Should We Invade Iraq? Or is Bush just a dumbass? What do you think?

I haven't voted because my option isn't there.

If bush et al can provide sufficient hard evidence that Iraq has not eliminated it's weapons program then there is no reason for war. If evidence is provided, and Iraq can be proven guilty of possessing such weapons then a UN resolution IMO, is not needed.

edit: if/when bush announces his evidence, that doesn't mean he has right for immediate action. Iraq must be given its fair chance to disarm as regulated by the UN resolutions.

I am sure if bush HAD more evidence he would have provided it. Don't you think??? :rolleyes:

Not necessarily. Sometimes providing such evidence may open intelligence holes which would do more damage than necessary.


edit: here's an article which hints that Secretary Powell may unveil evidence soon. http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=012820030925&cp1=1

How is providing a few pictures of their nukes gona open intelligence holes? Everyone knows the us got spy satilites all over the place? Beside thats exactly what we did to North Korea. We know they got Nukes. They even backed out of the treaty and you don't see bush sending a huge force over there. I think this whole thing is 1) to finish the business his dad started 2) for oil. Besides the US and its allies have the most Nukes, who are we to say that they can't make nukes when we have enough to blow up half the world and send the earth into a different orbit?? :stickout:

can you guys post y you voted for what you voted for? Thanks!

yes bush may be a loony but war is required anyway. its shockingly simple. iraq surrendered and made terms, including disarming his weapons of mass distruction. i.e. he promised to do things to stop his country being flattened. he has then broken both the original peace accord and the 2002 resolution but not fully disclosing his weapons etc. if he hadnothing to hide then why did he spend 1990 onwards refusing weapons inspectors access, firing over their heads and then kicking them out the country. not to mention firing on jets enforcing the no fly zone.

so if you stop a war by surrender, if you break the terms, expect war. it really is that simple. to say any different is to totally devalue a surrender. any country could pick a fight and as soon as they look like loosing, surrender and ignore the terms.

no they cannot release all the evidence as to do so would compromise the source and would render the source useless for future requirements. depending on the source of course.

whether this is for oil or for finsihing daddies job is beside the point. the only reason that counts is the surrender. if there are other reasons which i dont doubt there are they dont negate the overriding fact he broke his terms of the peace accord and should therefore expect peace to end and hostilities to restart.

i dont want to see innocent people on either side die, id be quite happy for someone to laser the little tart from space. unfortunately he has brought this on himself. If anyone doubts the existance of his weapons, id invite you to consider the implications of the leaked report that hes threatened america with chemical weapons should their troops land and that he has issued his royal guard with anti nerve agents and nbc suits. umm now either hes ordered some really strong baked beans and is planning on gassing them that way, or hes planing on using that 400 tonnes of vx nerve gas he reckons he doesnt have. it must be the former because hes said he doesnt have any nerve gas remember :)

US cannot handle it alone.. it needs it allies

Originally posted by jhcashman
I am sure if bush HAD more evidence he would have provided it. don't you think??? :rolleyes:

I heard it on a radio talk the other day; Sadam Husein's son once said that "if US invades Iraq, Iraq will surely use their biological and chemical weapons against US troops". CMIIW, does not that statement indicates that Iraq has admitted they have biological and checmical weapons still? what more evidence does one need?

Originally posted by insaneraptor
US cannot handle it alone.. it needs it allies

Some of its allies, France and German, are also the ones providing Iraq with weapons of mass destruction .... Not surpirsing they (France and German) are backing out from supporting US ...

This question is one of those questions that you don't discuss.

I am for war. Not because I think the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, or because my dad served in the U.S. Army for 26 years or even because I'm think we need to start a WW3.

The reason I feel we need War (and this is why I voted "Let's Flatten Iraq) is simply because this needs to stop. We've given them many chances to cooperate with us and they think they can trick us. We may not be able to fight this alone, but we aren't alone. We have many allies helping us and THAT is what makes us the most powerful country in the world.

Everytime something BAD happens to the U.S., what countries lend a hand? Not that many. But everytime something bad happens to another country, the U.S. Lends a hand.

We are a great country. You may disagree, that's up to you. But I have nothing against you or your country. And we don't try to be the most powerful. We just are (lol that's very conceded).

heh i reckon the us of a could make a large dent against the rest of the world. physically that is. morally yeah europe needs to come round, but germany has a govt that came to power on the word it wouldnt go to war, it cant move on that, and its putting pressure financially on other european countries to oppose it.
england is standing by america , russia and china are making token murmers against it. its france really that will be the decider.

Where's the option for "No" and "Other-Explained below?"

Thats not true, please provide sources.

He said, he would make september 11 look like a picnic, he did not say he would use chemical weapons.

Ofcourse the U.S media took it that way.

Originally posted by FHDave


I heard it on a radio talk the other day; Sadam Husein's son once said that "if US invades Iraq, Iraq will surely use their biological and chemical weapons against US troops". CMIIW, does not that statement indicates that Iraq has admitted they have biological and checmical weapons still? what more evidence does one need?

edude the report leaked out confirmed he was preparing for chemical weapons. try bbc.co.uk then news then search for it.

If Bush can prove that Saddam does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction I'm all for war. However, if Bush cannot prove it, then I don't think War is necessary. Bush needs to give the weapons inspectors the additional 1-2 months that they have asked for though... I think I wonder about is;

Say Iraq went off and nuked some country for no reason. Would you blame the US for not going to war? I think the majority would. It's almost a double standard, and no matter what the US does, it'll be wrong.

EDIT: I also think the United States military could absolutely flatten Iraq's army. With the intelligence they have, the tools, and the men who will be fighting, I truthfully don't think Iraq stands a chance. The war in Afganistan actually has been fairly sucessful. While there has a been a few flop-ups here and there, the Taliban is no where near as powerful as it once was. If the US could go into Pakistan (which we shouldn't) then Bin Laden would be no more. But as Bush said, he's a coward and runs when he actually fighting against a trained army. Not a bunch of innocent citizens from all over the world.

Bush is a *****!!! - i loved bush, well atleast i liked him more than that other guy, and now, well, im just unsure. i dont want bush starting up any world wars and such.

I say we annex Iraq as the 51st state. Free oil for our SUV's. :stickout:

Iraq has been afforded every opportunity to comply with the terms of their surrender, and they have continually asserted their right to do as they please. Give them more time? They have had 10 + years.... no more. You can say what you want regarding Bush finishing his dads job, or doing it for oil, or whatever. It really is secondary to the facts. The penalty needs to be administered.
Where are all the missing chemical agents? They are just waiting to be used. If you think that Saddam has spent the last 10 years sitting on his ass in one of his palaces, you better think again. He has been a busy little dictator making sure he has hidden enough chemical and biological weapons to use against whoever enforces the punitive action against him that he knows is inevitable. He set this course 10 years ago and now it's time to pay the piper.

Of course, this is my opinion and may differ from yours. Such is life.

On another note, people ask why no one is talking about Bin Laden anymore. The reason? Bin Laden is already dead, but letting the public know this now, may further sway our allies from helping us. It shouldn't, but it would. Just watch, forthcoming information will show that Bin Laden was dead before the date of this post. :) What do you think?

heh he may dead dead as a public figure but hes very much alive but thats only my opinion. even is he is dead he wasnt the whole of the operation, the target remains disbands all the terror networks, including fox.

-

Originally posted by akash
I haven't voted because my option isn't there.

edit: if/when bush announces his evidence, that doesn't mean he has right for immediate action. Iraq must be given its fair chance to disarm as regulated by the UN resolutions.



oh my dear god... are you serious? what the hell do you think the gulf war was? After that.. we GAVE THEM THEIR CHANCE. if they still have weapons, I hope bush drops a cruise missile right on saddam.

Originally posted by jhcashman
I am sure if bush HAD more evidence he would have provided it. Don't you think??? :rolleyes:


Even he has a evidence and that does not mean let start the war.


WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER

no the real answer is let the tyrant get away with whatever he wants but lets not upset him nooooo wouldnt want to do that. lets just sit back and let him make a mockery of peace accords and un resolutions and let him fire at our jets and shoot near and kick out our weapons inspectors. yeah that sounds like a really good answer.

Sometimes war is the answer. If not most of Europe would be speaking German right now. There is no utopia!

Originally posted by Lirath




oh my dear god... are you serious? what the hell do you think the gulf war was? After that.. we GAVE THEM THEIR CHANCE. if they still have weapons, I hope bush drops a cruise missile right on saddam.

you said the exact same thing i did. If they don't have weapons then there's no reason for war is there?

if they don't have weapons.. no there is no reason for war..

however, if they do - bush should go right in and do something - without waiting.

you said "if/when bush announces his evidence, that doesn't mean he has right for immediate action. Iraq must be given its fair chance to disarm as regulated by the UN resolutions."

So you're saying if we find weapons, Iraq should be givin it's fair chance to disarm. ... They were givin their fair chance. That's what happened after the Gulf War... If they still have weapons - you're damn right bush has right for immediate action.

whats wrong with a country having weapons ? America has them , and uses them all the time on people . In fact america was the first country to Nuke another country . America has proven to be a far larger threat to the world then any other country . What if countries ganged up on america and were trying to force them to disarm ? Anyways... There is no proof of weapons in iraq . The UN has found nothing . I say we let the UN handle it , since its a UN treaty that they will be breaking . Why does america feel so obligated to waste this country ? Why arent so many other countries jumping our bandwagon ? Why have so many countries refused to help america in this crusade for oil and re-election ? Why is it N.Korea can back out of a treaty , and thats OK ? N.Korea openly admits they are producing "weapons grade plutonium" . I mean come on people , if you're to ignorant to see that this has nothing to do with weapons , and everything to do with oil and Bush's dad ... then i pitty you

Bush will not wait to see if Iraq acutally has them. He wants war because he Hussein tryed to kill his father.. Which is what Bush said. I don't know about yall but I don't believe every single thing I hear on the news, nor what Bush Says. I leave 25% to the media, and my other 75% is doing the real thinking using common sense.

We are not undefeatable, and yes Bush should wait to see if they actually have them.

North Korea is the bigger threat

But they have a massive army of 4.7 million people that can invade south korea at will and completely destroy seoul

Iraq is not as big of a threat

However it isn't to hard to invade them, not much forces

Originally posted by case
whats wrong with a country having weapons ? America has them , and uses them all the time on people . In fact america was the first country to Nuke another country . America has proven to be a far larger threat to the world then any other country . What if countries ganged up on america and were trying to force them to disarm ? Anyways... There is no proof of weapons in iraq . The UN has found nothing . I say we let the UN handle it , since its a UN treaty that they will be breaking . Why does america feel so obligated to waste this country ? Why arent so many other countries jumping our bandwagon ? Why have so many countries refused to help america in this crusade for oil and re-election ? Why is it N.Korea can back out of a treaty , and thats OK ? N.Korea openly admits they are producing "weapons grade plutonium" . I mean come on people , if you're to ignorant to see that this has nothing to do with weapons , and everything to do with oil and Bush's dad ... then i pitty you

All the time?

We've only nuked another country twice,

And the was the japs

Originally posted by richy
whether this is for oil or for finsihing daddies job is beside the point.

You're joking, right?

Originally posted by LordLardo


All the time?

We've only nuked another country twice,

And the was the japs

why dont you go back and re-read what i wrote , i never said america NUKES people all the time , i said they we use OUR weapons all the time . You then go on to say we've ONLY NUKED A COUNTRY TWICE? as if wasnt enough ? . And by the way , could you be anymore rude , im sure we have many japanese people using these forums

Jap ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jp)
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a person of Japanese birth or descent.

why dont you go back and re-read what i wrote , i never said america NUKES people all the time , i said they we use OUR weapons all the time . You then go on to say we've ONLY NUKED A COUNTRY TWICE? as if wasnt enough ? . And by the way , could you be anymore rude , im sure we have many japanese people using these forums


hmmm... and what Japan did was warranted? Japan not only attacked on a Sunday, which used to be a break time from war so the soldiers could attend church services. But they also bombed 8 tankers which were not even prepared to go to battle. The American military was on break. Also, did you notice how the American government stayed out of WW II, up until Japan surprised attack Pearl Harbor. Can you sink any lower than what they did?

As far as I am aware the US satyed out of the war militarily until Pearl Harbour, yet were happy to profit from selling arms to the poms up until that time.

whats wrong with a country having weapons ? America has them , and uses them all the time on people . In fact america was the first country to Nuke another country . America has proven to be a far larger threat to the world then any other country . What if countries ganged up on america and were trying to force them to disarm ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America may possess weapons, however they show restraint when using them unlike Saddam Hussein. America may have in fact been the first to use a Nuclear bomb on Japan, however Japan refused to surrender. Harry Truman warned the Japaneese president that a nuclear would be used on them if they did not surrender. When Japan not surrender, that's when the Nuclear was ordered to be dropped. The Nuclear Bomb however did not even force Japan to surrender, seeing as Japan did not surrender until almost a month later.

