AHHAHAAH DOWNLOAD THIS IRAQ INTERVIEW ROFL

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.

You really think that Saddam would grow to be a threat if we don't attack him?? Saddam's power has decreased significantly since 1991. What makes you think that he will develop power when he hasn't in 10 years??
And again, I ask
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia??

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.

You really think that Saddam would grow to be a threat if we don't attack him?? Saddam's power has decreased significantly since 1991. What makes you think that he will develop power when he hasn't in 10 years??
And again, I ask
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia??

Saddams power was greatly decreased in 1991, but is has been growing back ever since. The US has 3 real options:

1. Leave the middle east completely, which will allow Saddam to rapidly grow in power. This will leave him unchecked.
2. Spend another 12 years trying to keep him in check. At the end of this decade is would be surprised if Saddam does not have a nuclear weapons.
3. Remove him now.

I welcome a peaceful resolution this problem, but unless the world stands firmly against him, he will continue to get away with not following the UNs mandate.

 

[DaviDaVinci]

OH MY GOD! This SO reminds me of my arguments with my women. She avoids my questions and then accuses me of being attacking (as in with questions) and that I keep repeating myself. "if you'd just answer my question honey, i wouldnt have to repeat myself"
How funny.
I just sent it to all the people I know that know her. This is good times...... gotta use some of those one liners on her. I'm so glad this came up. Thanks to whoever posted it. U tha man....or woooooman.

Davi

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.

You really think that Saddam would grow to be a threat if we don't attack him?? Saddam's power has decreased significantly since 1991. What makes you think that he will develop power when he hasn't in 10 years??
And again, I ask
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia??

Yes, Saddam could easily grow to be a threat. Once all sanctions and inspections are lifted there would be nothing to stop him from rearming. There was even a report that even now a French company is selling him repair parts for his Mirage fighters. What would they sell him with no sanctions in place?


How does removing Saddam by force mean that the US must also deal with Taylor? Does Taylor present a threat with biological or chemical weapons? Has he invaded two other countries and attacked at least two others? Why do you keep advocating that the US use a cookie cutter approach to diplomacy.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.

You really think that Saddam would grow to be a threat if we don't attack him?? Saddam's power has decreased significantly since 1991. What makes you think that he will develop power when he hasn't in 10 years??
And again, I ask
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia??

Saddams power was greatly decreased in 1991, but is has been growing back ever since. The US has 3 real options:

1. Leave the middle east completely, which will allow Saddam to rapidly grow in power. This will leave him unchecked.
2. Spend another 12 years trying to keep him in check. At the end of this decade is would be surprised if Saddam does not have a nuclear weapons.
3. Remove him now.

I welcome a peaceful resolution this problem, but unless the world stands firmly against him, he will continue to get away with not following the UNs mandate.

Well this is getting off the topic
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I will ask you too,
How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia.

 

[Stojakapimp]

hmm...I think I just had deja vu. Didn't someone else kind of act like Saddam? I think his name was, um......HITLER!

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.

You really think that Saddam would grow to be a threat if we don't attack him?? Saddam's power has decreased significantly since 1991. What makes you think that he will develop power when he hasn't in 10 years??
And again, I ask
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia??

Yes, Saddam could easily grow to be a threat. Once all sanctions and inspections are lifted there would be nothing to stop him from rearming. There was even a report that even now a French company is selling him repair parts for his Mirage fighters. What would they sell him with no sanctions in place?


How does removing Saddam by force mean that the US must also deal with Taylor? Does Taylor present a threat with biological or chemical weapons? Has he invaded two other countries and attacked at least two others? Why do you keep advocating that the US use a cookie cutter approach to diplomacy.

I would think that when we lift sanctions and inspections we would develop some sort of permanent inspections regime to keep him from rearming.

Please stay on topic in regards to Taylor. I asked
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia? Answer the question.
When you remove Saddam by force under the pretext that we're promoting peace and justice in Iraq, why not apply that same standard to other brutal regimes??

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

 

[etech]

I would think that when we lift sanctions and inspections we would develop some sort of permanent inspections regime to keep him from rearming.


Please stay on topic in regards to Taylor. I asked
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia? Answer the question.
When you remove Saddam by force under the pretext that we're promoting peace and justice in Iraq, why not apply that same standard to other brutal regimes??

