iraq back down, US do not...

[zootm]

this prove what i was afraid of

the US government want a war, don't they? they can't get all lined up like this, and not have one, not after all their preparation.

[MetallichicA]

I really hope we don't go to war. This whole thing is scaring the crap outta me

[Lescuyer]

I am not really surprised neither, though I'm shocked. Even before Iraq's willingness to allow UN inspectors on her soil, I thought that a war would be totally unjustified. The bloodlust continues...let's scream a big "HeeeeeeHaaaaaaw!", take de .44s out of their holster and shoot in the air. I wonder if Saddam Hussein will be, just like Ossama Bin Ladden, "Wanted dead or alive".

[Aeroe]

or we can appease brutal dictators, as it's the policy of europeans.

now does anyone believe saddam This time? it's a stall tactic, no better. also it didn't mention if MIA/KIA American and Kuwaiti soldiers would be returned from prison camps and mass burial sites.
war may be scary, but no more than saddam handing his toys over to al-queda, islamic jihad, and hamas.

sorry, but American presidents shouldn't bend over for dictators.

[fwgx]

Don't even get me started on this.

[Lescuyer]

now does anyone believe BUSH This time? it's a stall tactic, no better

If they had solid proofs that Hussein gives "mass destruction weapons" to terrorist groups, it would be in their advantage to show it to the world. The reason why the UN doesn't agree with the US point of view is that there are no proofs at all, only pretty words to install fear in the mind of the population. That is diplomatic terrorism, I believe.

[Curi0us_George]

zootm, the US hasn't done anything yet, so what do you mean, "we haven't backed down yet"? We have every right to move troops closer. If nothing else, it's a precautionary measure. That's not infringing on anyone's right. The UN has no authority over our placement of troops.

Colin Powell isn't an ignorant little child. He knows what's going on. This is just a stall tactic. It's not even a new one. Iraq has already used it a number of times. Colin Powell called for a deadline on the weapons inspections because unlike the UN, with their open-ended deadlines wishful thinking, Powell knows that it doesn't really matter what the deadline is. Saddam is not going to meet it.

Do you honestly think Saddam became a nice guy overnight? Well, he didn't. He probably went and destroyed some more of his own people after he made that announcement.

Originally posted by Lescuyer
now does anyone believe BUSH This time? it's a stall tactic, no better

If they had solid proofs that Hussein gives "mass destruction weapons" to terrorist groups, it would be in their advantage to show it to the world. The reason why the UN doesn't agree with the US point of view is that there are no proofs at all, only pretty words to install fear in the mind of the population. That is diplomatic terrorism, I believe.

You definitely chose the wrong word. Bush is definitely not stalling, and neither is Powell. The both want to move in and get this over with.

And no, it would not be in the US's interest to reveal their information. That would require the US to reveal their sources. Of course, we've already revealed a large number of our sources, but I guess Iraqi defectors who saw the weapons and Saddam's brutality first-hand don't count.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
zootm, the US hasn't done anything yet, so what do you mean, "we haven't backed down yet"? We have every right to move troops closer. If nothing else, it's a precautionary measure. That's not infringing on anyone's right. The UN has no authority over our placement of troops.

my problem was that they have always said that the threat of action against iraq was to force them into letting weapons inspectors back in. it's not so much their actions, rather than the fact that they lied to their own people, and to the people of the world. which, although it was fairly transparent to begin with, is a bit harsh...

[Bop]

I think everyone is looking at this entre crisis from the wrong window.... why go after Iraq because of nucleur weapons? The objective seems faulty IMO, the reason should be to liberate the people of Iraq, not to oust Hussein or stop the creation of weapons.

By aiming to correct human violations the U.S. can move in with support from Iraq's people... removing Hussein from office and consequently halting nucleur weapons will come as a result of the people's liberation.