 

Anyways... There is no proof of weapons in iraq . The UN has found nothing . I say we let the UN handle it , since its a UN treaty that they will be breaking . Why does america feel so obligated to waste this country ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has American done anything so far? No, they have not. So far Bush has let the inspectors do their job. However Iraq listed many weapons before, that are still to be un-accounted for. That is why Bush says they have not disarmed.

Why arent so many other countries jumping our bandwagon ? Why have so many countries refused to help america in this crusade for oil and re-election ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Russia is beginning to switch to the US side, and they have long been a supporter of Iraq. If that does not tell you something I'm what will. Not to mention Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK I believe has pledged support to help the US.

 Why is it N.Korea can back out of a treaty , and thats OK ? N.Korea openly admits they are producing "weapons grade plutonium" . I mean come on people , if you're to ignorant to see that this has nothing to do with weapons , and everything to do with oil and Bush's dad ... then i pitty you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea is being delt with by the United Nations and China. 

The French Back out of everything..... when was the last time they joined a battle????

Originally posted by richy
heh i reckon the us of a could make a large dent against the rest of the world. physically that is. morally yeah europe needs to come round, but germany has a govt that came to power on the word it wouldnt go to war, it cant move on that, and its putting pressure financially on other european countries to oppose it.
england is standing by america , russia and china are making token murmers against it. its france really that will be the decider. :rolleyes:

I agree with inogenius in someway

If only we can get North Korea and Iraq to Flatten each other ... THEN... the world would be a better place....;)

I havent voted or read more than a couple of replies as I wanted to post my current view without any influence from posts already.

I was strongly against a war on Iraq as I really dislike Bush (im in the UK btw). But I cant let personal feelings towards a politician let me neglect the true realisation of war. Now to me it is obvious they have proof that he has some sort of weaponry. Us and UK intelligence are very good to say the least. They wouldnt be making unfound claims that he must have weapons of mass destruction. It almost feels like bush is wanting to spill the beans but becasue he cant he gets worked up and starts almost ranting about how they MUST have these weapons.

They wouldnt treat it like some playground argument, as it seems now, if they didnt know things they arent telling us. I hope that we do not have to go to war. I dont want my children growing up in a war filled society, I strongly disagree with the miltary spending of certain nations, I think there are better ways to attain "world peace" and I think the current party in power in the US really does have oil on the brain. But im not going to protest against a war that in the end could save millions of lives.

These humanitarian people who protest war and such in my view are often ignorant, not all of course but alot are. Its like the people who would kill a human in a second to spare some bunnies life. (no i dont support animal testing). They are protesting against something they dont understand the scale of. They ignore what Sadam has done in the past. It is fact that the man murdered his own people, is a war monger and would do anything to bring down his enermies. The human race is a blood faring one, and although time has changed that in many it still remains in human culture and life.

I just fear for those who are less fortunate than ourselves, who dont have mass media (even if it can be deceateful), and who may be about to be hit my a tidal wave of fire and mayhem. The media here shows that the Iraqie people support Sadam even after past attrocities, they show them all to be US/UK haters. Well wouldnt you hate us if you were being told a super power who has many "weapons of mass destruction" are going to invade you unless you prove you dont have weapons which dont exist, (lets assume that they "know" their own country doesnt have these weapons). In a fear spiral that you cant prove something, because there is nothing to prove.

It seems too many people these days cant put them selves in the mind set of others, and cant then say look they are thinking like this, we need to help them understand all perspectives.

war on Iraq? I think its a certainty, but what exactly is the war in aid of? to remove him? to kill them all? to bomb them tillthey show us weapons that might not exist?

Originally posted by jhcashman
The French Back out of everything..... when was the last time they joined a battle????

:rolleyes:


yeah they do lol but they like to do there own thing, and if someone doesnt like it, they do it anyway. More often thn not they are right though.

Originally posted by inogenius
whats wrong with a country having weapons ? America has them , and uses them all the time on people . In fact america was the first country to Nuke another country . America has proven to be a far larger threat to the world then any other country . What if countries ganged up on america and were trying to force them to disarm ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America may possess weapons, however they show restraint when using them unlike Saddam Hussein. America may have in fact been the first to use a Nuclear bomb on Japan, however Japan refused to surrender. Harry Truman warned the Japaneese president that a nuclear would be used on them if they did not surrender. When Japan not surrender, that's when the Nuclear was ordered to be dropped. The Nuclear Bomb however did not even force Japan to surrender, seeing as Japan did not surrender until almost a month later.

 

Anyways... There is no proof of weapons in iraq . The UN has found nothing . I say we let the UN handle it , since its a UN treaty that they will be breaking . Why does america feel so obligated to waste this country ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has American done anything so far? No, they have not. So far Bush has let the inspectors do their job. However Iraq listed many weapons before, that are still to be un-accounted for. That is why Bush says they have not disarmed.

Why arent so many other countries jumping our bandwagon ? Why have so many countries refused to help america in this crusade for oil and re-election ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Russia is beginning to switch to the US side, and they have long been a supporter of Iraq. If that does not tell you something I'm what will. Not to mention Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK I believe has pledged support to help the US.

 Why is it N.Korea can back out of a treaty , and thats OK ? N.Korea openly admits they are producing "weapons grade plutonium" . I mean come on people , if you're to ignorant to see that this has nothing to do with weapons , and everything to do with oil and Bush's dad ... then i pitty you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea is being delt with by the United Nations and China. 

lmao , since when did america show restraint with thier weapons . We start more wars and get more involved then any other country in the world . I understand the Japanese went after peral harbor , our military , but we in turn went after thier civilians and cities . Killing 100 times more people then that of japan . We got involved in vietnam , gulf war , we keep giving weapons to isreal , we gaves weapons to various people in the middle east to fight serbia , and russia . I dont see any restraint . So if you truly believe america has used restraint then i suggest you do far more research . You say the us has done nothing ....except ship 250,000 americans to the middle east , along with other various warcraft . Thats not nothing ? hat called getting ready to invade a country that has in NO WAY harmed the USA or it allies , UNLIKE pearl harbor . Although i dont believe in nuclear weapons , we had just cause to defend ourselves against japan . OF the hundreds of countrys in the world , You managed to name UK and Russia , hmmm... First of all , were do you get this information that russia is "beginning" to switch to the sides of the USA (considering usa doesnt have a side , and alot of people dont agree with bushs standpoint) As far as Tny Blair , hes a puppet , he'll go along with most anything the USA wants to do . So yeah , 2 countries out of many means diddly squat if you ask me . As far as the UN and China taking care of nkorea , why not let them take care of iraq too.... ??? Why do we need to get involved , what has iraq done to us ?

Dude, go back to your history books.. the two arguing about nukes and Japan and military... honestly now.


1) We cut off Japan's oil supply. They of course, did not like this. They attacked us. When, where, how - doesn't matter. That's called war. You don't say "It was a sunday! How could they do such a thing"

2) We retailiated against Japan. We bombed Tokyo (not nukes) in a 15 minute attack ran by Doolittle.

3) Japan and America went back and fourth for awhile. America decided it needed to end it.

4) It was estimated by American Intelligence that in order to "defeat" Japan it would need to have a ONE MILLION MAN invasion. Thus which would result in almost 90% (900,000 american soldiers) dying. The only other option was to nuke.

5) We nuked Japan once. They still did not back down. We nuked them again. They backed down.

6) We nuked their cities and their people - Yes, horrible action, but where else do you nuke? ... Every country in the world, if they were to use a nuke, would target the highest populated place they could hit. It's a fact of war.

7) America nor Japan was a "horrible monster" in WW2... it was war. They attacked Peral Harbor because we cut off their oil. We nuked them because that was our only option to end it without losing 900,000 american soldiers.

8) Go back and learn some American history.

And also... why is every anti-war american so ready to protest to leave Iraq and Saddam alone because "he has not done anything yet". We're shipping soldiers over near a country that "has not harmed the US or it's allies in any way"... Why should we WAIT for that attack? Are we not allowed to stop a preemtive strike? Saddam is a freaking madman. He is absolutely nuts. If you don't believe me.. well then there is no hope for you.

After the Gulf War there was a UN resolution for him to disarm. He agreed. Later, he kicked the UN out. If he's not disarming, or he's making more weapons... he's in violation of a UN resolution. And why? I mean... if Iraq was a peacekeeping country and he was making weapons - it would be one thing... but he slaughters his own civilians. When you 'vote' you have to sign the ballot.. if you don't vote for Saddam, expect to be beheaded in front of your family. People in Iraq have no choice. Saddam is the only canidate. Who will run against him and his militia?

The man is crazy. He needs to be taken out. If he has weapons, I hope Bush sends some elite guys into his palace to put a bullet in his head.

-- Double post

I voted not without UN support. I may be Canadian but our PM is an idiot for not making a clear statement about what he's gonna be doing. Hopefully we (Canada) don't go to war without UN backing. If not, I clearly wouldn't support it. Multilateralism is what Canada is known for. :D They're doin it - we may as well too.

I have to say Bush did have some very good points in his speech, however did you notice how he said ****you to the UN. :D They have very clever speech writers.

The coalition also has to realize that Saddam is the target not Iraq. civilian loss is what will determine the reaction from the Iraqi citizens.

Originally posted by Lirath
Dude, go back to your history books.. the two arguing about nukes and Japan and military... honestly now.


1) We cut off Japan's oil supply. They of course, did not like this. They attacked us. When, where, how - doesn't matter. That's called war. You don't say "It was a sunday! How could they do such a thing"
7) America nor Japan was a "horrible monster" in WW2... it was war. They attacked Peral Harbor because we cut off their oil. We nuked them because that was our only option to end it without losing 900,000 american soldiers.


Umm, I beg to differ - the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour (major US Naval station) to give themselves time to occupy the Indonesian, and Phillipine islands. (US had military bases in the Phillipines, and oil which Japan needed) The Japanese expected that destroying most of the American Naval fleet at Pearl harbour would give them about 1 - 2 years to take over South east Asia. The American's only took 6 months to reply with a counter attack.

war = population control = more jobs

I think the whole thing sucks,i think bush is teaming up with his father to try and get what his father FAILED to get :angry:

The Dude :angry:

We cut off their oil. Without that, they could not have survived. They attacked us because of that. There were more intentions above it... like taking over south east asia, occupy the indonesian, phillipine, and aleutian islands... but it was because of the oil. If we kept giving them oil, we would not have been attacked.

Originally posted by Alex042
war = population control = more jobs

Very true. If you look at most of the recent wars/major world crisises (what's the plural spelling of that?), you'll notice that the US got involved during the middle of a recession and after they got involved, the economy got a nice boost.

I support the war on Iraq with or without UN support. Either way the US has the following support from the following countries: Spain, Italy, UK (definitely), Romania, Poland, Czech Republic and other NATO/Eastern Bloc countries. NATO voted 15 to 4 in favor of action a while ago. 15 NATO countries support the US in military action.

The War must occur with or without UN authorization for the following reasons:

- Saddam Hussein has his security forces murder thousands each year
- The Iraqi security forces use different methods of torture against political prisioners including the pouring of acid.
- Saddam Hussein IS developing weapons of mass destruction
- Saddam Hussein MOST DEFINITELY HAS violated this UN agreement, along with more than a dozen other resolutions before it.
- Saddam Hussein continues to murder the Kurdish and Shia (SP?) population in his country
- Saddam Hussein clearly supports terrorism, as shown by the Iraqi government backed islamic group that is in the north fighting against the Kurdish PUK.
- Saddam Hussein has clearly shown his unwillingness to talk

The benefits of war:

- Provides jumpstart to Industrial production growth rate average.
- Increases overall production in many sectors
- Prevents Saddam Hussein from threatening other countries ever again because he would be removed.

Sure war is not a pretty thing but can actually jump start industrial growth rate average and can remove the dictator in power.

Originally posted by giancarlo
I support the war on Iraq with or without UN support. Either way the US has the following support from the following countries: Spain, Italy, UK (definitely), Romania, Poland, Czech Republic and other NATO/Eastern Bloc countries. NATO voted 15 to 4 in favor of action a while ago. 15 NATO countries support the US in military action.

The War must occur with or without UN authorization for the following reasons:

- Saddam Hussein has his security forces murder thousands each year
- The Iraqi security forces use different methods of torture against political prisioners including the pouring of acid.
- Saddam Hussein IS developing weapons of mass destruction
- Saddam Hussein MOST DEFINITELY HAS violated this UN agreement, along with more than a dozen other resolutions before it.
- Saddam Hussein continues to murder the Kurdish and Shia (SP?) population in his country
- Saddam Hussein clearly supports terrorism, as shown by the Iraqi government backed islamic group that is in the north fighting against the Kurdish PUK.
- Saddam Hussein has clearly shown his unwillingness to talk

The benefits of war:

- Provides jumpstart to Industrial production growth rate average.
- Increases overall production in many sectors
- Prevents Saddam Hussein from threatening other countries ever again because he would be removed.

