The Onion seems to predict the future

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Millenium

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Millenium

I have friends in Ireland, have been there and you? Get a passport and get a clue.

Actually I have a passport and have been to several European and African countries. I visited England,Switzerland,Germany,Spain,Portugal,and Morrocco.

What parts of the US have you been to?

"Europeans as funding terrorism'

Yes.

That reads as 'people living in Europe stashing money'. Not 'Europeans all support terrorism' which is how your badly composed statement reads. You are a BIGOT if you wish to tar all Europeans with the same brush. You would think the same of me if I stated 'all Americans fat, stupid, gun toting, energy wasting, Media fed, isolationist fools', which patently is not the case, but then I am not bandying this type of trash around, you are, about Europeans IN GENERAL. Don't be surprised if you get a rise out of it.

I have visited SanFrancisco, LA and Las Vegas in N.America. I intend to visit the east coast in the near future and I have American friends I work and socialise with every day, so don't go giving me all the 'you hate Americans' crap either as it won't wash.

You seemed to have me all picked out.

As to being a bigot, I am not partial to only my people. I listen to others viewpoints and research them. You obviously don't.

I could care less about your American co-workers because the same could be said for my European(specifically German and British) co-workers at my past employer. BFD!

If you want to go into stereotypes I can, but I will leave it that you don't understand tongue in cheek humour. I guess I made a poor attempt at saying Bush is too Conservative and aggressive for European tastes.

That came out as "Because Europeans and Democrats think that Bush wants to attack their liberal policies that allow them to smuggle drugs, fund terrorists, house child pornography rings and launder money. "

If you actually thought I trully meant that then you are the demented one. The link was just to see how far you will swallow my hook and line. Get a sense of humor and come back. They always seem to be lacking in these threads.

So all along you were [/b]Joking.

Riiiiiiight.

You are the joke. These are serious matters that you seem to relish in taking lightly. Might I suggest you move away from the keyboard lest you incriminate yourself any further...

I was taking them lightly? I was trying to get the stick out of your ass so you wouldn't get so uptight in these threads that you need hospitalization. A little humor is needed here and there. Keep being so serious and you are going to offend me more than the fact that you haven't had a single salient point yet. BTW how does that hook tastes? I think I need bigger test line next time.

You seem to ignore all the conversations between Nemesis,Czar and I where none of us fly off the handle. I understand that your blood may boil over the comments I made. I said it was sarcasm. If that isn't a good of enough explaination to you then I won't humor you anymore.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Millenium
The US was once again trying to appease the pacifists in Europe.

really? Wasn't it really because Iraq was US's ally back then, fighting those wicked Iranians?

During the Persian Gulf War, we were ready to go into Baghdad and force a regime change. International sentiment at the time would not allow that so we desisted. Now it has reach the point that sanctions and enforcement of them are no longer even remotely working(they never did). Lots of Iraqi Oil from the Oil for Food program(and illegal oil) goes to Europe. Why would they want to disrupt that?

Most of the oil Iraq sells in the oil-for-food-program goes to USA (69% in 2001). and besides, USA supports the food-for-oil-program. Any more arguments I can shoot down?

If you remember correctly, the Iraqis used gas on both Kurds and Iranians. The Iranians responded with chemical weapons. The Iranians were the Soviet's buddies back then. Did you really want the US to go attack Iraq and Iran back then and piss off the Soviets?

Why attack Iran? I mean, you are only concerned about Iraq. And like you said, Iraq started it, yet US did nothing. It's REALLY hypocritical for US to use that incident as an excuse now. You didn't do a thing when it happened, but now you find it in your heart to help those kurds. Too bad you are helping about 20 years late.

The Cold War wasn't exactly the easiest time to intervene in another country's affairs. Let me ask you this... why didn't Finland(who was a lot more cozier with the Soviest at the time then we were)

What do you expect? We fought two wars with them, they had alot of military hardware parked right across our border. Had we acted differently, they would have marched right over us (in fact, it was discovered in the nineties that russians had plans ready for destruction of Helsinki and occupation of Finland).

Nation of 5 million vs. nation of 300+ million. Hardly an even fight, wouldn't you say?

Why didn't we do anything? Like what? We had VERY little to do with Iraq. But you were among their biggest supporters! And you turned a blind eye to the atrocities they committed. Now, 20 years later, you use that as an excuse to attack. How convenient...

So we should just keep adding months on? Before you know it he will have more advanced WMD. Saddam has been given YEARS to allow inspections. What makes you trust him now?

No, add month or two. It has only been now that there has been serious discussions with them. But you seem to be unvilling to wait, you must have your little war no matter what. Why didn't you act last year? Or year before that? Or year before that? But now, all of a sudden, you must go in right now, you cannot wait. What's the rush? You certainly weren't in a hurry earlier, now, suddenly, you must have your war right now.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Linflas
DivideBYZero - Nice link to the BBC article. Funding for the IRA from private US citizens has been a dirty little not so secret thing for 30 years now and if it finally gets caught up in the current fight to curtail terrorism then that is a good thing IMHO. It has been a political third rail for politicians of all stripes from both New York and Massachusetts. IIRC 60 Minutes even did a piece on it back in the 1980's showing among other things collection jars in irish pubs in New York and Boston. I have always thought it was a shameful thing for our government to turn a blind eye to this for the sake of ethnic politics. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the cause or what civilian targets are involved.

