New War: Iraq

[Hayduke]

Bush his new war is coming

Hitting before being punched, a real good attidude for a "land of peace "

http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/graphics/bodybags.jpg

But it's gonna happen, Bush is trying to correct were his father failed.

Well here are some reason, why he should not attack Iraq and start another deed of terror

http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/graphics/crying_child.jpg

1 THis attack will cost more countless innocent lives, the last attack on Iraq " Gulf War " cost 200.000 precious lives.

2 What about the International right ? The United States, starts a new war without a proper reason, if they can violate this rights, then why can't countries like China, North Korea and India do the same ?

4 The attack on Iraq shows that in this world, the right of the strongest count. America has enormous weapon supplies, but small countries like Iraq have to be checked for these weapons.
" Im more afraid for the weapons of the U.S.A and the person behind those then for Iraq "

5 An attack on Iraq can cause a chain reaction of countless other wars. Turkey can see his change to deal with those " koerds " once and for all. And countries are willing to support Iraq when its attacked, wich can form a whole new world war.

6 The change that Sadam will use his biological weapons is only becoming bigger, when its attacked. This can cost thousands of lives, and damage the environnement for ever.

7 An attack on Iraq, doesn't automatically makes it a democracy.

http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/graphics/nurse_baby.jpg

This new war is foolish, but if anyone beliefs Bush is correct and something needs to be done. I would love to hear your arguments.




(Edited by D DAY at 9:57 pm on Sep. 16, 2002)

[vox]

Excellent post, D Day.

The war-mongers have no argument. They have hatred. They have bloodlust. They have arrogance and love of death.

But they have no argument.

vox

[Hayduke]

Quote: from vox on 10:30 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
Excellent post, D Day.

The war-mongers have no argument. They have hatred. They have bloodlust. They have arrogance and love of death.

But they have no argument.

vox

Vox did yknow, that the only real reason for this attack, is cause the boycott isnt effective.

Unicef said it took the life of 400.000 children, but that it didnt
had the effect it should have had on Saddam.

After 400.000 young died children, the innocent people that died from hunger and disease after the gulf war, America goes on.

You know what really makes me sick, that patriotic feeling trough the western world. When 3000 people and a huge body is destroyed, America may take revenge on every country they desire.

When more then 600.000 die from a simple boycott, its silent by the media, or approved by the western people.

Sick, Sick, Sick world.

[FtWfTn]

Vox did yknow, that the only real reason for this attack, is cause the boycott isnt effective.

Unicef said it took the life of 400.000 children, but that it didnt
had the effect it should have had on Saddam.

After 400.000 young died children, the innocent people that died from hunger and disease after the gulf war, America goes on.

You know what really makes me sick, that patriotic feeling trough the western world. When 3000 people and a huge body is destroyed, America may take revenge on every country they desire.

When more then 600.000 die from a simple boycott, its silent by the media, or approved by the western people.

Sick, Sick, Sick world.



God that such a great point and thats so sick

[vox]

D Day,

Again, you'll get no argument from me, though I think your figures are a little low, for the last I heard it was over half a million dead children and over a million total Iraqi citizens.

The US violated the Genava convention by destroying the civilian water supply in Iraq, and reports by the Defense Intelligence Agency show that the gov't knew EXACTLY what the consequences of such an action would be. So they did it.

Under the UN restrictions, materials to fix the damage the US did to the water supply are disallowed because they may have "dual use" purposes.

How one can wave the flag and chant the praises for such a country is beyond me. I think the proper reaction is to recoil in horror from the devastating death that the US gov't has caused. Instead, the right-wing media acts as a propaganda machine, and nationalism serves to split the working class internationally.

What's so damn tragic is how common it all is.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

The usual propoganda.

Saddam brought this upon himself, and the Iraqi people needn't look farther than him and his administration for their suffering.

America apologizes to no one, for nothing.

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:15 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
The usual propoganda.

Saddam brought this upon himself, and the Iraqi people needn't look farther than him and his administration for their suffering.

America apologizes to no one, for nothing.



Capitalist Imperial,

You defend youself with these arguments ?

I aint supporting the dictatorship of Sadam, but do you think America will turn Iraq in a beatifull living paradise ?

Think again.

After the countless attacks on cities, millions of innocent people will die . But I suppose a Imperialist like yourself doesnt care for that. " America apologizes to no one, for nothing. "

America doesnt have the right to kill innocent people for no reason cappie and you know it.

And come up with some real arguments, cause I made mine but all you can come up with is some sick quote.

[vox]

"America apologizes to no one, for nothing."

