Reports here say any day now on Iraq

[optoman]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Originally posted by: etech
Let's see what some people who have lived in Iraq have to say.

US Arabs who pray for deliverance from Saddam

"IN A makeshift mosque in a run-down Detroit suburb, scores of Arabs kneel on traditional carpets. But they are praying for war, not peace.

?War is indescribable, beyond imagination. But believe me, Saddam is worse,? says Baker Albaaj, a 37-year-old biologist who helps to run the small Islamic centre, hidden in a low-ceilinged brick building that used to be a dance hall.

Elsewhere in America, support for military action to remove President Saddam Hussein is, at best, equivocal, but here among the 25,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims who live in exile in Dearborn, a suburb of the decaying birthplace of the mass-produced motor car, it is resoundingly high.
...
"

So we should just drop sanctions and let his weapons program go full speed?

And while we are it, we should stop the no fly zones so Saddam can do some ethnic cleansing.

I believe the Kurds are more concerned with the Turks than Saddam.

Saddam would love to get rid of them and the Sheits (sp?) in the south. Saddam is affraid to travel to either of the regions because they would kill the first chance they got.

 

[optoman]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Its self-evident, so you shut up.

If it was so self-evident, then why hasn't then UN passed a resolution for the invasion of Iraq?

Its self-evident that when it doesn't suit the US, the US will ignore it. Hence, its not effective since when it comes to the United States and Israel, its resolutions are optional.

You said:

even from the UN (which knows its powerless against the US anyway, so why bother?).

If the UN is so powerless, then why hasn't the US gotten the go ahead to invade Iraq months ago?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Originally posted by: etech
Let's see what some people who have lived in Iraq have to say.

US Arabs who pray for deliverance from Saddam

"IN A makeshift mosque in a run-down Detroit suburb, scores of Arabs kneel on traditional carpets. But they are praying for war, not peace.

?War is indescribable, beyond imagination. But believe me, Saddam is worse,? says Baker Albaaj, a 37-year-old biologist who helps to run the small Islamic centre, hidden in a low-ceilinged brick building that used to be a dance hall.

Elsewhere in America, support for military action to remove President Saddam Hussein is, at best, equivocal, but here among the 25,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims who live in exile in Dearborn, a suburb of the decaying birthplace of the mass-produced motor car, it is resoundingly high.
...
"

So we should just drop sanctions and let his weapons program go full speed?

And while we are it, we should stop the no fly zones so Saddam can do some ethnic cleansing.

I believe the Kurds are more concerned with the Turks than Saddam.

Saddam would love to get rid of them and the Sheits (sp?) in the south. Saddam is affraid to travel to either of the regions because they would kill the first chance they got.

So, what do you think is going to happen with all these various factions when he's gone?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Originally posted by: etech
Let's see what some people who have lived in Iraq have to say.

US Arabs who pray for deliverance from Saddam

"IN A makeshift mosque in a run-down Detroit suburb, scores of Arabs kneel on traditional carpets. But they are praying for war, not peace.

?War is indescribable, beyond imagination. But believe me, Saddam is worse,? says Baker Albaaj, a 37-year-old biologist who helps to run the small Islamic centre, hidden in a low-ceilinged brick building that used to be a dance hall.

Elsewhere in America, support for military action to remove President Saddam Hussein is, at best, equivocal, but here among the 25,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims who live in exile in Dearborn, a suburb of the decaying birthplace of the mass-produced motor car, it is resoundingly high.
...
"

So we should just drop sanctions and let his weapons program go full speed?

And while we are it, we should stop the no fly zones so Saddam can do some ethnic cleansing.

I believe the Kurds are more concerned with the Turks than Saddam.

Saddam would love to get rid of them and the Sheits (sp?) in the south. Saddam is affraid to travel to either of the regions because they would kill the first chance they got.

So, what do you think is going to happen with all these various factions when he's gone?