I enjoyed the read but it didn't establish anything other than what I had read in numerous books. I assume that the 20/20 report went more in-depth because I always read that your typical Irish American donator thought he was donating to the IRA as a political party, or just sending them money to support his country. Most articles I read alledged that very few people on the US side of thing knew that this donated money was going to be used to blow up parts of England and Ireland. If you could lead me to where I could read more in-depth on this issue I would appreciate it. The BBC didn't quite go far enough into depth for it to contradict what I have read in numerous fiction and non-fiction books concerning the IRA and its offshoots.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Millenium
I am asking you to name the resolutions that Israel breaks or the general background behind one that Israel broke. You cannot make any fairer of a Iraq/Israel resolution breaker judgement than I can.

Could you try to quote a bit better? It's reallt difficult to read your posts

As to the question... The resolutions that demand that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories?

I answered this in my above post. The Iranians were doing the same thing and they were Soviet Allies and this was in the middle of the Cold War.

And you said that Iraq started it. Why concern yourself what Iran does, after all, they were your enemies. You could have acted on what _Iraq_ did, yet you did not. You lost your moral high ground on this issue right there.

He is trying to build an international coalition and not make countries feel left out. Smart move internationally for Bush and he was hoping to clue in other countries on WHY he wants to attack rather than just doing it. Common courtesty I guess. The man is a Texan after all. They are goofy like that.

then why not see that will Iraq comply with the WI, instead of deciding beforehand that they will not agree and attack regardless of what they do? You seem pretty damn gung-ho on this issue.

Because they buy illegal or food program oil from Iraq. Plus, they want to keep giving Saddam chances and hope he will just go away.

Most of the oil-for-food-oil goes to USA.

No but our Ally Israel is within range of Iraq's WMD as is our troops stationed in Turkey and other nations.

So that's why Israel can violate UN resolutions whereas Iraq cannot? Nice double-standards there....

I agree and proof has been given. You think they destroyed them after the Iran-Iraq conflict? Why would Saddam do something nice like that for?

Where is the proof? Official statements of US government? Statements of UK? Both can hardly be considered unbiased on this issue. US wants the war with Iraq, they will say anything to have it. If WI's say that they have WMD's and Iraq refuses to destroy them, then attack.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Millenium
Why it must be "recent"? What do you consider "recent" and what is not? And Israel is a member of UN, just like Iraq is. Or are you referring to being a permanent member of the security-council? Neither Israel nor Iraq is a permanent member there.

Could Iraq have a seat on the security counsel? Yes. Could Israel? No. That is why they feel sleighted.



What does Arafat have to do with this? Fact is that US uses UN resolutions as scapegoat in attacking Iraq. You flame Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions, yet you do nothing when Israel does the same.

I am asking you to name the resolutions that Israel breaks or the general background behind one that Israel broke. You cannot make any fairer of a Iraq/Israel resolution breaker judgement than I can.


Iraq used WMD's long ago, why didn't US attack them then? Oh I forgot, Iraqis were the good guys back then, fighting those wicked Iranians...

I answered this in my above post. The Iranians were doing the same thing and they were Soviet Allies and this was in the middle of the Cold War.

If no-one cares what UN says, why does GWB use UN resolutions as an excuse in attacking Iraq?

He is trying to build an international coalition and not make countries feel left out. Smart move internationally for Bush and he was hoping to clue in other countries on WHY he wants to attack rather than just doing it. Common courtesty I guess. The man is a Texan after all. They are goofy like that.


And no-one agrees with you, except UK. But they agree with US by default
Because they buy illegal or food program oil from Iraq. Plus, they want to keep giving Saddam chances and hope he will just go away.


Is Iraq neighour of USA? That's news to me... Why didn't USA act when Iraq used their WMD's? Why act decades later?

No but our Ally Israel is within range of Iraq's WMD as is our troops stationed in Turkey and other nations.

Back to your question: if Norway had WMD's... Yep, it would worry me. But where exactly did I say that Iraq should be allowed to have WMD's? All I said was that you must first prove that they have 'em, and then act accordingly if Iraq refuses to destroy them. Right now it seems that you are going in there with guns blazing, no matter what they do or do not do.


I agree and proof has been given. You think they destroyed them after the Iran-Iraq conflict? Why would Saddam do something nice like that for?

President Bush is using everything in the arsenal. Here's how it works:

Iraq presents a threat to the United States through its support of terrorism (the act of paying the families of suicide bombers alone shows they support it. Note that I didnt say that they were responsible for the suicide attacks, just that they condone it) and its desire to create nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.. This should be what motivates the US to act, but alas, there are some Americans (evidently a larger proportion in the US Senate) that need to see the blood of US citizens spilled on the streets as proof of a threat.

He is citing the UN resolutions because, if the UN has ANY legitimacy, violation of said resolutions should be enough to warrant action. However, the UN has never been one to just ENFORCE resolutions. They need a jumpstart from member countries that threaten action ouside of UN control to enforce these resolutions before they will THINK about acting. Let us not forget that all 5 permanent members had to agree to the original resolutions, so that leaves 3 of the permanent members that have NO INTEREST in actually enforcing these resolutions... but I digress. The violation of its own resolutions SHOULD be enough to pull the UN on board (and it slowly is beginning to look like that might happen). With the UN should come the majority of the world (at least in population numbers). Let us not forget that the administration of late has agreed to allow inspectors one last shot at this, but wants a resolution that allows for *GASP* consequences should Iraq pull another one of its stunts. Is that unreasonable, or is it being resisted because the world KNOWS that Iraq will again resist the inspectors?

