Diplomacy hasn't failed. The US, UK, and spain withdrew when the frech arbitrarily said they would oppose anything but a diplomatic solution to Iraq. Diplomacy could have continued. But the US decided that they didnt want to take that road and wanted to dig their armed little claws into Iraq no matter what and called the inspectors and told them that it might be a good idea to clear out (as well as other people then inspectors), in my opinion a virtual declaration of war right there. Im not saying that Saddam is destroying everything he has (lets face It I wouldnt), but this in my mind doesent equate to him being a danger, he slooking out for the welfare of his own country, just like any other leader should do. The problem is I believe there are some countries out there that will take care of the good of their own countries at the expense of others, and that is UNJUST. I am happy with the decision my government made, and unhappy with the decisions of others, but I also understand that they made their decisions for the good of their countries, just as mine did. So go ahead and trounce Iraq, more power to you if he is as bad as all of the 'propaganda' floating around about him is. but also thumbs down to the way in which the UN, the thing in which every country places their trust to stabilize the globe, is being thwarted by several power hungry, greedy, and downright bloodthirsty men.
Diplomacy failed when France said they would vito whatever resolution came through, no matter in what context, and now they are saying they will support us if iraq uses chemical weapons at france tbh.
yeah but this is france remember, they are ther when they need you. "France would veto any new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq. " http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6130852%5E401,00.html If there were the 9 vote consensus and france vetoed, id run over there and smack him myself!!! an what ever happened to: "In what will be a crucial five days for the two leaders, culminating in their meeting at Camp David on Friday, the Prime Minister and the U.S. president agreed during a lengthy telephone conversations last week that the 'United Nations route', however difficult, remained their political preference." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5779 and a good read i think... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5779
the french (government) are political W|-|0RS that is only my opinion. They do nothing unless it directly benifits them. They have no intention of trying to make the world a better place. all they are interested in is making sure they get whatever they want. this war isnt about oil. Sadomi Huusean(SP) is a threat. he is a moraly bankrupt person. he kills his own people by the masses. He has no qualms about building weapons of mass destruction and then selling them to people who have no qualms about using them against innocent people. the man doesnt look out for the wellfair of his own people. he looks out for himself. He has no interest in avoiding war if it costs him power becvause that is the only thing he cares about, being in power. Personaly i dont like bush. but i think this should have been done along time ago. If it isnt done now it might never be posable to do it. hes only at the start of his chem/bio/nukle weapons gathering, what happens in 10 years if hes unopposed. he will have a vast arsenal(sp) of them and then noone would dare try and stop him from wiping out whoever he wants. and if you want top say its about oil well fine then. what happens when he takes over all of the oil producing sections of the middel east, the largest oil producer in the world? he could shut off the flow of oil to the entire world. That doesnt just affect the US or the UK, it affects the entire world. hell they wouldn't even have to shut it off. what if they just raised the price to $200 a barrel of oil. they could get away with it because there wouldnt be any othe country in the world the could produce the volume needed by the world and we would have to pay it. so if you think its about oil take that into consideration. Im sick of people bad mouthing the US. In my opinion i live in the greatest country in the world. Hell we gave birth to the internet. We have done so many good things for the world and all people can talk about is our politics. sure they are a big thing, sure we arent perfect(sp) but by god i wouldnt want to live anywhere else. I here people even here in the states of varying ethnicity how much they think we suck, and they LIVE here. sure i dont liuke what they are saying by they have the right to say it. but if they dont like it why dont they go back to wherever they came? because if they did that they wouldnt be allowed to say what they say without fear of being shot or thrown in jail. but here again this is only the opinion of a 21 year old mal;e from the USA SUFFICATION HAZARD : keep out of reach of childeren
When people critize politics thats what they are doing, critizing politics, not you country, not everyone in it, but politics.
Moved to GN http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27764 Read the article, and then tell me it's all about the oil.
