Print

[HeLiuM]

can you give me a reason WHY we don't have their permission?

did britain complain when america helped liberate france in ww2?
no.. but people complained about liberating kuwait... and actions in vietnam.... all against regimes
theres alotta hipocracy going around... but i think greater europe should rethink where its coming from.

"war is bad" is not an argument. the fact that iraq is oppressed is.

i seriously dont understand what you're trying to say. are you calling us "posers" for being anti terrorism all the sudden, or all you calling us terrorists? first get your point of view straight.. then we'll talk.

what is your opinion? we were the good guys first so the US should just shutup and listen to the UN? european views dominate the UN, and the US seems to be the odd man out.

i think one of your problems is you see Bush as a whiny little kid. i have to agree. but theres a flaw in your plan. this time hes the whiny little kid trying to make friends with the whole country by representing the majority of them.

for the rest... again another theme im seeing...
because the US isnt oppressed we have no right to talk? we're all rich war junkies.
its called democracy, and we happen to believe in it... dictatorship is looked down on. just becuz we dont like it doesnt mean we have to attack it, you're right. but you're also complaining about former alliances with iraq... which is it? is iraq good or bad? i think you guys just like to show us as the devil so you can be the good guys

[waz]

QUOTE

Okay thats about enough. Waz, you have got some FUCKED UP views of the world. Its bad enough this is being posted in a comedy forum, but now your hitting me with greenhouse gases and how the US raises funds for the IRA. Man if your going to step up to the plate, first of all get your fucking facts straight, then try to stay on topic. Oh and when the US secretly develops a aluminum foil hat to sheild only Americans from harmful radiation and only distributes it to us , stealing, war loving americans, im sure well hear from you again.

i can provide facts about everything i said and you can do it yourself with a short google search, i also didnt say the USA wher funding the IRA i said at a time england where bieng bombed america "allowed" fund raising 1 of the largest corperations who donated a lot of money to the IRA was McDonalds.
i did come off as being to anti american for that i apologize that wasn't the intention, my problem is with your president not the USA and its people i should have made that clearer bear in mind it's late here. further to that i wont apologize for my factual comments as thats what they are factual i will provide the facts if you so wish.
the response you gave is also the reason for why a lot of countries dont like the USA, in your short history youve had near;y as many wars as we have. which is odd as i drink in a pub thats older than your country (there u go some comedy for u )

and helium

what I'm trying to say is i don't like the fact america and britain (where i live) are unjustifiably taking it up on themselves to go to war with a country that hasn't actually threatened us (us being USA and Britain) sure there is a potential threat there but korea is just as big a threat if not more so. what worries me is the fact that the UN is there to make sure peace is kept paramount however if it cant control countries that are part of it the whole thing breaks down and essentially america are saying we are to powerful to listen to "anybody" this in itself goes against what democracy is.

democracy is a great thing don't get me wrong but at the end of the day iraq is not owned by us, and therefor what right do we have to force our way of living onto them the only facts we are aware off are what the media present us with.

and i wont talk about WW2 as thats a whole different and lengthy argument..

i dont think america are the odd ones out that would be france and if america want to go to war with them thats fine by me

edit--
mods can we merge this with the general dicussion on the iraw crisis?

[HeLiuM]

i find it surprising that you switched from "the US" to "us"....

anyway, about the oil... America needs the trade of it. saying if you support us you can have some trade too, well thats just stating what would be assumed anyway.. if you liberated iraq, iraq would trade with you.

the thing is, most of the country WANTS change. the only thing going to war against the US is saddam. the country itself, which is made up of general populace, is NOT under attack by the US but rather by it's own government.  but nobody seems to want to agree with this.. because the US is the only evil government out there right?

and we havnt been in nearly as many wars as the british yet, and half of them were with europeans.. it's not like we're picking on little kids here

[Novahux]

Q: Where are all these anti-war protesters human/shields coming from ?

A: Most governments are fairly good with environmental issues now, so the stoner tree hugging hippies have got nothing worth protesting about anymore.
 
If you ask any of the protesters what they would like as an alternative to Regime change, they get this blank look shrug their shoulders and start chanting, NO WAR !! STOP THE BOMBS !! bla bla bla. Its clear that a large % of protestors don't understand the issue at all, The argument I raised earlier in this thread about explaining what the US will do with the OIL has been resolved now with public (on the record) statements from the Whitehouse promising they will stay as IRAQI assets and will fall under UN control after the ousting.
Yet the mindless drones on the street are still holding up NO War For Oil banners.