So for all this talk of "going it alone" and "unilateral" attacks, the US is giving the world (UN) ample opportunity to either get on board, or get out of the way. The case is made.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Let us also forget that Israel is battling for its life, and has shown (IMHO) great restraint in not obliterating the Palestinians (notice I didnt say Arabs or Muslims... I said PALESTINIANS... just so we are clear on that).

Battling for it's life? IDF is superior to any army in the area, Israel is the only country in the area that has nukes, Israel has the unconditional support of US. Battling for their life? hardly.

 

[CantedValve]

then why not see that will Iraq comply with the WI, instead of deciding beforehand that they will not agree and attack regardless of what they do? You seem pretty damn gung-ho on this issue.

Nemesis... we have had ten years of non-compliance from Iraq. We have had four years of NO UN INSPECTORS in Iraq. Tell me again.... what is the likelyhood that they are gonna cooperate? Seriously... if someone has LIED TO YOU FOR TEN YEARS, are you gonna still believe them?! Please... come on man (or woman, I dont know your gender).

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Let us also forget that Israel is battling for its life, and has shown (IMHO) great restraint in not obliterating the Palestinians (notice I didnt say Arabs or Muslims... I said PALESTINIANS... just so we are clear on that).

Battling for it's life? IDF is superior to any army in the area, Israel is the only country in the area that has nukes, Israel has the unconditional support of US. Battling for their life? hardly.

Okay, I can rephrase (odd that in this discussion of IRAQ you choose to pick out the one little comment on Israel). Israel is battling for the right of its citizenship to be able to walk down the street and NOT GET BLOWN INTO BLOODY CHUNKS BY THE FREAKING PALESTINIANS!!!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Millenium

Originally posted by: Linflas
DivideBYZero - Nice link to the BBC article. Funding for the IRA from private US citizens has been a dirty little not so secret thing for 30 years now and if it finally gets caught up in the current fight to curtail terrorism then that is a good thing IMHO. It has been a political third rail for politicians of all stripes from both New York and Massachusetts. IIRC 60 Minutes even did a piece on it back in the 1980's showing among other things collection jars in irish pubs in New York and Boston. I have always thought it was a shameful thing for our government to turn a blind eye to this for the sake of ethnic politics. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the cause or what civilian targets are involved.

I enjoyed the read but it didn't establish anything other than what I had read in numerous books. I assume that the 20/20 report went more in-depth because I always read that your typical Irish American donator thought he was donating to the IRA as a political party, or just sending them money to support his country. Most articles I read alledged that very few people on the US side of thing knew that this donated money was going to be used to blow up parts of England and Ireland. If you could lead me to where I could read more in-depth on this issue I would appreciate it. The BBC didn't quite go far enough into depth for it to contradict what I have read in numerous fiction and non-fiction books concerning the IRA and its offshoots.

I found a PBS Frontline report on it with a quick search. I have not had time to read it in depth but will put the link here if you want to check it out.

Behind the Mask - The IRA and Sinn Fein

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

The beauty of satire is that it's frequently intended to spark thought on the topics that it lampoons. This thread is testament to the genius that is The Onion.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Nemesis... we have had ten years of non-compliance from Iraq. We have had four years of NO UN INSPECTORS in Iraq. Tell me again.... what is the likelyhood that they are gonna cooperate? Seriously... if someone has LIED TO YOU FOR TEN YEARS, are you gonna still believe them?! Please... come on man (or woman, I dont know your gender).

So you are unwilling to wait for a while to see that will they cooperate when faced with military action? In the past they weren't threatened with large-scale military action (apart from occasional airstrike), now they are. Facing an attack, they may decide to let WI's in to the country. If they do and they let WI's do their job, then there is no reason to attack. Why aren't you willing to do that? Now, all of a sudden you feel that you must attack and that you must attack right away.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
The beauty of satire is that it's frequently intended to spark thought on the topics that it lampoons. This thread is testament to the genius that is The Onion.

Yep!! I LOVE sattire. I liked that article, even though I am a HUGE Bush supporter (insert female anatomy joke here). It is the poising of sattire as fact that chaps my ass.

 

[Mill]

really? Wasn't it really because Iraq was US's ally back then, fighting those wicked Iranians?

If we did something to Iraq the same would have to have been done to Iran. They were they Soviets snuggle bunnies back then like Finland(not implying you had a choice or are ANYTHING like Iraq). They were a US ally just like Iran was Finnish Ally. What is your point? No moral high ground was lost. I guess we should have rushed in there and attacked Iraq and Iran the Soviets be damned. Do you not remember the Cold War? Iran was huge Soviet ally back then. How do you think they and the Soviets would have liked it if we started parking military equipment right next door to them? You realize how close Iran and Iraq is to Russia right? Not a smart move back then. Also you failed to comment on my Native American statements.