Representational goverment will probably work well.

 

[optoman]

So, what do you think is going to happen with all these various factions when he's gone?

There are to be part of the new government and have a say as to what happens around them.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Its self-evident, so you shut up.

If it was so self-evident, then why hasn't then UN passed a resolution for the invasion of Iraq?

Its self-evident that when it doesn't suit the US, the US will ignore it. Hence, its not effective since when it comes to the United States and Israel, its resolutions are optional.

You said:

even from the UN (which knows its powerless against the US anyway, so why bother?).

If the UN is so powerless, then why hasn't the US gotten the go ahead to invade Iraq months ago?

How many times do I need to answer the same question? They can say "no" but if the US wants a "yes" they'll just ignore it. Now, if they say "yes" then they'll claim international support, even though its more likely that they've been bullied into it. Like I said already, for the US, whatever the UN decides is optional.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Originally posted by: etech
Let's see what some people who have lived in Iraq have to say.

US Arabs who pray for deliverance from Saddam

"IN A makeshift mosque in a run-down Detroit suburb, scores of Arabs kneel on traditional carpets. But they are praying for war, not peace.

?War is indescribable, beyond imagination. But believe me, Saddam is worse,? says Baker Albaaj, a 37-year-old biologist who helps to run the small Islamic centre, hidden in a low-ceilinged brick building that used to be a dance hall.

Elsewhere in America, support for military action to remove President Saddam Hussein is, at best, equivocal, but here among the 25,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims who live in exile in Dearborn, a suburb of the decaying birthplace of the mass-produced motor car, it is resoundingly high.
...
"

So we should just drop sanctions and let his weapons program go full speed?

And while we are it, we should stop the no fly zones so Saddam can do some ethnic cleansing.

I believe the Kurds are more concerned with the Turks than Saddam.

Saddam would love to get rid of them and the Sheits (sp?) in the south. Saddam is affraid to travel to either of the regions because they would kill the first chance they got.

So, what do you think is going to happen with all these various factions when he's gone?

Representational goverment will probably work well.

You're a dreamer.

 

[optoman]

How many times do I need to answer the same question? They can say "no" but if the US wants a "yes" they'll just ignore it. Now, if they say "yes" then they'll claim international support, even though its more likely that they've been bullied into it. Like I said already, for the US, whatever the UN decides is optional.

How stupid of me, I forgot the US bullied the UN with the first Iraq war and also with Kosovo and both of those turned out bad.

 

[etech]

konichiwa
"<< Is it still UNILATERAL if 20+ nations support the US? >>

Try and read my posts next time if you plan on joining the conversation; I addressed that. "

I was looking for where you had covered the "unilateral" question earlier. I can't find it. Would you please tell me in which post you covered that.


I also saw this.

"Goes on and on...not to mention Ariel Sharon was just convicted in a Belgian court of war crimes when he was head general of the IDF in the eighties."

I won't call you any more names if you can just provide a link proving that. Here's your chance to redeem yourself and show how careful in the information that you disiminate.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: optoman

How many times do I need to answer the same question? They can say "no" but if the US wants a "yes" they'll just ignore it. Now, if they say "yes" then they'll claim international support, even though its more likely that they've been bullied into it. Like I said already, for the US, whatever the UN decides is optional.

How stupid of me, I forgot the US bullied the UN with the first Iraq war

No, you're government hosed them into believing a bunch of bull.

and also with Kosovo and both of those turned out bad.

This isn't going to turn out good no matter what success lay in the past.