Sure war is not a pretty thing but can actually jump start industrial growth rate average and can remove the dictator in power.

everything you're saying points to saddam , not iraq . So why go after iraq if its only one man we want ? What happened last time we went to get saddam ? NOTHING . He hid out , and waited for the air to clear . Just like Osama bin ladan . Same exact thing will happen , we'll go over , saddam will hide . Well spend millions of dollars doing nothing , nothing will change in the end . Although war may boost the economy for a very short time , i dont think destruction of lives and homes is really worth it .

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections(ie , bush's tax cuts). When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results . War does not always equal economic stimulus

i dont understand some people . I dont understand how anyone could make light of war . I guess its those people who wont be on the frontline , sitting in thier recliner ... talking on wht while americans and other countries soldiers are being killed . I just left the military not to long ago and fear that ill be called back because of my excellent service , and re-enlistment code . I joined the service to protect my country , im willing to die for americans freedom , on the other hand , american freedom has not been jeopardized by iraq or saddam , thats why i feel this war is complete crap .

Saddam Hussein has over 200 imposters. If you want a rifle and some bullets go and get him.

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections(ie , bush's tax cuts). When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results .

No that is an incorrect assessment. And you forgot about the 1980s. When Reagan cut taxes... the federal debt went up. But by 1984 the federal debt went down. WWI has nothing to do with what is happening now. There isn't a major world war occuring. And by the way, the government of the 20s was terrible and non-transparent. That is what gave way to the thirties.

And yes everything will change. That has proven to be the case in Afghanistan. The taliban are gone. There are remains of the taliban in Afghanistan but they are being dealt with.

Your assessment is pretty much incorrect. Also my country, Spain, is joining in the battle with the US. We are going to send in forces and from what I heard our aircraft carrier.

American freedom has been jeopardized by Saddam Hussein and his evil military in Iraq.

Saddam has killed over 200,000 people in the past twenty years since he took power in 1979.

Originally posted by giancarlo
And yes everything will change. That has proven to be the case in Afghanistan. The taliban are gone. There are remains of the taliban in Afghanistan but they are being dealt with.

Do you remember who installed and supported to the talibans in afghanistan?


Your assessment is pretty much incorrect. Also my country, Spain, is joining in the battle with the US. We are going to send in forces and from what I heard our aircraft carrier.
Same did my country(Argentina) in the goulf war, but mostly the people was against the war. What's your point?


American freedom has been jeopardized by Saddam Hussein and his evil military in Iraq.

How?


Saddam has killed over 200,000 people in the past twenty years since he took power in 1979.

The goulf war killed 250.000 Iraquis, and 500.000 childrens died since then because the embargo.
Again, what's your point?

Originally posted by Jedito


Do you remember who installed and supported to the talibans in afghanistan?

The taliban didn't come to power until 1994 or 1996. Don't remember exactly what date. They were backed by Pakistan.

Same did my country(Argentina) in the goulf war, but mostly the people was against the war. What's your point?

You are Argentine? Explains the anti-US rhetoric. Most of your country hates the US. And from what I know Argentina sent very little in the Gulf war.

How?

You heard Bush. Saddam possess 30,000 litres of several toxins.

The goulf war killed 250.000 Iraquis, and 500.000 childrens died since then because the embargo.
Again, what's your point? [/B]

The Gulf war killed only Iraqi Military personal in great amounts. Civilians who died were murdered by Saddam's Forces in an effort to make it look like the US did it.

Also the birthrate in UN northern controlled Iraq has felt its mortality rate fall. In the Iraqi controlled section the mortality rate has more than doubled. This is with the oil for food program.

NEXT!

Edit: BTW, I live in Argentina right now.

Do you remember who installed and supported to the talibans in afghanistan?
America did not install, nor support the taliban in afghanistan. America supported the taliban when they were fighting against Russia.

Same did my country(Argentina) in the goulf war, but mostly the people was against the war. What's your point?

I believe his point his that America is not doing this by itself. It has support from other NATO countries.

The goulf war killed 250.000 Iraquis, and 500.000 childrens died since then because the embargo.

Are you counting the amount of people Saddam Hussein ordered to be killed because they surrendered? If Iraq could follow rules placed upon them by Nato, and could use restraint when using their weapons there would be no trade embargo. That embargo, and all the deaths are caused by Saddam Hussein himself. If Saddam Hussein would have never invaded Kuwait in the first place, that Golf would not have started, sparing 500,000 Iraquis. That embargo would have never been placed up Iraq. You can't blame the United States, or any other country for those deaths. Sure the USA may have said "Okay, invade Kuwait." But did they say there would be no ramnifications? I don't know... but I doubt they didn't give him any warnings about doing it.

Also you want to know the methods of tortured used by Saddam and his army and republican guard? Not only does Saddam have to be taken out but also his 400,000 men army, and 100,000 men republican guard. A lot of numbers on paper but they are mostly poorly trained and armed. Nearly 50,000 surrendered in one shot when they saw the US coming in the first Gulf War.

Those HumVee's are pretty scary looking, and sounding when they're coming at ya at 80MPH.

Yeah they are scary looking..... especially when they have the Avenger missile system built on them... :D

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/avenger-dvic411.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/avenger2.jpg

Originally posted by giancarlo

The taliban didn't come to power until 1994 or 1996. Don't remember exactly what date. They were backed by Pakistan.
1996, but they were supported by USA before to fight against Rusia



You are Argentine? Explains the anti-US rhetoric. Most of your country hates the US. And from what I know Argentina sent very little in the Gulf war.
Yes, I'm Argentinian, and live in Argentina.
To explain the anti-US rhetoric that you said, you have to go to the 70's, 30.000 dead person and not forgeted so easily.



You heard Bush. Saddam possess 30,000 litres of several toxins.

No, I didn't heard bush, care to explain me please?


The Gulf war killed only Iraqi Military personal in great amounts. Civilians who died were murdered by Saddam's Forces in an effort to make it look like the US did it.
20.000 civilians died in Bagdad because the bombing in 1 day.
Others were killed because other bombs. I'm not talking about the killed by Saddam


Also the birthrate in UN northern controlled Iraq has felt its mortality rate fall. In the Iraqi controlled section the mortality rate has more than doubled. This is with the oil for food program.

http://www.embargos.de/irak/aktionen/call.htm
"Recently in an interview on 60 minutes, Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright: "I understand that 500,000 Iraqi children have died due to our sanctions ... was it worth it?" Albright replied, "It was worth it." "
http://www.free-minds.org/us-terror.htm
http://www.rmbowman.com/isss/iraqsp.htm


NEXT!

Next what?

Edit: BTW, I live in Argentina right now.
Congrats.

1996, but they were supported by USA before to fight against Rusia

True. But they weren't the taliban at the time. They were splintered groups.

Yes, I'm Argentinian, and live in Argentina.
To explain the anti-US rhetoric that you said, you have to go to the 70's, 30.000 dead person and not forgeted so easily.


A regime that was also blocked out by the Ronald Reagan government. You blame the dictatorship of then on the US? Typical.

No, I didn't heard bush, care to explain me please?


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.speech/index.html

President Bush says the greatest threat to the United States and the world comes from "outlaw regimes" that are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, Bush singled out three countries that he said were repressing their own people while seeking weapons of mass destruction: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation," the president said.

He named the same three countries in his State of the Union address last year, calling them an "axis of evil."

On Tuesday, Bush also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of aiding the al Qaeda terror network and hiding weapons he was prohibited from possessing through agreements with the United Nations.

Bush said the Iraqi leader has shown "utter contempt for the United Nations" in the three months since the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that he disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming," Bush said. "To the contrary, he is deceiving.

The day before Bush's speech, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said high-level detainees in the war on terror have said Iraq has given al Qaeda training in developing chemical weapons.

Saying the world has waited "12 years for Iraq to disarm," Bush said the United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene February 5 to discuss Baghdad's "ongoing defiance of the world.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Bush said the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism would stand between "a world at peace and a world of chaos.

"Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility," Bush said, adding that the United States would act alone if necessary to protect Americans.

Bush also took aim at Iraq's neighbor.

"We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty, human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom."

Bush also had harsh words for North Korea, accusing the communist country of ruling its people through fear and starvation, as well as breaking its agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons.

"America is working with the countries of the region – South Korea, Japan, China and Russia – to find a peaceful solution and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation and continued hardship."

The president said North Korea's regime would earn respect and experience prosperity only when it gives up any quest for nuclear weapons.

Bush also said the United States was winning its war on terrorism, and he detailed several victories:

• Arresting or taking other actions against many key al Qaeda commanders

• Arresting 3,000 terrorism suspects in other countries

• Detecting and preventing plots targeting American embassies in Yemen and Singapore, a Saudi military base, and ships in the straits of Hormuz and Gibraltar

• Breaking up al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Germany; Milan, Italy; Madrid, Spain; London, England; Paris, France; and Buffalo, New York


There you go. THat is why Saddam Hussein is a threat. He helps Al Qaeda

20.000 civilians died in Bagdad because the bombing in 1 day.
Others were killed because other bombs. I'm not talking about the killed by Saddam


Can you stop speaking without sources. Back yourself up. 20,000 civilians didn't die in Baghdad the first day.

http://www.embargos.de/irak/aktionen/call.htm
"Recently in an interview on 60 minutes, Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright: "I understand that 500,000 Iraqi children have died due to our sanctions ... was it worth it?" Albright replied, "It was worth it." "
http://www.free-minds.org/us-terror.htm
http://www.rmbowman.com/isss/iraqsp.htm

Get some credible sources. These are one with a leftist agenda.

Next what?


Start posting something reasonable I can argue with. Not hot air.

Originally posted by giancarlo
[B]

True. But they weren't the taliban at the time. They were splintered groups.

Some them, talibans, also USA supported to Saddam when they though that would be usefull, so, don't tell now that is an outlaw regime.

[/quote]
A regime that was also blocked out by the Ronald Reagan government. You blame the dictatorship of then on the US? Typical. [/quote]
After the war with England, not before, and yes, I blame US because the dictatoships in South America in the 70's, if you don't take any kind of resposability about that, you're ignoring a big part of the history.



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.speech/index.html

Cool, Bush said it, then is a fact, shall I take as a fact what Saddam say too?

Bush also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of aiding the al Qaeda terror network and hiding weapons he was prohibited from possessing through agreements with the United Nations.



There you go. THat is why Saddam Hussein is a threat. He helps Al Qaeda
LOL, that's really funny, show me some proof, not empty words of that guy (bush)



Can you stop speaking without sources. Back yourself up. 20,000 civilians didn't die in Baghdad the first day.
Who said in the first day? I said in 1 day.

Do you understand spanish, right? http://www.wsws.org/es/articles/1998/dec1998/span-d31.shtml
I remember a link that I posted in a thread near 1 year ago, but I can't find it now.
Anyway, wont be hard to find if you have the time, unfortunatelly, I don't have it now.

[/quote]
Get some credible sources. These are one with a leftist agenda.
[/quote]
60 minutes is leftist? also does it Madeleine Albright? OMG!!!


Start posting something reasonable I can argue with. Not hot air.
Oh-Well :rolleyes:

Some them, talibans, also USA supported to Saddam when they though that would be usefull, so, don't tell now that is an outlaw regime.

The US never openly supported Saddam. On the contrary, the US was complaining about him in the mid 80s. It was actually the Russians and French supplying Saddam, hence why his military entirely Russian or French built.

Cool, Bush said it, then is a fact, shall I take as a fact what Saddam say too?

You comparing Bush to Saddam is another fallacy of the left.

LOL, that's really funny, show me some proof, not empty words of that guy (bush)

You will get all the proof you need next week when Colin Powell shows all the evidence to the UN. Of course as you are a leftist, you will ignore all the facts.

Who said in the first day? I said in 1 day.

Do you understand spanish, right? http://www.wsws.org/es/articles/199.../span-d31.shtml
I remember a link that I posted in a thread near 1 year ago, but I can't find it now.
Anyway, wont be hard to find if you have the time, unfortunatelly, I don't have it now.

Why are you so against war? It has to happen sometimes. And in this case it will happen. There is a difference between the United States military of today and that of 1991. Today, there are way more precision guided missiles in stock. Secondly, battleships are not in service therefore will not be used. In the 1980s Battleships with 16 inch cannons were used hence why some civilians could of been killed. But saying 20,000 died in one day is wrong and false.

60 minutes is leftist? also does it Madeleine Albright? OMG!!!

60 minutes has leftist tendencies and Madeline Albright is a democrat. Point made.

Oh-Well

You have yet to do so. You are just against the US because you have nothing to attack them with. And going to back to Argentina... you want to know how this entire recession thing happened? SELF INFLICTED ECONOMIC WOES. It was not the US or IMF who did it to your country but your politicians, so quit blaming other people and using the war as something to throw words of slander against the US.

