Iraq is a TICKING TIMEBOMB what are we waiting FOR?????

[brtspears2]

Easy, we are waiting for someone to drop the bomb first. If Iraq drops first, everyone swings their support... then hippies complain "why didnt something happenen quicker!"

If USA/allies/rambo drop first, take over Iraq, find nukes and other nasty weapons, the world wins. If theres nothing to be found, well...umm, lots of explaining.

 

[fatbaby]

haven't we learned anything from history (9-11)?

We complain about how it is a waste to send soldiers to fight a far off country that is against western influences, yet when that far off country attacks us (9-11), we complain about not having something done sooner :|

 

[Moonbeam]

I have a hunch Pakistan is developing weapons of mass distruction. It's a ticking timebomb. What are we waiting for?

I have a hunch North Korea is ....

I have a hunch China is ....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: fatbaby
haven't we learned anything from history (9-11)? We complain about how it is a waste to send soldiers to fight a far off country that is against western influences, yet when that far off country attacks us (9-11), we complain about not having something done sooner :|

I missed which country attacked us on 9/11. Which one was it?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I agree that the attack on Iraq has a two-fold purpose for Bush. There is the first point that S. Hussein is a madman and has weapons of biological destruction and that he is a threat. The second is obviously for re-election, Bush declares war ,gets the public to back him ,we succeed in Iraq and Bush wins the election.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you still posting, Hayabusarider. I thought you'd be getting therapy or confession for the terrible sin you committed. You understand, don't you, that you upset shinerburke. Didn't you hear him? "I've been at work for 48 hours straight. I'm tired, cranky, and in no mood to put it with a bunch of PC whinebags.................. " How dare you voice an opinion that should upset him so. Why the poor dear may even have started to cry. We real Americans can't take a lot of upset, you know. We watch TV and we see that things resolve themselves in 30 minutes or two hours at most. You should never put us under any stress, suggest complex and difficult to comprehend ethical dilemmas or we'll get trigger happy and kill EVERYBODY.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FettsBabe
Really, when are we going to do something? The British are ready! :Q

Either you're really too dumb to understand a serious answer, or you've been out drinking and being stupid, again. Go back to school, and actually pay attention in your history and political science courses. You're suggesting that, for the first time in our history, we should be the aggressor without first being attacked. You're suggesting we should give every other nation cause to gang up against us for very good reason.

After you've put in some serious time and thought into the subject (assuming you can think that deeply), before you're so ready to jump into a war, ask yourself if you're ready to be on the front line... Or aren't you allergic to high velocity lead poisoning? The mess would be worse than the worst you could imagine finding when you wake up the morning after next to some guy(s) you don't even recognize from the night before. :disgust:

 

[dawks]

Harvey says it well, take a lesson from history..


Just because Jimbo is the biggest kid at school doesnt mean he can go around beating everyone up whenever he pleases.

 

[sandorski]

Some proof would be nice.

 

[lowtech1]

I'm not concerned with their link to terrorism. I concerned with what the British photographed on 12/17/98.

Why don't we bomb Russia, China, North Korea, Indonesia, India, Pakistan & Egypt while we are at it? It is inevitable that other countries going to have nuke soon or latter, because we have it.

Weapons of war are dangerous toys that shouldn?t be encourage, and we are in no better position to dictate it, because we constantly improving our guillotine technique. Why complaint about other countries that developing chemical weapon, while they are just copying the formulas from American/German/Russian/Chinese recipes books.

Wouldn?t you want a nice shiny shotgun if your neighbors have a shotgun, and tell you when to mowed your lawn & how to raise your kids?

 

[ThePresence]

Alot of countries have nukes. We aren't gonna attack every country that has nukes, even if they have leaders we dont like, or even hate. However, we should attack every country that has a nuke and will use it. Because Saddam will.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh, oh, we have the proof, sandorski, it's just that we can't, um, show it to you because, well because, well it would compromise national security, you see and and, well we just can't do that. But trust us. We DO have the proof. Here's forty pages of CIA evidence. On page 12 you can clearly see the word 'nuclear', on 26 the word 'chemical' appears, and on page 31 the word 'Iraq'. The rest has been redacted, but you can easily infer the implication.

