This Iraq thing is so simple...

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison
You people can sit here and debate what we should do with Iraq. It is simple, we should remove him from power because he does support terrorist. It is doubtful that he would openly use a nuke on the US, but is extemely likely he would make sure some group got that would like to do hard to the USA.

While we are speaking of nukes..

Currently there is a container ship that just got towed 8 miles out to sea from New York because it is getting very high radioactive readings.

So when a nuke goes off in New York Harbor who is going to be the first to yell at Bush, "What did he know and when?"

I wish the people who know that Saddam supports terrorism would be able to provide something more than the accusation. Alas.

Sadam has openly written large checks to the familys of suicide bombers familys.
Al queda members have escaped to iraq(is this really a stretch?)
Known terrorist training camps there...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

and if we want to bring stability and democracy and all that other lovliness to iraq, i say great.

Forcing others to change their way to yours is not right. You can't tell other people what to do but you can set an example and provide honest help. Then, if your way is the better one, they will accept, understand and appreciate it.

It may not be right, but sometimes it has to be done.

I think the world is better off after Germany and Japan got an attitude readjustment during WWII.
Hopefully a new govt in afganistan will work just as well, but that remains to be seen.

 

[render]

It can be hard to see the whole events in a neutral position because we live here, and most of us see and listen from same media sources.

Until you want to know some other facts, you will never find out what's really behind.

" Why are the U.S. and Britain bombing Iraq and insisting on maintaining sanctions? If you look, you find answers that are given vociferously with near 100 percent agreement. You hear it from Tony Blair, Madeleine Albright, newspaper editors and commentators. That answer is, Saddam Hussein is a complete monster. He even committed the "ultimate" horror, namely, he gassed his own people. We can't let a creature like that survive. I've reviewed a fair amount of the press on this, and this is the near-unanimous justification of the sanctions by commentators, intellectual journals, and so on..........The obvious quesion is, How did the U.S. and Britain react when Saddam Hussein committed the "ultimate" horror- the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988? It's on the record. ..... The answer is straightforward. They reacted by continuing and in fact accelerating their strong support for Saddam Hussein .......They went ahead and supported him. ..."

excerpt from propaganda and the public mind by Noam Chomsky.

Bush has said the word "evil" to indicate some countries including Iraq. Whether they are really evil or not, you tend to believe that it is true because that's what the media has been telling you.

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. " Bush's Speech to U.N. on Iraq

A lot of countries already own nuclear weapons and the other countries are capable of making them less than a year. hell, even some graduate students could make them.

Please take a proactive position in this matter.

 

[JellyBaby]

I think the world is better off after Germany and Japan got an attitude readjustment during WWII.

Definitely but they were blantant aggressors who commited acts of war and the fate of the entire world stood in question.

He even committed the "ultimate" horror, namely, he gassed his own people.

Saddum is a piece of filth but I've never seen that claim substantiated.

Now the press is phrasing it "allegedly used gas against his own people". Can you please link me to proof because I'm tired of this being a question. The only thing I've found, again not proven, is that the gas used was of a type known to be controlled by Iran and that the village was in Iranian control at the time.

 

[CantedValve]

Do you honestly believe Saddam has no biological, chemical, or (possibly) nuclear weapons? Do you honestly believe he is NOT responsible for the slaughter of his own people? Do you honestly believe he has cooperated fully with the terms of surrender from the Gulf War?

I do have to agree with you on one point. There can be nothing learned from CNN and Nightline (is Nightline even on the air anymore?).

There are so many things wrong with your statements that I cannot begin to refute it all. However, I believe the answers to the above question will point you in the right direction, if you are honest with yourself.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison
You people can sit here and debate what we should do with Iraq. It is simple, we should remove him from power because he does support terrorist. It is doubtful that he would openly use a nuke on the US, but is extemely likely he would make sure some group got that would like to do hard to the USA.

While we are speaking of nukes..

Currently there is a container ship that just got towed 8 miles out to sea from New York because it is getting very high radioactive readings.

So when a nuke goes off in New York Harbor who is going to be the first to yell at Bush, "What did he know and when?"

I wish the people who know that Saddam supports terrorism would be able to provide something more than the accusation. Alas.