We're an equal opportunity country here in the USA. Not only do we train our people, we'll train your's so you too can fly a plane into skyscrapers or shoot at us. :o

Originally posted by Alex042
We're an equal opportunity country here in the USA. Not only do we train our people, we'll train your's so you too can fly a plane into skyscrapers or shoot at us. :o

And your point is? Is this your way of attacking the US into not going to war? Excuse me pal, but the US under Clinton did nothing to stop the terrorists from coming in. Blame Clinton first of all. And then blame the INS that allowed the terrorists in.

Originally posted by giancarlo
[B]

The US never openly supported Saddam. On the contrary, the US was complaining about him in the mid 80s. It was actually the Russians and French supplying Saddam, hence why his military entirely Russian or French built.

Seems like you ignore some important facts, is useless keep talking to you.
USA openly supported to Irak in the war Iran-Irak.


You comparing Bush to Saddam is another fallacy of the left.

Yes, I'm comparing bush to saddam. Why is that a fallacy?


You will get all the proof you need next week when Colin Powell shows all the evidence to the UN. Of course as you are a leftist, you will ignore all the facts.
Still I see nothing, so, please, talk about fact, not about what you think that I will see the next week, or whatever, that's not a fact.



Why are you so against war? It has to happen sometimes. And in this case it will happen. There is a difference between the United States military of today and that of 1991. Today, there are way more precision guided missiles in stock. Secondly, battleships are not in service therefore will not be used. In the 1980s Battleships with 16 inch cannons were used hence why some civilians could of been killed. But saying 20,000 died in one day is wrong and false.
No, is not wrong, and not false. But for you I'm a leftist, and you believe that everything that I say is a lie. again, useless keep discussing with you.



60 minutes has leftist tendencies and Madeline Albright is a democrat. Point made.

Come on!! be serius please.


You have yet to do so. You are just against the US because you have nothing to attack them with. And going to back to Argentina... you want to know how this entire recession thing happened? SELF INFLICTED ECONOMIC WOES. It was not the US or IMF who did it to your country but your politicians, so quit blaming other people and using the war as something to throw words of slander against the US.

Excuse me? and where this come from? I was talking about the dictatorship.
You seems to ignore a lot of things of the country where you live (Argentina) and where you born (USA?)

Originally posted by Jedito
Seems like you ignore some important facts, is useless keep talking to you.
USA openly supported to Irak in the war Iran-Irak.

Iraq. Not Irak.

Anyways, you are the one ignoring facts here.

Yes, I'm comparing bush to saddam. Why is that a fallacy?

Because Bush is a democratically elected leader, and Saddam is a ruthless murdering thug.

Still I see nothing, so, please, talk about fact, not about what you think that I will see the next week, or whatever, that's not a fact.

You don't talk with fact. I am the one that has been doing.

But for you I'm a leftist, and you believe that everything that I say is a lie. again, useless keep discussing with you.

Say that again? Yes I am a right-wing military strategist. I know how war works and what must occur to remove the Saddam dictatorship.

Come on!! be serius please.

I am sorry but that is the way it is.

Excuse me? and where this come from? I was talking about the dictatorship.

You seem to like blaming the US for everybody's problems don't you?

You seems to ignore a lot of things of the country where you live (Argentina) and where you born (USA?)

No I don't ignore anything. All I know is this political establishment here is corrupt. Period.

Also I was born in Spain for the last time. Madrid to be exact. :angry:

yes mistakes have been made in the past and after they have been rectified then it is time to look to blame in those quarters but the real blame lies with the religous fanatics and rich hate filled individuals who aid their cause.
sure america has done plenty to upset the world, but when it comes down to us or them i can sleep happy picking us. you cant block all terrorist action, you haveto put the fear of god (sorry couldnt resist) into them. you have to make sure they know that the minute they harm one person we will unleash such devastation upon them that they fear to even think about acts against us.
there is no reasoning with them, they will not listen to it, they want us gone and excuse me for wanting to stay:)

See http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108620 for my feelings please.

And I will admit one thing too... my country, Spain, has done some awful things in the past to other people. But we live in the 21st century. Those old governments are gone.

And in Spain we live with terrorism everyday. With the ETA and their car bombs... nearly 800 people dead in the past thirty years.

In the case of terrorism, pre-emptive action must be taken as Richy has said.... you cannot have a smoking gun where hundreds of thousands of people die.

Ironically, America are the biggest terrorists in the world, check the definition.

Originally posted by Winkie
Ironically, America are the biggest terrorists in the world, check the definition.

:rolleyes:

Typical troll.

america may have commited indiscressions in the past, sadam, the mahujadeen etc and it has paid a high price for choosing its friendly dictators badly. however that cannot excuse sadam.

IF the USA didn’t stick its nose in everything, there would be no threat to them... ( I agree Saddam needs to go but use than damm intelligence, why war?? - are they that incapable that they need to kill million of civilians?)

Typical of them, of having double standard... "Oh Iraq has broken xxx sanctions" but hey your supporting the country that has broken more UN sanctions than any other....

Until double standards are not removed, there is no doubt there is always going to be a threat.

Good luck to bush for trying to start world war III..

-Shazad

At least the US is trying to a correct a wrong it has committed in the past. It did support Saddam at one point, but now it knows he has to go.

Originally posted by giancarlo
At least the US is trying to a correct a wrong it has committed in the past. It did support Saddam at one point, but now it knows he has to go.

Thats a good enough excuse to goto WAR ?
And good enough to kill millions of civilians?

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WAR UNLESS YOU HAVE THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of TROOPS INVADING YOUR COUNTRY!

Id like to see you verdict if you had family living in Iraq... BIAS

Either way, i dont know but i think "were all going to be in your a surprise!" :( I am getting ready to move from UK and USA, FRANCE here i come.. ;)

-Shazad

You got problems if you were to think you would want a reason to let a dictator off the hook. There is an excuse for war. That is Saddam Hussein. He is a problem. You are biased as it is.

if you support sadam then ill help you fill out your papers to move to france, good riddance, england doesnt need you.

Seems like you are incapable of reading English, so i will quote it again...

I agree Saddam needs to go but use the damm intelligence, why war?? - are they that incapable that they need to kill millions of civilians?

As for comment in regards to helping me move from England, good look in moving 75% of the whole UK population who is against war.. :stickout:

-Shazad

And 75% of the people were convinced that Bush has a case for war in the US when he made his State of the Union speech. Point made.

How can you use intelligence when Saddam has two hundred imposters?

Originally posted by giancarlo
And 75% of the people were convinced that Bush has a case for war in the US when he made his State of the Union speech. Point made.

How can you use intelligence when Saddam has two hundred imposters?

Majority of the USA people, only listen to whats feed through there propaganda media.. but thats another story...

Like i said, Saddam needs to go, the USA/UK is intelligent enough to remove him but the WAR has other things they need...
Either way it dosent give any excuse for WAR.... It going to be alot more complicated than what it seems...

You cant justify killing millions of civilians, who HATE Saddam as much as we do....


-Shazad

you have a reference on that 75%? last time i saw statistics they were close. bbc 24 vote had it at 98% that he should go by any means but thats hardly a fair pole. uk opinion is divided, and the majority of the people opposed are the same tired old bearded faces we saw screaming anti war messages after sept 11th. if 75% want to leave because they dont believe in supporting un accords then they are welcome to do so.

its plain and simple, he stopped war with a peace accord, he broke that accord, he should expect war. to avoid it he should hand himself over to the un. if he removed himself as tyrant then there would be no war.
it would be incredibly difficult to take sadam out with intelligence, yes id be more then happy to laser him from space if we could, as ive said many times i wish not a single drop of innocent blood to be spilt, theres plenty of guilty blood to be spilt.
if iraq wants peace it should comply with the terms of its surrender and subsequent un resolutions. it is that simple.

and if they hated him, why have they not ovethrown him. time and time again dictators have been overthrown by military coup. why not now? because he has the average iraqi hating and blaming america for everything.

Originally posted by cabalstudios
Majority of the USA people, only listen to whats feed through there propaganda media.. but thats another story...

Great comeback.

Like i said, Saddam needs to go, the USA/UK is intelligent enough to remove him but the WAR has other things they need...
Either way it dosent give any excuse for WAR.... It going to be alot more complicated than what it seems...

Yes it does. Saddam has a 400,000 men army and 100,000 republican guard that will protect him (no matter how crappy it is). If you want to send in sniper squads good luck getting through. The place is a police state! So what you are proposing is impossible. Military force must be used.

You cant justify killing millions of civilians, who HATE Saddam as much as we do....

And the war won't kill millions because it will be based on precision guided weapons. Again another typical leftist comeback.

Originally posted by giancarlo

And the war won't kill millions because it will be based on precision guided weapons. Again another typical leftist comeback.

We all know how percise they are after the last few attempts...
No point in arguing with BIASED/ONE minded person.... Dont have my time to waste with you... Its like talking to a brick wall....

-Shazad

Originally posted by richy
last time i saw statistics they were close. bbc 24 vote had it at 98% that he should go by any means

Carry on dreaming....
Dont know where you get your statistics from....

Originally posted by richy
tired old bearded faces we saw screaming anti war messages

I could always tell the type you were, the small majority following the BNP eh?


-Shazad

Originally posted by cabalstudios


We all know how percise they are after the last few attempts...

95%.


No point in arguing with BIASED/ONE minded person.... Dont have my time to waste with you... Its like talking to a brick wall....

-Shazad

You are the biased one minded person here... you are like the French and Germans... ignorant and a brick wall.

lol yes you say you have family there which of course makes you unbiased. everyone thinks theyre unbiased and everyone else is biased, thats why opinions arent worth anything. the facts speak for themselves.
so where is proof of this 75% and how do you suggest it is possible to take madras out with intelligence. university challenge him to death?
no one needs to die in this war, if the people you suggest hate him so much they only have to lay down their weapons and surrender.

Originally posted by richy
lol yes you say you have family there which of course makes you unbiased. everyone thinks theyre unbiased and everyone else is biased, thats why opinions arent worth anything. the facts speak for themselves.
so where is proof of this 75% and how do you suggest it is possible to take madras out with intelligence. university challenge him to death?
no one needs to die in this war, if the people you suggest hate him so much they only have to lay down their weapons and surrender.

Family where? In the UK and USA yes....
So no I am not BIASED....

As for the % check the last national pool, cant remember which date it was on... But the hardest tasks Mr blair has is getting the public on its side....

-Shazad

Yes you are biased. Against the US obviously.

Originally posted by giancarlo


95%.



You are the biased one minded person here... you are like the French and Germans... ignorant and a brick wall.

No No.... 95% off target is too much, i dont think it was that bad ;)

Thank you for considering me :) I am just sick of the UK/USA built up $hit just like the rest of them...

Show us proof of what he has....... wonders why it's talking bush so long... Maybe he has to make stuff up again this time....

-Shazad

Originally posted by cabalstudios


No No.... 95% off target is too much, i dont think it was that bad ;)

95% accuracy rate. That is how high of a precision rate these weapons are.

Thank you for considering me :) I am just sick of the UK/USA built up $hit.

-Shazad

I didn't consider you. I just threw out your argument as false.

um actually no im a lib dem follower. i think the bnp are a bunch of racist biggots but thats just your lack of judgement showing through. as i said i got my statistics from the bbc 24 pole, but as i said i didnt hold them as truly accurate but more as a representation. you still havent quoted your 75% source???
and think before you call people racist, my comment was with respect to the fact i found it incredibly disrepectful to those effected by sept 11th to hold those marches, and yes its not a secret that the people marching were predominantly muslim. so stating a fact makes me racist?

as regards small majority, its a shameful fact but thats turning into a small majority, halifax for example. i certainly dont agree with their policies but i will defend their right to stand. if the people elect them then its a reflection on the people that voted and the state of the society, not on me personally, as i said i support the lib dems and have always voted so.

there as been proof already, and more to come, the reason it takes time is that the sources of the information have to be protected otherwise the intelligence network becomes ineffective for further use.
the broken resolutions to date are reason enough for war to resume. iraq refuses to do what is required to avoid war :(

Originally posted by richy
and yes its not a secret that the people marching were predominantly muslim.


:stickout: LOL, oh man your must be colour blind (no offense)..

-Shazad

Originally posted by richy
the broken resolutions to date are reason enough for war to resume. iraq refuses to do what is required to avoid war :(

Thats total bull$hit, lets start at the TOP of the list with the most broken UN resolutions shall we ????
Oh no but why should we ask USA is fully backing them up with there military programs...

BIASED and ONE-MINDED, you have just proven it again....

-Shazad

I can't wait when Colin Powell pulls the same trick Adlai Stevenson did. Show the word there is proof and rock solid proof. This will be fun watching anti-war protesters cry because of being wrong.