No. Assholes don't apologize. Good people always apologize when they are wrong.

vox

[Hayduke]

Quote: from vox on 11:29 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
"America apologizes to no one, for nothing."

No. Assholes don't apologize. Good people always apologize when they are wrong.

vox

Then again with the crimes they made, only an apololgize would be an insult.

http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/graphics/dead_little_boys.jpg

[El Che]

Good post(s) D Day. And your right, it is sick.

Sadly I`m to lazy to type down why US intervention in Iraq was, is and will be wrong (to use one of many possible adjectives). Maybe I`ll do it later or maybe I`ll just answer right wing objections as they come.

[Hayduke]

Quote: from El Che on 11:46 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
Good post(s) D Day. And your right, it is sick.

Sadly I`m to lazy to type down why US intervention in Iraq was, is and will be wrong (to use one of many possible adjectives). Maybe I`ll do it later or maybe I`ll just answer right wing objections as they come.

Youll get no objections, but dumb patriotic quotes like

" America apologizes to no one, for nothing "

They have no arguments for the following atack, but follow the texan cowboy blindly.

And only foolish people follow blindly.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Not following blindly, following based on knowledge of the overall situation.

You would obviously prefer allowing saddam to develop his WMD and then unleash them on who knows where.

Your comprehension of the concept of preemptive action is lackluster.

[Field Marshal]

I think that's actually a quote from Reagan or Nixon, I'm not sure though, maybe George Bush senior.

The fact is that the United States government had "no objections" (said by the president to the embassy in Iraq, then said to Saddamn) to Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait. But then we made a huge commotion about it when he did invade. When Saddamn finds out about all this anger from the US, he orders a retreat.
. / < .
. / < .
. / < .
. / < .
. / < . Iraq. / < .
/ < .
US forces/ Iraqi Troops Kuwait

In other words, We kept those soldiers from retreating back to Iraq. They were slaughtered, especially with our new recylced depleted Uranium bullets and bombs. Iraq is so damn radiated because of what we did to them.

The real reason is not for oil, we get most of our oil from Russia. There are two articles that I have no time to post, that you should all read. One is in the LA times I think, it's about how Iraq's threat to Israel is the real reason. And the other is about how every country wants an oil field in Iraq to support the war.

It's going to be an Iraqi GangBang...

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:10 am on Sep. 17, 2002
Not following blindly, following based on knowledge of the overall situation.

You would obviously prefer allowing saddam to develop his WMD and then unleash them on who knows where.

Your comprehension of the concept of preemptive action is lackluster.


Do we attack america because of their weapons ?

A question you should ask yourself, instead of coming with
the shit you are writing me now.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Come on, FM, we did not intentionally block a withdrawl from kuwait to engage iraqi forces. This is a conspiracy theory of grand proportions. If such action did occur, it would have been exposed during the crisis.

Bush SR gave a deadline for withdrawl, and saddam did not comply, so we attacked.

Also, we get most of our oil from saudi arabia and OPEC nations, not russia (is russia part of OPEC?) either way, russia is not our largest oil exporter.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from D DAY on 7:25 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:10 am on Sep. 17, 2002
Not following blindly, following based on knowledge of the overall situation.

You would obviously prefer allowing saddam to develop his WMD and then unleash them on who knows where.

Your comprehension of the concept of preemptive action is lackluster.


"Do we attack america because of their weapons ?"

America and Iraq are 2 completely different entities, with contrasting stability and volatility. You are drawing an irrelevant comparison.

"A question you should ask yourself, instead of coming with
the shit you are writing me now."

Don't be angry. Unlike most of you liberals, and most wimpy, submissive european nations, the US is not willing to idly stand by and allow a maniac to laugh in our face as he develops WMD to possibly use in a maniacal attack on US interests.

[vox]

More of the same bullshit rhetoric from CI, who still has not provided ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that Iraq has any intention at all of attacking any nation at all.

Your time here is finished, CI. You cannot continue to dribble the same lies over and over and expect ANYONE to take you seriously. You're through. Understand? Through. Finished. Done.

You've failed in every way possible here. You're lies about Iraq have been exposed repeatedly. No one believes you, CI. We know better. Puke up the sweat from Limbaugh's feet somewhere else.

You've nothing to say here.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 8:00 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
More of the same bullshit rhetoric from CI, who still has not provided ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that Iraq has any intention at all of attacking any nation at all.

Your time here is finished, CI. You cannot continue to dribble the same lies over and over and expect ANYONE to take you seriously. You're through. Understand? Through. Finished. Done.

