Against America and/or The War? - READ THIS! - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

ChrisH · 02-15-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

I don't have a problem with the US at all, I never said that.

All I am trying to say is that we live in a world where there is an organisation called the "United Nations". We contributed to creating and maintaining this organisation, and we can't just start ignoring it; it would have great consequenses.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Would that be the same UN that just appointed Lybia as the Head of the Human Rights Commission? Maybe the same UN that has named Iraq the Head of the newly made "Disarmament Committee"?

They are a Joke, that is heading down the path of the League of Nations.

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:31 PM

I think it's a shame we have to live our lives in fear, I was looking at the news the other day, rocket lauchers in the US, we have tanks and army on the streets of London and about 10 airports, people being caught with granades, ricin poison, a policeman shot by a suspected terrorist group producing poison, and out economical centres feating bomb/ plane attacks, it's wrong

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc

You may be right but remember that not all counties have veto powers, I am not sure which do and don't.

And anyway all of these countries have already signed up to 1441 which say's that further seroius action will be used if iraq does not comply, they have not complied, if nothing other than more weapons inspectors being sent in happens then 1441 has been broken by the counties who veto's it not by the US / UK

5 countries have veto powers. They were named.

1441 is being enforced, give it time.

Blix said that so far Iraq is complying, and it is what keep france and other countries against war.

Whatever Blix says, you MUST have UN approval to attack. As you pointed to me, the UN already gave the approval if Iraq didn't comply. So until Iraq is PROVEN not to be complying, chill

ChrisH · 02-15-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

5 countries have veto powers. They were named.

1441 is being enforced, give it time.

Blix said that so far Iraq is complying, and it is what keep france and other countries against war.

Whatever Blix says, you MUST have UN approval to attack. As you pointed to me, the UN already gave the approval if Iraq didn't comply. So until Iraq is PROVEN not to be complying, chill

There's no fucking point in this.

BLIX DID NOT SAY THEY WERE COMPLYING! WHO THE FUCK TO YOU THAT?????

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisH

Would that be the same UN that just appointed Lybia as the Head of the Human Rights Commission? Maybe the same UN that has named Iraq the Head of the newly made "Disarmament Committee"?

They are a Joke, that is heading down the path of the League of Nations.

I'm not saying UN is absolutely right in all its action.

Even if UN is a joke, great consequences can emerge from not following its rules. Do you want China, Pakistan and India to start nuking each other? Even if you wouldn't be touched personally, it would create a preceding, and other nations would try to justify wars with it.

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisH

There's no fucking point in this.

BLIX DID NOT SAY THEY WERE COMPLYING! WHO THE FUCK TO YOU THAT?????

DID HE FUCKING SAY THEY WERE NOT COMPLYING?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DUDE!

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:37 PM

Blix said that so far Iraq is complying It's the same delaying tactics that have been used for 10 years, everyone but us (US,UK)is just too stupid to see it.. we have been here before and more than once, some people just have short memories, well I don't think they are going to take any more, we WILL go to war without the UN...

Face it, we know there will be no backing for a war from at least 1 of the veto countries...

and we know neither George W Bush or Tony Blair can go back on what they have said, it would be political suicide.

There's your answer, and the media know this.

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:38 PM

DID HE FUCKING SAY THEY WERE NOT COMPLYING?

Correct it's all words and delaying tactics.

ChrisH · 02-15-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

DID HE FUCKING SAY THEY WERE NOT COMPLYING?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DUDE!

Only in YOUR mind.

I heard (from Hans Blix) they have NOT accounted for 1000 tons of antrax and bocholinin. Won't allow U2 flyovers. Have an illegal missle program, and until recently demanded monitors when they were breifing their weapons program personel.

Most importantly there disclosure about there weapons were totally false and unfounded.

So if the above means compliance. Yes by all means they are complying.

Did you see Blix's first report in January?