Sadam has openly written large checks to the familys of suicide bombers familys.
Al queda members have escaped to iraq(is this really a stretch?)
Known terrorist training camps there...

Giving families of suicide bombers cheques does not "support terrorism".
Al Queda members may in fact be within Iraq, but so are the Kurds and others who are enemies of Saddam and who control Iraqi territory.
Known terrorist camps, where? The only one I've heard about is in Kurdish controlled Iraq.

Saddam has 0/no/none/nada/zilch connection to 9/11.

The people allegedly gassed are rebels(not that that justifies gassing them), in civil war one part of a nation kills/get killed by another(American Civil War?). He doesn't go around randomly killing "his citizens".

Is Saddam evil? I dunno, if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, we probably wouldn't be talking about him at all.

 

[CantedValve]

Saddam has 0/no/none/nada/zilch connection to 9/11.

Just so I understand... you believe the meetings between Atta and one of Iraq's higher up (forget the position) government officials DIDN'T occur? If you believe it did, do you really think it occured without the knowledge of Saddam? I am sure there is more evidence to list, but even CNN can make those connections. Check them out.

Giving families of suicide bombers cheques does not "support terrorism".

So... compensating suicide bombers by paying their families is NOT supporting terrorism? Sounds like payment in exchange for services rendered to me. Perhaps he did not arrange payment ahead of time... perhaps he did not plan the attacks, but you cannot POSSIBLY sit there and say that it was NOT supporting terrorism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Saddam has 0/no/none/nada/zilch connection to 9/11.

Just so I understand... you believe the meetings between Atta and one of Iraq's higher up (forget the position) government officials DIDN'T occur? If you believe it did, do you really think it occured without the knowledge of Saddam? I am sure there is more evidence to list, but even CNN can make those connections. Check them out.

Giving families of suicide bombers cheques does not "support terrorism".

So... compensating suicide bombers by paying their families is NOT supporting terrorism? Sounds like payment in exchange for services rendered to me. Perhaps he did not arrange payment ahead of time... perhaps he did not plan the attacks, but you cannot POSSIBLY sit there and say that it was NOT supporting terrorism.

1 terrorist meets 1 government official(does anybody even know why or even if the Iraqi official knew who Atta was?) and suddenly Sadam is tied to 9/11. Sorry, that bird don't fly.

The terrorist received *nothing*, he/she is dead!

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Giving families of suicide bombers cheques does not "support terrorism".

sorry, but you lost it there. supporting families of terrorists IS supporting terrorism. there's really no other way to say it. when you support terrorists, you support terrorism. remember those stupid anti-drug commercials? kinda like that, but for real.

Originally posted by: jellybelly
Forcing others to change their way to yours is not right. You can't tell other people what to do but you can set an example and provide honest help. Then, if your way is the better one, they will accept, understand and appreciate it.

in general, i agree with you. forcing others to change their way to mine is not right. but what's less right? invading a country to free its people and create more security overall, or sitting back and waiting for a completely helpless population to do it for themselves? it would be very nice if saddam let iraq decide what it wanted, but i have a sneaky suspicion he isn't going to relinquish his control any time soon.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Saddam has 0/no/none/nada/zilch connection to 9/11.

Just so I understand... you believe the meetings between Atta and one of Iraq's higher up (forget the position) government officials DIDN'T occur? If you believe it did, do you really think it occured without the knowledge of Saddam? I am sure there is more evidence to list, but even CNN can make those connections. Check them out.

Giving families of suicide bombers cheques does not "support terrorism".

So... compensating suicide bombers by paying their families is NOT supporting terrorism? Sounds like payment in exchange for services rendered to me. Perhaps he did not arrange payment ahead of time... perhaps he did not plan the attacks, but you cannot POSSIBLY sit there and say that it was NOT supporting terrorism.

1 terrorist meets 1 government official(does anybody even know why or even if the Iraqi official knew who Atta was?) and suddenly Sadam is tied to 9/11. Sorry, that bird don't fly.

The terrorist received *nothing*, he/she is dead!

He/she recieved the added motivation that their family will be recieving $25,000 from the Iraqi government.