You've failed in every way possible here. You're lies about Iraq have been exposed repeatedly. No one believes you, CI. We know better. Puke up the sweat from Limbaugh's feet somewhere else.

You've nothing to say here.

vox

Wow, vox, did someone spike your leaves and twigs with some nasty juice?

[vox]

More bullshit from CI. What a surprise.

Get used to it, CI. As far as I can tell, all you do is post bullshit, and that's not acceptable to me. You think I'm being nasty now? You have no fucking idea what nasty is, boy.

I guess you're used to "namby-pamby liberals." Well, I'm not a liberal, right-winger, I'm a red, and we have NO common ground.

Now either say something or shut your filthy right-wing hole.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 8:17 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
More bullshit from CI. What a surprise.

Get used to it, CI. As far as I can tell, all you do is post bullshit, and that's not acceptable to me. You think I'm being nasty now? You have no fucking idea what nasty is, boy.

I guess you're used to "namby-pamby liberals." Well, I'm not a liberal, right-winger, I'm a red, and we have NO common ground.

Now either say something or shut your filthy right-wing hole.

vox

LOL, yep, nasty juice.

I must say Vox, this beligerence and extensive profanity is a rather disappointing contrast to your usual calm, collected demeanor.

However, I will be happy to accomodate your newer, more agressive, albiet pinko, attitude in the name of the free exchange of ideas and the enlightenment of all who visit this board.

[vox]

How very gracious of you, CI.

Now, when will you post something with content? Oh, wait, I think I know the answer to that.

Never.

vox

[El Che]

lol... I dont think you want to get vox upset. Just stick to the argument if you have one.

Just a few quick points:

1-Lots of nations have weapons of "mass destruction", the US inclueded. And lots more nations, with WMD, pratice state terrorism, the US inclueded. So where are your standarts? How can your case possibly withstand a rational, imparical analysis? Is Iraq more dangerous and criminal then the US, or China or Isreal? Again maybe it is so in your mind but to the sane mind this prospect is little more then comical farse.

2-You`ve not proven that they have WMD or plan to use them if they did, and as said above you can`t claim that even if he has the weapons and plans to use them, this would require action and intervention to stop him because by your own standarts there is nothing wrong with possessing or using them. Which is it? Wait I think I know, its OK for the ones that side with the "west" but its a nono for those who side with "evil". Well, I tell you right now that the biggest evil this planet has ever seen is western civilization.

That`ll do for now but if you want more just ask.

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from El Che on 8:36 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
"lol... I dont think you want to get vox upset."

oh, but I do

[El Che]

dont u want to address points 1 and 2?

whats wrong, cat got your tounge?

[vox]

El Che,

Don't hold your breath waiting for CI to address an actual issue. He's incapable of it, I think.

As for getting me upset, don't flatter yourself, right-winger. This is just me, gloves off. No more upset than ever before, and you, CI, make as little sense as ever. To me, this is just another day in the park.

vox

[El Che]

Sure must be humiliating to have your ineptness forever recorded for posterity...

Maybe we should disable the Edit feature for right-wingers?

[hawarameen]

[/quote]


America and Iraq are 2 completely different entities, with contrasting stability and volatility. You are drawing an irrelevant comparison.


Don't be angry. Unlike most of you liberals, and most wimpy, submissive european nations, the US is not willing to idly stand by and allow a maniac to laugh in our face as he develops WMD to possibly use in a maniacal attack on US interests.
[/quote]

your ignorance astounds me, america and iraq are no different, the US government has been killing people in the name of democracy for years, far more than any other nation, the fact that they have the power to misinform ignorant souls like yourself is the key.

saddam is a evil man and needs to be removed but not through any american justification.

the reality is there is already a maniac with WMD at his didposal and i fear he is not afraid to use them. there seems to be an inbread charecteristic amongst american presidents e.g hiroshima and nagasaki bush seems to be the self centred shit for brains that wants to go down in history no matter what the civilian cost.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from El Che on 9:12 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
dont u want to address points 1 and 2?

whats wrong, cat got your tounge?


No, these points have been addressed by me a number of times in a number of threads. I don't want to rehash them again.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from El Che on 9:22 pm on Sep. 16, 2002
Sure must be humiliating to have your ineptness forever recorded for posterity...

