Saddam's son: War would make 9/11 seem like 'real picnic'

So dont you think this is something that should be considered instead of saying, "well they havent invaded anyone since 91" and "there is no reason except to get oil" ??

Ehm... are you now trying to say that the fact that it's an unfree country is the main reason for invasion?

Obviously you can't talk about multiple things at once so I'll clear it up for you.

You stated that Vietnam should have just been a bombardment to eliminate the enemy as opposed to any ground offensive. And that it would be warranted to help prevent the loss of US life regardless of the loss of any innocent life on the other side.

Then when that was argued with you that the loss of innocent life shouldn't should happen on either side, your response was that you don't give a damn about an Iraqis because they live in Iraq and therefore support Saddam and are just as evil as he is.

We're not talking about casualties of war per se, you basically said the entire other country is evil and there's no need to be selective of who gets attacked there...as long as there's no US loss of life everything is fine...

Quick summary.

1. It is about oil. if it was about mass distruction, wouldnt we of thrown a shit fit when pakistan and india developed nukes, since afterall they more than likely will use them on each other. Nope they are piss poor middle eastern countries.

2. We do use up 25% of the worlds oil supply, and btw other countries do already pay 4-5 a gallon.

3. Vietnam was more about communists and Russia than anything else. We (the US) just fought a proxy war in Vietnam to show we would be willing to die over it.

4. We gave Iraq weapons of mass distruction, to fight Iran. Iraq did use them on Iran, and Iran used them on Iraq. We also taught the Iraqi military guerilla (terrorist) warfare tactics. Btw we taught Iraq how to make it.

5. Iraq never tried to assassinate Bush Sr. It was just a vague attempt while he was in Kuwait. Then someone said it was Sadam and well now it HAS TO OF BEEN HIM.

6. Bin Laden wanted to take on Iraq for the Saudi's. He wished to be in charge of the war. I do not see him and Sadam being good bedfellows since it is obvious that no one in any middle eastern country forgets fueds.

7. Bush jr. Is a moron, someone please find me one, just one speach where he did not fuck up. I mean damn he cant even read from que cards and he is telling us he knows something the rest of the world doesnt.

8. Sadam even though a pain in the ass, probablly a evil guy, and a very ruthless dictator is nothing more than a tiny pest. We have him surrounded, locked down and under control. He is a 800lb monkey in a steal cage. He can torment his own people and that is about it. No need to go about nailing him. We know where he is, we know we can level the country. Why risk it and martyr the bastard, then roll the dice to see what pops up in his place. Worked for Russia and they had nukes.

9. 9/11 was tragic, but guess what. It has no bearing on this at all. So we lost lots of innocent lives, so did alot of countries. We as a country were forced to deal with terrorism face to face. Yet instead of spending billions tossing missles at someone who didnt do it, why not spend a little of that money on, umm I dunno how about securring easy targets in the US. Oh wait that doesnt get a head on a stick and boost ones ego, I forgot.

10. We have weapons of mass distruction, and umm we have used them. Just doesnt seem right that we bitch about someone else.

I'm outta here. ab1183 has gone from mildly entertaining to completely nonsensical, and there is little to achieve when arguing with the mentally disabled (that is, ab1183).

Definately not, because that *would* be a humantistic reason for invading (at least in our eyes) and would have been used as an initial reason when talks of invading initially came up. Instead the reason for an invasion is to get rid of weapons which may or may not exist which is inconclusive at best

Remember WW2, bombing of Dresden, Berlin or Hamburg?

At no tiem did you ever see me say "Kill all the innocent people in veitnam" or anything close to that. I also never said that because its not a free country is the main reason for invasion. All I was saying was that it is one of the reasons I am for war with Iraq. Numerous times on here I have said Saddam needs to be removed from power. I didnt just say lets get rid of the weapons and then leave.

I dont know if things are different in Kitchener, but just numbers released last night by CBC show over 70% Canadians are in favour of NAFTA

Yes, because after all Iraq sure did sign and ratify that constitution including the first amendment...

Oh wait, no they didn't - they're a SOVEREIGN NATION.. You know, they get to make their own rules until bigger bully nations take them over for their oil and make them a client state.

Without http://www.seniorliving.org there is no war

That's probably because, as ab1183 has so amply demonstrated - the majority of people are stupid and/or ignorant sheeple.

Ask someone about NAFTA in Canada and they think "cool, duty free imports".. Not "holy ass-fucking Batman"

Cheers,
Backov

Wrong Backov, not just duty free imports but also duty free exports, and guess what we export more than we import. Canada is exporting country my friend.

Yeah but we pay a big price. We promise to suck the dick of the US government whenever they ask and we also have a lot of US bases over here. And we also help the US fight all its wars and we have to take getting fucked over by the US on our lamb exports to their country. So I think we deserve a little US protection. A master should protect his slaves, right?

"Some people have a basic misunderstanding as to just what has been demanded of Saddam by the United Nations. Under the latest U.N. resolution it is not the inspector?s responsibility find any weapons or weapons programs Saddam may have. It is Saddam?s responsibility to either disclose the location of those weapons and programs, or to prove that they don?t exist. He has done neither.

Saddam?s weapons declaration contained not one single bit of new information. Every detail, every nuance of information in that declaration related to the status of Saddam?s weapons programs 8 years ago, in 1994 or before. The declaration made no mention of weapons that the U.N. inspectors know to exist; weapons the U.N. inspectors actually saw before they left in 1998. The declaration also makes no mention of some weapons scientists that the U.N. knows to exist. In other words, Saddam has lied in his declaration to the U.N. That lie constitutes a material breach of the U.N. resolution.

So, why did Saddam fail to disclose weapons that the U.N. knew to exist? Because did not include those weapons in his report because then he would either have to prove they were destroyed or disclose their location. Prove they were destroyed? No problem! That would show that Saddam is being a good guy. Conclusion? These chemical and biological weapons weren?t listed on the disclosure because they still exist and Saddam wants to keep them. And why does Saddam want to keep them? Because he wants to use them."

Short memories here.... this is the exact same stuff they said before the Persian Gulf War. Not saying I support the idea of attack one way or the other, but it is worth noting that these words are nothing new.

Now can someone explain to my naive ass how a war with Iraq will help us with oil?

Key events in efforts to ensure Iraq does not have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons:

Feb. 24, 1991: Gulf War ends; Kuwait is liberated Feb. 27.

April 6, 1991: Iraq accepts U.N. resolution requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction programs and allow for ongoing monitoring and verification of compliance.

Oct. 29, 1997: Iraq demands that Americans on the U.N. Special Commission inspection team leave; the Americans leave temporarily but return Nov. 20.

Jan. 13, 1998: Iraq temporarily withdraws cooperation, claiming that the inspection team had too many U.S. and British inspectors.

Jan. 22, 1998: Iraq refuses inspection of presidential sites.

Feb. 20-23, 1998: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures Iraq's cooperation and unrestricted access to inspectors.

Oct. 31, 1998: Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM. UNSCOM withdraws.

Nov. 14, 1998: Iraq allows inspections to resume.

Dec. 16, 1998: UNSCOM removes all staff from Iraq after inspectors conclude Iraq is not fully cooperating. Four days of U.S. and British airstrikes follow.

June 30, 1999: Richard Butler completes his two-year term as executive chairman of UNSCOM.

Dec. 17, 1999: U.N. replaces UNSCOM with UNMOVIC, the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission. Iraq rejects the resolution.

March 1, 2000: Hans Blix assumes post of executive chairman of UNMOVIC.

November 2000: Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.

July 5, 2002: In talks with Annan, Iraq rejects weapons inspections proposals.

Aug. 1: In a letter to Annan, Iraq invites Blix to Iraq for technical discussions on remaining disarmament issues.

Aug. 6: Annan writes to Iraqis pointing out that what they are proposing is at odds with U.N. resolutions and asks that Iraq accept inspections.

Sept. 12: President Bush tells the United Nations it must rid the world of Saddam's biological, chemical and nuclear arsenals, or stand aside as the United States acts.

Sept. 16: Iraq unconditionally accepts the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.