I don't think war is a good thing, But I haven’t heard any reasonable alternative to war yet. Have you ?

[Boozy]

Honestly, I am a proud supporter of GW. I like the way hes handling the situatrion in Iraq. I just wish other nations would have the same agenda. Yeah hes coming about a little abrubt, like a cowboy, like a guy from Texas. Maybe he is trying to make Dad proud. Maybe he is being outlandish. A whole lot of maybes involved. But the one common denominator of this whole thread is that no one would disagree that Sadaam Hussein is a threat to everyone.  And i tell you what, when you walk into the cage of the lion, you dont tiptoe in there. You need to run in with your spear and scream like a banshee. Thats what GW is doing.

[Novahux]

Dave31a

Wake up man and smell the gunpowder, this war has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Its about regime change, no one in their right mind expected Saddam to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors, the 1441 thingy was only put forward to gain some sore of legal grounds for a Saddam ousting. It's painfully obvious that the US only care about getting rid of Saddam and the so called "Filthy Forty".

I'm fairly sure that IRAQ has only a small amount of Bio or chemical weapons, and won't use them in this war. But I still support the war for the sake of regime change.

[HeLiuM]

israel-palastine...
there's nothing the US can really do their, as there's no real enemy.

with Iraq there is one clear target, and that simplifies things greatly...

and maybe the problem is with the UN and not the US...

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Dave31a @ Mar 18 2003, 12:09 AM)

I just find it hard to understand G W's justification. Bush states that Saddam has been ignoring the UN for 12 years. Isreal has ignored countless more UN resolutions for 40 years and with the full support of the US. (It still violates many resolutions today)

Set aside your diplomatic legalese for a moment, and think about what you are trying to do here: create a moral equivalence between Israel and Iraq.  If you sincerely believe that to be true, there is no reason for this discussion to continue.

QUOTE

A.  Iraq doesn't have nukes, is not linked to Al Quada, Is not a threat to the US but it's ok to go to invade without a UN resolution. B. North Korea does have nukes. Can attack the Continental US with it's missiles but thats ok to use diplomacy. The difference probably being that Iraq has Oil and a pathetic Army. North Korea has no Oil and a million solidiers.

You answered your own question, although apparently you are not aware of it.  The difference is that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and therefore our options are very limited without taking the risk of having one of our allies or even a coastal area of Alaska nuked, which is an unacceptable risk.  Therefore, we have no means of direct intervention.

The other big difference is that we have two major allies in the region, both heavily armed and one step away from a nuclear umbrella of their own. Japan has the third largest GDP percentage in the world sunk into its "Defense Forces", and they are surely not twiddling their thumbs.  It is little wonder that the Japanese are staunchly behind America with Iraq. That will prod China to restrain NK before its brinkmanship gets too radical, to avoid an overt rearmament of Japan, with South Korea under its wing (strange times make for strange bedfellows).

With Saddam we have no means of applying pressure, and what's more, we have the option to remove a cruel, inhuman dictator with minimal cost, and provide a source of stability in the Middle East.  Without Iraqi funding, that is one less ally the Palestinian terrorists will have, which might allow Palestinian dissenters to stop being assassinated long enough by their own police force to come to the forefront, rather than another holocaust-denying Arafat puppet.

QUOTE

The US economy needs a war. In the first 48 hours the Shock and Awe tactic will create several billion dollars worth of new arms orders and the US companies will make billions going in after to fix the country up. Maybe I'm cynical. I just fail to see the justification.

No, what you fail to see is that you are making the exact same nonsense argument Lenin made about European countries, which was later adopted by socialists as their universal smear of any capitalist country's foreign policy.  It is the exact same garbage that was regurgitated in Vietnam, and even to a lesser degree in Desert Storm, and it is as untrue then as it is now.  If there is one administration that understands that burdening the taxpayer is not the key to economic recovery, it is this one.  

Everybody, Iraqis included, will profit off this in the long run.  For the next 5-10 years, though, it is safe to say that Iraq, like Marshall Plan Europe and Japan, will be a net outflow of cash.  Fortunately, Oil will help balance the accounts a lot more quickly.  There is nothing wrong with that.  

oh, and here's a brief audio clip of an Iraqi-American caller to a radio show, responding to a "peace" activist guest, that might give you something to think about.