You would think? I don't think it will happen.

"How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?"
The exact same way that keeping Saddam in power in Iraq promotes peace and justice in Iraq. Can you put your cookie cutter away now?

I did not say that the US is removing Saddam because of humanitarian reasons. That is just a nice side benifit of removing him because of the weapons he has and his tendency to use them.

 

[oLLie]

haha there is a certain person in this thread who is getting owned hardcore... but just chooses to keep playing de ping pong and chirping by asking questions outside of the topic. weakest. sauce. evar. The topic revolves around a potential war with Iraq, not "Name as many dictators as you can and you win the argument!"

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

 

[incallisto]

Andrea shouldn't be on ANY radio station. First, her voice made my cats run to the other side of the house. Second, she is an idiot. Third, the caller from Iraq (Mohammed) is correct.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

Tell me why a country sitting on the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world would need a nuclear reactor.
Tell me how close he was to having nukes in 91.
Tell me why he is not cooperating with inspectors now?Think he has something to hide maybe?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

I would think that when we lift sanctions and inspections we would develop some sort of permanent inspections regime to keep him from rearming.


Please stay on topic in regards to Taylor. I asked
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia? Answer the question.
When you remove Saddam by force under the pretext that we're promoting peace and justice in Iraq, why not apply that same standard to other brutal regimes??

You would think? I don't think it will happen.

"How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?"
The exact same way that keeping Saddam in power in Iraq promotes peace and justice in Iraq. Can you put your cookie cutter away now?

I did not say that the US is removing Saddam because of humanitarian reasons. That is just a nice side benifit of removing him because of the weapons he has and his tendency to use them.

So you have this scenario where we lift sanctions and inspection, and Saddam is allowed to grow in power. What does he do then?? He can't directly attack the US. He would certainly be under close scrutany from the international community. Any foreign expedition by Saddam will result in a beating like 1991. He knows if he ever used any WMD he's done with. He would be contained like he has been for the past 10 years.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

Tell me why a country sitting on the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world would need a nuclear reactor.
Tell me how close he was to having nukes in 91.
Tell me why he is not cooperating with inspectors now?Think he has something to hide maybe?

That doesn't appear to be any kind of evidence supporting the assertion that Saddam is trying to build a nuke. We know he wants to, but we can keep him from doing so.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

Tell me why a country sitting on the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world would need a nuclear reactor.
Tell me how close he was to having nukes in 91.
Tell me why he is not cooperating with inspectors now?Think he has something to hide maybe?

That doesn't appear to be any kind of evidence supporting the assertion that Saddam is trying to build a nuke. We know he wants to, but we can keep him from doing so.

Just remember, UN inspectors in Pakistan completely missed their nuke program.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

Awesome! Please show me your source that states the man is now a member of our federal government (or a source which states 20/20 is a program run by our government). If you are unable to do that... shouldn't you be complaining about 20/20 spoon-feeding us? Or the media in general. Where are your arguments, I searched through your short post which I'm sure you thought was rather witty but didn't find any substantive arguments.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

I love how the anti-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda they are being spoon-feed.

 

[Jmman]

Does it really matter at this point either way? Several sources are saying that the war will start within a week, and by this time next week we could be in Baghdad....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

I would think that when we lift sanctions and inspections we would develop some sort of permanent inspections regime to keep him from rearming.


Please stay on topic in regards to Taylor. I asked
How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia? Answer the question.
When you remove Saddam by force under the pretext that we're promoting peace and justice in Iraq, why not apply that same standard to other brutal regimes??

You would think? I don't think it will happen.

"How does keeping Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?"
The exact same way that keeping Saddam in power in Iraq promotes peace and justice in Iraq. Can you put your cookie cutter away now?

I did not say that the US is removing Saddam because of humanitarian reasons. That is just a nice side benifit of removing him because of the weapons he has and his tendency to use them.

So you have this scenario where we lift sanctions and inspection, and Saddam is allowed to grow in power. What does he do then?? He can't directly attack the US. He would certainly be under close scrutany from the international community. Any foreign expedition by Saddam will result in a beating like 1991. He knows if he ever used any WMD he's done with. He would be contained like he has been for the past 10 years.