 

[JackBurton]

No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Hey, I guess it would have been a bad idea to invade Germany when Hitler was quietly building his military back up. I guess it was a better move to just sit back and wait for Hitler to build up his army to its fullest and then wait for him to attack a country. Everyone knew he was rebuilding his military but chose to ignore it. But hey, "the cost of war wasn't worth it." I swear, some people don't learn from history. But I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat it! I support ONE team and ONE team only, and that is MY team, the US. I could give a sh!t what other coutries think! That little b!tch Saddam is guilty of funding terrorism, and I'm POSITIVE 95% of that terrorism is targeted at the US. You can hide your f@@king head in a hole in the ground and think if you don't do anything everything will be A.O.K, but it isn't and it won't. You know it's funny, I hear A LOT of anti-Bush people talking about this bullsh!t rumor that Bush knew about the 9/11 attack before it happened. But if the US DID know about it and targeted Afghanistan, all these f%%king p&ssies would be protesting the war on Afghanistan. "Hey, what did they do to us?" I swear to God...

 

[optoman]

This isn't going to turn out good no matter what success lay in the past.

How do you know? If you can tell the future then please tell me next weeks lotto numbers.

 

[BD231]

Someone has to take Saddam and his boie'z out (he's a guy who has proven himself as a ruthless bastard no?), since nobody else cares to do so why not reap the long term benefits of liberating Iraq?. I'm sure most the un-brainwashed U.S. haters over there are all for it, and I doubt Bush is on a crusade to rob the place. We go in, take out the bad guys, help the people get their crap together and leave with a country that's good for oil trade. We've neutralized an obvious potential threat to the US in the process also.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: etech
konichiwa
"<< Is it still UNILATERAL if 20+ nations support the US? >>

Try and read my posts next time if you plan on joining the conversation; I addressed that. "

I was looking for where you had covered the "unilateral" question earlier. I can't find it. Would you please tell me in which post you covered that.


I also saw this.

"Goes on and on...not to mention Ariel Sharon was just convicted in a Belgian court of war crimes when he was head general of the IDF in the eighties."

I won't call you any more names if you can just provide a link proving that. Here's your chance to redeem yourself and show how careful in the information that you disiminate.

I may have misspoke in suggesting that he had already been convicted, prosecuted was the word I was looking for and here's the
link. If Sharon finds himself in Belgium or any country with an extradition treaty with Belgium, he could be prosecuted for war crimes committed against Palestinians.

As for the other question...

"Unilateral means without the support of the U.N. as well as many of our main allies (France, Germany come to mind). The support of *stan is not what I am talking about.
Link, for one, not to mention the pope?" Go back and look

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
konichiwa
"<< Is it still UNILATERAL if 20+ nations support the US? >>

Try and read my posts next time if you plan on joining the conversation; I addressed that. "

I was looking for where you had covered the "unilateral" question earlier. I can't find it. Would you please tell me in which post you covered that.


I also saw this.

"Goes on and on...not to mention Ariel Sharon was just convicted in a Belgian court of war crimes when he was head general of the IDF in the eighties."

I won't call you any more names if you can just provide a link proving that. Here's your chance to redeem yourself and show how careful in the information that you disiminate.

I may have misspoke in suggesting that he had already been convicted, prosecuted was the word I was looking for and here's the
link. If Sharon finds himself in Belgium or any country with an extradition treaty with Belgium, he could be prosecuted for war crimes committed against Palestinians.

As for the other question...

"Unilateral means without the support of the U.N. as well as many of our main allies (France, Germany come to mind). The support of *stan is not what I am talking about.
Link, for one, not to mention the pope?" Go back and look

So what you are saying is, unilateral means only with support of france, germany, russia and the pope?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BD231
Someone has to take Saddam and his boie'z out (he's a guy who has proven himself as a ruthless bastard no?), since nobody else cares to do so why not reap the long term benefits of liberating Iraq?. I'm sure most the un-brainwashed U.S. haters over there are all for it, and I doubt Bush is on a crusade to rob the place. We go in, take out the bad guys, help the people get their crap together and leave with a country that's good for oil trade. We've neutralized an obvious potential threat to the US in the process also.