Do you think people like living in conditions such as those in Iraq? By ensuring the people they will not be hurt and a new system will be put in... you give great reason not only to them but to the world as to the U.S's involvement.

[Curi0us_George]

zootm, a threat is only good if you are willing to follow through on it. Everyone should know that.

Bop, I'm all in favor of that, but we can't really change our stance now. Even if we said, "We are moving in to save those people", the rest of the world would just keep hissing, "don't get involved, you just want their oil."

I'm sort of surprised that Powell hasn't just gone ahead and started attacking. Honestly, no matter how long we wait, we aren't going to get the rest of the World's approval, so I don't know why they are even bothering. I'd imagine they already have the whole thing planned out.

[rm']

Originally posted by Boplicity
IThe objective seems faulty IMO, the reason should be to liberate the people of Iraq, not to oust Hussein or stop the creation of weapons.

That may be the noble thing to do, but that would set a bad precedent. After taking such an action, the US would have to liberate all oppressed people. The US government, above all things, should look after the security of its own people. That's what it's been voted in for.

[fwgx]

I say you go invade China next.

[Bop]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
Bop, I'm all in favor of that, but we can't really change our stance now.

I agree CG, it's much too late to change our position now but we should have made it clear what that that was our intention in the first place.

Originally posted by rm'
That may be the noble thing to do, but that would set a bad precedent. After taking such an action, the US would have to liberate all oppressed people.

All these f'ing dictators are costing the U.S. billions of dollars a year with closed borders, forcing sanctions, etc. so you could make a case that it would benefit the U.S. and the world for that matter- to oust their respective regimes... I say, "let the heads roll!"

Originally posted by Phily Baby
I say you go invade China next.

Could China be the first Communist nation to successfully implement a free market economy... they certainly are showing signs of it.

[rm']

Well, the best thing to do would be to conquer the whole world, but that's hardly practical...

[zootm]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
zootm, a threat is only good if you are willing to follow through on it. Everyone should know that.

a threat is only a threat if there is a way to stop it from being followed through on.

[Bop]

Originally posted by rm'
Well, the best thing to do would be to conquer the whole world, but that's hardly practical...

Oh rm' you'll never conquer the world with that attitude!

[rm']

Shh! It's a ruse... I'm following Powellian tactics by leading the enemy on...

[zootm]

a bit more like it

[Vie]

I trust Sadam more than Bush any day!

at least he thinks for himself!

[Aeroe]

the ignorance of some people, i will forever be amused by braindead supporters of dictators... well as long as i come here for a good laugh.

CNN poll:
Will Iraq allow unlimited access to U.N. weapons inspectors?
Yes 17% 27919 votes
No 83% 136246 votes
Total: 164,165 votes

just when you think europeans who are in love with saddam, would be able to sway the poll a little better on a far left news site.

[Lescuyer]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
You definitely chose the wrong word. Bush is definitely not stalling, and neither is Powell. The both want to move in and get this over with.

And no, it would not be in the US's interest to reveal their information. That would require the US to reveal their sources. Of course, we've already revealed a large number of our sources, but I guess Iraqi defectors who saw the weapons and Saddam's brutality first-hand don't count.

Of course it wouldn't be in their interest to reveal their sources since the world would figure out quickly that they are phonie. Remember the young Koweitian girl who testified in front of the congress? She told that she saw Iraqui soldiers taking babies from incubators and heartlessly made them die on the floor. This skyrocketed the popular support for war...of course, they never told that she was the kowaitian embassador's daughter! The world saw her testamony and it was false, now imagine the testamony of "someone" that we don't even see! So what do you tell us, to have faith, simply? I prefer being RATIONAL in politics and want facts instead of simple "trust me". Anyway...they'll always be able to forge facts so we're screwed...

[Trigear]

this is what we get for electing a cowboy. or allowing a cowboy to elect himself... (i didn't vote for him!)