I've really avoided this entire topic, but obviously with world politics as they are now: it can no longer be avoided. Here are some facts for anyone who thinks SH is not a threat. He's gassed over two MILLION of his own people. For the past 12 years, there have been sanctions against his country saying you can't have this, that, that, this, those, or these. For the past 12 years, he has engaged in NEW buildup SPECIFICALLY against the UN sanctions (Al-Samoud missiles, anyone?). Only destroying those when CAUGHT. If he is pursuing conventional weapons that are against sanctions, what makes any of you think he hasn't pursued the development of NEW WMD, OR even destroyed the old ones??? I have a friend who works as a missileer in the USAF. His job is to sit in capsules for 24 hours at a time, waiting for the order to turn the key and launch a ballistic nuclear attack against a target. He doesn't ever want to do his job, he's in it to pursue an eventual career in Space command (satellites and stuff). He has told me as candidly as he can, that he's SEEN the evidence that SH has WMD himself. However revealing the evidence we (USA) have would expose the people who gave it to us. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He tortures his own people, he pursues weapons and technologies COMPLETELY against UN sanctions that have been in place for over a decade. He needs to be stopped, permanently. -Jason
Acrimonious: You are just ticking me off!!! Make up your frigging mind... don't sit there telling me you may contain nuts... either you do or you don't!! and on top of that, I want to know the colour Before I open the package!!!! Now that that's over with... I think if it weren't for Bush, Saddam would still have his unapproved weapons. I also think a lot of people are going to die because of his decisions, and that isn't to be taken lightly. I will be sad for every american, ever iraqi, every single person who dies because of this war. But personally, even though I'm sad people had to die on the 4th plane on 9/11, I'm glad the passengers decided not to just sit there and try to talk to the terrorists... I'm glad they got up, and fought for what they believed in, saving many lives in the long run. I don't know the future, and I don't trust the media, but I am going to support my President in his decisions, and support the troops that are dying for the freedom of another people.
first of all, who says the US are the only country in the world who can have rockets, missiles, bombs, etc? if you look back in history you'll find that the only country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country i the US who dropped 2 on japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). the way i see it the US is just doing the same thing it did to Cuba. After helping Castro take Batista off ruling Cuba, they turned against him because the USSR gave Cuba some weponry and the US felt threatened when there was no evedience that Cuba was going to use this to attack any country, let alone the one who helped the actual president get to where he is. they then set a block on Cuba, isolating it from virtually any commercial negociation with other countries. don't get me wrong on this. i'm not agains't the people from US, but i think it's government should think better before acting on such critical, touchy or however you want to call it, subjects regarding outside politics. this has all the looks of becoming a second Vietnam in the way that people from ALL AROUND THE WORLD have said NO to this war and yet they continue to carry on with it. i heard today on the news that there are some acts of civil disobedience being scheduled to boicot the war, such as paralizing Times Square. to me this means that the american people don´t want the war, and isn't America known for being a government from and for the people like democracy claims to be? heck! the UN said NO and still they are going on with it over the UN's head. of course, this doesn't mean that when another country wants to do the same the US are just going to sit and watch somebaodyelse do what they did. a country such like the US, who believes itself to be the world police should preach with the example. i don't know if this war is over oil or not, but i do know that the US should stop interfering so much in other country's bussiness. i believe that untill their presence is not requested on Iraq by the people of Iraq they should stay out of it. it's like in Afghanistan. i don't mean that they shouldn't attack it since they were hiding Laden, but don't say the people of Afghanistan would be thankfull you saved them from the Talibans if they were all dancing and celebrating when the towers fell. i know you were hurt by what happened and you had the right to go get Laden yourselves and disolve the government, but all those innocents dying there... isn't that the same thing they did to you?
Well I suppose facts would be good for you to know. 1) The UN imposed the sanctions against Iraq on banned items and weapons. 2) Cuba wasn't /given/ first-strike nuclear weapons by Russia, Russia was using Cuba to PUT them 83 miles from the mainland US. 3) New polls show 67% support for the Iraq war now. 4) The Iraqi people CANNOT request us, because speaking out against SH earns you a burial plot--if that. 5) The UN said it would not pass a new resolution using more direct words of force. The original Resolution (1440 I think) was warning enough. 6) The United States used nuclear weapons on Japan to end a WORLD WAR. It was completely valid, as taking on mainland Japan would have been suicide, and they would have never surrendered without the display of firepower the two nuclear bombs showed. -Jason
There's THEN and there's NOW. Clear difference there, do you think Britain are going to start capturing slaves again, is America going to break out in civil war again, just because it happened before? Different times, rules, problems, technology and leaders.
