lot of america digs deep enough




I hope tonight, he goes and lays down a foundation with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCIARY proof, just like in a court of law. I want to see or hear about specific inteligence we have captured of Iraq hiding weapons, testimony from IRaqis dissident scientiest, etc.... He needs to do this, or else he will have a lot of skeptics about the war.


Me too!

Of course we should have handled this years ago, but we had a President who just put band-aids on major open sores in the past.


>This has been the case in countless decades in history, i thought the idea of a politician is to put lipstick on the pig;)


Iraq has never lived up to their Cease Fire agreement with coalition foreced from the first Gulf War - and of course firing on our planes is a violation as well.


>This is why it is bottom line necessary. if rules are not enforced, they are not rules

Bottom line is, Bush is going to lay out real solid, irrefutable evidence of what has been going on -

Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War

We will then give a deadline, one that makes us look like we are giving oen last chance - something we can do since we need the month to get all of our troops in place.

> did we not do that the other night?

Hopefully France and Germany will come around, and I have a feeling they will when they see it is inevitable that we are going to go in. Everyone likes to jump on side of winner to try and enjoy spoils of war.

>That and nobody likes to be left hanging

War should last less then 2 weeks on the ground, air campaign might be another 2-3 weeks prior to it....

Hopefully there will be few casualties, especially on our side.

The American people will rally around the President, like they always do in war.


> as long as it doesnt go on to long, and someone locks jane fonda in a trunk.

The press and pundits and democrats will hem and haw, look for things to criticize and attack Bush on.

But it will be a success, the US Military will end up staying in IRaq for 40-50 years.... but will stabilzie IRaq turn it into a democracy, anda free market economy. IRaq will be a beacon of freedom in all areas, and will put pressure on the dictatorships and oppresive regiems in the middle east.

People in saudi arabais, syria, iran, egypt will want to be like Iraq - free to do what they want, to live their lives, and of coure imprve their lives through FREE MARKETS and CAPITALISM.....

Yadda yadda yadda....


IF we shrink away from IRaq now, the US and the world is fucked.... PERIOD!


>we will never have a leg to stand on

ok one day i will figure this out

Exactly my point.[/b][/quote]
What poiint would that be. I hate to sound ameri-centrist, but the US IS the UN.

do you have pictures of you fucking her too?;)

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? "

Exactly...

As a mother of a teenager and a soon-to-be-teenager who has tried all the psychology mumbo jumbo to get them to do something simple like clean their rooms - you can only draw the line so many times. If they see that you keep moving the line back and hedge - even just a little - they'll see it as a weakness and continue to take advantage.

So what happens when they stop listening to Mom & Dr. Dobson?
It's time to throw away the books - quit playing in the sand and get Daddy to come home and lay down the law....

Daddy needs to pay a visit to Iraq! :groucho:

What poiint would that be. I hate to sound ameri-centrist, but the US IS the UN.[/b][/quote]
My point is that we ARE the UN. We don't need them, they need us.