And cabal, from the way you post it seems you are the biased and single minded person here.

lol no im not. i dont know where you live but at the time i was living in preston, which is fairly mixed, close enough to 50 50, i was at work the day the march was on, and i went out for lunch and i saw who was marching. the same was repeated on the tv the country over. maybe the media only decided to show muslims marching, maybe the bbc was biased but thats what i saw.
and you still fail to answer the other charges?

I was over at Manchester and London during that time, and i saw more white people than any other colour in the mix...

And BBC showed just muslims marching, man oh man - you need to calm down.........

Funny how its just the two of you that seem to come up with such nonsense reports....

Show me backing?
As for my question, READ the post where i quoted..

As for the % check the last national pool, cant remember which date it was on... But the hardest tasks Mr blair has is getting the public on its side....

Originally posted by giancarlo
And cabal, from the way you post it seems you are the biased and single minded person here.

Your SIG says all.... I dont need to say more...

Military and Economic/Political Strategist

ahh right, so you have no quoteable source for your 75%. why mention it.
why on earth do i need to calm down lol, i just reported what i saw. god i wish id saved the newspapers. yes there were whites marching, the same loony fringe that come out of the closet, not exactly credible people.
sadam could avoid war if he ceded power to a true democratic process and fulfilled his un obligations. he wont do this and needs removing. i fail to see how we can be biased and you not be?
also the usa may have broken resolutions, when was the last time they broke their terms of surrender?

I don't care what is happening in the UK.

All the matters to me is this war will happen and my government (the Spanish government) is backing it fully.

Originally posted by richy
ahh right, so you have no quoteable source for your 75%. why mention it.

I ddint see you quote me an link apart from BBC NEWS 24, so mine is no closer no further than what you proved...

Originally posted by cabalstudios


Your SIG says all.... I dont need to say more...



What does it say exactly? That I specialize in this area? :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2429123.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2285861.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2280386.stm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2624319.stm
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/whitehall_protest.htm

20 Jan 03 | Entertainment
Clooney in anti-war protest

21 Dec 02 | Entertainment
Redford: US politics is 'diseased'

03 Dec 02 | Entertainment
Redford attacks Bush over fossil fuels

09 Jan 03 | Entertainment
Poet Laureate pens anti-war poem

16 Dec 02 | Middle East
Sean Penn urges peace with Iraq

10 Dec 02 | Entertainment
Stars send anti-war message to Bush



These are all muslims :eek: (give it a break)

I can find you hundreds, but hell i have other things to do, than waste my time with those that have no idea what they are talking about...

Originally posted by giancarlo
I don't care what is happening in the UK.

All the matters to me is this war will happen and my government (the Spanish government) is backing it fully.

Of course they would, when USA give you discouned OIL once they get there hands on it thats all that matters to them...

Doesn't really matter if they protest or not. 1/4 of the UK's military will participate in striking Saddam's military and his infrastructure.

Originally posted by cabalstudios


Of course they would, when USA give you discouned OIL once they get there hands on it thats all that matters to them...

Wrong again. The French and Russians own that oil in Iraq. The French has oil interests in Iraq, not the US.

BTW, it would take 5-10 years to get a good refiniery built, and another 5-10 years to get the oil on the market.

Also the US can't force oil companies to do something they won't do. There has to be compliance with local iraqis for there to be oil extracted.

Again you fell for a media spoon fed lie. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by giancarlo

Wrong again. The French and Russians own that oil in Iraq. The French has oil interests in Iraq, not the US.

BTW, it would take 5-10 years to get a good refiniery built, and another 5-10 years to get the oil on the market.

Also the US can't force oil companies to do something they won't do. There has to be compliance with local iraqis for there to be oil extracted.

Again you fell for a media spoon fed lie.

I despite which such unbacked comments, go and check the USA WAR program, where bush and his administration clearly said he was going to take control over the OIL reserves...


-Shazad

No he didn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,812714,00.html
poll of the day seems to not store results from previous polls but heres a nice one for you . 44% in favour of war, kinda doesnt fit with 75% against does it?

Everyday I hear the same thing on BBC - "we've got evidence, we've got evidence, we've got evidence!"

I won't make my stand on this until they show us some evidence at least.

they have, did you miss the portfolio they released last year?

Originally posted by Alpharo
Everyday I hear the same thing on BBC - "we've got evidence, we've got evidence, we've got evidence!"

I won't make my stand on this until they show us some evidence at least.

Is that the best you could find, 3 months ago ?

"Wednesday October 16, 2002"

-Shazad

no it was the first i found. i assume you have more up to date contradictory evidence?

I dont have time to waste with you as i have learnt over the last few dozen posts, you have nothing better to say and i have proven you wrong on many occasions...

Have a great day everyone.
I am out...

-Shazad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/full_dossier.stm
the dossier as mentioned earlier and of course the reports to follow in the few days will add to this

lol the sound of the beaten. you found a few pictures thats it. you have no statistical evidence and refute any you have been provided with, ergo you are the biased one.

i can't believe how much arrogant some "Americans" can be. Why do you feel you have the right to attaq iraq? or even disarm it? why is it a big deal to americans that iraq has breached a UN resolution. Israel is doing that all the time. nobody is talking! Israel has hunderds of nukes. why nobody is inspecting them? Israel is violating human rights everyday, why nobody is pointing a finger at them.
and i may agree with some people saying that saddam is a dictator and criminal, and he should be removed. but then again it is not your dam business to decide which leader a country should have. I am pretty sure that more than half the world think that bush is a war freak, and a treat to humain kind and should be removed. How would you feel about other countries deciding which leader you should have?
and for you information, the iraqi administration was prepared to remove sadam with the condition that all the UN sanctions will be removed, and sadam and his familly would be given an assylum in some friend country. but then USA said NO. if this war was for the sake of the iraqi people, they should have agreed don't you think so?
it is really obvious! it is all about oil. and for your information, only american and british companies doesn't have access to the iraqi oil so far. all the other big countries have. including france, russia and china.

umm? we allow him to sell it we can buy it if we wanted. we secure our oil from other locations. we also produce more then we import (for the uk that is).

why because initially we had a mandate to protect an ally, we defended our ally and drove madras back, he surrended and signed peace accords to stay in power and save his country from being overrun. he then broke those terms, how can you fail to see that breaking terms you made to save your ass should result directly in a rewhupping of your ass?

Originally posted by el-imam
i can't believe how much arrogant some "Americans" can be.

The only arrogant ones are the ones against war.

Why do you feel you have the right to attaq iraq? or even disarm it?

Because Iraq poses a threat.

why is it a big deal to americans that iraq has breached a UN resolution.

Iraq has violated every single resolutions handed to it.

Israel is doing that all the time.

Actually that is not true. Israel complies with most resolutions.

nobody is talking! Israel has hunderds of nukes. why nobody is inspecting them?

Israel won't launch unless fired upon. Saddam will launch one he has them. It is better to take out Saddam rather than to have a smoking gun.

Israel is violating human rights everyday, why nobody is pointing a finger at them.

Israel does not violate human rights... it is trying to protect itself from terrorists.

but then again it is not your dam business to decide which leader a country should have.

The hell it is! It is the business of the world who is in power where. So the US should of left Adolf Hitler in power? Man... you got problems with that philosophy.

I am pretty sure that more than half the world think that bush is a war freak,

Wrong again. Bush is going through the UN and has given Iraq plenty of time. Yet Iraq has failed to comply. Iraq is not like Kazkhstan which invited inspectors to inspect and disarm its nuclear stockpile. Kazkhstan is a perfect example of how Iraq should of gone if it didn't want to get hit with the US military. But Iraq has failed in every instance to even show some compliance.

How would you feel about other countries deciding which leader you should have?

Difference between the leader of my country and that of Iraq's. My country has a democratically elected leader who respects rights. Saddam Hussein has been in power since 1979, never held elections and never respected rights.

and for you information, the iraqi administration was prepared to remove sadam with the condition that all the UN sanctions will be removed,

That is one big lie.

and sadam and his familly would be given an assylum in some friend country.

Friendly country? I don't think any country would want Saddam. Saddam should be arrested and tried for war crimes.

but then USA said NO.

The US never said no to something that was never offered.

if this war was for the sake of the iraqi people, they should have agreed don't you think so?

How can they agree if they live under a dictator who will kill them if they try to side with the US?


it is really obvious! it is all about oil. and for your information, only american and british companies doesn't have access to the iraqi oil so far. all the other big countries have. including france, russia and china.

That is why France, Russia and China doesn't want the US going in.

Also this war is about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Nothing else.

**mods, can you delete this thread? is has become rather pointless..

I don't see why it should be deleted. A lot of good debate is occuring in here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/international/europe/30CND-EUROPE.html

Assuming a somewhat frayed mantle as global diplomat, Prime Minister Tony Blair set off for the United States tonight to meet with President Bush, bearing an unusual pledge of support on Iraq from eight European leaders but leaving behind a continent ever more divided over the need for war.

The eight European leaders — Prime Ministers Blair, José María Aznar of Spain, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Jose Durão Barroso of Portugal, Peter Medgyessy of Hungary, Leszek Miller of Poland, Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark and President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic — offered their backing in a letter published today in several newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, that urged other Europeans to join in supporting President Bush against Iraq.

"The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security," the letter said, adding to a sense of deepening crisis since the United Nation's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, cast doubt on Saddam Hussein's readiness to shed weapons of mass destruction.

"We must remain united in insisting that his regime de disarmed," the letter said in an apparent rebuke to President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, who have angered Washington by opposing American war plans and insisting that United Nations inspectors in Iraq be given much more time to search for weapons of mass destruction.

Britain said France and Germany had not been asked to sign the letter, while Greece, the current holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, had also been kept out of the loop. The Netherlands said it knew of the letter, but had refused to sign it.

Mr. Blair flew to Madrid to meet Mr. Aznar before heading on tonight to Washington, where Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy met with President Bush today. The rush of visits to the White House prompted a European legislator, Elmar Brok of Germany's Christian Democrats, to remark, "The race of the vassals has begun."

The British leader undertook similar hectic diplomatic journeying after the Sept. 11 attacks to marshal support for the war in Afghanistan. At that time, Washington enjoyed far broader sympathy in Europe, and Mr. Blair faced far fewer challenges from his European partners as he projected himself as Europe's voice in the White House.

"In those circumstances, it was far easier for Blair to play that role," said Steven Everts, an expert in trans-Atlantic relations at the Center for European Reform, a private research institution. "There's nothing like the consensus that there was on Afghanistan and that makes Blair's position more shaky."

Several European governments and some high European officials said they had not been consulted about the letter. Significantly, though, the letter's expressions of ringing support for the United States fell short of explicit backing for Washington's threat of a go-it-alone war with what it has termed a "coalition of the willing" if other nations continue to oppose it.

Rather, the letter sought to urge the United Nations Security Council, on whose decisions France has a veto, not to balk at a military campaign if Iraq failed to comply with United Nations demands to disclose and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

"The Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions," the letter said. "We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result."

While the letter was couched in the terms of an appeal for unity, its publication also highlighted a new division in both the European Union and the NATO alliance cutting across both geographic and generational frontiers.

The signatories included both established European Union members like Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Denmark as well as three countries set to join the union next year — Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland.


The following European countries have signed the letter showing support for the US: Spain, Britain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland. Eight in total. So is Europe against military action? I think not. France and Germany do not speak for all of Europe.

What a waste of time.
At the beggining I thought that this could be a good debate, but when everything that you said have as answer you're a leftit, that is a waste of time, also, the answer you're a leftit is said as if that were some wrong, probably is it for some Nazi and Fachista.

Sorry pal, but things are not looking up for the anti-war crowd lately. Look at the letter my Prime Minister sent out... Aznar wrote it, and EIGHT EU leaders signed it. All in support for Bush in whatever scenario against Iraq.

i dont see any reason to delete it?

Difference between the leader of my country and that of Iraq's. My country has a democratically elected leader who respects rights. Saddam Hussein has been in power since 1979, never held elections and never respected rights.

Franco was in the power for like 40 year, killing people here and there.
Hey, Spain has to be invaded!!!

to the other points I wont answer, is useless talk with a wall.

umm franco isnt still in power? unless i missed that lesson in european history.

No, he died, until that, he was in the power.
My point is, that Spain should be invaded then? because a Tirany was in the power killing people here and there?

Originally posted by Jedito


Franco was in the power for like 40 year, killing people here and there.
Hey, Spain has to be invaded!!!

to the other points I wont answer, is useless talk with a wall.

Difference: Franco did NOT kill anybody after the civil war, and did not try to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Learn your history before you say something idiotic.

Originally posted by giancarlo


:rolleyes:

Typical troll.

Read the definition of terrorist then tell me it doesn't apply to america and prove why.

America is not a terrorist nation and does not support terrorists. If you think it does, you are simply siding with the old Europe, which is France and Germany.

Terrorist Definition: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon (dictionary.com)

The US doesn't do that. Sorry. If you think it does you are simply anti-american.