1) The same Items the US sold to Iraq before Desert Storm. 3) Those polls were conducted of 500 after one of Bush's or powell's speeches, Are you saying a sample of 500 people is perfectly reperesentative of a country with 300 million population. Its possible, but about as probable as pissing in a beer bottle from a mile away. 4) You are telling me that if 15 million people dont like saddam they wont go up against the 7 million that do, and more importantly the perhaps 100 000 strong millitary? If Iraq really didn't like saddam they would eject him, it wouldnt be easy, but revolutions have happened before. Iraqis hate the sanctions imposed upon them more than anything 90% of anything you get of value in Iraq is found on the black market, the open market is to bogged down by said sanctions. WWII also arose because of vastly unfair sanctions against Germany, While yes hitler was quite bent on ruling the world, name me one power hungry leader who isnt. 5) the problem wasnt the definiton of "severe consequences", but of the unwillingness of a country to persue millitary options until all other avenues had been explored. if they had the veto wouldnt have been a problem, now would it? 6) WRONG. Most millitary analysts contend that the second world war would have been ove in less than two weeks even without the use of the nuclear bomb, and point B on that why Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Both presented minor millitary targets at best. Whats the use of incinerating and irradiating nearly a million innocent civillians. Face it the bomb was dropped because the US wanted to see what it could do. This is besides the point. Ghost, how many convicts have been put to death because of capital punishment in the past 12 years? I doubt its 2 million, but its the same argument. I dont believe that saddam's #2 smells like roses, but I believe the choice must be made between the lesser of two evils. My position is summed up here: http://forum.tarot-guild.org/showth...ber=9180&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
I'm going do my very best to be non-pesonal in this reply, but no garuntees. 1 Who sold Iraq the intial weapons makes NO difference once the UN says "You can't have those." PERIOD. 3 As for the polls....check this out http://msnbc.com/news/886713.asp?cp1=1 Enough said. 4 Saddam has gassed his own people for revolting against him. Killing people by the thousands, tens of thousands. How prepared would YOU be to fight someone who would retaliate against you in a heartbeat with Antrhax, VX Nerve agent? Easy to talk, not so easy to walk. 5 The so-called "diplomatic" options were fruitless and pointless. Hans Blix himself in his LATEST report, said that Iraq had made no significant progress towards disarmament. 6 The Japanese were unwilling to surrender. A show of force and hopelessness was needed. Was dropping /two/ bombs right? Probably not. 7 Your convict argument is completely lost on me. Convicts who are deserving of death have NO relation to innocent Iraqi's being murdered. Unless you are trying to imply that Iraqi's are all convicts, in which case I would suggest you find the door. Finally, for your position being summed up by that thread link... "A Warmonger Explains" <--first bad sign of bias. "PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons."<--false. Iraq is in possession of missiles capable of delivering chemical or biological weapons beyond the 93 mile limit, which puts them in a position to attack our allies in the Persian Gulf. Turkey, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, etc. "PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?"<--We gave Saddam Hussein the weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. At the time, the Cold War was in progress, and the "lesser of two evils" between the Soviet Union and Iraq, was obviously Iraq. It was a mistake, but when the UN says no WMD, there becomes no fallback on who gave them to you. "PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?"<-- No. Blix himself has said that Iraq has given no credible evidence as to the missing ten THOUSAND litres of (either Anthrax or VX) and thousands of tons, of the other. "PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"<--That is actually the FIRST unbiased statement in that entire BS post. There is proof. Were the US and Britian to publicly display the proof, the people who got it for us would be exposed immediately, and killed. Who's to say your average soldier is more important (or less) than those people, thankfully it isn't my call. I'm done quoting pieces of that trash because it's pissing me off how people can be so ignorant of the real truth of the matter. North Korea, believe it or not, IS being dealt with. The Iraq issue is