 

[CantedValve]

Pres. Bush can't prove there are mass destruction weapons in Iraq (that's because there are probably none), the only reason USA wants to attack Iraq is to put a sympathetic government there AND CONTROL THE OIL RESERVES. The same Oil makes US support Israel so blindly while Sharon's Nazi government slaughters the poor Palestinians, as Israel is the only true american ally in the middle-east.

Since you brought up oil... let's look at the REAL oil angle. What would happen if Iraq was liberated and their oil was controlled by a democratic government? More than likely, it would cause the price to drop dramatically. Okay, that is fairly obvious. Who doesn't want that to happen? Who has a vested stake in the price of oil? Compare that list to the most vocal opponents of an attack on Iraq/the introduction of democracy to the Middle East, and you will find the country who is truely making decisions based on oil concerns.

Okay, I will save you the brain cells. Saudi Arabia.

 

[CantedValve]

sandorski-

You didn't understand my post. I did not refer the the terrorist getting anything of value. We are not even DISCUSSING the terrorist. We are discussing Saddam. It is HIS actions that are in question. He could have donated the money to The Iraqi Camel League in the terrorist's names and it would have still been support for the terrorists.

ThePresence-

I know yo uare agreeing with me, but as I pointed out to sandorski, it isnt the terrorist end that is the question of debate. These terrorists probably didn't KNOW about the payments... the fact that Saddam opened his checkbook for the terrorist families shows support for their actions.

 

[CantedValve]

1 terrorist meets 1 government official(does anybody even know why or even if the Iraqi official knew who Atta was?) and suddenly Sadam is tied to 9/11. Sorry, that bird don't fly.

You are kidding right? You are pulling my leg? How many times did you piss on the toilet seat before your mom told you to put it up? Would a high ranking official meet with someone he didn't know? What would an Al Qaeda member and a high ranking Iraqi official meet to discuss? Facial hair grooming?

Come on man... I KNOW you are more intelligent than that. Do you really need to SEE the guy cut down a tree, or does the fact that he is walking away from a freshly chopped trunk carrying an axe allow you to infer what happened?

 

[ThePresence]

ThePresence-

I know you are agreeing with me, but as I pointed out to sandorski, it isnt the terrorist end that is the question of debate. These terrorists probably didn't KNOW about the payments... the fact that Saddam opened his checkbook for the terrorist families shows support for their actions.

True, but the terrorists DO know. If you and I know, they know. Therefore, he is actively supporting terrorist ACTS, not just terrorism in general.

 

[CantedValve]

Well, I am not prepared to state that payments to the terrorist families are arranged ahead of attacks. Perhaps NOW they know that if they blow themselves up their families will get money, but I do not know for a fact that the very first ones knew.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Personally I think the US is trying to get Iraq so that we can launch attacks on Iran. We already have Afghanistan to the east, then Iraq to the west. Flank the country and fight from both sides until Iran is gone.

That's from playing Civilization, not from any political/economic stuff.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Well, I am not prepared to state that payments to the terrorist families are arranged ahead of attacks. Perhaps NOW they know that if they blow themselves up their families will get money, but I do not know for a fact that the very first ones knew.

Why are we concerned with the very first ones? NOW he is actively supporting terrorist acts.

 

[dawks]

ThePresence, it seems like you know something the rest of us dont..

Have you considered what might have happened during the Gulf War if Israel hadn't taken out Iraq's nuclear facilities in the '80's? If he develops nukes and then decides to annex all the countries around him, who is gonna go up against him then? I think it's better to get him before he develops them, and I have no doubt that he's trying to.

Do you talk to Saddam and his crew often? Just curious as to where you get the info.. or would you have to kill us if you told us

And...

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Magicthyse
The US has had so many chances to remove Saddam that I'm very surprised that they've taken this particular occasion to press their case so hard.

I really don't know the reason why - it could be the primaries, but then the news is that the US economy is on a slight recovery. It makes no sense. There is no real new evidence - in fact, the evidence points to Iraq's nuclear and chemical capability is probably less than that before/during the Gulf war, although the ability to acquire technology from Russia may have increased in possibility.

Source? Link?

Again, it makes it seem like you know something the rest of us dont.. You seem so very sure of yourself..

 

[CantedValve]

Good point. Whether he is advertising it, it is happening and they know about it.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: DaZ
ThePresence, it seems like you know something the rest of us dont..