Maybe we should disable the Edit feature for right-wingers?


recorded by who? jaded left wingers? LOL, get serious, you are the ignorant ones who see the glass as half empty, using simple concepts to propogate your class envy under the guise of humanitarianism

how does it feel to have your ignorance displayed?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from hawarameen on 10:26 pm on Sep. 16, 2002




"your ignorance astounds me, america and iraq are no different, the US government has been killing people in the name of democracy for years, far more than any other nation"

I would re-asses the mathematics of your claim


'the fact that they have the power to misinform ignorant souls like yourself is the key.'

hardly misinformed, information accessibility in this nation is the best on earth, bar none

"saddam is a evil man and needs to be removed but not through any american justification."

oh, let me guess, dolts like you are willing to wait 10 years for the UN to drag its feet and pass a resolution which is to soft to do anything anyway

"the reality is there is already a maniac with WMD at his didposal and i fear he is not afraid to use them. there seems to be an inbread charecteristic amongst american presidents e.g hiroshima and nagasaki bush seems to be the self centred shit for brains that wants to go down in history no matter what the civilian cost."


yes, thats it, we need only go back 50 years to when the US used atom bombs to end WWII, to show that george bush is a maniac all to willing to launch ICBM's at the drop of a hat. Make no mention of the discipline and responsibility we exercised during the much more volitile period of the cold war.Your extreme and inaccurate villification of Bush merely lends itself to compromising your credibility

[El Che]

Course, if you were to rehash them, that would open up a big can o whoop ass. And when you tried to stop short of finishing your meal you would be punished!

And yea...its here aint it? its public aint it? Dont be surprised if what you say today comes back at you tommorow.

[Capitalist Imperial]

go ahead, find my posts, then you will be silenced like the commie dog you are

[El Che]

Sorry but if you have something to say, you putt some effort into it and say it. Otherwise... I have no interest in you.

[munkey soup]

To CI and all who support a U.S. invasion into Iraq, do you also support a Russian invasion into Georgia, whom Russia claims to be abedding Chechnyan rebels. And we all know that Russia doesn't have the greatest human rights record when it comes to the Chechnyan war.

Relevance? Putin extended a letter to Bush administration saying they might support a war in Iraq if the U.N. supported it, in return for help to "root" out rebels in Georgia, a sovereign nation refusing to allow Russian soldiers on its soil. Reciprocity in action? Absolutely.

[Hayduke]

I came hear to back up my arguments, but instead I see
capitalist imperial drawling around the topic.

We come with arguments, articles, statics, but the only thing you
can come up with are personal insults.

Like Vox said, " its end of the line her cappie ". If you had any arguments I am sure you would have placed them already.

[Hayduke]

How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them



By Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot


THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological wea pons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chem ical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq's wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

[Hayduke]

The Cost of War

Back when the first Gulf War was being debated, I gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Charleston, Illinois. A university student interrupted to heckle. I stopped and looked at him: "You look like you could carry a gun. If you think this war is such a great idea, why don't you sign up for it?"


He didn't have an answer. But it wasn't merely a rhetorical question. During the first Gulf War, only two out of 535 members of Congress, and no cabinet members had children who served there. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, recently noted that "many of those who want to rush this country into war ... don't know anything about war ...They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off."


That includes President Bush, who -- like many privileged young men -- avoided Vietnam by serving in the National Guard; and Vice President Dick Cheney, who got a student deferment and beat the draft altogether.


Today's "economic draft" continues a long tradition of having poor and working people fight and die for the ambitions of the rich and powerful. And it is perhaps more clear than ever that this is what our troops will be fighting and dying for.


While the Bush Administration has (for now) given up on its attempts to link Saddam Hussein to September 11 or to terrorism, and has offered scant new evidence of a security threat from Iraq, there are other reasons for war. The economy is sputtering, and a number of scandals threaten to ruin this Presidency. The President himself profited from accounting scams very similar to those that brought down Enron while he was a director of Harken Energy Corporation. Cheney is under even more suspicion for his chairmanship at Halliburton, which includes -- among other things -- accounting irregularities and his own $18.5 million profit from selling stock not long before bad news about the company became public. Then there is the most massive intelligence failure in American history -- the ignored or unnoticed warning signals of September 11.


Add in various corporate accountability scandals (including Enron) and voters' anger and disgust, and any of the likely domestic issues in the November elections -- for example, Medicare and prescription drugs, Social Security -- and it is easy to see why this administration is eager to embrace war. Without even a single shot being fired, the Bush Administration has managed to shove aside almost all the issues that could hurt them politically, and focus the media's attention on Iraq.