Originally posted by giancarlo
America is not a terrorist nation and does not support terrorists. If you think it does, you are simply siding with the old Europe, which is France and Germany.

Terrorist Definition: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon (dictionary.com)

The US doesn't do that. Sorry. If you think it does you are simply anti-american.

Impressive, I searched for "terrorist" and got this:
terrorist

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

Governs by intimidation eh? Woah, looks like that's what America is doing to the world, IE "Break our rules and we kill you".. I'd say that's pretty intimidating

You are a racist arrogant bigot, you have said before "just like the germans" etc, that is my proof of racism, the arrogance is plain to see.

Oh, and if you'll search CNN.com, I can't seem to find the offending article, you'll find in a "who is the biggest threat to world peace in 2003" poll, the united states had 74% of around 11 thousand votes.

Edit: found it, my mistake, it was time.com:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

Originally posted by Winkie
Governs by intimidation eh? Woah, looks like that's what America is doing to the world, IE "Break our rules and we kill you".. I'd say that's pretty intimidating

I don't think so. That is more like the history of France and Germany. The US is not doing that to the world. If you think so you are anti-american.

You are a racist arrogant bigot,

No I believe you are the racist arrogant bigot here.... speaking against the free world for your little allegiance with Saddam Hussein.

you have said before "just like the germans" etc, that is my proof of racism, the arrogance is plain to see.

I don't have anything against the Germans, just there reasoning.

Oh, and if you'll search CNN.com, I can't seem to find the offending article, you'll find in a "who is the biggest threat to world peace in 2003" poll, the united states had 74% of around 11 thousand votes.

And exactly who took that poll? 11,000 Anti-american peace activists? It was taken on a insufficient sampling. And that is the stupidest source you can pull up. After all, CNN has made mistakes like with their geography, such as saying that the Czech Republic is Switzerland.

Edit: found it, my mistake, it was time.com:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html [/B]

And I discard is not credible.

I can't continue this argument. You are obviously too chronically stupid to even form a co-herant argument.


You don't accept a poll with over 300 thousand votes as proof, however you will accept, blindly, loose, baseless facts from your government?



Ugh. goodbye.

You don't even have evidence that these polls were even conducted properly.

You can't even make an argument.

Just stick to what you are good at because if you can't take the heat in politics don't even bother.

I am a very criticial and tough poster, and am very steadfast when I defend my argument.

Originally posted by giancarlo


Difference: Franco did NOT kill anybody after the civil war, and did not try to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Learn your history before you say something idiotic.

Not anybody, but he killed a lot of people during and after the civil war.
Also, do you have any proof that Iraq have weapons of mass destructions? Please don't come again with that BS that Colin Powel will show something. Today the evidence is ZERO.

Learn your history before you say something idiotic.

He killed people during the Civil war and so did the opposite side.

And he did not kill anybody after the war. There mass jailings but no mass killings.

Yes there is evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

I have here a 25 page document proving it. Maybe not nuclear weapons but certainly a ton load of chemical and biological weapons abled to kill hundreds of thousands.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

The evidence on nuclear weapons come next week.

You learn your history.

umm if he hasnt got chemical weapons why is he preparing his troops to use gases? does he plan to fart at the americans?

here is a link to the first dossier, there is more to come
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1032455026312

and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2690163.stm
quoting directly-
According to a UK Government report last year and UN inspectors' findings, Iraq has undeclared stocks of VX and sarin nerve agent. It is thought Iraq could deploy such chemicals quickly.

In bold print, the UN inspectors know iraq has undeclared stocks of weapons of mass destruction, in direct material violation of the un resolutions.

He killed people during the Civil war and so did the opposite side.

And he did not kill anybody after the war. There mass jailings but no mass killings
Oh well..

there is no worse blind person than that than does not want to see
Is useless keep arguing with you.

Originally posted by giancarlo
The following European countries have signed the letter showing support for the US: Spain, Britain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland. Eight in total. So is Europe against military action? I think not. France and Germany do not speak for all of Europe.

I'm a little scared to jump into this discussion, but that somewhat struck a nerve.. There are over 30 countries in Europe (not sure on the exact number), not 10. So, those 8 leaders would not be the majority.. I won't even get started on the fact that three of these countries aren't even part of the EU and another three neither have the money nor the military forces to be considered good allies.

As for being Anti-American: I love this country I live in, I just don't like what our president is doing. Saddam Hussein may pose a threat, but there are other ways to solve such problems. And what exactly would keep Saddam from dropping those nukes on the US he supposedly has if "we" start the whole war?

Nuclear attacks from the middle east cannot reach the United States, unless dropped by a plane. However, a plane getting near US Air space is highly unlikely.

I wasn't aware of that, sorry :blush: .

Originally posted by inogenius
Nuclear attacks from the middle east cannot reach the United States, unless dropped by a plane. However, a plane getting near US Air space is highly unlikely.

Look up the acroynm: ICBM. Inter-Continential Ballistic Missile. The Russians and Americans have one that could go around the world twice.

Chinadoll:

There are over 30 countries in Europe (not sure on the exact number), not 10. So, those 8 leaders would not be the majority.. I won't even get started on the fact that three of these countries aren't even part of the EU and another three neither have the money nor the military forces to be considered good allies.


Most of these support the US but don't have substantial enough militaries to commit enough. Slovakia is one of them... and I heard Romania was another... ;) I dunno about Greece.

BTW here is that letter, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain wrote powerfully condemning the causes of the French and Germans:

Europe and America must stand united

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html

You have perhaps the 8 most powerful countries in Europe. France and Germany are powerful but their economies are in a disaster. These countries are better off.

Jedito:

Oh well..

there is no worse blind person than that than does not want to see
Is useless keep arguing with you.

You don't know anything about my country so back off. And funny how you throw my argument out when I provide sources. :rolleyes:

LOL, you're a funny guy.. I know nothing about your country.. Lol, and how do you came to that conclusion?
You never provided sources, you only show what the Iraq enemy's say about them. Not a single proof.
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Portugal
The most powerfull countries of Europe, LoL

BTW, for all the rest, please read what the Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela said
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.mandela/index.html
Oh yes, he's a leftit too. right?

Nelson Mandela is in his 90s and doesn't have anything better to do. Also I agree with the presidents of those eight countries who signed the letter.

I have been providing sources... look at my posts.

It is all proof.

You keep on posting CNN and more CNN... post something different before I release screenshots on the idiocy of CNN's geographical errors.

You don't know anything about my country, so leave it at that.

Edit: CNN's credibility destroyed:

http://www.glomar.net/photos/cnn_iraq.jpg

Now how stupid is that?

I can't find the other one.

Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Portugal
The most powerfull countries of Europe, LoL

You forgot to talk about Denmark, Italy, Spain and Britain... lol... respectively. :rolleyes:

I know a lot about your country, I been there at least 3 times, I have friends and relative there too.
You don't have a clue of what I know, so keep saying that is moronic.
About CNN, I'm not supporting them, indeed, I think that is part of the USA propaganda machine.
The link go to what Mandela said, not to what CNN think of what Mandela should said.

Ohh.. right I realice now, you know more thing than Mandela..:rolleyes:
Geez, some people.

You forgot Sweden, France, Germany, Swiss, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Greece etc, to say some.
Which are a lot more powerfull than Hungary, Poland, Portugal and the Czech Republic.

And you said "You have perhaps the 8 most powerful countries in Europe".
So, that's not even close to be true.

Originally posted by giancarlo
Nelson Mandela is in his 90s ..

Mandela is 84, not in his nineties. It states so in the artice Jedito linked, so I assume you didn't even read it. If teenagers can discuss politics, I guess it's alright for an 84yr old Nobel prize winner to do so, too.

As for the 8 European leaders (surprisingly, I know a few people in Greece and Spain who definitely do not share their presidents' viewpoints) who signed that letter heading the most powerful countries in Europe - I want facts on that. It's true that Germany's economy is pretty much jeopardized, but it's still going better over there than in Poland, Portugal, Hungary or the Czech Republic. And (I know I'm risking to step on some toes here) Spain has its own problems that should probably be more important to Aznar before he even thinks about supporting the US in this war.

Thank you for the definition of guided missiles, by the way. Pretty scary if you think about it, though..

Originally posted by Jedito
I know a lot about your country, I been there at least 3 times, I have friends and relative there too.

Sure. But let me get one thing straight... you don't speak for my country. I was born in Madrid.


You don't have a clue of what I know, so keep saying that is moronic.
About CNN, I'm not supporting them, indeed, I think that is part of the USA propaganda machine.
The link go to what Mandela said, not to what CNN think of what Mandela should said.

Spoken like a true Argentine. Always blaming other people for your problems.

You forgot Sweden, France, Germany, Swiss, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Greece etc, to say some.

All of which are insignificant. France and Germany are old Europe and have nothing to say in the affairs of the true nations. BTW, you stated some there that actually support the US like Belgium. The rest there are just too small to say anything important. Switerzland is neutral by the way.

Which are a lot more powerfull than Hungary, Poland, Portugal and the Czech Republic.

Not really. Germany and France are the only two powerful countries in the list you named, and their economies are in deep trouble.

China doll:

Mandela is 84, not in his nineties. It states so in the artice Jedito linked, so I assume you didn't even read it.

I already know. Mandela condemns Bush and compares him to Hitler. Who cares what he says? It is like Carter. Nobody cares anymore.

As for the 8 European leaders (surprisingly, I know a few people in Greece and Spain who definitely do not share their presidents' viewpoints)

I differ. Most of the people I talk to in Spain support their government and their view points.

who signed that letter heading the most powerful countries in Europe - I want facts on that.

I posted the source.

It's true that Germany's economy is pretty much jeopardized, but it's still going better over there than in Poland, Portugal, Hungary or the Czech Republic.

No its not. Germany is in bigger trouble than the countries you mentioned which are still having modest economic growth.

And (I know I'm risking to step on some toes here) Spain has its own problems that should probably be more important to Aznar before he even thinks about supporting the US in this war.

Really? Like what? Like our +2.4% GDP growth this year? That is a problem? That is the strongest in Europe. Our unemployment fell below 10%. So I would like to know what problems are there?

Thank you for the definition of guided missiles, by the way. Pretty scary if you think about it, though..

No problem.

lol giancarlo if your economy is so great can we have a little cut back on all that euro aid ;) spain makes even more of a proffit then the uk does, and thats really saying something.

Like the Marea Negra, I know people living there in the costas gallegas, who lost almost everything, their economy is based on the fishing, and Aznar never was there.


Spoken like a true Argentine. Always blaming other people for your problems
Are you OK? I was talking about Mandela and you said that. Are you sure that you're Ok?

I'm officially out of this thread unless somebody quote me directly.

Originally posted by richy
lol giancarlo if your economy is so great can we have a little cut back on all that euro aid ;) spain makes even more of a proffit then the uk does, and thats really saying something.

Keep it flowing because afterall the unemployment rate must fall more. And it is in the form of FDI, foreign direct investment. ;)

Jedito:

Like the Marea Negra, I know people living there in the costas gallegas, who lost almost everything, their economy is based on the fishing, and Aznar never was there.

Wrong again. My government was there... we just never were suited in such a disaster. Now we don't allow single hulled oil tankers in our waters ever. Also that is wrong to bring up... as part of my family are fishermen. They are getting a lot of financial help from the government. So your point has been chewed over and destroyed.

Are you OK? I was talking about Mandela and you said that. Are you sure that you're Ok?

I'm officially out of this thread unless somebody quote me directly.

Who cares about Nelson Mandela? He isn't the president of any country... so why should I care?

Also before you go blaming my government for the my country's problems, I would take a look at your's. The good things in my country's economy outweighs the bad by a 100 times.

I differ. Most of the people I talk to in Spain support their government and their view points.

Point taken. I was just saying that leaders never speak for a whole country.

I posted the source.
I should have clarified.. I don't want a newspaper article about that letter, I've heard enough about it already. I just want some official statistics on the economies and the military forces of all European countries.

No its not. Germany is in bigger trouble than the countries you mentioned which are still having modest economic growth.
I'll have to believe you on that one. The thing is that economic growth rate doesn't mean much, it's just a temporary value. Have you ever been to the Czech Republic? Their economy may be on the rise, but their purchasing power is still way low compared to other countries in similar size.

Really? Like what? Like our +2.4% GDP growth this year? That is a problem? That is the strongest in Europe. Our unemployment fell below 10%. So I would like to know what problems are there?
Umm, Prestige? Estonia had a GPD of +4.7%, so 2.4% is not the highest in Europe - and it's still pretty measly compared to China's 7.3%. Austria, Denmark, France and Sweden, for example, all have unemployment rates under 10%, some even under 5%. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Spain is worse or better than any of the countries I listed. I just think each and every leader of a country should think first of improving things within his country before he/she meddles in someone else's affairs.

You're wrong again.
Aznar has been never there, indeed, he avoided the zone.

As I said, I know people living there, I'm not talking BS.

I care of what Nelson Mandela say, he is a Nobel, and you're...???