Most of the oil Iraq sells in the oil-for-food-program goes to USA (69% in 2001). and besides, USA supports the food-for-oil-program. Any more arguments I can shoot down?

Actually you could try to get some accurate figures:
Net Oil Exports (2001E): 1.9-2.0 MMBD
U.S. Gross Oil Imports from Iraq (2001E): 778,000 bbl/d (up from 620,000 bbl/d during 2000)

That looks like less than 40%. You argument is way off. Where did you get 69% at anyway?

Why attack Iran? I mean, you are only concerned about Iraq. And like you said, Iraq started it, yet US did nothing. It's REALLY hypocritical for US to use that incident as an excuse now. You didn't do a thing when it happened, but now you find it in your heart to help those kurds. Too bad you are helping about 20 years late.

Excuse me I have explained this several times. What did your country do? The US was in a Cold War with the Soviets. Saddam Hussesin had a large army back then. To move the troops and equipment there to attack him and then Iran would have PISSED the Soviets off to say the least. Have you ever studied the Cold War? Then you would know how this makes perfect sense.

What do you expect? We fought two wars with them, they had alot of military hardware parked right across our border. Had we acted differently, they would have marched right over us (in fact, it was discovered in the nineties that russians had plans ready for destruction of Helsinki and occupation of Finland).

Nation of 5 million vs. nation of 300+ million. Hardly an even fight, wouldn't you say?

So why should we have? It wasn't like the Soviets didn't have a lot of hardware in Iran or even around the Middle East(quite the contrary! they had lots!). Plus I believe Afghanistan fought the Soviets and few hundred years ago my country fought a much larger parent country and won.

Why didn't we do anything? Like what? We had VERY little to do with Iraq. But you were among their biggest supporters! And you turned a blind eye to the atrocities they committed. Now, 20 years later, you use that as an excuse to attack. How convenient...

I don't remember me turning a blind eye. I said it was a horrible situation but the reasoning on why nothing happened is quite logical. I have explained it numerous times in this post alone. Plus think balance of power. We really needed to piss off Iraq, Iran, and the freakin' Soviest at the same time. That wouldn't have started WWIII. Think logically here please!

No, add month or two. It has only been now that there has been serious discussions with them. But you seem to be unvilling to wait, you must have your little war no matter what. Why didn't you act last year? Or year before that? Or year before that? But now, all of a sudden, you must go in right now, you cannot wait. What's the rush? You certainly weren't in a hurry earlier, now, suddenly, you must have your war right now.

Bush has been president for two years. You can't come into office and immediately go to war. After 9-11 it hit too close to home for americans that WMD could be used in the US. Thus, it was no longer politcal suicide for Bush to remove Saddam from power and destroy Iraqs WMD program. You yourself said we should attack if we can't get inspectors in. Saddam has lied for years. He has played games and kicked inspectors out. Why keep playing with him? One day he will have nuclear weapons.

I fixed my quoting style just for you.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Millenium

Originally posted by: Linflas
DivideBYZero - Nice link to the BBC article. Funding for the IRA from private US citizens has been a dirty little not so secret thing for 30 years now and if it finally gets caught up in the current fight to curtail terrorism then that is a good thing IMHO. It has been a political third rail for politicians of all stripes from both New York and Massachusetts. IIRC 60 Minutes even did a piece on it back in the 1980's showing among other things collection jars in irish pubs in New York and Boston. I have always thought it was a shameful thing for our government to turn a blind eye to this for the sake of ethnic politics. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the cause or what civilian targets are involved.

I enjoyed the read but it didn't establish anything other than what I had read in numerous books. I assume that the 20/20 report went more in-depth because I always read that your typical Irish American donator thought he was donating to the IRA as a political party, or just sending them money to support his country. Most articles I read alledged that very few people on the US side of thing knew that this donated money was going to be used to blow up parts of England and Ireland. If you could lead me to where I could read more in-depth on this issue I would appreciate it. The BBC didn't quite go far enough into depth for it to contradict what I have read in numerous fiction and non-fiction books concerning the IRA and its offshoots.

I found a PBS Frontline report on it with a quick search. I have not had time to read it in depth but will put the link here if you want to check it out.

Behind the Mask - The IRA and Sinn Fein

Thanks. I will check it out!

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Let us also forget that Israel is battling for its life, and has shown (IMHO) great restraint in not obliterating the Palestinians (notice I didnt say Arabs or Muslims... I said PALESTINIANS... just so we are clear on that).

Battling for it's life? IDF is superior to any army in the area, Israel is the only country in the area that has nukes, Israel has the unconditional support of US. Battling for their life? hardly.

Okay, I can rephrase (odd that in this discussion of IRAQ you choose to pick out the one little comment on Israel). Israel is battling for the right of its citizenship to be able to walk down the street and NOT GET BLOWN INTO BLOODY CHUNKS BY THE FREAKING PALESTINIANS!!!

What they need to do is to talk with the palestinians in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Using force is not a solution, it just seeds even more violence. They need to come up with a balanced proposal the benefits both sides.

And couldn't it be said that palestinians are fighting again occupying force who steals their water and destroys their homes? It's all matter of point of view.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Nemesis... we have had ten years of non-compliance from Iraq. We have had four years of NO UN INSPECTORS in Iraq. Tell me again.... what is the likelyhood that they are gonna cooperate? Seriously... if someone has LIED TO YOU FOR TEN YEARS, are you gonna still believe them?! Please... come on man (or woman, I dont know your gender).