1441 puts the burden on Iraq. If you haven't read it maybe you should.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:44 PM

I am off to bed now, but sleep well tonight and hope that a crop sprayer doesn't fly over a small part of the US with Ricin Botulin (or whatever it's called - can't be bothered to look it up now) anthrax and the other substances he has developed, because if that happens we could lose millions of innocent people not 20,000, which was just the worst thing I have ever seen in my life, oh what a short memory people have.

bye

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
we WILL go to war without the UN...

Very irresponsible.

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc

and we know neither George W Bush or Tony Blair can go back on what they have said, it would be political suicide.

So if Iraq is disarmed, there will still be a war for political reasons?

Even more irresponsible.

The other countries in the UN that disagree to this war aren't all that stupid; show them proof and they'll attack with you.

theking · 02-15-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

DID HE FUCKING SAY THEY WERE NOT COMPLYING?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DUDE!

Yes.

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
oh what a short memory people have.

Yup, you do have a short memory, I stated 20 times I was for disarming Iraq

if they are capable of doing this kind of attack, I say show proofs, and attack the shit out of them

theking · 02-15-2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

So if Iraq is disarmed, there will still be a war for political reasons?

Even more irresponsible.

The other countries in the UN that disagree to this war aren't all that stupid; show them proof and they'll attack with you.

Forty countries are.

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:48 PM

If Iraq disarm without force, I will personaly pay every person who has been part of this discussion $500, I wouldn't start thinking about what you are going to spend the money on guys!

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Yes.

Then why are we having this discussion? There will be a UN supported war. All I asked for

yippie!

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
If Iraq disarm without force, I will personaly pay every person who has been part of this discussion $500, I wouldn't start thinking about what you are going to spend the money on guys!

Fair enough

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Forty countries are.

Well you better hope they don't have veto

jimboc · 02-15-2003, 08:52 PM

if we leave it to the UN it could be another year, or more, that might be too late. He had his final warning to comply with 1441, he was the one that had to provode information, not us to play hide and seek, he hasn't lets follow the resolution and stop those counties vetoing the resolution.

theking · 02-15-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

Well you better hope they don't have veto

Better hope that who does not have veto? Forty countries are ready to support us with or without a veto from the Security Council.

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Better hope that who does not have veto? Forty countries are ready to support us with or without a veto from the Security Council.

Oops, I thought you said 40 countries are stupid enough to be against a war justified by reasonable proofs.

All I am saying is that some nations will take advantage of an attack without the UN approval.

dig420 · 02-15-2003, 09:35 PM

And to the assclowns who think 9/11 isn't a reason for war, you kids don't have a clue. You're the same group of assholes who said,"russia lost a 15yr war fighting the mighty afghans, so will the US"
----------

assclowns who STILL don't understand that Osama Bin Laden ISN'T Saddam Hussein shouldn't be allowed to vote

DavePlays · 02-15-2003, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

I'm not saying UN is absolutely right in all its action.

Even if UN is a joke, great consequences can emerge from not following its rules. Do you want China, Pakistan and India to start nuking each other? Even if you wouldn't be touched personally, it would create a preceding, and other nations would try to justify wars with it.

No they wouldn't -
the UN isn't keeping anyone from nuking ech other.

It's their own rules they aren't following.

Jay_StandAhead · 02-15-2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

No they wouldn't -
the UN isn't keeping anyone from nuking ech other.

It's their own rules they aren't following.

Please read my post again; I said other Nations would try to justify wars.

It's pretty obvious how and why.

DavePlays · 02-15-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]

Please read my post again; I said other Nations would try to justify wars.

It's pretty obvious how and why.

And I said... No they wouldn't.

The UN isn't stopping anyone from going to war - there are a lot of reasons not to go to war - the UN isn't one of them.

sacX · 02-15-2003, 11:18 PM

I think it's great how people can grow up pledging allegiance to a country and then join the military and are trained to follow ordesr not think for themselves, can come out and have such objective opinions about this situation.

This summarsises them:
The rest of the world is stupid and the US is right and so is Tony Blair, but not the majority of the British people they're wrong. Everyone in Europe is a liberal, and anti-american.

The US can just do what it wants in the world, but no other country can do what it wants. Fuck world opinion, doesn't matter we'll stomp the rest of the world if they don't do what we say.