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Lescuyer
Of course it wouldn't be in their interest to reveal their sources since the world would figure out quickly that they are phonie. Remember the young Koweitian girl who testified in front of the congress? She told that she saw Iraqui soldiers taking babies from incubators and heartlessly made them die on the floor. This skyrocketed the popular support for war...of course, they never told that she was the kowaitian embassador's daughter! The world saw her testamony and it was false, now imagine the testamony of "someone" that we don't even see! So what do you tell us, to have faith, simply? I prefer being RATIONAL in politics and want facts instead of simple "trust me". Anyway...they'll always be able to forge facts so we're screwed...

Just because we don't reveal sources doesn't mean they aren't real. During WWII, we had a number of sources that couldn't be revealed. That didn't make the fake. In fact, most (all?) of them have been revealed now, and confirmed as real sources.

No, I don't remember any Kuwaiti girl.

Quite honestly, I don't care if we went to war because Saddam was a bad, bad man, or because we wanted Kuwait's oil. Basically, Iraq should not have invaded Kuwait. Our reasons for involvement don't really matter. We supported out allied status with Kuwait, and we stopped a small nation from being slapped around. I can't see how it matters why we were involved. And I don't give a damn about any Kuwaiti girl's testament.

If they are able to forge the facts, then why not just quit complaining? It's not doing you any good.

And as I said, there have been numerous Iraqi defectors who have given us information about Iraq. Those sources are not secret. If you want any more non-secret sources, then we need to be able to go in and get the information. Revealing our secret sources would compromise them. I'll be damned if our spys will be killed just to satisfy your curiosity.

[fish]

It is a stall tactic. Hussein used these same techniques in the early '90s but I can't be bothered to look it up- heard it on the radio

[LuciusA.Sejanus]

Saddam has clearly made a huge strategic error- he thought Clinton was still in office. During those eight years, this little "Mobilization" drama repeated itslf frequently, as Saddam kicked out and then re-admitted the Weapons' inspectors repeatedly. These mobilization efforts a strain on financial and diplomatic resources, and Saddam became quite an expert at jerking the US around.

But that tactic will not work this time; it is a forgone conclusion that if the US were to relent, he would kick the inspectors out after a month or so. The time for mischief is over.

[Aero Zeppelin]

Has anyone ever heard of the so-called "Bible Codes"? I saw a TV show about them. If you think you aren't a religious person, it doesn't matter, keep reading, it is interesting. Ok the guy who wrote the book and tv show noticed that in the Hebrew version of the Bible, every few letters of words spells out terrible events in our history which happened thousands of years after the bible was completed. Like the rise of Hitler, the Oklahoma City bombing, JFK, Roswell and other stuff. I don't remember all of the things, but they are all very weird to be mentioned in a constant pattern from the bible.

Here's the scary part, if these are true, there was another event predicted. It hasn't happened yet. And this one was worse than the others. The deciphered code said there would be a major nuclear war in the first decade of the 21st century. And we are well on our way to it. I would be very scared.

And, it mentions Sept. 11. Go here to read about more stuff:
http://www.research-systems.com/code...eselect&ad=wtc

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...homa+city+bomb

[dylman]

Saddam's little delaying tactic today was depressingly predictable. Four days ago Tariq Aziz (the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq) issued a statement declaring that (Iraq) "Would never allow the UN unrestricted access". Then we have today's announcement. Ho-hum. Do we believe Saddam this time? No we don't. As has been already been said in this thread, he is playing for time, and taking desperate political measures to forestall the coming invasion.
Will the inspectors who will be arriving in Baghdad in the next few days have full access? Probably not.
Is Saddam Hussein a despicable dictator who has developed and used weapons of mass destruction? Yes.
Does he still have and is he intending to use those weapons against Western/Israeli targets? We have no idea.