So you are unwilling to wait for a while to see that will they cooperate when faced with military action? In the past they weren't threatened with large-scale military action (apart from occasional airstrike), now they are. Facing an attack, they may decide to let WI's in to the country. If they do and they let WI's do their job, then there is no reason to attack. Why aren't you willing to do that? Now, all of a sudden you feel that you must attack and that you must attack right away.

NO. Here is what I would want to happen. This is what would keep me from wanting to invade right now:

1) NEW UN resolutions drafted with Iraq that says that Iraq will allow access for inspectors to ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME, WITHOUT escort (except a small armed contingent - 10 UN personnel at most - to escort the inspectors and ensure they are allowed to do their jobs). This means military locations, civilian locations, and presidential palaces. If the Iraqi people dont like it, you know what? They can take it up with Saddam.
2) These inspections will begin within 15 days.
3) This new resolution will state in CERTAIN TERMS that if the terms are not complied with immediately and unconditionally, that military action WOULD be taken with the specific (but not limited) purpose of a) destroying all WMD and b) changing the regime in Iraq.

This is the only acceptable scenario that I can envision that does not include immediate military action. Promised for inspectors mean squat unless there is a clear and concrete definition of the consequences for not complying.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Millenium
I am asking you to name the resolutions that Israel breaks or the general background behind one that Israel broke. You cannot make any fairer of a Iraq/Israel resolution breaker judgement than I can.

Could you try to quote a bit better? It's reallt difficult to read your posts

As to the question... The resolutions that demand that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories?

I answered this in my above post. The Iranians were doing the same thing and they were Soviet Allies and this was in the middle of the Cold War.

And you said that Iraq started it. Why concern yourself what Iran does, after all, they were your enemies. You could have acted on what _Iraq_ did, yet you did not. You lost your moral high ground on this issue right there.

He is trying to build an international coalition and not make countries feel left out. Smart move internationally for Bush and he was hoping to clue in other countries on WHY he wants to attack rather than just doing it. Common courtesty I guess. The man is a Texan after all. They are goofy like that.

then why not see that will Iraq comply with the WI, instead of deciding beforehand that they will not agree and attack regardless of what they do? You seem pretty damn gung-ho on this issue.

Because they buy illegal or food program oil from Iraq. Plus, they want to keep giving Saddam chances and hope he will just go away.

Most of the oil-for-food-oil goes to USA.

No but our Ally Israel is within range of Iraq's WMD as is our troops stationed in Turkey and other nations.

So that's why Israel can violate UN resolutions whereas Iraq cannot? Nice double-standards there....

I agree and proof has been given. You think they destroyed them after the Iran-Iraq conflict? Why would Saddam do something nice like that for?

Where is the proof? Official statements of US government? Statements of UK? Both can hardly be considered unbiased on this issue. US wants the war with Iraq, they will say anything to have it. If WI's say that they have WMD's and Iraq refuses to destroy them, then attack.

Israel did withdraw when the US and UN asked them to. Most of the Oil/Food program DOES NOT goto the US and the Illegal certainly doesn't. I still haven't heard any resolution Israel violated but plenty that Iraq and Palestine have.

No moral highground was lost because you were busy buddies with the Ruskies while we were trying to prevent them from getting all of Europe and the Middle East. Iraq and Iran using WMD on each other was not worth starting a war that would lead to MAD with the Soviets. Be logical.

Iraq has had years to comply and hasn't. Why keep giving them more time when they wimper that the big bad US is tired of them lying and creating WMD.

Has Israel ever used WMD? Has Iraq or Iran? There is your answer. The younger generation of Iran is much more friendlier and less extreme than the generation before them. Unless they start pulling crap like Iraq does there is no reason to bother them.

Proof? You yourself said they both used WMD on each other.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Let us also forget that Israel is battling for its life, and has shown (IMHO) great restraint in not obliterating the Palestinians (notice I didnt say Arabs or Muslims... I said PALESTINIANS... just so we are clear on that).

Battling for it's life? IDF is superior to any army in the area, Israel is the only country in the area that has nukes, Israel has the unconditional support of US. Battling for their life? hardly.

Okay, I can rephrase (odd that in this discussion of IRAQ you choose to pick out the one little comment on Israel). Israel is battling for the right of its citizenship to be able to walk down the street and NOT GET BLOWN INTO BLOODY CHUNKS BY THE FREAKING PALESTINIANS!!!

What they need to do is to talk with the palestinians in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Using force is not a solution, it just seeds even more violence. They need to come up with a balanced proposal the benefits both sides.

And couldn't it be said that palestinians are fighting again occupying force who steals their water and destroys their homes? It's all matter of point of view.

Until terrorists stop blowing up CIVILIANS, I don't see a reason for Israel to do anything but defend itself. There have been talks before... they yielded nothing.

So... what you are telling me is that one day a log time ago, Israel decided to go steal water and destroy the homes of Palestinians... just for shits and giggles... without provocation? Do we REALLY NEED to rehash how this all started?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Nemesis... we have had ten years of non-compliance from Iraq. We have had four years of NO UN INSPECTORS in Iraq. Tell me again.... what is the likelyhood that they are gonna cooperate? Seriously... if someone has LIED TO YOU FOR TEN YEARS, are you gonna still believe them?! Please... come on man (or woman, I dont know your gender).