not in the same category because N. Korea actually *gasp* /hasn't/ invaded someone in the past 12 years. If N Korea pursues it's activities further, they will be punished for it. Iraq has already crossed that line with it's constant stalling, lying, bickering over details of the Resolutions passed by the WORLD. There was no UN Veto of the military action. Resolution 1441 authorized it in it's wording of severe consequences. If anyone in the world thinks in November, that "severe consequences" didn't mean war/invasion, don't blame me for their idiocy. The GOVERNEMENTS (not a personal attack here against their people) of France, Russia, Germany and China balked. If those governments are crazy enough to believe that inspections are "working" when NEW weapons SH /knew/ he wasn't allowed to have are being built WHILE the sanctions are present, I feel pity for any citizen in those countries who has to suffer under that inadequate logic and reasoning. Done for now. Am I happy about the war? No. Do I think it was necessary? Yes. Will I be glad when it's over and nobody else needs to die? Yes. Do I absolutely despise people who cling to their precious trees in order to avoid seeing the big bad forest? Yes. Not everything in this world can be solved with cookies, milk and daisy chains. -Jason
What I meant was that Bush could be held accountable (Clinton and other past leaders really) for all of the deaths in the nations jails. Just as we say saddam is. We say they are criminals, so does saddam, who is right? Its a different counrty, you cannot go around trying to fit your US civil rights, or constitution to it. It is a markedly different culture, with different morals. I have never heard diplomacy being referred to as pointless before... I would be very prepared, although I probably wouldnt fight in the conventional way. I hate injustice, and would strive to change it. How I dont know.... Im more alluding to the fact that the reasons for the push to war have run the gambit from Iraq is violating the UN, to he represses his people, to her allied with bin laden, to hes a terrorist, to... I really want to know the real reason, and Bush's evangelical 'ritcheous' preaching doesent add credibility in my book. Hiding, not keeping the stuff that was missing already hidden. Hey If I was in Saddams boots Id probably be doing the same thing, and If I was in Bush's again I would probably be doing the same thing. Its a difference of focus, thier jobs requitre them to place the good of the country at the forefront, I just wish someone out there in a decent position to stop this or prevent it could show them that the good of the eintire globe is a little more pressing. The final thing I despise about war is that nowadays its an event broadcasted on CNN. Im sorry But I cannot watch that.
well, i don't think i would sell something to you and later go invade you saying you can't have those. you also say that "Once the UN says you can't have those" but the UN also said "Don't invade IRAQ" but the war is on right now. so, the UN are to be listened to or not?
exactly... he's already chosen what he himself might consider to be an honourable death over living his last few years in exile, so if he were to give a nuke or somin to BIN LADEN (i wouldn't put it past him) how are we supposed to get back at him, and if he doesn't care if he dies, what's stopping him? well he doesn't necessarily have nukes yet, but north korea does have the means to make some for him, and they already sent scuds to yemen so the thing you need to ask yourself is "what is stopping him?" and we should keep in mind that usa isn't going to take the oil... it'll cost a lot to rebuild the country. and any small economic gain the us might gain from cheaper oil will be neutralised by the couple of plane crashed they'll have during the war, the couple of thousand lost soldiers, the tanks, the fuel necessary to even get started, the costs of delivering all that equipment and food into the middle of the desert... and you really have to pity the soldiers having to wear all thos gas masks and extra protective gear "just in case" and in the middle of a hot desert too! of course i can see why saddam didn't leave the country too... he's looking out for his own interests, and probably hoping that the allies won't go all the way into baghdad like they did last time to avoid the casualties. and it's just like treating cancer... if you don't treat it at an early stage, it'll be a much bigger problem in the future, and it'll cost even more to have it removed... and to be able to kill the cancer cells, you have to kill a few normal healthy cells in the process, but in the end you're better off, even if you don't think so at the time, even if you don't think so in the future.
