Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Can't you guys be fvcking happy! Why do we have to die to make you people feel better? Go masturbate or something...you need to relieve some friggen stress. It was 0230 here when heard, and for sure I felt a little better. Saddam Hussien might just want to delay us kicking his head in for a few months. This will work. The UN, like most civilized people in the world (this actually includes the USA suprisingly), does not want war unless it has to. It wouldn't be a war by definition. It would be a police action. A police action that should be condoned by the United Nations since they are the ones who implemented the laws (sanctions in this case). Since the UN was kicked out (The US did not go to war then because we were waiting for the UN to cut the leash). Well, Goshdarnit...that leash is getting old and the UN had its back toward Iraq.
How much to want to bet that the UN wishes we go in and decimate Iraq (to include the people who will be governmentless and require aid from the US) just so it will "go away"
Yes, we are skeptical because we are realists. Gangbanger says he will stop banging if you just let him out of jail. 180 degree turn around. Yesterday Saddam was adimate about not letting the infidel UN (got us there, huh) into his country. What changed?
Let's just assume that he has no WMD, and all those WMD producing facotries, dicovered by the UN, are really baby formula factories. Maybe Saddam is pissed and he wants no part of the USA or UN. This could be a valid reason why he didn't allow inspectors. Maybe the inspectors were assuming that the baby foprmula factoris could be WMD facotries if you change the name and move all the equipment out and add a million sq wing on two sides and build a railraod across the country and add mega voltage to the power supply. This goes with the thread saying we are going to war just because of oil. Well, in that argument, I susbstituted Cheerios for oil in the article and I sure someone could spin it enough to make it seem correct.
Anyway, I am ranting. I agree, take the new for what it is worth. If we attack, it will look bad. We may be right, but it will look bad. If they don't find WMD, we will look bad. Oh darn, the rest of the world will look down on us.
How much to want to bet that the UN wishes we go in and decimate Iraq (to include the people who will be governmentless and require aid from the US) just so it will "go away"
Yes, we are skeptical because we are realists. Gangbanger says he will stop banging if you just let him out of jail. 180 degree turn around. Yesterday Saddam was adimate about not letting the infidel UN (got us there, huh) into his country. What changed?
Let's just assume that he has no WMD, and all those WMD producing facotries, dicovered by the UN, are really baby formula factories. Maybe Saddam is pissed and he wants no part of the USA or UN. This could be a valid reason why he didn't allow inspectors. Maybe the inspectors were assuming that the baby foprmula factoris could be WMD facotries if you change the name and move all the equipment out and add a million sq wing on two sides and build a railraod across the country and add mega voltage to the power supply. This goes with the thread saying we are going to war just because of oil. Well, in that argument, I susbstituted Cheerios for oil in the article and I sure someone could spin it enough to make it seem correct.
Anyway, I am ranting. I agree, take the new for what it is worth. If we attack, it will look bad. We may be right, but it will look bad. If they don't find WMD, we will look bad. Oh darn, the rest of the world will look down on us.
Good, I hope everything works out and inspectors destroy any WMD that iraq may have.
War would have been interesting, but then again, it might have affected us negatively (higher fuel prices, stock market uncertainty etc), so its best to avoid war.
War would have been interesting, but then again, it might have affected us negatively (higher fuel prices, stock market uncertainty etc), so its best to avoid war.
Dave, if you listen carefully, you will see that Iraq promised that "negotiations on who will inspect Iraq will begin in a few months"..... doesn't sound like an unconditional to me.
Leon
White House Dismisses Iraq offer.
I guess this president wants to keep the war going. Beats talking about the economy.
I guess this president wants to keep the war going. Beats talking about the economy.
Exact Text of Document..........
Apparently hte US and Brittan are saying it is full of "loopholes" now.............the part I bold text perhaps???? I don't know.............
- Dear Secretary-General,
I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements for the immediate resumption of inspections.
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.
I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.
Dr. Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq
Apparently hte US and Brittan are saying it is full of "loopholes" now.............the part I bold text perhaps???? I don't know.............
Why don't you start another thread and tell us what the President is supposed to do about the economy genius.
I don't know, why does Daschle and other leading Democrats keep holding thoses issues. The Majority Leader is the one who sets the agenda.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Curiouser and curiouser. Now we have an offer for unconditional inspections. Assuming that the offer is genuine, it will be harder for the Bush administration to justify a preemptive attack in the eyes of the rest of the world. If the offer is bogus, then it adds more fuel to the fire for an attack. I think the government should say "Good, we are coming in. Thanks for the invite", and go in short order. Couldnt hurt.
He should ask his father about the economy stupid.
No war is going to save Bush if the economy is this bad in 2004.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He should ask his father about the economy stupid.
No war is going to save Bush if the economy is this bad in 2004.
Why don't we wait until then to pass judgement or are you capable of seeing into the future too?????