So you are unwilling to wait for a while to see that will they cooperate when faced with military action? In the past they weren't threatened with large-scale military action (apart from occasional airstrike), now they are. Facing an attack, they may decide to let WI's in to the country. If they do and they let WI's do their job, then there is no reason to attack. Why aren't you willing to do that? Now, all of a sudden you feel that you must attack and that you must attack right away.

NO. Here is what I would want to happen. This is what would keep me from wanting to invade right now:

1) NEW UN resolutions drafted with Iraq that says that Iraq will allow access for inspectors to ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME, WITHOUT escort (except a small armed contingent - 10 men at most - to escort the inspectors and ensure they are allowed to do their jobs). This means military locations, civilian locations, and presidential palaces. If the Iraqi people dont like it, you know what? They can take it up with Saddam.
2) These inspections will begin within 15 days.
3) This new resolution will state in CERTAIN TERMS that if the terms are not complied with immediately and unconditionally, that military action WOULD be taken with the specific (but not limited) purpose of a) destroying all WMD and b) changing the regime in Iraq.

This is the only acceptable scenario that I can envision that does not include immediate military action. Promised for inspectors mean squat unless there is a clear and concrete definition of the consequences for not complying.

Agreed.

What they need to do is to talk with the palestinians in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Using force is not a solution, it just seeds even more violence. They need to come up with a balanced proposal the benefits both sides.

And couldn't it be said that palestinians are fighting again occupying force who steals their water and destroys their homes? It's all matter of point of view.

They have been talking for year. Nothing works. Blame the asshats that decided to put Israel and the Palestinians right next to each other(the British). I say let Israel mop up the Palestinian Homicide bombers and isolate Arafat(he can't control his people anyway). Palestine will not settle for Israel being anywhere near them. Israel just wants to be left alone and I think they have showed INCREDIBLE restraint to not go out and mop up the entire middle east. I am speaking of the times that Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked them or the time Iraq thought it would be funny to launch scuds at them. I applaud the Israelis that they haven't gone in and put the Palestinians under complete and utter military control in every way.

Sorry but the Arabs have always provoked Israel. Israel has never provoked them. It isn't about point of view it is about facts. You can't deny what happened in '67 or any of the other wars.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Millenium
If we did something to Iraq the same would have to have been done to Iran.

How come? If you had said to Iraq "Look, you stop using WMD's or we will stop giving you our help", what would have happened to Iran? the same? I don't think so.

They were they Soviets snuggle bunnies back then like Finland(not implying you had a choice or are ANYTHING like Iraq). They were a US ally just like Iran was Finnish Ally.

Finnish ally? Ummmmm.... What are you talking about? Finland wasn't really allied with USSR, in fact, everyone knew that USSR is the enemy.

What is your point? No moral high ground was lost.

yes it was. You knew what was going on and you did nothing. Now, 20 years later, you bring that incident back to the center-stage just because it fits your agenda ("See, Iraq is wicked! They used WMD's 20 years ago! Yes we knew about this back then. No we didn't do anything back then because it was convenient for us to turn a blind eye... *cough*")

I guess we should have rushed in there and attacked Iraq and Iran the Soviets be damned.

Again: Where exactly am I saying that you should have attacked Iran? Answer: nowhere. You made Iran-thingy up, I never mentioned it. What you could have done is to withdraw your support of Iraq, demand punishment for people responsible etc. etc. How can you NOW use that as an excuse to punish, when it wasn't good enough reason to punish Iraq back then? The answer: Gassing of the kurds is simply an excuse to attack Iraq. Who in their right mind uses 20 year old incidents as an excuse for an attack? It seems USA is doing just that.

Do you not remember the Cold War? Iran was huge Soviet ally back then. How do you think they and the Soviets would have liked it if we started parking military equipment right next door to them? You realize how close Iran and Iraq is to Russia right? Not a smart move back then. Also you failed to comment on my Native American statements.

Why do you keep on bringing Iran in to this? Like you yourself said, it was Iraq who started it. And where did I say that you should have attacked Iraq?

As to the native americans. It doesn't change the fact that it was US government as well who persecuted them. I used that only as an example of using old incidents as an excuse to start a war.

Actually you could try to get some accurate figures:
Net Oil Exports (2001E): 1.9-2.0 MMBD
U.S. Gross Oil Imports from Iraq (2001E): 778,000 bbl/d (up from 620,000 bbl/d during 2000)

That looks like less than 40%. You argument is way off. Where did you get 69% at anyway?

US oil companies have radically reduced imports from Iraq in the past five months amid fears that any military action will disrupt supplies, it emerged today.

Iraq exported 69% of its oil to the US a year ago, but the figure has dropped to only 16% since the end of May, according to press reports in the US. Iraqi oil exports have halved overall, dropping from around an average of 2m barrels a day last year to just short of 1m barrels at the end of May.

link

Excuse me I have explained this several times. What did your country do?

What could have we done? Fact is that USA supported Iraq. There was ALOT you could have done, and there was VERY LITTLE Finland could have done. You could have done something that would have had an effect. You did not. You turned a blind eye because it was convenient to do so.