Your answer might be true if, and that's a big if, Saddam played by logical rules. He knew if he invaded Kuwait that the US would respond, yet he did it anyway. Say he gets his hands on a few nukes. How many people might die trying to take them away from him if he threatens to use them?

Is that the price you want to pay instead of dealing with him now?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

Awesome! Please show me your source that states the man is now a member of our federal government (or a source which states 20/20 is a program run by our government). If you are unable to do that... shouldn't you be complaining about 20/20 spoon-feeding us? Or the media in general. Where are your arguments, I searched through your short post which I'm sure you thought was rather witty but didn't find any substantive arguments.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq is close to having a nuclear weapon. None. We use false documents, assumptions about aluminum tubes to make the case that Saddam is trying to build nukes. None of these are credible.
If you don't think that there is a propaganda effort by our government, you should open your eyes. I'm not saying that 20/20 is on the payroll, but how do you suppose that most people in the world are against this war?? In every continent, every nation around the world, a majority of the population is against the war. Except for the US. Here the population is split. But why do we have all these pro-war folks?? What is different here that around the rest of the world?? What accounts for this gap in opinion??
When 45% of the American public believes that Saddam is responsible for 9/11, there is a serious problem. Either the American public is incredibly uninformed, or there is an disinformation effort by the government.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But what evidence do you have to indicate that Saddam would most likely have nukes in ten years?
We have an option that includes inspections. Coerced inspections is an idea that has not been given much thought.
Saddam's power is much less now than it was in '91, and will continue to decline.

I am all for coerced inspections, but we got Blix instead. I would not mind putting 50k US/UN troops in Iraq to aid the inspectors. There is no way Saddam would agree to this however.

You are naive to beleive that Saddam is not trying to develope nuclear weapons right now. They have been trying to do for the past 20 years.

Do you have any evidence to support that Saddam is trying to build nukes?? Any evidence that hasn't been discredited yet, that is...

How about the former head of the Iraqi nuclear weapon program who defected and gave an interview on 20/20 or dateline or whatever it was?

I love how some of the protestors seem to know better than the former head of his own weapon program.

I love how some pro-war folk can be so blind to the propaganda their government is spoon-feeding them.

Awesome! Please show me your source that states the man is now a member of our federal government (or a source which states 20/20 is a program run by our government). If you are unable to do that... shouldn't you be complaining about 20/20 spoon-feeding us? Or the media in general. Where are your arguments, I searched through your short post which I'm sure you thought was rather witty but didn't find any substantive arguments.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq is close to having a nuclear weapon. None. We use false documents, assumptions about aluminum tubes to make the case that Saddam is trying to build nukes. None of these are credible.
If you don't think that there is a propaganda effort by our government, you should open your eyes. I'm not saying that 20/20 is on the payroll, but how do you suppose that most people in the world are against this war?? In every continent, every nation around the world, a majority of the population is against the war. Except for the US. Here the population is split. But why do we have all these pro-war folks?? What is different here that around the rest of the world?? What accounts for this gap in opinion??
When 45% of the American public believes that Saddam is responsible for 9/11, there is a serious problem. Either the American public is incredibly uninformed, or there is an disinformation effort by the government.

How do I account for the fact that many people around the world oppose the war? How about your very own argument, they are misinformed. Honestly, that didn't occur to you? It makes perfectly logical sense to you that most of the people in support of the war are so grossly misinformed while those that oppose the war are 100% informed with hard factual data (no bias) of which you have no source. How about the fact that most of the world doesn't care about the protection of the general welfare, freedom, and safety of an American citizen while the U.S. government is sworn to do just that?

Also, I noticed that you failed to provide a link that says Saddam was not personally involved in 9/11. I myself don't think he was personally involved, but then again I wouldn't rule it out or say that it's impossible he had some hand in it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq is close to having a nuclear weapon. None. We use false documents, assumptions about aluminum tubes to make the case that Saddam is trying to build nukes. None of these are credible.

By the same token we do know those tubes could be modified for use to enrich uranium. They could be used for rockets. And we know Iraq is not supposed to have them. Iraq has not shown the inspectors what these tubes are being used for either. It would be false to say that these tubes are not being used in the nuclear program as we do not know what they are being used for.