 

[Moonbeam]

ThePresence, then I guess we'd better self immolate because we are the only nation that we absolutely and for certain know will use nuclear weapons because we are the only country that ever has. And I want your crystal ball. I want to be able to know with such facility which countries will and which won't.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ThePresence, then I guess we'd better self immolate because we are the only nation that we absolutely and for certain know will use nuclear weapons because we are the only country that ever has. And I want your crystal ball. I want to be able to know with such facility which countries will and which won't.

Hmm.. Let's think about this. Saddam has attacked Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, fired Scud missiles at Israel (who was NOT involved in the Desert Storm conflict), used chemical weapons during the war with Iran and on his own people. He has attempted to build artillery capable of hitting Israel. With that track record, along with the amount of effort and sense of urgency he has put into developing nuclear weapons, I would guess the probability is very high that he would actually use them. That plus the possibility that he may allow these weapons to get into the hands of terrorists fully justifies in my mind the need to remove Saddam from power.

We will find out what his real intentions are when he reacts to the "Disarm or Else" proposal. (In case you're not familiar with it, it's the idea of returning to UN-mandated weapons inspection teams, this time backed by up to 50,000 US troops to make sure this time that the job gets done without interference from the Iraqi government.)

 

[Moonbeam]

That doesn't sound too bad to me, Astaroth33. Just some minor questions. The Sharon sounds like he could be a war criminal. Israel occupied Lebanon. They have all kinds of bad stuff as weapons and are in violation of UN mandates. Why not start with them, or north Korea. We have so many choices. Or let the Israelis do iraq. They are the ones maybe most threatened, not us.

Also, if you want to take out Saddam, can you do it without killing all kinds of innocent people? Do you care?

The last problem is thinking you have the capacity to determine from his actions what his intent is. I get the impression that most people just wee shat they expect to see and what to see.

Still, I support this idea in general.

 

[dszd0g]

I see no reason why we should attack Iraq. Iraq is a sovereign nation. What gives us the right to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation? Because we don't like them? Over 70% of the world hates us. They do what we say, not because they like us or because they are our friend -- they do it because they fear us. We are the bullies of the world and our foreign policy makes me ashamed to be an American.

We overthrow governments whenever they do not support our foreign policy. We claim it in the name of democracy. However, time and time again we have overthrown democracies to put in place brutal dictators who support us. We are willing to kill 100's of thousands of people to support our lifestyle. (180,000 in Guatemala if you want an example)

Afghanastan has had a long history of US involvement. During the cold war we used two groups in Afghanastan to fight against another group supported by the USSR. We used them as peons. Then when we win, we set up a drug trade and help the diamond cartel set up a base of operation. They would have loved to become a territory and have our continued help. Instead its, sorry, thanks for dieing for us, we're leaving now.

The Taliban were CIA trained to help do our dirty work in the middle east.

Saddam was the chief CIA contact in the middle east durring the 80s. He was a good friend of former President Bush's while Bush was head of the CIA. The Iraq military helped us against Iran and was provided with US military equipment. The whole Gulf war was a miscommunication between Saddam and Bush that Bush used for political gain.

None of these countries can trust us, because we keep switching sides whenever it is to our benefit.

Don't even get me started on this whole 9-11 thing. I will just provide a link. That link provides a lot of different viewpoints, some more credible then others. Some of the authors are very credible, others not so. They provide tons of info and leave it to the intelligence of the reader to sort it out. I like sites that do that.

Most of the politics I was taught in High School was brainwashing. It wasn't until I started taking American Studies classes in college that I started seeing how much our media lies to us. Please, if you care about your country at all. Do not listen to what you hear on television. Do some research. The real wake up call for me was a video I saw that was excerpts from television news programs. That showed what they were reporting vs. what was really going on. I especially loved the coverage of us overthrowing Guatemala. When they first established a democracy on their own, Peter Jennings covered it saying "this is the first free election in Guatemala." Then the president who was elected wasn't doing what the US wanted. A few years later the news tells of us going in their to establish a democracy (In reality this time we are putting in place a brutal dictator who supports us). And there is Peter Jennings again, "this is the first free election in Guatemala." Its as if he doesn't think anyone has his previous coverage on tape or doesn't care. He is intentionally supporting our government rewriting history.

It's amazing how brutal our government can be over oil. Like it's not bad enough that we have corporations like Shell that will hire Mercanaries to masacre villages who don't support them.

Us Americans live in a cruel company, I just wish more of us woke up to that fact.

If any of you actually care to find out the reality of the country you live in, and think you can stomach it I can post tons of links and books to read.

If you don't want to do the research, trust me that going into Iraq is not a good thing.

 

[Whitecloak]

I would support an attack on Iraq if Bush gives convincing reasons for it. Not simply stuff like wanting a regime change, unsubstantiated claims on Saddam harboring terrorists, possessing wmd etc.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

My gut reaction to Bush attacking Iraq was initially "Hell yea kill Saddam!". But after watching a few Hardball debates and reading up on the whole story, I don't see any valid reason to attack Iraq. Even if Saddam had nuclear weapons, I just don't see how or why he would attack us. Saddam is not that much fo a maniac, remember he wants to stay in power as long as he can. If he attacked the US it would guarantee his ousting and probably his own life. I say, unless Bush comes up with some convincing evidence we should not attack Iraq.

 

[Spagina]

Originally posted by: lowtech

I'm not concerned with their link to terrorism. I concerned with what the British photographed on 12/17/98.

Why don't we bomb Russia, China, North Korea, Indonesia, India, Pakistan & Egypt while we are at it? It is inevitable that other countries going to have nuke soon or latter, because we have it.

Weapons of war are dangerous toys that shouldn?t be encourage, and we are in no better position to dictate it, because we constantly improving our guillotine technique. Why complaint about other countries that developing chemical weapon, while they are just copying the formulas from American/German/Russian/Chinese recipes books.

Wouldn?t you want a nice shiny shotgun if your neighbors have a shotgun, and tell you when to mowed your lawn & how to raise your kids?

I love this argument, it is the ultimate copout. One of the reasons we would hate to see Iraq acquire WMD, or any other country for that matter, is:

1. We know firsthand how devastating these weapons are.
2. We know how much nuclear weapons can destabilize regions. Why do you think the US and USSR have been working for years to help eliminate a lot of the stockpiles of nukes. The United States and Russia look at these weapons as DETERRENTS. Irresponsible nations like India, Pakistan, and pretty soon Iraq look at these weapons as reasonable tactical options. That is extremely unsettling when you have these crazy bastards on TV bragging about wanting to use the nukes. With someone like Hussein who has gassed his own populace, if he acquired a nuclear bomb, all bets are off. He WOULD use it eventually. Against us, against Israel, who knows, but with Hussein, it's a clear and present option for him.

I don't know about you, but the last thing I want to do is live in fear of a gas, nuke, or biological attacks on my city or country. If my government has the means necessary to resolve the problem, then I say go for it. The way this situation with Iraq will pan out is one of two ways.
Either the United States and it's few allies not in bed with Iraq take Hussein now and deal with the international outcry for taking Iraq, or...
we wait acouple years, then Hussein either provides the means for organizations to nuke or gas the US or nuke and gas Israel or he'll do it himself, and everyone will scream "Why didn't you take him out sooner?" (e.g. Sept. 11 and Bin Laden in the Clinton Years.)

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see it happen now. I DON'T want to see the day when any allah-praising nutso has clear access to WMD. We have an obligation to our kids and their kids not to allow these people to do anymore damage than they've already done. It's time someone in this world finally grew the balls to do what is right.

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: FettsBabe
Really, when are we going to do something? The British are ready! :Q

Most polls indicate that at least 70% of British people are against further action on Iraq.........

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That doesn't sound too bad to me, Astaroth33. Just some minor questions. The Sharon sounds like he could be a war criminal. Israel occupied Lebanon. They have all kinds of bad stuff as weapons and are in violation of UN mandates. Why not start with them, or north Korea. We have so many choices. Or let the Israelis do iraq. They are the ones maybe most threatened, not us.