The US was in a Cold War with the Soviets. Saddam Hussesin had a large army back then. To move the troops and equipment there to attack him and then Iran would have PISSED the Soviets off to say the least. Have you ever studied the Cold War? Then you would know how this makes perfect sense.

Again: where did I say that you should have attacked Iraq?

So why should we have? It wasn't like the Soviets didn't have a lot of hardware in Iran or even around the Middle East(quite the contrary! they had lots!). Plus I believe Afghanistan fought the Soviets and few hundred years ago my country fought a much larger parent country and won.

Withdraw your support from Iraq for example?

are you seriously suggesting that Finland should have done it's best to piss USSR off, because "Afganistan won against USSR, so did USA against UK!". Like I said, we had two wars against USSR during WW2, where we suffered enormous casualties (in Winter War alone the losses were so big that if USA had suffered as big losses during WW2, it would have meant over 2 million in casualties in a war that lasted 105 days. To my knowledge, you had about 500.000 casualties in the entire war), of course we did our best not to have another war. And Afganistan did win, but look at the price. Damn, are you really that stupid?

And in a way Finland did win. Finland was the only country that fought against USSR (and/or The Allied) that was NOT occupied after the war.

Just because it is possible for small country to win against big country, it doesn't mean it's propable. Soviet military was nr. 1. or nr 2. in the world at that time. Damn straight we did our best not to piss them off!

I don't remember me turning a blind eye. I said it was a horrible situation but the reasoning on why nothing happened is quite logical. I have explained it numerous times in this post alone. Plus think balance of power. We really needed to piss off Iraq, Iran, and the freakin' Soviest at the same time. That wouldn't have started WWIII. Think logically here please!

Again you bring in the soviets and Iran!!! Please, do tell me how Iran and Soviets would have been pissed if USA had withdrawn it's support from Iraq?

You yourself said we should attack if we can't get inspectors in. Saddam has lied for years. He has played games and kicked inspectors out. Why keep playing with him? One day he will have nuclear weapons.

So why not wait and see that does he allow the inspectors in? You seem to be unwilling to do so. If he doesn't let them in or he prevents them from doing their job, THEN attack! THEN you have your justification.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Until terrorists stop blowing up CIVILIANS, I don't see a reason for Israel to do anything but defend itself. There have been talks before... they yielded nothing.

True, I condemn attacks against civilians. But Israel has had it share of those too. And they routinely demolish homes of palestinians

So... what you are telling me is that one day a log time ago, Israel decided to go steal water and destroy the homes of Palestinians... just for shits and giggles... without provocation? Do we REALLY NEED to rehash how this all started?

Could I say ask that "Palestinians decide to blow themselves up for shits and giggles. Without provocation"?

They take the water because they can. It's as simple as that.

 

[Kerouactivist]

The Onion is awesome I love their articles about the Pope.

All their stuff is so funny.


I wish people would stop jumping on the bush fanboy wagon, it's just sickening.

 

[XZeroII]

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

uh hu. they really know what they are talking about there

 

[CantedValve]

Could I say ask that "Palestinians decide to blow themselves up for shits and giggles. Without provocation"?

Go ahead and ask. My answer is yes. I do not want to spark a debate on Muslim ideals, but it is well documented that at least SOME Muslims find that killing themselves is a good thing so long as they kill some Jewish or Christian people too. Now, I did NOT SAY that ALL MUSLIMS WANT CHRISTIANS AND JEWS DEAD. I said that I can believe that a Palestinian would just walk down the street, and blow himself up for no other reason than to kill as many Jews or Christians as possible. How do I believe this? It happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Millenium
If we did something to Iraq the same would have to have been done to Iran.

How come? If you had said to Iraq "Look, you stop using WMD's or we will stop giving you our help", what would have happened to Iran? the same? I don't think so.

They were they Soviets snuggle bunnies back then like Finland(not implying you had a choice or are ANYTHING like Iraq). They were a US ally just like Iran was Finnish Ally.

Finnish ally? Ummmmm.... What are you talking about? Finland wasn't really allied with USSR, in fact, everyone knew that USSR is the enemy.

What is your point? No moral high ground was lost.

yes it was. You knew what was going on and you did nothing. Now, 20 years later, you bring that incident back to the center-stage just because it fits your agenda ("See, Iraq is wicked! They used WMD's 20 years ago! Yes we knew about this back then. No we didn't do anything back then because it was convenient for us to turn a blind eye... *cough*")

I guess we should have rushed in there and attacked Iraq and Iran the Soviets be damned.

Again: Where exactly am I saying that you should have attacked Iran? Answer: nowhere. You made Iran-thingy up, I never mentioned it. What you could have done is to withdraw your support of Iraq, demand punishment for people responsible etc. etc. How can you NOW use that as an excuse to punish, when it wasn't good enough reason to punish Iraq back then? The answer: Gassing of the kurds is simply an excuse to attack Iraq. Who in their right mind uses 20 year old incidents as an excuse for an attack? It seems USA is doing just that.

Do you not remember the Cold War? Iran was huge Soviet ally back then. How do you think they and the Soviets would have liked it if we started parking military equipment right next door to them? You realize how close Iran and Iraq is to Russia right? Not a smart move back then. Also you failed to comment on my Native American statements.