DavePlays · 02-15-2003, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
I think it's great how people can grow up pledging allegiance to a country and then join the military and are trained to follow ordesr not think for themselves, can come out and have such objective opinions about this situation.

This summarsises them:
The rest of the world is stupid and the US is right and so is Tony Blair, but not the majority of the British people they're wrong. Everyone in Europe is a liberal, and anti-american.

The US can just do what it wants in the world, but no other country can do what it wants. Fuck world opinion, doesn't matter we'll stomp the rest of the world if they don't do what we say.

To summarize"
Actually - we only think people that say shit like that are stupid.

America is not here to appease world opinion. We try, but it's not the bottom line. We have a lot to protect here - and you're damn right we're going to pretect it.

dig420 · 02-15-2003, 11:32 PM

ok then, given that Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and he's only one of dozens of tinpot tyrants, many of whom have greater military capacity than he does, what are we doing wasting lives and money in Iraq?

Joe Sixpack · 02-15-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
ok then, given that Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and he's only one of dozens of tinpot tyrants, many of whom have greater military capacity than he does, what are we doing wasting lives and money in Iraq?

'cos Dubya says so, silly!

dig420 · 02-15-2003, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

'cos Dubya says so, silly!

or because he couldn't get Bin Laden and he wanted to draw attention away from Florida and the economy, plus it's a nifty way to obliterate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

I'm waiting for him to declare martial law, I'm sure it's coming.

sacX · 02-15-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Actually - we only think people that say shit like that are stupid.
America is not here to appease world opinion. We try, but it's not the bottom line. We have a lot to protect here - and you're damn right we're going to pretect it.

So i'm stupid and damn right.. excellent.

DavePlays · 02-15-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
ok then, given that Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and he's only one of dozens of tinpot tyrants, many of whom have greater military capacity than he does, what are we doing wasting lives and money in Iraq?

I guess I'd have to say a lot of people - very well informed people - don't think it's a waste of either.

How many lives did America "waste" in WW2 -

Not a single live was "wasted" my friend.

Giving one's live for freedom, or whatever you believe in, is not a waste. - It's a price we PAID.

DavePlays · 02-15-2003, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX

So i'm stupid and damn right.. excellent.

You may not be stupid - I have no idea. What you were saying about America was - well, at best - a little niave.

that better?

Joe Sixpack · 02-15-2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavePlays

You may not be stupid - I have no idea. What you were saying about America was - well, at best - a little niave.

that better?

What he said made perfect sense and seemingly sums up the attitude of the average American. It was somehow unsurprising for you to then turn around and dismiss everything he said by calling him stupid.

What exactly was naive about it anyway?

sacX · 02-15-2003, 11:48 PM

i was really just commenting on 12clicks posts to this thread, and to a lesser extent theking. Their attitude to the rest of the world is basically fuck'em.

Joe Sixpack · 02-15-2003, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
i was really just commenting on 12clicks posts to this thread, and to a lesser extent theking. Their attitude to the rest of the world is basically fuck'em.

And it's this arrogance that's gonna fuck them in the end.

Hmmmm.... 280 million vs 6 billion.

theking · 02-15-2003, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
I think it's great how people can grow up pledging allegiance to a country and then join the military and are trained to follow ordesr not think for themselves, can come out and have such objective opinions about this situation.

This summarsises them:
The rest of the world is stupid and the US is right and so is Tony Blair, but not the majority of the British people they're wrong. Everyone in Europe is a liberal, and anti-american.

The US can just do what it wants in the world, but no other country can do what it wants. Fuck world opinion, doesn't matter we'll stomp the rest of the world if they don't do what we say.

Pretty much sums it up. The USA does what it percieves to be in its best interests and has the economic and military power to act upon that perception. Every country does the same, period. Most countries simply do not have the economic or military power to act upon what they perceive to be in their best interests. Yes fuck world opinon, we will put down whoever we percieve to be an enemy and the bottom line is we do not need the approval or assistence of any country to act upon our perceptions. The rest of the world would be advised not to become our enemy, or give us the perception that you are our enemy.

theking · 02-15-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420

or because he couldn't get Bin Laden and he wanted to draw attention away from Florida and the economy, plus it's a nifty way to obliterate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

I'm waiting for him to declare martial law, I'm sure it's coming.

A person with your lack of knowledge should not be posting unless you just enjoy displaying your ignorance and lack of insight.

sacX · 02-15-2003, 11:58 PM

Actually all I am saying is this.

It does not appear to me unreasonable to give the weapon inspectors more time e.g. six months. If it is seen the weapon inspectors have been given time, then international opinion will turn toward war. I believe Hans Blix is a fair man, everything he has said has been measured and I believe objective

If George Bush is right, and I suspect he is then Saddam Hussein will not co-operate and GWB will be justified in his war, the UN will support it

Why do we need to rush into war this minute? I know you will say Iraq has not co-operated for 11 years or whatever, but the reality is pressure has not been applied until the last few months.

The rush for war is a logistical one, the troops are in place the harsh summer is coming, if they have to wait 6months it's going to be an INCREDIBLY expensive exercise.

It is best for the world that a fair process has been seen to be done. Saddan Hussein does not represent an imminent threat, and if war should really be a last resort, please tell me why can't we wait 6months?

theking · 02-16-2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
Actually all I am saying is this.

It does not appear to me unreasonable to give the weapon inspectors more time e.g. six months. If it is seen the weapon inspectors have been given time, then international opinion will turn toward war. I believe Hans Blix is a fair man, everything he has said has been measured and I believe objective

If George Bush is right, and I suspect he is then Saddam Hussein will not co-operate and GWB will be justified in his war, the UN will support it

Why do we need to rush into war this minute? I know you will say Iraq has not co-operated for 11 years or whatever, but the reality is pressure has not been applied until the last few months.

The rush for war is a logistical one, the troops are in place the harsh summer is coming, if they have to wait 6months it's going to be an INCREDIBLY expensive exercise.

It is best for the world that a fair process has been seen to be done. Saddan Hussein does not represent an imminent threat, and if war should really be a last resort, please tell me why can't we wait 6months?

During the years between 1991 and 1998 the inspectors sought out and oversaw the destruction of most but not all of his WMD's. When they were kicked out in 1998 there were still hugh amounts of chemical, biological materials that had not been destroyed and thousands of missile/artillary rounds armed with chemicals that had not been destroyed. It is this fact that is in question. Iraq has said that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remaining chemical, biological materials and missile/artillary rounds. They have not presented one shred of evidence to verify this. They have stated that they destroyed the paper work of the destruction of the chemical, biological materials and missiles/artillary rounds. Even if one chooses to believe that statement made by them, there would be physical evidence of said destruction. They have failed to provide the physical evidence of said destruction. There would also be those scientists, engineers and personell in general that would have been involved in the destruction of said materials. They have not provided anyone that was involved in said destruction. The UN and the USA wants proof of what happened to these WMD's and as stated 14 February by the head of the inspection team in his report to the UN Iraq still has not presented any proof of the destruction of said WMD's that Saddam still had in his possession when the inspectors where kicked out in 1998. I will ask you. Where are these WMD's?

What is there that you don't understand about this. Hans, in his address to the UN on the 14th stated flat out that they still have not provided any evidence that they do not still have the chemical, biological materials and missile/artillary armed with chemicals that were still undestroyed when the inspectors left in 1998. 1441 compels him to comply and he has not, period.

Joe Sixpack · 02-16-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Pretty much sums it up. The USA does what it percieves to be in its best interests and has the economic and military power to act upon that perception. Every country does the same, period. Most countries simply do not have the economic or military power to act upon what they perceive to be in their best interests. Yes fuck world opinon, we will put down whoever we percieve to be an enemy and the bottom line is we do not need the approval or assistence of any country to act upon our perceptions. The rest of the world would be advised not to become our enemy, or give us the perception that you are our enemy.

Remember this?

With that kind of extraordinary arrogance you'd better get used to it. Trust me, you'll be seeing much, much more...