Also, if you want to take out Saddam, can you do it without killing all kinds of innocent people? Do you care?

The last problem is thinking you have the capacity to determine from his actions what his intent is. I get the impression that most people just wee shat they expect to see and what to see.

Still, I support this idea in general.

It doesn't sound too bad to me in some respects, either. Remove his ability to kill vast numbers of people outside of his own nation, and he becomes somewhat less of a threat to the stability of the world. Assuming that Saddam goes along with it (I'm guessing he won't) the problem with this is that you have to keep those inspectors and troops there for a long time, as once they're gone, he'll likely go back to manufacturing those same weapons.

IMHO, North Korea is overdue for a "regime change" as well.

While precision-guided weapons greatly reduce the amount of collateral damage, there are always things that can go wrong. Someone can punch the wrong coordinates into a JDAM, or some civilians in a wedding party firing guns in the air can get in the way of an AC130 taking out an anti-aircraft position. Saddam also has made extensive use of the "human shield" concept in the past. When you have a full-scale war going on with that much destructive hardware flying around, innocent people will be killed, and there's nothing you can do about it save hope that it's worth it in the end.

I won't comment about Israel without first doing some research for specifics as to why they invaded Lebanon. I believe that it was to try to prevent Hizbollah from launching further attacks from Lebanese territory, but I'd have to check that to be sure.

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why haven't we attacked Iraq yet? Because we are waiting for the next bad thing to happen so that we can then tell all the peacenik self righteous hippy tree loving freaks who care more about making pants out of hemp than they do making the world a safer place to shut up, stay out of the way, and go fvck themselves while we deal with the problem as it should be dealt with. Sorry folks but sometimes you just have to kill people and blow sh1t up in order to make the world a better place.

This is the kind of post that I find the most offensive.

I expect that the stars and stripes avatar came into play around 9/11...

I understand that people like you are angry and wanting MORE justice..

Can you understand that Bush wants to win the next elections?

Can you understand that there is no evidence against Iraq and that Bush just wants control of oil?

I say we take a look at the USA's weapons of mass destruction (including it's hush hush biological and chemical weapons).

I say we examine why most of the world is against the USA..

I say USA should ask why they they put themselves on a pedestal.. AND ISOLATE THEMSELVES from the opinions of rational countries around the world i.e. Germany, France, Holland, etc.

In the UK, Blair's popularity is lower than ever, and we refer to Tony Blair as Bush's poodle dog

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh, oh, we have the proof, sandorski, it's just that we can't, um, show it to you because, well because, well it would compromise national security, you see and and, well we just can't do that. But trust us. We DO have the proof. Here's forty pages of CIA evidence. On page 12 you can clearly see the word 'nuclear', on 26 the word 'chemical' appears, and on page 31 the word 'Iraq'. The rest has been redacted, but you can easily infer the implication.

OMG!
:Q

I'll meet you at the recruitment center!!

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: Spagina

Originally posted by: lowtech

I love this argument, it is the ultimate copout. One of the reasons we would hate to see Iraq acquire WMD, or any other country for that matter, is:

1. We know firsthand how devastating these weapons are.
2. We know how much nuclear weapons can destabilize regions. Why do you think the US and USSR have been working for years to help eliminate a lot of the stockpiles of nukes. The United States and Russia look at these weapons as DETERRENTS. Irresponsible nations like India, Pakistan, and pretty soon Iraq look at these weapons as reasonable tactical options. That is extremely unsettling when you have these crazy bastards on TV bragging about wanting to use the nukes. With someone like Hussein who has gassed his own populace, if he acquired a nuclear bomb, all bets are off. He WOULD use it eventually. Against us, against Israel, who knows, but with Hussein, it's a clear and present option for him.

1. So? He does not have any way of threatening us with them. Even if he did, he wouldn't. Most people in Iraq other than the Kurds like Saddam. He is not a nice guy or anything, but I don't think we have the right to take out another country just because they are developing nuclear weapons.

2. There are other countries in the middle east with nuclear weapons. It has not destabalized the region any more than it already was.

Isreal does not see any reason to go after Saddam. They are a lot more treatened by it then we are. If they aren't worried, why should we be?