Why do you keep on bringing Iran in to this? Like you yourself said, it was Iraq who started it. And where did I say that you should have attacked Iraq?

As to the native americans. It doesn't change the fact that it was US government as well who persecuted them. I used that only as an example of using old incidents as an excuse to start a war.

Actually you could try to get some accurate figures:
Net Oil Exports (2001E): 1.9-2.0 MMBD
U.S. Gross Oil Imports from Iraq (2001E): 778,000 bbl/d (up from 620,000 bbl/d during 2000)

That looks like less than 40%. You argument is way off. Where did you get 69% at anyway?

US oil companies have radically reduced imports from Iraq in the past five months amid fears that any military action will disrupt supplies, it emerged today.

Iraq exported 69% of its oil to the US a year ago, but the figure has dropped to only 16% since the end of May, according to press reports in the US. Iraqi oil exports have halved overall, dropping from around an average of 2m barrels a day last year to just short of 1m barrels at the end of May.

link

Excuse me I have explained this several times. What did your country do?

What could have we done? Fact is that USA supported Iraq. There was ALOT you could have done, and there was VERY LITTLE Finland could have done. You could have done something that would have had an effect. You did not. You turned a blind eye because it was convenient to do so.

The US was in a Cold War with the Soviets. Saddam Hussesin had a large army back then. To move the troops and equipment there to attack him and then Iran would have PISSED the Soviets off to say the least. Have you ever studied the Cold War? Then you would know how this makes perfect sense.

Again: where did I say that you should have attacked Iraq?

So why should we have? It wasn't like the Soviets didn't have a lot of hardware in Iran or even around the Middle East(quite the contrary! they had lots!). Plus I believe Afghanistan fought the Soviets and few hundred years ago my country fought a much larger parent country and won.

Withdraw your support from Iraq for example?

are you seriously suggesting that Finland should have done it's best to piss USSR off, because "Afganistan won against USSR, so did USA against UK!". Like I said, we had two wars against USSR during WW2, where we suffered enormous casualties (in Winter War alone the losses were so big that if USA had suffered as big losses during WW2, it would have meant over 2 million in casualties in a war that lasted 105 days. To my knowledge, you had about 500.000 casualties in the entire war), of course we did our best not to have another war. And Afganistan did win, but look at the price. Damn, are you really that stupid?

And in a way Finland did win. Finland was the only country that fought against USSR (and/or The Allied) that was NOT occupied after the war.

Just because it is possible for small country to win against big country, it doesn't mean it's propable. Soviet military was nr. 1. or nr 2. in the world at that time. Damn straight we did our best not to piss them off!

I don't remember me turning a blind eye. I said it was a horrible situation but the reasoning on why nothing happened is quite logical. I have explained it numerous times in this post alone. Plus think balance of power. We really needed to piss off Iraq, Iran, and the freakin' Soviest at the same time. That wouldn't have started WWIII. Think logically here please!

Again you bring in the soviets and Iran!!! Please, do tell me how Iran and Soviets would have been pissed if USA had withdrawn it's support from Iraq?

You yourself said we should attack if we can't get inspectors in. Saddam has lied for years. He has played games and kicked inspectors out. Why keep playing with him? One day he will have nuclear weapons.

So why not wait and see that does he allow the inspectors in? You seem to be unwilling to do so. If he doesn't let them in or he prevents them from doing their job, THEN attack! THEN you have your justification.

We are going in circles here. BTW one of us has inaccurate figures. Mine are coming from the US Government and yours from the Guardian. I trust mine, but I don't know the guardian very well.

If we had pulled Iraqi support(by the time they gassed the kurds and iran, iran was gassing them back) then the iranians would have rolled right through. At the time Iran was heavily Soviet backed and Iraq US backed. They BOTH used WMD on each other. The reason because their allies were World Superpowers engaged in a Cold War. Are you really that dumb to not understand why we didn't pull support of Iraq? I haven't seen many Europeans pull their support of the Palestinians who attack INNOCENT CIVLIANS.

BTW, Finland would not have known how Afganistan would have turned out. I don't think Britain had a small military back in 1776.

The only reason I am using the Finland/Russia argument is because you can't grasp why WE supported Iraq.

If I was Finnish I would not have tried to fight that Russian Army or look back on it with any lack of respect. Just like if you were American you can understand why we would support Iraq back then. It was a horse race back then. The Soviets had Iran and we had Iraq. It was pretty much like picking between cancer and aids. Who did you want? Iran or Iraq. Cancer or Aids.

The whole point is that the balance of power could not be given the Iran and the Soviet Union. If we would have what would we have given the Soviets next? Let them come into Western Europe? Then Finland would have been in even more trouble. I have a hard time believing you don't understand why Iraqi support was not pulled. You know good and well why it wasn't pulled. I just explained it for the 50th time.

You also must have a hard time believing that I don't understand and agree with you regarding Finland's position for much of the late 1900's. I do agree with you. Finland did the smart/right thing.

Give that same credit to the US regarding Iraq. We had to back a horse of the Soviets had the Middle East all sowed up.

I seriously doubt Iraq and then the rest of the ME could have held out versus the Iranians and Soviet Military Muscle and advisors.

Think about it.