Last week, two reports were released on the same day. The one you have all heard about through the US/UK media, from an individual inspector from UNSCOM , said that there was a chance that given an outside supply of nuclear material, Saddam could build an atomic device within six months. UNSCOM itself refused to confirm the report.
The other report, from the International Atomic Energy Agency , said that there was no reason to believe that the Iraqi regime was anywhere near building an atomic weapon. This report (shock, horror!) was nowhere near as widely reported.

Saddam Hussein presents NO greater threat today than he did after the Gulf War, or any time since.

So when the inevitable invasion happens in the next few months, it will be interesting to see the choice of targets for the bombers. A prime strategic target for any invading army is always OIL. After all, without it, tanks can't fight, trucks cannot move troops and munitions, and planes cannot take off. Without oil, you lose. Period. So will the US and UK planes bomb the oil refineries? Will they fuck. Bush got elected off the back of US oil money, and this is his payback to his masters. In two years time US companies will be making trillions off the second largest oil market in the world (Iraq with a US-friendly government), and Bush may just get his second term. The invasion will lay waste to many thousands of people, (both military and civilian), but I'm prepared to bet the oil-producing infrastructure will get off unscathed, somehow...

The world would be a better place without Hussein, but to paint this invasion as purely the next phase of "The War Against Terror" is naive to the extreme.

[rm']

Originally posted by Aero Zeppelin
Has anyone ever heard of the so-called "Bible Codes"? I saw a TV show about them. If you think you aren't a religious person, it doesn't matter, keep reading, it is interesting. Ok the guy who wrote the book and tv show noticed that in the Hebrew version of the Bible, every few letters of words spells out terrible events in our history which happened thousands of years after the bible was completed. Like the rise of Hitler, the Oklahoma City bombing, JFK, Roswell and other stuff. I don't remember all of the things, but they are all very weird to be mentioned in a constant pattern from the bible.

Watch this hilariously funny movie. Adding up the numeric value of all the letters in the Bible gives a date; namely, the one on which the world will end. It's nonstop laughs from there.

[zerokoolade]

Originally posted by Boplicity
the reason should be to liberate the people of Iraq

By aiming to correct human violations the U.S. can move in with support from Iraq's people...

Do you think people like living in conditions such as those in Iraq? By ensuring the people they will not be hurt and a new system will be put in... you give great reason not only to them but to the world as to the U.S's involvement.

i dunno dude theyre already dropping in mass numbers do to the sanctions we have placed on them and from what i understand they embrace their leader and put the blame on "the great white devil"

[zerokoolade]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
I say you go invade China next.

nah chinas too large that would be tough and all american are after all lazy wankers

[dollerspark]

Originally posted by Vie
I trust Sadam more than Bush any day!

at least he thinks for himself!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-

*dies from laughing*

[tiger84]

Everyone who believes Saddam isn't a threat needs to PULL THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES. The Bush administration shouldn't need to show evidence to the rest of the international community. Saddam has already proven the fact that he cares for noone but himself. Recent defectors have indicated that Saddam has enough Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear weapons and the equipment to do so. He has also tested chemical and biological agents on his own people. The UN doesn't agree with President Bush becuase they're a bunch of European Socialists who believe in apeasment despite the fact it didn't work with Hitler.

[Lescuyer]

Originally posted by tiger84
Everyone who believes Saddam isn't a threat needs to PULL THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES. The Bush administration shouldn't need to show evidence to the rest of the international community. Saddam has already proven the fact that he cares for noone but himself. Recent defectors have indicated that Saddam has enough Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear weapons and the equipment to do so. He has also tested chemical and biological agents on his own people. The UN doesn't agree with President Bush becuase they're a bunch of European Socialists who believe in apeasment despite the fact it didn't work with Hitler.

The US gov' has MUCH MORE than that! Should we anihilate them for that? (there is no proof whatsoever that Saddam's arsenal has been tested on human beings). I know it has become a little cliché, but it always remain so true : Hate brings hate. I know I have put up this link in another thread, but I will post it again, it is worth reading every single line of it. http://store.yahoo.com/realityzone/granddeception.html

[rm']

Originally posted by Lescuyer
The US gov' has MUCH MORE than that! Should we anihilate them for that?

