Very irresponsible.


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.

Yes.

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 :)

Forty countries are.

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!

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

yippie!

Fair enough :)

Well you better hope they don't have veto :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


:thumbsup

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! :1orglaugh

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Remember this?

http://www.sujee.net/albums/2001/wor...towers_cnn.jpg

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?

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

Is that enough ...

Paypal ok?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.