After reading this long thread, giancarlo wins because giancarlo beats every points by just a sentence.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by chinadoll
Point taken. I was just saying that leaders never speak for a whole country.

They speak for the majority of a country, not the whole. The only leader I can think of that spoke for the whole was Stalin. He murdered anybody who didn't agree with him.

I'll have to believe you on that one. The thing is that economic growth rate doesn't mean much, it's just a temporary value.

I don't think so. I am the one that has the words "Economist" in my sig. Spain has felt the biggest increase in spending power in the past thirty years than any other western European country.

Have you ever been to the Czech Republic? Their economy may be on the rise, but their purchasing power is still way low compared to other countries in similar size.

I never brought up the Czech Republic.

Umm, Prestige? Estonia had a GPD of +4.7%, so 2.4% is not the highest in Europe

Yes I was discussing the Prestige.

Incorrect. I was talking about Western European countries. Also Estonia has to start from a lower economic status therefore receives greater economic growth. Hence, take Mozambique for example. +11% economic growth there.

- and it's still pretty measly compared to China's 7.3%. Austria, Denmark, France and Sweden, for example, all have unemployment rates under 10%, some even under 5%.

True. But I never did any comparing. BTW, France's unemployment is rising. Also China is starting from a lower economic status, as I said about estonia therefore can receive greater GDP growth. As a country's GDP and GDP per captia grows to developed status, too fast growth can spur inflation.

I just think each and every leader of a country should think first of improving things within his country before he/she meddles in someone else's affairs. [/B]

And these leaders already have. And meddle in someone else's affairs? The war against Iraq is liberation. Nothing more.

Jedito:

You're wrong again.
Aznar has been never there, indeed, he avoided the zone.


Yes he has. And he even announced a big financial aide package for those affected, including parts of my family. He was there.

As I said, I know people living there, I'm not talking BS.


Parts of my family are from that region.

I am from Spain pal.

I don't care about Nelson Mandela... and what do I have to do with anything in the world arena? Nothing. Perhaps in the future when I get a political science degree.

Originally posted by iWebbers.com
After reading this long thread, giancarlo wins because giancarlo beats every points by just a sentence.

:rolleyes:

By just a sentence? Don't you dare mock me. I posted sources, those who opposed me did not. And in respones to many things, I posted paragraphs, not sentences. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am the one that has the words "Economist" in my sig.
Wow, how impressing. And because it's in your signature it must be ultimately true, right?

I'm still waiting for a source stating that just one out of those 8 countries counts as one of the most powerful ones in Europe. Until then, I'm outta here.

I was just kidding yah...

I'm still waiting for a source stating that just one out of those 8 countries counts as one the most powerful ones in Europe. Until then, I'm outta here.

Britain and Italy signed it. Spain was the third most powerful that signed it.

GDP:
Britain's GDP: $1.47 Trillion
France's GDP: $1.51 Trillion
Spain's GDP: $757 Billion
Italy's GDP: $1.402 Trillion
Germany's GDP: $2.174 Trillion

(source: CIA FACTBOOK)

You are talking about Spain, UK and Italy. THree very powerful countries in Europe. True Germany is the most powerful... but Germany is in a deepload of trouble. And is declining actually.

hmm, methinks i need to steal a few billion from france, cant let the home side down:)

France's financial system is a disaster... so don't worry... their economic growth is not doing too well.

Britain averages about +2.5% this year (expected), Spain is gonna get +2.4% this year, and Italy is probably going to have around +1.5% this year. Italy is undergoing structural changes despite being quite powerful.

France and Germany can't do much on their own anyways. They could risk isolation from other EU countries.

Originally posted by giancarlo
Nelson Mandela is in his 90s and doesn't have anything better to do.
Perhaps you had better do your homework on this one Giancarlo, or improve your Maths skills :rolleyes:

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse

Perhaps you had better do your homework on this one Giancarlo, or improve your Maths skills :rolleyes:

I am sorry but I am not familiar with the ages of every single person on this planet. I don't know how old Jimmy Carter or Senator Daschle are... I don't care. They are irrelevant.

I don't think so. I am the one that has the words "Economist" in my sig.

lmao , arent you in high school , AP classes? And just because its in your sig , that doesnt mean anything . I could put astronaut in my sig , doesnt mean i went to outer space

Yes you are biased. Against the US obviously

because they disagree with you , they're against thier own country ? Hmmm.....

95% accuracy rate. That is how high of a precision rate these weapons are.

another statistic with no factual backing

friendly-fire mistake (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/4951241.htm)

And cabal, from the way you post it seems you are the biased and single minded person here.

is everyone that disagrees with you biased , i served in the armed forces of the United States (USCG) , i love my country .. How about yourself , do you even live in your*country , or america ?

And 75% of the people were convinced that Bush has a case for war in the US when he made his State of the Union speech. Point made.

yet another statistic with no factual backing , do you honestly believe a statistic can represent everyones thoughts ? oh thats right , you're a fan of tricky math , i forgot

And the war won't kill millions because it will be based on precision guided weapons. Again another typical leftist comeback.

hmmm , thats why bush shipped 250,000 GROUND TROOPS to the gulf ? Its funny , everyone is biased and leftist in your opinion , you really prove how smart to us you are by ignorantly stereotyping everyone .

There you go. THat is why Saddam Hussein is a threat. He helps Al Qaeda

another comment passed off as factual with absolutly no proof , or evidence .

Can you stop speaking without sources. Back yourself up.

talk about pot calling the kettle black , practice what you preach

Get some credible sources. These are one with a leftist agenda.

lmfao .... once again , another stereotypical come back , yet ... no comment on the actual issue , just that this person was wrong .

You comparing Bush to Saddam is another fallacy of the left.
This is person never compared bush to saddam , in fact here is what they said :

Cool, Bush said it, then is a fact, shall I take as a fact what Saddam say too?

UMM , NOT A COMPARISON , thats forsure . You quoted bush's words as factual information . in fact here is what you said :

You heard Bush. Saddam possess 30,000 litres of several toxins.

nice way of twisting someones words , and completely avoiding the issue at hand :)

Start posting something reasonable I can argue with. Not hot air.

no one can debate or argue with you because you dont know how to do so in a civilized manner , you make rude comments , and stereotype people , i think some will be very offended that you think everyone from argentina just whines and complains .

Typical troll.

hes a troll because he has an opinion ? i dont know if you're new to the internet , but on this board , members respect one another and can argue in an adult fashion .

In the case of terrorism, pre-emptive action must be taken as Richy has said.... you cannot have a smoking gun where hundreds of thousands of people die.

ill just quote un inspectors "This is NOT the smoking gun".

Yes I am a right-wing military strategist

lol , so who are you strategist for ? yourself ? your beloved country ? your high school teacher ? As if you had to make us aware of something completely obvious .

And your point is? Is this your way of attacking the US into not going to war? Excuse me pal, but the US under Clinton did nothing to stop the terrorists from coming in. Blame Clinton first of all. And then blame the INS that allowed the terrorists in.

whats the point of blaming anyone other then the terrorist ? Clinton didnt bomb anyone . The terrorist did .

But just show you your statement holds no weight

"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden ,I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration : Two Star General Donald Kerrick, Source Washington Post

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots.I think they had a veritable blueprint and we want to know why they didn't act on it." Senator Arlen Specter (R-pa)

these may not be completely factual , but i dont see why these people would lie for clinton . Im sure these individuals know far more about whats going on politically . Being that one these men is a general , he is a military stratetist as well . Your right wing buddy from PA seems to think bush knew , Is he a leftist too ? And oh by the way , this senator chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence :)

You will get all the proof you need next week when Colin Powell shows all the evidence to the UN. Of course as you are a leftist, you will ignore all the facts.

are you a personal friend of mr.powell ? does he release information to you before the american people ? Hmmm....

And yes everything will change. That has proven to be the case in Afghanistan. The taliban are gone. There are remains of the taliban in Afghanistan but they are being dealt with.

really , the taliban "are" (is) gone ? Another non factual comment , in fact here is what bush has to say on the whole subject :

"I don't know where he (osama bin ladin) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

when months before he had this to say

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."President George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

Your assessment is pretty much incorrect

can you provide anything to anyone that proves thier assessment is incorrect ? you're yet to do so.

American freedom has been jeopardized by Saddam Hussein and his evil military in Iraq.

how , you dont even live here buddy . I can walk out of my house daily and not fear iraq or saddam . Maybe if you lived here you could say that , but you dont .i dont know anyone that is truly scared of iraq or saddam.

The taliban didn't come to power until 1994 or 1996. Don't remember exactly what date. They were backed by Pakistan

another statement with no factual backing ... not suprised

The Gulf war killed only Iraqi Military personal in great amounts. Civilians who died were murdered by Saddam's Forces in an effort to make it look like the US did it.

are you going to say that americans didnt kill one civilian ... are you out of your mind . War is war , people get killed on both sides.

anyways , mr military wannabe strategist , your arguement = /dev/null . You provide nothing , you stereotype people , you make rude comments about peoples ethentcity . I have no doubts that you are only in high school , your attitude and lack of adult behavior shows it . I really suggest you study more , and take more AP classes

Another whole post of lies...

Originally posted by case
lmao , arent you in high school , AP classes? And just because its in your sig , that doesnt mean anything . I could put astronaut in my sig , doesnt mean i went to outer space

I said later I was joking. But yes, I do write several college level papers on the economic issues in those classes. As they are college level courses.

because they disagree with you , they're against thier own country ? Hmmm.....

They don't seem to understand the threat of Saddam Hussein.

another statistic with no factual backing

You want backing I will give you a backing...

friendly-fire mistake (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/4951241.htm)

Totally irrelevant to bring up. That has nothing to do with precision guided bombs anyways, but a dumb-bomb. Sorry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/iraq/53837.stm

Actually I was overstating how accurate they are. The US has done heavy investing into precision guided bombs thus you can understand that the accuracy rate is within 85%, not 95%.

is everyone that disagrees with you biased , i served in the armed forces of the United States (USCG) , i love my country .. How about yourself , do you even live in your*country , or america ?

Who cares if I live in another country? Is a person allowed to live overseas and still love their country? :rolleyes:

yet another statistic with no factual backing , do you honestly believe a statistic can represent everyones thoughts ? oh thats right , you're a fan of tricky math , i forgot

A fan of tricky math? Give me a damn break. I know about these things unlike many people here. Yet another statistic with no factual backing... blahblahlbalhlblah... I provided way more sources than any of the other people here combined.

hmmm , thats why bush shipped 250,000 GROUND TROOPS to the gulf ? Its funny , everyone is biased and leftist in your opinion , you really prove how smart to us you are by ignorantly stereotyping everyone .

"Ignorantly stereotyping everyone"... give me a break. I am not stereotyping anybody... I am just saying you people do not know the threat of Saddam Hussein. And who cares what you think anyways? The war decision is coming in weeks not months.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

another comment passed off as factual with absolutly no proof , or evidence .

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/international/middleeast/30QAED.html

Done. Now I would be quiet if I were you before you spew more of your lies.

talk about pot calling the kettle black , practice what you preach

I am sorry but I have, you haven't. All I been doing is providing sources. You haven't.

lmfao .... once again , another stereotypical come back , yet ... no comment on the actual issue , just that this person was wrong .

And those who oppose the war are wrong. They have no idea on what kind of threat Saddam Hussein is. They always ignore the facts and what is presented to them.

Cool, Bush said it, then is a fact, shall I take as a fact what Saddam say too?

Yes he did. That is a comparsion saying that Bush is less trust worthy than Saddam. I find that stupid statement to make.

nice way of twisting someones words , and completely avoiding the issue at hand :)

I didn't avoid anything.

no one can debate or argue with you because you dont know how to do so in a civilized manner , you make rude comments , and stereotype people ,

I completely deny in doing any of that. If you cannot debate against somebody who has infact provided sources leave because all I been doing is providing sources. And you have the guts to accuse me of not doing so. Look through my thread.

i think some will be very offended that you think everyone from argentina just whines and complains .

I didn't say that.

hes a troll because he has an opinion ? i dont know if you're new to the internet , but on this board , members respect one another and can argue in an adult fashion .

And you are doing that? Nope.

ill just quote un inspectors "This is NOT the smoking gun".


Yes, so you want a bomb in New York as your smoking gun?

lol , so who are you strategist for ? yourself ? your beloved country ? your high school teacher ? As if you had to make us aware of something completely obvious .

I wrote several papers for the US State Department believe it or not. Some of them were used and revised, but the general outline of them was used several times. My dad happens to work with the US State Department. And I said I had dual citizenship with both the US and Spain (that is allowed because they are close allies). But that is not the point entirely... you resort to little comments like that make absolutely no sense in bringing up.

whats the point of blaming anyone other then the terrorist ? Clinton didnt bomb anyone . The terrorist did .

Exactly, Clinton didn't do anything about it and if Bob Dole was elected in 1996, September 11th terrorist attacks could of been prevented.

