Reports here say any day now on Iraq

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Prove to me that this war is all about the oil. Tell me how the US is going to plant its flag and take over those oil fields. You claim it, let's see it. >>

I don't predict the future, but we will see in due time. One point perhaps...why is North Korea suddenly a non-issue? Seems to me that N. Korea would, logically, be percieved as a much larger threat as they brag about the fact that they have nuclear missiles and can hit the west coast with them. So far all that has been found in Iraq is shortrange missiles...which can hit, what? Iran maybe?

And, more to the point, how to you think Kim Jong Il is going to react when bombs are being dropped on Saddam? I suspect he might decide to disarm through use, I don't think he's going to wait around for the US to finish off Saddam and be the next guy on the axis of evil list to have bombs visited upon him.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< How do YOU know that North Korea is a "Non-Issue"??? >>

It's a non issue in that its recieving considerably less attention than Iraq at this point.

Maybe you would like our leaders to tell you that "We will Bomb North Korea if they don't listen to us"?



North Korea is trying to extort money out of the United States.... and we will not listen to them when they are trying to bully us .. OH, BTW.... and the rest of the free world

North Korea is slightly more sensitive of an issue...... And to be truthful... MUCH more difficult to deal with than Saddam Hussein.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Well, if you're naive enough to believe that Saddam disarmed, then I can understand why you think the world economy hinges on the Joneses roadtrip in their large, evil, gas guzzling, Alaskan wildlife killing SUV

a) My point was not to show that Saddam disarmed or didn't disarm, but that the Bushit has changed from "disarm" to "Saddam must be ousted"

b) You believe that this war teeters on anything other than oil? Who's naive now?

c) "evil, gas guzzling, Alaskan wildlife killing SUV"

I don't know about evil, but gas guzzling, wildelife killing, sure. Have any evidence to point otherwise?

Prove to me that this war is all about the oil. Tell me how the US is going to plant its flag and take over those oil fields. You claim it, let's see it.

Well'p, there you go again! Its not just about oil, though control of oil for power (not fuel) is certainly one.

That was our esteemed konichiwa that was saying that this war is only about the oil. In fact he said anyone that thought otherwise is naive.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: badluck

Or what the US plants there and claims he was hiding. Yes, I don't trust your government. Besides, given the turn of events, he would be more than an idiot to get rid of all his nastier weapons.

You are an idiot.....If Sadaam would have taken care of this years ago he wouldn't be in this situation..

Right....he and many of this people would have been dead long before (oh, sorry, they are thanks to sanctions).

No, they are thanks to a brutal tyrant for a leader who takes all the money to build himself his twenty eighth palace.

What would he do with food shipments and medicine? These are the types of shipments that the US prevented from arriving in Iraq during the past ten years, things that could have prevented the deaths of a million Iraqis.

 

[no0b]

Dont we have about 24 heavy bombers in Seoul (sp?) right now.

Its getting attention but obviously not as much as Iraq but then again alot of our forces are in Iraq right now so who are we going to send to NK?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< That's the only thing that has been found in Iraq? Are you sure you want to go on record with that statement? It's getting rather tiresome having to educate you on this situation but I will if you really need me to. >>

If you'd like me to continue to participate in a discussion with you, I'd appreciate you not patronizing me...

and...no, I dont "want to go on record" with that but can you honestly tell me that with nk's flaunting of nuclear weapons (when none have been found in iraq) it deserves as little attention it has been getting (compared with iraq)?

The subject is Iraq not N. Korea. S. Korea is asking the US to slow down. China is a huge force on the N.Korea border and makes that an entirely different situation.

If you don't like my tone than don't make statements that are so obviously wrong with such conviction. Argue the facts and I will give you all due respect. Throw out misconceptions, falsehoods and mushy feelings based on nothing and I won?t.

 

[Bluga]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: badluck

Or what the US plants there and claims he was hiding. Yes, I don't trust your government. Besides, given the turn of events, he would be more than an idiot to get rid of all his nastier weapons.

You are an idiot.....If Sadaam would have taken care of this years ago he wouldn't be in this situation..

Right....he and many of this people would have been dead long before (oh, sorry, they are thanks to sanctions).

No, they are thanks to a brutal tyrant for a leader who takes all the money to build himself his twenty eighth palace.

What would he do with food shipments and medicine? These are the types of shipments that the US prevented from arriving in Iraq during the past ten years, things that could have prevented the deaths of a million Iraqis.

Hagbard, did you ever hear of the oil for food program?

Like to throw out another lie?

 

[optoman]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: badluck

Or what the US plants there and claims he was hiding. Yes, I don't trust your government. Besides, given the turn of events, he would be more than an idiot to get rid of all his nastier weapons.

You are an idiot.....If Sadaam would have taken care of this years ago he wouldn't be in this situation..

Right....he and many of this people would have been dead long before (oh, sorry, they are thanks to sanctions).

No, they are thanks to a brutal tyrant for a leader who takes all the money to build himself his twenty eighth palace.

What would he do with food shipments and medicine? These are the types of shipments that the US prevented from arriving in Iraq during the past ten years, things that could have prevented the deaths of a million Iraqis.

Where's the proof?

 

[Bluga]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Prove to me that this war is all about the oil. Tell me how the US is going to plant its flag and take over those oil fields. You claim it, let's see it. >>

Prove to me what this war is about.

Well I guess your head is too simply for that.