I don't know about you, but the last thing I want to do is live in fear of a gas, nuke, or biological attacks on my city or country. If my government has the means necessary to resolve the problem, then I say go for it. The way this situation with Iraq will pan out is one of two ways.
Either the United States and it's few allies not in bed with Iraq take Hussein now and deal with the international outcry for taking Iraq, or...
we wait acouple years, then Hussein either provides the means for organizations to nuke or gas the US or nuke and gas Israel or he'll do it himself, and everyone will scream "Why didn't you take him out sooner?" (e.g. Sept. 11 and Bin Laden in the Clinton Years.)

You obviously didn't read my link about Sept 11. Bin Laden could have been taken out long ago if Bush really wanted him dead. He was in an American hospital a month before Sep 11 and was visited by the CIA. The CIA could have had his head on a platter if they wanted it.

The guy with the Pakistani ISI who helped fund the Sep 11 attacks came to Washington on Sep 4 to meet with the Bush administration. He was sitting down with Powell on the morning of Sep 11.

Bin Laden is a terrorist trained by the United States CIA. If the Sep 11 attacks were done by him (which I am not sure they were), it was done with the knowledge of the Bush administration (and most likely support). The Sep 11 attacks have allowed the Bush administration to accomplish things Republicans have been working on for decades. All in the last year!

The reason we are in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism. The main reason we are there is for oil. The oil industry has had plans to establish an oil pipeline through Afghanistan since 1996 and has been planning military involvement there. Bush and most of his administration has personal financial interests in the oil industry. The two people he is supporting for leadership of the government he wants to put in place are former employees of oil companies.

We are spending who knows how much tax payer money, greatly increasing our national debt (Bush is following in Reagan's steps here), and pissing off the world all for the personal financial gain of the Bush administration. And the American people are supporting him, because he is doing it to fight the terrorism he is responsible for.

Anyone who thinks Bush is stupid is very much wrong. He wants people to think he is stupid. There is no way if he was stupid he could be accomplishing what he is doing, even with the help of staff.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see it happen now. I DON'T want to see the day when any allah-praising nutso has clear access to WMD. We have an obligation to our kids and their kids not to allow these people to do anymore damage than they've already done. It's time someone in this world finally grew the balls to do what is right.

A real Muslim does not believe in killing others. This terrorism belief in the region is actually rather recent. For some reason, it actually started about 20 years ago when the CIA established some religion based terrorist training camps in the region.

We have an obligation to our children to wake up to what our government is really doing and clean it up. We have an obligation towards being nice to rest of the world and creating a world where our children will want to live.

I want a government that's foreign policy is based on improving the world. Right now even when we donate food (that's supposed to be a nice thing right?) we do it out of greed. Rather than what we did with Zimbabwe(sp?). For those unaware, they are currently suffering a famine and food shortage. This is actually abnormal for them, usually they are a large food exporter with a particularly large export of corn. Now to "help them out" the US sent over a shipment of corn. They had to refuse the shipment. You see, the corn we sent was bioengineered corn and the intellectual property of US corporations. Zimbabwe knew this and requested that the corn be processed and the seeds removed, otherwise the entire corn industry in Zimbabwe would become the property of US corporations. As this is their main export and income, it would destroy the future economic system of the country. The US refused to process the corn, claiming it would be too expensive. One US official responded (I think it was Colin Powell, but I don't remember for sure) with the cliche, "beggars can't be choosers." I cannot believe the audacity of our current administration. It makes me sick.

 

[dszd0g]

I would like to add that I find it sad, that most Europeans I talk to are well aware of most of these things that I am writing about. However, I have only come across a few Americans who are. What is common knowledge in Europe is kept from the average American.

I am not sure how many of you saw the letter to Americans sent by a Canadian saying how sick we all are that we can sit around watching TV when our government does all these terrible things. I really think it's because the rest of the world knows we do all these terrible things, but the average American has this idealistic vision of our country that is portrayed by our media that shows us as the saviour of the world.

I bet when the average person on these forums reads what I am writing here, they won't believe it. The average American has been brainwashed into not believing it, they can't view their own country as the horror it really is.