The only thing he is capable of seeing is the last four inches of his large intestine.Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He should ask his father about the economy stupid.
No war is going to save Bush if the economy is this bad in 2004.
Why don't we wait until then to pass judgement or are you capable of seeing into the future too?????
Like I said tool, why don't you start another thread and tell us all what the President is supposed to do to fix the economy?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Ditto. And first things first anyway. I predicted that we would actually act to help enact a regime change in Iran first anyway, the population there is on the brink of civil war to overthrow the theocracy there without even requiring a full scale invasion. All it needs is a little push, and it's off to the races, with a minimal commitment in any way from the U.S. The greatest support we could offer would simply be continuing strong statements from President Bush, we probably wouldn't even need to insert troops apart from a limited number of special operations troops in a covert action role. IMHO, Iran is the much more easily accomplished task than Iraq in both strategic and tactical terms, and would pay larger political dividends anyway. If we roll up the trouble spots east to west, it will make things considerably easier in almost every sense, as well as making sense in military terms.
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
The only thing he is capable of seeing is the last four inches of his large intestine.Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He should ask his father about the economy stupid.
No war is going to save Bush if the economy is this bad in 2004.
Why don't we wait until then to pass judgement or are you capable of seeing into the future too?????
Like I said tool, why don't you start another thread and tell us all what the President is supposed to do to fix the economy?
I would start by not blowing $200B of our tax money on some Iraqi adventure.
That's $2K/taxpayer, mind you. I am not counting you peeps who only pay social security, since those funds aren't gonna be used for war.
Besides, who cares what the president can do for the economy. Come 2004, he'll get blame for the economy if it's bad and credit if it's good. That's just how it works. If you don't like it, go to Russia.
Just becuase he lets them in doesn't mean they'll find anything. He can just move everything on trucks under the cover of night as he's done in the past.
"I'm thinking it may be too late for them now, the US's war testosterone is flowing and they need a release."
Agreed. Unfortunately it will probably still come to another war.
"I'm thinking it may be too late for them now, the US's war testosterone is flowing and they need a release."
Agreed. Unfortunately it will probably still come to another war.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
The only thing he is capable of seeing is the last four inches of his large intestine.Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: SuperTool
He should ask his father about the economy stupid.
No war is going to save Bush if the economy is this bad in 2004.
Why don't we wait until then to pass judgement or are you capable of seeing into the future too?????
Like I said tool, why don't you start another thread and tell us all what the President is supposed to do to fix the economy?
I would start by not blowing $200B of our tax money on some Iraqi adventure.
That's $2K/taxpayer, mind you. I am not counting you peeps who only pay social security, since those funds aren't gonna be used for war.
Besides, who cares what the president can do for the economy. Come 2004, he'll get blame for the economy if it's bad and credit if it's good. That's just how it works. If you don't like it, go to Russia.
Loss of the WTC has cost at least $90 Billion so far. $200Billion to get rid of someone who would fund terrorist to this again sounds like a bargain.
It would be a bargain, if Bush actually connected Hussein to Al-Qaeda. So far it's just been hysterical claims, and no proof whatsoever.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Couldn't have said it better.
Could he be flushing his stash down the toilet right now? Sure. I don't care so long as there is a way out of this mess without bloodshed. I say we take every opportunity to settle this without a weapon being fired.
I haven't been shy about stating that I don't support the U.S. going to war. That's because I'm of the opinion that we don't go to war until we're committed to blowing the fvck out of everything. Dresden would be a teaparty in comparison when I get my mind made up. But I can't support that at this time. We don't have irrefuteable proof of the supposed buildup of WMD. We don't have proof of any intent to attack us or anyone else in the region at this time.
For those of you who want blood. Ask yourselves this: would you be willing to decimate 20million civilians even if you didn't know it would kill Saddam or any of his military?
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Hey dumbasses, Iraq has said this and done this before. Its called delay tactics.
Once inspectors(if they get there that is, thats a HUGE IF), get to Iraq, Iraq will turn them away from doing their jobs, just like the umpteen other times. Its a delay tactics until proven otherwise.
Once inspectors(if they get there that is, thats a HUGE IF), get to Iraq, Iraq will turn them away from doing their jobs, just like the umpteen other times. Its a delay tactics until proven otherwise.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Iraq stated quite a while back that they were willing to allow inspectors back in, but the US had already stated the attack would proceed even if that happened. Chaney had already made his statement regarding that matter to the press. Since then, just last week Bush made a similar statement. Iraq played the Bush Administration big time. First they accused Iraq of being involved with the 911 attacks, until they had to admit 2 weeks ago that despite intensive searching, they couldnt find a single shred of evidence to support that claim. THey then switched to the UN weapon inspector excuse, which Iraq has deftly answered. What excuse will the Bush team come up with now? YOu can be sure another excuse is coming, but again, we wont hear the real reason.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter