Suddam gets 100% presidential votes..

Who fucking cares, he was the only canidate, who else were they to vote for?

"This is a unique manifestation of democracy which is superior to all other forms of democracies even in these countries which are besieging Iraq and trying to suffocate it," Ibrahim said at a news conference in Baghdad, apparently referring to the United States.


Ibrahim is trying to deceive people.. making it sound like everyone in the country favors him. I also don't see what the hell the hesitation is in attacking Iraq - hell I think we should do it on the day he gets elected. Iraq would make a very nice 437,072 sq km parking lot..

-Naut

I'm sure no one is fooled by Saddam's exercise is psuedo-democracy.

A nice parking lot? If there is one thing the US doesn't need more of, it's foreign entanglements.

Attacking Iraq is a bad idea. They do not post a clear and present danger. They have not attacked the US. They are contained on all sides by either allied or hostile countries.

The Bush admin is after the oil, no more no less.

No blood for oil. Ever.


"Raving Liberal Lunatic"
Go Green! http://www.greenpartyus.org
Certified Conc Grenade Specialist
Call me Bro-Ham.......

OK, cimat. Let's say we don't attack Iraq. Overnight, the country's, Bush's, and Congress's opnions change. If you're right, then we avoided a terrible mistake that would have taken several 100 American soldiers' lives. If you're wrong, Iraq uses several biological, chemical, and perhaps even nuclear weapons on American cities. Several thousand people die. The economy takes another hit. That's a very risky wager you're placing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't listen to this guy. He just rambles on about random things and calls himself a philosopher because of it.

Yea, we should hit China too then. Tey already have nukes, and if we don't get rid of the threat then they could hit our cities and it would be too late.

We must end this threat before the threat ends us!

Originally posted by: Sly Duck

OK, cimat. Let's say we don't attack Iraq. Overnight, the country's, Bush's, and Congress's opnions change. If you're right, then we avoided a terrible mistake that would have taken several 100 American soldiers' lives. If you're wrong, Iraq uses several biological, chemical, and perhaps even nuclear weapons on American cities. Several thousand people die. The economy takes another hit. That's a very risky wager you're placing.

No country has ever used nuclear weapons against the US. Why? Mutual Assured Destruction. The US can destroy any country on the face of the earth. No one is a match for our military. We outspend the next 10 countries combined in our defense budget.

Also, Saddam wants to stay a dictator. If he attacks the US he knows he will be destroyed.

In addition, the CIA reported that if Saddam is backed into a corner by a US attack, he will definately us any WMD he has.

All we have to do to win is not attack Iraq, and let the UN do its job.


"Raving Liberal Lunatic"
Go Green! http://www.greenpartyus.org
Certified Conc Grenade Specialist
Call me Bro-Ham.......

Difference there is China hasn't shown any agression you fucking idiot. Please excuse me for flaming but you are a moron. If Iraq had let weapon inspectors in, it would be a different matter. If China had said something along the lines of, "You know what? As soon as we get our biological and nuclear weapons, we're gonna use em on the US," then there would be little difference.
Post edited by Sly Duck at 10/16/2002 5:45:22 PM


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't listen to this guy. He just rambles on about random things and calls himself a philosopher because of it.

Originally posted by: cimat1984

let the UN do its job.

They don't have a job. They only have the power to suggest. They aren't elected officials. Basically, they sit around all day and argue about what countries should do, and then they get to make nice little reports.
Post edited by Sly Duck at 10/16/2002 5:44:50 PM


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't listen to this guy. He just rambles on about random things and calls himself a philosopher because of it.

Originally posted by: Sly Duck

Difference there is China hasn't shown any agression you fucking idiot. Please excuse me for flaming but you are a moron. If Iraq had let weapon inspectors in, it would be a different matter. If China had said something along the lines of, "You know what? As soon as we get our biological and nuclear weapons, we're gonna use em on the US." then there would be little difference.

Have you ever opened a history book? Chinese soldiers killed thousands of American soldiers in Korea.


"Raving Liberal Lunatic"
Go Green! http://www.greenpartyus.org
Certified Conc Grenade Specialist
Call me Bro-Ham.......

Have you opened up today's newspaper?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't listen to this guy. He just rambles on about random things and calls himself a philosopher because of it.

No. I get my news off the internet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
http://www.nytime.com
http://www.csmonitor.com
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.alternet.org


Post edited by cimat1984 at 10/16/2002 5:50:15 PM

"Raving Liberal Lunatic"
Go Green! http://www.greenpartyus.org
Certified Conc Grenade Specialist
Call me Bro-Ham.......

Ok, we could do with a lot less name calling here. No reason to attack someone personally, you can leave it to an attack on their ideas.

cimat and ShinShun are both expressing views of what they think is the best thing for the country. IMNSHO, they are wrong. This does not make them evil (although I don't trust that Nader guy, he's got shifty eyes... and probably hooves ).

-pheirce

cimat, and we cut off and forced soldiers to eat their own testicles, while in prison. We are guilty of war crimes in the past, as is every country on the face of the earth.