QUOTE

1/ It should be UN approved. There are too many 'allies' saying no way.

That's the eternal problem of a democratic system like the UN (which is a dishonest one anyway, since the bulk of UN votes come from countries without even a pretense of political liberty): it ultimately panders to the lowest common denominator.  Fortunately, Bush doesn't need yes-men to know what's right.

QUOTE

2/ Who is next, how many are going to be done, who decides and who will pay for them all.

Well, my guess would be the focus of Bush foreign policy will be the middle east. The region could use a little destabilizing in the form of a successful new Iraq as an example that Arab nations can be compatible with liberty.

QUOTE

3/ It just breeds more hatred as it is portrayed as a war against Islam by the Arabs.

You can't be serious.  Should the litmus test of American foreign policy be what demagogues can persuade the great unwashed of?  GIve me a break.

QUOTE

4/ The 'coalition' is not addressing the Israel-Palastine issue which is the basis for alot of Arab hatred.

Diplomatic solutions have already been pushed to the limit.  Netanyahu offered the Palestinians far more than was ever thought possible, and was rejected for one of two reasons: either Arafat thought he had a strong enough hand to demand more, or he likes the status quo just fine.  I happen to see a lot of evidence of the latter.  Ergo, we must both weaken his hand by removing one of his staunchest backers, and wait until the current leadership is replaced from within.  

How does that constitute "not addressing"?  No doubt addressing it for you would be invading Israel (not that its arab neighbors haven't tried)?

[FrEze2k1]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Mar 15 2003, 03:28 AM)

You know what? I wish terrorist would only attack idiots like you. I bet you were happy about September 11th too. You guys are just a bunch of anti american hippies. Jealous as hell that you dont live in the USA. Eric Cartman was right, all you guys do is smoke pot and play frisbee. God Bless the USA

Just shut up already stop flaming.  f*ck man, i live in America (Texas actually) and don't support War, Bush or any of his views, does that mean i was happy on September 11...Hell no!  But that also doesn't mean i go around telling people Bush is a f*ck head even though i think he is...damn!  

[lenny6998]

The US will go to iraq, iraq will light their oil fields on fire , of course theyll accuse the US of doing it and every1 will believe them, then Iraq will try to us their weapons of mass distruction that they dont have against the US probably killing hundreds even thousands of Iraqi women and children and of course say teh US did it, and the world will believe Iraq. And in the end we will liberate Iraq probably find tons of mass grave sites..................... O well, its tough be the greatest power ever, but someone sane has to do it.

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (FrEze2k1 @ Mar 18 2003, 02:50 AM)

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Mar 15 2003, 03:28 AM) You know what? I wish terrorist would only attack idiots like you. I bet you were happy about September 11th too. You guys are just a bunch of anti american hippies. Jealous as hell that you dont live in the USA. Eric Cartman was right, all you guys do is smoke pot and play frisbee. God Bless the USA Just shut up already stop flaming.  f*ck man, i live in America (Texas actually) and don't support War, Bush or any of his views, does that mean i was happy on September 11...Hell no!  But that also doesn't mean i go around telling people Bush is a f*ck head even though i think he is...damn!

i would appreciate if you edited your post there... boozy said that not me..

i support the war, that doesnt mean i WANT it. theres a difference between doing what you want and doing whats necessary

[Boozy]

If there is a GOD, would he please close this thread now.

[survivorejam]

 I'm off to dig out my old copy of "Deasert Strike" on N64 so I can "finish the job we started in 1991" . (hey it even has Mr Bush as the president what were the odds of that ??)

[Bravo]

QUOTE (Dave31a @ Mar 18 2003, 12:09 AM)

Bush states that Saddam has been ignoring the UN for 12 years. Isreal has ignored countless more UN resolutions for 40 years and with the full support of the US. (It still violates many resolutions today)

The was an acticle in the National Post about UN violations and who's used veto power more, the big winner is the US, they've violating the UN  like 10 times more than any other country. And have have probabely committed  the most war crimes, This is not a "War with Iraq" this is and "Attack on Iraq"

Now for those US citizens who say Sudam is doing terible things and the country must be set free. Why does the US have to do it??? The UN is opposed to what's going on right now but dosen't have the power to stop it. Bombing a country to pieces and walking away and letting the UN clean up dosen't really fix things.