Remember what it did to your stockmarket... what will another terrorist attack do?

directfiesta · 02-16-2003, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I might as well hit this dopey rant as well.

please show me a quote from the administation saying this. otherwise, shut the fuck up with your lies.

Bush: " if you are not with us, you are against us "

Is that enough ...

directfiesta · 02-16-2003, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
If Iraq disarm without force, I will personaly pay every person who has been part of this discussion $500, I wouldn't start thinking about what you are going to spend the money on guys!

Paypal ok?

sacX · 02-16-2003, 12:21 AM

Quote:

During the years between 1991 and 1998 the inspectors sought out and oversaw the destruction of most but not all of his WMD's

So they did a good job. The bit i still don't understand is why we can't wait another 6months.

Paul Markham · 02-16-2003, 12:21 AM

If by disagreeing with the US's right to declare war for the world on another country with very little evidence to back up the claims made. You think we are against America.

You need to get some confidence.

theking · 02-16-2003, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

Remember this?

With that kind of extraordinary arrogance you'd better get used to it. Trust me, you'll be seeing much, much more...

Remember what it did to your stockmarket... what will another terrorist attack do?

Do you remember Perl Harbor and our response to that. We waged unconditonal war, demanded and got an unconditional surrender.

"...what will another terrorist attack do?" It may piss us off and that is something the world does not want to see.

We have not been on a war time footing since the Second World War, but we can be placed on a war time footing if necessary. We have a wealth of resources and our industries can be converted into producing a war machine just as it did during the Second World war, but even more so now. At the end of the War we had sixteen million people in uniform with a population less than half of what it is now. Many more attacks like the WTC (probably just one more) and it will be unconditional war and unconditional surrender to whoever we percieve to be the cause.

Paul Markham · 02-16-2003, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

During the years between 1991 and 1998 the inspectors sought out and oversaw the destruction of most but not all of his WMD's. When they were kicked out in 1998 there were still hugh amounts of chemical, biological materials that had not been destroyed and thousands of missile/artillary rounds armed with chemicals that had not been destroyed. It is this fact that is in question. Iraq has said that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remaining chemical, biological materials and missile/artillary rounds. They have not presented one shred of evidence to verify this. They have stated that they destroyed the paper work of the destruction of the chemical, biological materials and missiles/artillary rounds. Even if one chooses to believe that statement made by them, there would be physical evidence of said destruction. They have failed to provide the physical evidence of said destruction. There would also be those scientists, engineers and personell in general that would have been involved in the destruction of said materials. They have not provided anyone that was involved in said destruction. The UN and the USA wants proof of what happened to these WMD's and as stated 14 February by the head of the inspection team in his report to the UN Iraq still has not presented any proof of the destruction of said WMD's that Saddam still had in his possession when the inspectors where kicked out in 1998. I will ask you. Where are these WMD's?

What is there that you don't understand about this. Hans, in his address to the UN on the 14th stated flat out that they still have not provided any evidence that they do not still have the chemical, biological materials and missile/artillary armed with chemicals that were still undestroyed when the inspectors left in 1998. 1441 compels him to comply and he has not, period.

Totally agree with the above statement. But then it is up to the UN to declare war on Iraq not the US.

theking · 02-16-2003, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Totally agree with the above statement. But then it is up to the UN to declare war on Iraq not the US.

The UN cannot declare war upon anyone and even if it did it does not have a military.

sacX · 02-16-2003, 12:32 AM

So if the weapon inspectors got most of the WMD last time, why can't we wait another 6months?

Joe Sixpack · 02-16-2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
So if the weapon inspectors got most of the WMD last time, why can't we wait another 6months?

Because it's not about weapons of mass destruction.

That's just a smokescreen.

02-16-2003, 12:21 AM	#195
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	If by disagreeing with the US's right to declare war for the world on another country with very little evidence to back up the claims made. You think we are against America. You need to get some confidence. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

02-15-2003, 08:31 PM	#152
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	I think it's a shame we have to live our lives in fear, I was looking at the news the other day, rocket lauchers in the US, we have tanks and army on the streets of London and about 10 airports, people being caught with granades, ricin poison, a policeman shot by a suspected terrorist group producing poison, and out economical centres feating bomb/ plane attacks, it's wrong

02-15-2003, 08:37 PM	#157
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	Blix said that so far Iraq is complying It's the same delaying tactics that have been used for 10 years, everyone but us (US,UK)is just too stupid to see it.. we have been here before and more than once, some people just have short memories, well I don't think they are going to take any more, we WILL go to war without the UN... Face it, we know there will be no backing for a war from at least 1 of the veto countries... and we know neither George W Bush or Tony Blair can go back on what they have said, it would be political suicide. There's your answer, and the media know this.

02-15-2003, 08:38 PM	#158
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	DID HE FUCKING SAY THEY WERE NOT COMPLYING? Correct it's all words and delaying tactics.

02-15-2003, 08:44 PM	#160
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	I am off to bed now, but sleep well tonight and hope that a crop sprayer doesn't fly over a small part of the US with Ricin Botulin (or whatever it's called - can't be bothered to look it up now) anthrax and the other substances he has developed, because if that happens we could lose millions of innocent people not 20,000, which was just the worst thing I have ever seen in my life, oh what a short memory people have. bye

02-15-2003, 08:48 PM	#165
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	If Iraq disarm without force, I will personaly pay every person who has been part of this discussion $500, I wouldn't start thinking about what you are going to spend the money on guys!

02-15-2003, 08:52 PM	#169
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	if we leave it to the UN it could be another year, or more, that might be too late. He had his final warning to comply with 1441, he was the one that had to provode information, not us to play hide and seek, he hasn't lets follow the resolution and stop those counties vetoing the resolution.

02-15-2003, 09:35 PM	#172
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	And to the assclowns who think 9/11 isn't a reason for war, you kids don't have a clue. You're the same group of assholes who said,"russia lost a 15yr war fighting the mighty afghans, so will the US" ---------- assclowns who STILL don't understand that Osama Bin Laden ISN'T Saddam Hussein shouldn't be allowed to vote

02-15-2003, 11:18 PM	#176
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	I think it's great how people can grow up pledging allegiance to a country and then join the military and are trained to follow ordesr not think for themselves, can come out and have such objective opinions about this situation. This summarsises them: The rest of the world is stupid and the US is right and so is Tony Blair, but not the majority of the British people they're wrong. Everyone in Europe is a liberal, and anti-american. The US can just do what it wants in the world, but no other country can do what it wants. Fuck world opinion, doesn't matter we'll stomp the rest of the world if they don't do what we say.

02-15-2003, 11:32 PM	#178
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	ok then, given that Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and he's only one of dozens of tinpot tyrants, many of whom have greater military capacity than he does, what are we doing wasting lives and money in Iraq?

02-15-2003, 11:48 PM	#185
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	i was really just commenting on 12clicks posts to this thread, and to a lesser extent theking. Their attitude to the rest of the world is basically fuck'em.

02-15-2003, 11:58 PM	#189
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	Actually all I am saying is this. It does not appear to me unreasonable to give the weapon inspectors more time e.g. six months. If it is seen the weapon inspectors have been given time, then international opinion will turn toward war. I believe Hans Blix is a fair man, everything he has said has been measured and I believe objective If George Bush is right, and I suspect he is then Saddam Hussein will not co-operate and GWB will be justified in his war, the UN will support it Why do we need to rush into war this minute? I know you will say Iraq has not co-operated for 11 years or whatever, but the reality is pressure has not been applied until the last few months. The rush for war is a logistical one, the troops are in place the harsh summer is coming, if they have to wait 6months it's going to be an INCREDIBLY expensive exercise. It is best for the world that a fair process has been seen to be done. Saddan Hussein does not represent an imminent threat, and if war should really be a last resort, please tell me why can't we wait 6months?

02-16-2003, 12:32 AM	#199
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	So if the weapon inspectors got most of the WMD last time, why can't we wait another 6months?