Have you considered what might have happened during the Gulf War if Israel hadn't taken out Iraq's nuclear facilities in the '80's? If he develops nukes and then decides to annex all the countries around him, who is gonna go up against him then? I think it's better to get him before he develops them, and I have no doubt that he's trying to.

Do you talk to Saddam and his crew often? Just curious as to where you get the info.. or would you have to kill us if you told us

And...

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Magicthyse
The US has had so many chances to remove Saddam that I'm very surprised that they've taken this particular occasion to press their case so hard.

I really don't know the reason why - it could be the primaries, but then the news is that the US economy is on a slight recovery. It makes no sense. There is no real new evidence - in fact, the evidence points to Iraq's nuclear and chemical capability is probably less than that before/during the Gulf war, although the ability to acquire technology from Russia may have increased in possibility.

Source? Link?

HUH? I was the one asking for the source.

Again, it makes it seem like you know something the rest of us dont.. You seem so very sure of yourself..

Eh, the entire world is convinced that he is trying to devlop nukes. It's not just me.

 

[Goosemaster]

The precedent that will be set is what the world fears.

Based solely upon speculation, our country chooses to dipose the ruler of another.

The UN itself was created to be the Patrol of the world, and because of that pact, the US should not take out its revenge on Iraq, when justice is the proper recourse

So many nations are willing to rid the world of evil, yet none wants to go on a witch hunt.

Good Evening.

 

[SuperTool]

Last time I checked, 15/19 murderers on 9/11 were Saudi scum. Yet, while Washington and New York, our greatest cities were in flames, Mecca and Medina was not touched, and Saudi Arabia got away with murder, and were not punished for sponsoring terrorism around the world. Of course, Saudi Arabia is a touchy subject for the Bushies, so Dubya chooses to concentrate on Iraq instead. I am not saying that we should bomb religious sites, but we need to take away Saudi oil money, because they clearly cannot be trusted with it. It's oil for food time in Ryadh, IMO.

 

[JellyBaby]

in general, i agree with you. forcing others to change their way to mine is not right. but what's less right? invading a country to free its people and create more security overall, or sitting back and waiting for a completely helpless population to do it for themselves? it would be very nice if saddam let iraq decide what it wanted, but i have a sneaky suspicion he isn't going to relinquish his control any time soon.

Look at Cuba. They've been under totalitarian rule for decades. Their people are oppressed, poverty stricken and literally dying to come to the United States. Yet we don't invade to liberate the people of Cuba, and they're our close neighbor! Why? I'll give you two hints: 1) it's a one word answer, three letters long. 2) Iraq has it, Cuba does not.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Look at Cuba. They've been under totalitarian rule for decades. Their people are oppressed, poverty stricken and literally dying to come to the United States. Yet we don't invade to liberate the people of Cuba, and they're our close neighbor! Why? I'll give you two hints: 1) it's a one word answer, three letters long. 2) Iraq has it, Cuba does not.

That and the fact that Cuba doesn't have weapons of mass destruction and the fact that we made a pledge to the USSR that we wouldn't invade Cuba. Considering the number of "communists" that are still members of the Russian democratic government, I think they'd still make a stink about it. Oh, and Castro hasn't been gassing his citizens lately. Plus, he is going to die pretty soon, and when he does, it is pretty obvious what will happen to the communist government of that country (and if it doesn't, maybe then we'll be looking at a situation similar to the one we face today with IRAQ - that is assuming the new leader of Cuba is more oppressive than Castro. As communist regimes go, Cuba is pretty easygoing).

I apologize for ranting, but that was a rather oversimplified statement you made.

 

[Rayden]

and if you remember at one time cuba either had or was going to have ballistics missiles sent from the USSR. The US didn't waste time saying that if the missile base stayed we were going in. The missiles were REMOVED!

and today we aren't planning on invading Cuba.

Hussein had mass destruction weapons, we told him to get rid of them, he agreed. Then decided he wouldn't let us watch him anymore... big difference.


here is something simple. no need to flame the issue is bigger than my simplification, i just thought i'd share it.

If a mother sees her child sneaking around the house hiding something, does she wait until she knows her child has something he shouldn't? or does she demand to know what her child has. and if her child refuses to show her doesn't she punish her child?

im sure someone will find a fault with my analogy, please do and explain the problem.