The US government is not nutzoid enough to use it, though. Hussein, on the other hand, is unscrupulous. There are certain nations we can trust, and certain nations we cannot.

(there is no proof whatsoever that Saddam's arsenal has been tested on human beings).

Hussein massacred the inhabitants of several dozen Kurdish villages on the northern borders of Iraq through chemical weapons. There is a significant body of evidence to support this. Furthermore, chemical weapons were used extensively by the Iraqis in the Gulf War, hence, the necessity for coalition troops to wear CBW gear.

[Aeroe]

i could feel brain cells beginning to scream in agony when the author begins to question whether bin laden or muslim fanatics were responsible...

O'Reilly has a prophetic article from last night's show talking just about everything discussed here, and appeasers who fondle saddam. http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63333,00.html

"So the appeasers have now lost momentum, and what is likely to happen is that Iraq will allow the U.N. inspectors in, and more games will be played. Fine, we'll play the games.

But clear-thinking Americans know evil when they see it, and Saddam is evil. They also know that evil will find a way to subject and destroy human beings. Saddam will ultimately have to be dealt with once and for all, but don't expect fast action."

[tiger84]

So, Lescuyer, what you are trying to tell me is that you refuse to look at real evidence and understand what is really going on. You didn't refute the fact that a recent defector from Iraq has indicated that he has enough Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear weapons and the equipment to make those devices. If he succedes in building those devices, he will undoubtedly use them. In the past Saddam has demonstrated utter disregard for human life and dignity and that he about noone but himself. He is a danger to the entire world and when he does strick out, all of you nay sayers will be asking why didn't we do anything about him. Further more, everyone in the world is not peace loving, esp. many middle eastern states. Not everyone wants to be everyone elses friend; to believe so is naive.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Lescuyer
The US gov' has MUCH MORE than that! Should we anihilate them for that? (there is no proof whatsoever that Saddam's arsenal has been tested on human beings).

First off, there is proof that Saddam has used his weapons on humans. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.

Second, it does not matter if the US has nuclear weapons. Saddam is not allowed nuclear weapons. It's written into treaties that he signed. He fucked up, so now he can't play with plutonium, ok? Why is that so hard for people to understand? He is not allowed to have these weapons, at all. It does not matter who else has them (with respect to this case). If he was allowed to have them, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

[RanDom_ErrOr]

simple fact, if we goto war, we have no way of winning. do we produce our own materials? NO
do we have the ability (right now) to start? NO
do we have the man power to start a war? NO
do we have a strong military? kinda
airforce? kinda
Navy? kinda
but basically: DO WE WANT TO PUT UP WITH POLITICIANS MICROMANAGING THE WAR??? NO

anyway whats to stop saddahm from nuking New York, or Cali if we do go to war? (key word CALIFORNIA) and then what do we do? do we use nukes? do we assasinate him? do we what? good luck figuring it all out...

[tiger84]

If we don't go to war, what is to stop him? Besides he doesn't have the ability to strike at us just, yet. He couldn't launch it at us, he would have to smuggle it in to the country and set it off.

By the way, we do produce quite a bit of our own materials, you need to be more specific about which materials you are refereing to, then I can argue with you.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by Aeroe
the ignorance of some people, i will forever be amused by braindead supporters of dictators... well as long as i come here for a good laugh.

CNN poll:
Will Iraq allow unlimited access to U.N. weapons inspectors?
Yes 17% 27919 votes
No 83% 136246 votes
Total: 164,165 votes

just when you think europeans who are in love with saddam, would be able to sway the poll a little better on a far left news site.

Well Europeans are not the biggest CNN fans out there! - second, i don't think any non-muslim europeans support or approve of what Saddam is doing.... we're just againt military action!