Let me tell you,

this war is about setting up puppet government in Iraq so US can take advantage of everything it offers.

 

[optoman]

We took over Kuwait after we kicked Iraq out. Oh wait, no we didn't.

 

[conjur]

Well...Britain is apparently thinking of a compromise on this next resolution due to the stances of France, Germany and Russia.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bluga

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Prove to me that this war is all about the oil. Tell me how the US is going to plant its flag and take over those oil fields. You claim it, let's see it. >>

Prove to me what this war is about.

Well I guess your head is too simply for that.

Let me tell you,

this war is about setting up puppet government in Iraq so US can take advantage of everything it offers.

You told me, I don't believe you. Prove it.

 

[optoman]

I just read on CNN that flights over Iraq have increased to over 750 a day. Wow, the clock is ticking.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

It would be nice if he did disarm, but destroying a few missles falls pitifully short of accounting for tons of chem/bio weapons.

But that would be real disarmerment (sp) and no one seems to be too concerned with that

 

[optoman]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: konichiwa
"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

It would be nice if he did disarm, but destroying a few missles falls pitifully short of accounting for tons of chem/bio weapons.

But that would be real disarmerment (sp) and no one seems to be too concerned with that

They destroyed a few missiles. The ones that are deployed are the ones to worry about. What ever happened with the warhead they found with a liquid substance they thought might be a chem or bio weapon? It was about a week ago.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: element®
You got to hand it to Bush if we do ever go to war. Brilliant military stragedy, get the enemy to disarm and THEN attack them.

Ah bush, they will probably need to be trimmed to.

Ya, I goota sharpen the blade on my lawnmower with my dremel, ever tried that? it works great!

 

[exp]

Well...Britain is apparently thinking of a compromise on this next resolution due to the stances of France, Germany and Russia.

What I don't understand is why France & Co. oppose setting a deadline for compliance (which I believe is the gist of the Canadian compromise resolution). They keep parroting the old refrain "You can't set a timetable for disarmament." Why? That's my question. Why can't you set a timetable?? A deadline seems like a very reasonable request to me.

Anyone?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: exp

Well...Britain is apparently thinking of a compromise on this next resolution due to the stances of France, Germany and Russia.

What I don't understand is why France & Co. oppose setting a deadline for compliance (which I believe is the gist of the Canadian compromise resolution). They keep parroting the old refrain "You can't set a timetable for disarmament." Why? That's my question. Why can't you set a timetable?? A deadline seems like a very reasonable request to me.

Anyone?

The ceasefire resolution for the gulf war gave them 15 days to disarm. I think they are way past due.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: exp

Well...Britain is apparently thinking of a compromise on this next resolution due to the stances of France, Germany and Russia.

What I don't understand is why France & Co. oppose setting a deadline for compliance (which I believe is the gist of the Canadian compromise resolution). They keep parroting the old refrain "You can't set a timetable for disarmament." Why? That's my question. Why can't you set a timetable?? A deadline seems like a very reasonable request to me.

Anyone?

I for one would figure 10+ years would allready have been enough, but things move slow in Bagdad I hear. Though putting a deadline would not be unresaonable I figure

 

[exp]

The ceasefire resolution for the gulf war gave them 15 days to disarm. I think they are way past due.

So do I. I was intending the question more for the pro-Saddam crowd. 🙂

 

[konichiwa]

<< If you don't like my tone than don't make statements that are so obviously wrong with such conviction. Argue the facts and I will give you all due respect. Throw out misconceptions, falsehoods and mushy feelings based on nothing and I won?t. >>

ah heck off. I've still heard nothing but answering questions with questions from you. To completely overlook the (huge, gaping, elephant in the room) question of a UNILATERAL FIRST STRIKE offensive, I'd like to ask you what exactly this war is about. And please don't spout "protecting the american people"

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< If you don't like my tone than don't make statements that are so obviously wrong with such conviction. Argue the facts and I will give you all due respect. Throw out misconceptions, falsehoods and mushy feelings based on nothing and I won?t. >>

ah heck off. I've still heard nothing but answering questions with questions from you. To completely overlook the (huge, gaping, elephant in the room) question of a UNILATERAL FIRST STRIKE offensive, I'd like to ask you what exactly this war is about. And please don't spout "protecting the american people"

UN Resolution 1441

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to
resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

etc.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: exp

Well...Britain is apparently thinking of a compromise on this next resolution due to the stances of France, Germany and Russia.

What I don't understand is why France & Co. oppose setting a deadline for compliance (which I believe is the gist of the Canadian compromise resolution). They keep parroting the old refrain "You can't set a timetable for disarmament." Why? That's my question. Why can't you set a timetable?? A deadline seems like a very reasonable request to me.

Anyone?

The ceasefire resolution for the gulf war gave them 15 days to disarm. I think they are way past due.

How do you know they didn't? Maybe they heard that and did it the same day.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< If you don't like my tone than don't make statements that are so obviously wrong with such conviction. Argue the facts and I will give you all due respect. Throw out misconceptions, falsehoods and mushy feelings based on nothing and I won?t. >>

ah heck off. I've still heard nothing but answering questions with questions from you. To completely overlook the (huge, gaping, elephant in the room) question of a UNILATERAL FIRST STRIKE offensive, I'd like to ask you what exactly this war is about. And please don't spout "protecting the american people"

Does uniltaral mean having the support of 20+ countries?