People have forgotten how much domestic opposition there was to the first Gulf War, before it started. For a while it appeared Congress might not even give its approval, and opponents organized the largest national anti-war demonstration since the Vietnam era. But once the war started, President George Bush I was able to capitalize on the tendency, at the beginning of every war, for people (including journalists and politicians) to equate support for the war with support for the troops that are in combat. The war was over in a few weeks, US casualties were very few, and as Adolph Hitler once noted, "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."


No one knows if Bush II can repeat this scenario. First there is the problem of conquering Iraq and running the country, despite its geographic and ethnic divisions. And then there are the economic consequences of the war: a potentially serious spike in oil prices, and huge costs (the last Gulf war cost $80 billion in today's dollars). But even if he can pull it off, Americans will still lose. Aside from increasing hatred in the rest of the world, there is a domestic cost to these foreign adventures that pushes us toward the back of the pack among developed nations in so many areas that really matter: health insurance, poverty rates, education, infant mortality. We lose because we allow corrupt politicians to divert us from the real issues here at home, simply by pointing a finger overseas at the enemy-of-the-month. (Who is usually a former friend and ally, as Saddam was when he actually used his chemical weapons against Iran, and Washington provided satellite and intelligence data to help him).


Last year George W. Bush joked that "you can fool some of the people, all of the time -- and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." It remains to be seen if he can fool enough people to get this war going.

Capitalist Imperial, this article shows how many dollars the previous gulf war costet, don't you think this war would damage the United States education even further ? Dont count on it that many money will be used for other goals then defense.

There goes you taxes, a far away bombed country , but you are still in the shit.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.



(Edited by D DAY at 12:22 pm on Sep. 17, 2002)

[IHP]

CI

why move away from your argument and resort to insults, that is "commie dog"

The theory of communism is irrelevent in this argument.

Back on the topic.

[IHP]

Do you not see the US indulge themselves in hypocrisy?

The whole reasoning of the US to disarm Iraq is honourable, but why does America itself remain armed, and THEN blatantly break the anti-ballistic missile act by by building missile defense mechanisms?

it is understandable that America, or anyone else wouldn't want anyone they considered an enemy to be armed with WMD, but as a westerner, Saddam Hussein sees us as enemies and thus shouldn't be capable of nuclear weapons. and then to make it worse, G. W Bouche builds defences, while still armed himself!!!

[Pinko]

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix will meet later Tuesday with Iraqi officials to discuss "practical arrangements" for the return of international weapons inspectors to Baghdad, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard announced...

...the meeting was announced a day after Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of weapons inspectors -- a concession made under the threat of U.S. military action and pressure from Arab states...

...the United States dismissed Iraq's accession as a tactical ploy to avoid tough international action...

Do you want to know more? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20020917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq&printer=1)

I think this will be a test of the US' moral high ground. Just watch it get sabbotaged with extra unmeetable conditions.

[Capitalist Imperial]

HUSSEIN DOES THIS ALL THE TIME!

HE LETS INSPECTORS IN, THEN FORCES THEM OUT, LETS THEM IN, FORCES THEM OUT.

Over and Over

The US seeems to be the only one who sees this.

When will the UN stopp allowing hussein to play rope-a-dope with them?

The time for "security councils" and "talk" is over.

It is time for justified action.

It is time for a US interdiction invasion.

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 1:34 am on Sep. 18, 2002
HUSSEIN DOES THIS ALL THE TIME!

HE LETS INSPECTORS IN, THEN FORCES THEM OUT, LETS THEM IN, FORCES THEM OUT.

Over and Over

The US seeems to be the only one who sees this.

When will the UN stopp allowing hussein to play rope-a-dope with them?

The time for "security councils" and "talk" is over.

It is time for justified action.

It is time for a US interdiction invasion.

You really don't have any arguments to back your ideas up do you ? First you can give us a proper argument on the articles placed in this thread, instead of starting up an personal tought about Iraq everytime.

[Pinko]

But the US never looks at why they were thrown out in the first place. It might have something to do with the fact that the US were using the inspection team to spy on Iraq and to cause difficulties at every turn to ensure that the inspection programme failed.

"A former United Nations weapons inspector has accused the United States of deliberately provoking confrontations with Iraq, which, he says, was almost fully disarmed by 1995."
Would you like to know more? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446656.stm)

[El Che]

The US is full of shit.

[Lardlad95]

I've said it before I will say it agian...BUSH IS GOING TO KILL US ALL.

That's right Dubya piss of every other nation in teh world but hey we are the US so who cares

[Hayduke]

Well well capitalist imperial, this whole thread you havent given one argument against this all, that is if you dont coun those shitty quotes from you.

We have defended ourself with articles and arguments and you come with nothing.

1-0 for the commies.