Cimat-- Have fun the day, maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, to wake up hearing the news report that some fucks just exploded a large nuclear weapon in New York. It'll be fun won't it, realizing that we didn't do jack shit to stop this when we had the chance, before hand. Enjoy.
___________
[PEN]-Vang-

The impact that a biological weapon going off in NYC would be drastic - both for the United States, and the middle east. I can asure you, if we sit back and wait for that to happen - everyone in Iraq will be dead within two hours, not to mention many of the surrounding countries will also be impacted. We can not wait for them to murder us, we must make the first move.

Weapons of mass destruction are NOT built for decoration - they are built to kill million of people, in a inhuman and sickening way. For us to wait for them to attack us, one of our allies, their own citizens, or their neighbors would be tragic.

-Naut

Originally posted by: cimat1984

No country has ever used nuclear weapons against the US. Why? Mutual Assured Destruction. The US can destroy any country on the face of the earth. No one is a match for our military. We outspend the next 10 countries combined in our defense budget.

Lets just assume (as I do believe we should), that Iraq harbors terrorists. If they harbor them, and support them, then what is going to stop them from giving a nuke to terrorists that the terrorists will use against us? Then who will we have to "attack?" We won't know who to attack until a few weeks/months after research has been done to confirm that yes, this nuke was Iraqs.

IMO, the whole "strike us and we'll strike you" policy that we have right now when it comes to nukes is really not on our side. We won't know who to strike if something like this happened, and even once we did people would still be against retaliation because it has already been so long and "we should give them another chance."

So yes, I believe we should attack Iraq. I still am of the opinion that we need as many friends backing us up as possible though. The US and Britain arn't enough to comfort me.

And no, I don't believe Bush is doing this for oil. That is actually one of the most ludacris arguments I have ever seen. He cares about the safety of America, and any other country that is threatened. Do I have facts at the moment to back this up? No, I just don't believe personaly from what I have heard Bush say that he is a liar. And saying that he is doing it just for oil is calling him a liar.

WMD are built by many countries because of the arms race. They need to have WMD to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction as a detterent for other countries to attack them.

The differnce between most countries and Iraq, is that Hussein uses WMD whenever it suits his fancy. To him, they are military tools to be used to kill as many people as possible so he can exapdn his empire or repress rebellions.

-pheirce

even pheirce has never called me a fucking idiot.

1) Like cimat said, go read some history.
2) Please show me where Iraq has said they will use their WMD on us when they have them.
3) You calling a moron and fucking idiot really makes me discount anything further you have to say.
4) As per article 3, you may ignore articles 1 and 2 as I will be ignoring them.
Post edited by ShinShun at 10/16/2002 7:54:37 PM

Originally posted by: ShinShun

2) Please show me where Iraq has said they will use their WMD on us when they have them.

I don't know if they said this. I kinda doubt they have (they keep denying that they even have chemical or biological weapons).

But, they have shown they have no restraint when it comes to using the WMD they do have (that they keep telling us they don't have).

Look here and here.

-pheirce

EDIT: And I'm nice to you. We just happen to disagree on much
Post edited by pheirce at 10/16/2002 8:03:52 PM

Aww, I know you is pheirce, and I you oso much.

Originally posted by: Sly Duck
If China had said something along the lines of, "You know what? As soon as we get our biological and nuclear weapons, we're gonna use em on the US," then there would be little difference.

That is what I was referring to in 2.

I know of their record with WMD, but his post was totally out of line and ill-imformed. We disagree, but at least there is truth to much of what you say.

Originally posted by: Sly Duck

OK, cimat. Let's say we don't attack Iraq. Overnight, the country's, Bush's, and Congress's opnions change. If you're right, then we avoided a terrible mistake that would have taken several 100 American soldiers' lives. If you're wrong, Iraq uses several biological, chemical, and perhaps even nuclear weapons on American cities. Several thousand people die. The economy takes another hit. That's a very risky wager you're placing.

He has no nukes that we know of, and his chemical weapons can not reach US cities.
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/17/2002 10:54:21 AM

(tosses a card face down on the table)
alright this is iraq,

if its red, we be dead, we waited to long and got ourselfes nuked just like we waited for sept.11th

if its black, we hit somebody on accident, and we'll be killed by words in the middle of the night.

either way, we kinda got ourselves stuck that we need to make a decision.
...............................
Trap¥

proud member ofSLAML

why dont you guys ever say that part of the reason we are considering attacking them is because of the UN violations for the past 12 years?? it may not be the sole reason but it IS in the decsion making. i mean whats the point of having a UN if their sanctions are ignored with little or no consequence?
Post edited by Juzfugen at 10/17/2002 1:35:52 PM

^^^^^^
Nice

Good point- Iraq has violated the UN sanctions, many many times. But- until a resolution is passed allowing the US to use force against Iraq- attacking it is a violation of the UN charter.

The current UN resolutions do not allow military retaliation for violations. Now- whether that is a good or bad thing is open to debate- but the facts stand: without a specific UN resolution- attacking Iraq is a crime.


"Raving Liberal Lunatic"
Go Green! http://www.greenpartyus.org
Certified Conc Grenade Specialist
Call me Bro-Ham.......

Ok so let me get this right here.

Iraq violates UN resolutions thus US has right to attack.


UN RESOLUTION

“ that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will
be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations…”

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kasun122.htm

Hence, using this logic, Pakistan has every right to attack India for ignoring UN resolutions on the state of Kashmir?