No, you'll be there a very long time, and while some of your citizens will get rich from it, you're taxpayers are going to foot the enormous bill. A bill, btw, that will increase as you take on every other dictator in the world your president decides he doesn't approve of. Happy hunting.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: optoman

This isn't going to turn out good no matter what success lay in the past.

How do you know? If you can tell the future then please tell me next weeks lotto numbers.

I'm willing to bet my crystal ball is clearer than yours. Time will tell.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: BD231
Someone has to take Saddam and his boie'z out (he's a guy who has proven himself as a ruthless bastard no?), since nobody else cares to do so why not reap the long term benefits of liberating Iraq?. I'm sure most the un-brainwashed U.S. haters over there are all for it, and I doubt Bush is on a crusade to rob the place. We go in, take out the bad guys, help the people get their crap together and leave with a country that's good for oil trade. We've neutralized an obvious potential threat to the US in the process also.

No, you'll be there a very long time, and while some of your citizens will get rich from it, you're taxpayers are going to foot the enormous bill. A bill, btw, that will increase as you take on every other dictator in the world your president decides he doesn't approve of. Happy hunting.

And i suppose your nation supports dictatorial regimes?

 

[konichiwa]

No, what I'm saying is unilateral means without the backing of a LARGE MAJORITY of countries in the world, including the UN (which, interestingly, is the sole reason why we are actually going to war with Iraq...UN resolutions, but the UN doesn't agree with us GOING TO WAR. Ironic, isn't it?)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
No, what I'm saying is unilateral means without the backing of a LARGE MAJORITY of countries in the world, including the UN (which, interestingly, is the sole reason why we are actually going to war with Iraq...UN resolutions, but the UN doesn't agree with us GOING TO WAR. Ironic, isn't it?)

Yes, but the UN currently wants to do nothing other than maintain the status quo to protection the economic interests of france, germany, russia and china who all have significant economic deals with iraq.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

This isn't going to turn out good no matter what success lay in the past.

How do you know? If you can tell the future then please tell me next weeks lotto numbers.

I'm willing to bet my crystal ball is clearer than yours. Time will tell.

Your crystal ball is deeply clouded by your obvious hate and bias against anything of the US.

It will not be easy to get the people of that region to live together in peace. The attitudes expressed by France and Germany are only going to make it more difficult. The price of the problems is partially on them for their obstruction.


konichiwa

"May have misspoke"

You sir are a master of the understatement.
Yes, Belgium has ignored all of the other despots of the world and decided to try to try Sharon for something in which he has only been found indirectly responsible for.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: optoman

This isn't going to turn out good no matter what success lay in the past.

How do you know? If you can tell the future then please tell me next weeks lotto numbers.

I'm willing to bet my crystal ball is clearer than yours. Time will tell.

Your crystal ball is deeply clouded by your obvious hate and bias against anything of the US.

No, go get your ass kicked, spend a few trillion and make a world full of vengeful enemies. There, how's that? Oh, but wait, that would mean that I should support the war. Never mind.

It will not be easy to get the people of that region to live together in peace. The attitudes expressed by France and Germany are only going to make it more difficult. The price of the problems is partially on them for their obstruction.

America right, everyone else, wrong. I see. Hubrus.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: etech
Hagbard

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.

Originally posted by: konichiwa

"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

Hagbard

exactly

Do you realize you just made a fool of yourself.

'Saddam doesn't have any nasty weapons, he has disarmed.' 'Saddam would be an idiot to get rid of his nastier weapons.'

Oh the irony of it all.

OWNED

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, but the UN currently wants to do nothing other than maintain the status quo to protection the economic interests of france, germany, russia and china who all have significant economic deals with iraq.
-------------
This from the people who say it's not about oil, I trust. I guess we are the only virtuous country.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: classy
Bush doesn't want to have a war, Bush wants to commit murder. And he's a disgraceful and ignorant man. I can't remember a time when our country was so looked down upon. He is a poor leader and even worst human being.

Even worse than you? Wow that is bad.