"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden ,I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration : Two Star General Donald Kerrick, Source Washington Post

Nice source. :rolleyes: Anyways, did they actually do anything? They had a chance to catch him in Sudan when the Sudanese were actually offering to turn him over... but no... they never did. They had several times to get him in Afghanistan and they knew where he was BUT THEY NEVER GOT HIM. So what is your point?

these may not be completely factual , but i dont see why these people would lie for clinton . Im sure these individuals know far more about whats going on politically . Being that one these men is a general ,

But did he do anything about it? Words not backed by action does not bring progress.

Your right wing buddy from PA seems to think bush knew ,

Bush didn't know anything about the attacks. Except he may have received a terrorist threat update a day before the attacks which was too general. However, the US gets terrorist threat everyday. Hundreds of them.

are you a personal friend of mr.powell ? does he release information to you before the american people ? Hmmm....

No, no, no.... you misinterpreted my response like every other one in this thread. What I said was Colin Powell is releasing the evidence before the UN next week.

really , the taliban "are" (is) gone ? Another non factual comment , in fact here is what bush has to say on the whole subject :

The Taliban are not completely gone. They are still there.

"I don't know where he (osama bin ladin) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002]

Pull that quote out of thin air? I don't remember him saying that.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."President George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

And?!!?!!?!?!

can you provide anything to anyone that proves thier assessment is incorrect ? you're yet to do so.

You are very ignorant. That is all I have been doing.

how , you dont even live here buddy . I can walk out of my house daily and not fear iraq or saddam . Maybe if you lived here you could say that , but you dont .i dont know anyone that is truly scared of iraq or saddam.

Oh so if I don't live in the US I really don't know about it? Give me a damn break pal. In my own country we live under the threat of car bombs and shootings. In Argentina there is the fear of police brutality.

And so what if I don't even live there? Another little attack done by a little man with a big mouth.

another statement with no factual backing ... not suprised


All I have been doing is providing sources so you are wrong again. I am not surprised at you being wrong.

And you got your source numnuts:

http://www.afghan-info.com/Research_Articles/Analysis_Pakistan_Taliban.htm

1994.

are you going to say that americans didnt kill one civilian ... are you out of your mind . War is war , people get killed on both sides.

I never said that. I know civilians die in every war. You think I am that damn stupid?

anyways , mr military wannabe strategist , your arguement = /dev/null . You provide nothing , you stereotype people ,

You have been proved wrong. Your argument is completely false. You resort to little petty attack while ignoring every bit and piece of evidence and sources I have provided. In this post alone I count three or four sources provided.

you make rude comments about peoples ethentcity .

That I deny. But can I make fun of people's poor spelling?

I have no doubts that you are only in high school , your attitude and lack of adult behavior shows it .

So anybody younger than you is somehow lacking of proper behavior? Give me a break.


I really suggest you study more , and take more AP classes

No. I suggest you study more because you have been proven wrong on every point.

Even 95% is low.

I heard that US will lauch 800 missles in one day when they start. They mean 40 missles will be off target.

85% -- mean 120 missles will be off target.

That is not a problem. That is something called the dogs of war. Just got to accept the consquences. If it means liberating a people.

During WWII the figures of inaccuracy would be much, much higher. But still the war had to press forward for people to be liberated from the Nazi regime.

I said later I was joking. But yes, I do write several college level papers on the economic issues in those classes. As they are college level courses.

wow , college level courses , shall we give you a round of applause ?

They don't seem to understand the threat of Saddam Hussein.

show me the threat ? Show me the america lives that have been affected by this person and his country

You want backing I will give you a backing...

whatever that means

Totally irrelevant to bring up. That has nothing to do with precision guided bombs anyways, but a dumb-bomb. Sorry.


umm , i thought we were talking about guided missles ? This is a article about canadians being blown to peices by a guided missles , from US pilots ? I see total relevance . It also funny that your great statistic has changed from a solid 95% to a 85-95%

Who cares if I live in another country? Is a person allowed to live overseas and still love their country?

if you love it so much , how come you dont live there ?

A fan of tricky math? Give me a damn break. I know about these things unlike many people here. Yet another statistic with no factual backing... blahblahlbalhlblah... I provided way more sources than any of the other people here combined.

lol , mr strategist doesnt know what tricky math is, hmmm . If you know so much , and you're so intelligent , why does almost everyone on this board disagree with you . LEt me guess , we're all idiots ... You seem to think that a source is a fact...lol

Ignorantly stereotyping everyone"... give me a break. I am not stereotyping anybody...

give me a break , you're the one labeling people , calling them trolls , numnuts , leftist... you're foul , get over yourself

I am just saying you people do not know the threat of Saddam Hussein

hes yet to threaten us , and there is a prime example of stereotyping

And who cares what you think anyways?

well obviously you , you replied to my post

Done. Now I would be quiet if I were you before you spew more of your lies.

lmao , did you even read the article man ? please . You post this nonsense as factual , here ill post the first paragraph of the article .

After months of scouring for hard evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration is focusing on possible links between Saddam Hussein and Islamic extremists

thats not evidense , that called propaganda , there is no proof , they are INVESTIGATING . HELLO , wake up and smell the coffee , thats not factual ... just heresay , and like i said , you have no proof

I am sorry but I have, you haven't. All I been doing is providing sources. You haven't.

as i see you believe everything you read , thats a shame . Sources dont equal facts...sorry

And those who oppose the war are wrong. They have no idea on what kind of threat Saddam Hussein is. They always ignore the facts and what is presented to them.

So because you say someone is wrong , they're wrong ? I wish i had that type of power . We all know saddam is a threat to people , but he has done nothing to threaten america . If bush had it his way , we would already be over there . Only thing stopping him is international laws .

Yes he did. That is a comparsion saying that Bush is less trust worthy than Saddam. I find that stupid statement to make.

he never said bush was less trust worthy then saddam , he asked a question , he didnt compare. You make fun of my typos , but you dont even understand english

Cool, Bush said it, then is a fact, shall I take as a fact what Saddam say too?

how you got less trust worthy out of the statement , i have no idea.

I didn't avoid anything.

you avoided many things that many people have said , in fact you avoided lots of things i said in my earlier post

I completely deny in doing any of that. If you cannot debate against somebody who has infact provided sources leave because all I been doing is providing sources. And you have the guts to accuse me of not doing so. Look through my thread.

You are Argentine? Explains the anti-US rhetoric. Most of your country hates the US. And from what I know Argentina sent very little in the Gulf war.

STEREOTYPING SOMEONES DECENT , hello.... your bold statements holds no truth , and cant be backed up.

And you are doing that? Nope.

doing what , calling people trolls , numb nuts ,stereotyping people , no im not ...but yes , you are. and by the way , you spelled numb wrong :)

Yes, so you want a bomb in New York as your smoking gun?

i thought you had faith in our military , and our anti missle defense system ...

I wrote several papers for the US State Department believe it or not. Some of them were used and revised, but the general outline of them was used several times. My dad happens to work with the US State Department. And I said I had dual citizenship with both the US and Spain (that is allowed because they are close allies). But that is not the point entirely... you resort to little comments like that make absolutely no sense in bringing up.

lol . sure buddy , just like i believe everything else you've said , i really believe this . So umm , where can i find these documents you wrote ? . Listen you're in high school , you're a student . Not a self proclaimed military Strategist . I know its fun to pretend , but at some point you have to be real with yourself.

Exactly, Clinton didn't do anything about it and if Bob Dole was elected in 1996, September 11th terrorist attacks could of been prevented.

clinton was out of office when this happened , you can blaim whoever , and say bob dole would have stopped it ... blah blah blah , but once again you have nothing factual backing you

Nice source. Anyways, did they actually do anything? They had a chance to catch him in Sudan when the Sudanese were actually offering to turn him over... but no... they never did. They had several times to get him in Afghanistan and they knew where he was BUT THEY NEVER GOT HIM. So what is your point

'cough' backup your statement with facts 'cough' . Unfortunitly for you , everything you argue cant be , unless of course you have access to government files other americans dont .

But did he do anything about it? Words not backed by action does not bring progress.

about what , he wasnt president when it happened , of course he didnt

Bush didn't know anything about the attacks. Except he may have received a terrorist threat update a day before the attacks which was too general. However, the US gets terrorist threat everyday. Hundreds of them.

oh , now you're a bush mind reader . Hmmmm , so clinton talks about everyday , but bush is clueless ...And i would call receiving threat a day in advance knowing about it prior . You cant factually backup that bush didnt know . Nor can factually backup that it was clintons fault

No, no, no.... you misinterpreted my response like every other one in this thread. What I said was Colin Powell is releasing the evidence before the UN next week

well maybe you should say what you mean , and mean what you say.

The Taliban are not completely gone. They are still there.

are you retracting your previous statement ? because you cleary wrote the taliban was gone in a prior post .

Pull that quote out of thin air? I don't remember him saying that.

do you remember everything bush says , come on now . Do yourself the favor of looking up the quote ... i recommend google or alltheweb.com

Oh so if I don't live in the US I really don't know about it? Give me a damn break pal. In my own country we live under the threat of car bombs and shootings. In Argentina there is the fear of police brutality.

no , you dont . you do live here , and you dont know whats really going on here . You're spoon fed media garbage , and you think you're the supreme all knowning authority . Why dont you worry about your messed up country insted of mine .

All I have been doing is providing sources so you are wrong again. I am not surprised at you being wrong

uh huh...please ... spare me ... you provide articles , then twist the words of it , you throw out numbers that arent backed up factually ...so whatever . I would go back and show you , like i tried to do , but you cant seem to come to terms that you havent , you think a news article here , and a statistic here is all factual . I feel sorry for you , im even less impressed by your countries schooling system.

And you got your source numnuts:

i love the name calling , so mature . I went to your little article , the first thing i saw was this AFGHAN-INFO.COM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS OF THIS ANALYSIS

You have been proved wrong. Your argument is completely false.

where , show me ... like ive said , you're yet to provide FACTAUL information . One of the other members said "its like talking to a brickwall" i understand where they are coming from

That I deny. But can I make fun of people's poor spelling?

deny , i quoted it . please make fun of my typos , im sure it makes you look so much smarter , more mature , and it really gets your null point accross

So anybody younger than you is somehow lacking of proper behavior? Give me a break.

no , for you though , yes . You see , you're just like i was when i was young and stupid . I thought i knew everything , and thought i was untouchable . I have more life experience then you. One day you will become an adult , and you'll be introduced to the real world .

No. I suggest you study more because you have been proven wrong on every point.

how ?

anyways ... im sure you'll comeback with tired worn out bs that ive already heard you say...thats fine , i wont be replying . just like the other members... so quote me , get out news articles , twist my words , call me numnuts.... im sure it makes your ego feel much better anyways

You know what I could write a whole response refuting every single point you made and deny it. But quite frankly, I am sick and tired of that. If you have something to prove keep it to the point. If you have a complaint against my beliefs then make a point. Because otherwise I am not listening to this rechewed crap. I have provided tons of factual information, whereas you have not. Thank you and have a nice day.

IMPORTANT
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

pool at the bottom of the page
"Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?"

Results:
North Korea 5.6 %
Iraq 6.8 %
The United States 87.6 %

Total Votes Cast: 602986

.

H2, provide something more than some useless poll most likely taken in France or Germany.

/dev/null giancarlo

H2, provide something more than some useless poll most likely taken in France or Germany
And how do you get the assumption that has been take in france and/or germany when the whole article is in english?

And who says a english media source can't take polls in other countries? Geez... man... :rolleyes:

Who say that? but where do you got that assumption that has been take in germany/france? or is just another of your baseless suspicion?

Poll from TIMEeurope?

Originally posted by Jedito
Who say that? but where do you got that assumption that has been take in germany/france? or is just another of your baseless suspicion?

Baseless suspicison? How about rightful one? I have a right to have it. Your entire belief system about America being the enemy is baseless.

I now withdraw from this argument. I will have nothing to do with Jedito anymore because of his lack of discussion skills.

Enemy? who said that? You said that this poll has been take in france and/or Germany, where do you base your assumption? you keep skiping the question.

*yawn*

I wait for something better than your evasion when confronted with valid points.

Please show me where did you post valid points. Because I asked a simple question that you keep skiping , but that show that you can't stand your point of view with valids thought

You are making me yawn too much... this is the same old, same old accusations from you.

But you keep doing the same, you don't answer a simple question... why can't you do it? probably because you have no base for your assumption???
I guess that's all, I wont downgrade to your level anymore. Have a good life kid, you have too much to learn in this life.

I'll do you a favor, save your answer, I'll do it for you:

Jedito, I wont downgrade to your level, you have too much to learn.

Waiting for something other than accusations. I don't want to do anymore talking to a brick wall. It is pointless.

You are the one with a lot to learn. You ignore the reality. Ain't my fault. Yours only.

You're so foreseeable ;)