don't we all?

don't we all?

I can't argue with that! :thumbsup

It's much harder to get support for invading any ally than it is to invade a country that you've already fought a war with! Besides half of the chiefs in the current administration worked for George Senior. There's grudges to be settled!

Also the US won't want to take-on the Saudis until after they've secured an alternative oil supply. I believe the Saudis ARE on the US hit list, but like you said, one country at a time :)

Because he has acted irresponsibly with those weapons and he poses a threat that must be nullified. And don't ask "how" and "why" etc... these points have been addressed ad nauseum here, it's common knowledge. Again, this has been addressed ad nauseum already. Those countries are the ones that have the biggest existing oil contracts with Iraq, and they obviously stand to have the most to lose if a new (and democratic) government is installed.

I'm not sure why they assume that their existing oil deals WOULD be put in jeopardy or cancelled, but that's me being the eternal opimist I suppose.



Groove -- I'd say "you've GOT to be kidding" about those questions, but sadly I can tell that you're not. Oh well.



Let me ad one further item here....
I am for peace as well, but not at "all costs". Peace at all costs is no peace at all. Threats to world peace and security need to be dealt with. Invaders need to be dealt with (gulf war, Kosovo etc). Irresponsible use of WMD need to be dealt with. I would LOVE it if Saddam and Iraq would come to their senses and start acting like a reasonable, friendly, caring country with a kind-hearted democratic government that works to the benefit of it's people and gets along with it's neighboring countries. But that's not likely to happen, thus I support aggressive action to solve the issue, hopefully once and for all.


I heard on the morning news that Cretien (our Canadian Prime Minister) has announced publicly that "there is no need for war in Iraq, because we have already won the battle, we had dem surrounded and boxed in"......
I apologize to the USA on behalf of my country's idiot leader. Trust me, he does NOT speak for all of us.


Btw, apparently it's Usama Bin Laden's birthday today.

Huh? WTF?

Q1) The UK and US gave Saddam arms to attack the Iranians. The US even gave him anthrax and chemical warfare technology ie. the very same weapons that now represent such a grave threat to World peace! Why is it unreasonable for me to be cynical about the fact that the US and UK are now about to launch a war to disarm a despot that they armed!

Q2) I implied that Russia and France were trying to defend their economic interests, NOT "World peace" as they claim. Your comments seem to support this argument.

So who the fuck are you "kidding"? :321GFY

You're trying to compare 12+ years ago to now. It won't work. During the Iran-Iraq war things were different, and the USA obviously felt it was in the best interest at the time to even the playing field. Tell me.... who was helping Iran at the time?

That's like the jerks who say the US gave weapons to Al Quaida during the Russian occupation of Afganistan. Well DUH, of course they did, because <i>during those times</i> it was felt that Russia's invasion tactics were not right. I'm sure there are tons of very political and strategic reasons why countries back certain other countries at certain times, but fuck man, TIMES CHANGE.

The answer to your question should have been obvious.

And what's with the "huh? WTF?" thing? Did you not think anyone would take a moment to actually answer your questions? Okay, possibly I misread that particular question. If, as you say, we are in agreement on that one then I stand corrected. Everyone is so touchy lately.

"this too shall pass"

The meddling that seems appropriate at any point in time (eg. supplying illegal/banned weapons of mass destruction to a brutal dictator, or declaring war on a country that has not even threatened to attacked you) can turn around and bite you on the ass a decade later. And YES the US frequently facilitates the death of people when it thinks that killing them is in it's (not necessarily the World's) best interests. And since Saddam does not present any legitimate military threat to the US at this time, I wonder what's motivating them? There are many answers to most questions and it's extremely naive of you to presume that you know them all!

You said:

That was not an attempt to refute my questions, it was an attempt to ridicule them. And Christ you didn't even read them properly before ridiculing them! Are you seriously surprised that I found the comment offensive? Given your comments about Joe Sixpack's attitude I'd say that was kind've hypocritical! :2 cents:

Pretty easy to arm-chair quarterback from the cheap seats. Funny, it occurs to me that the POTUS has all sorts of intel reports at his desposal that his decisions MUST be based on.... which makes me wonder what brainiac critics like yourself are basing YOUR wisdom on.

Here we go again with the "you've got to be kidding" shit. There are so many ways that a country like Iraq can "pose a threat to the US" it isn't even funny. Are you going to ask me to point them all out to you? Holy shyte boy, who's naive here?


Maybe you should have saved your two cents bro. Quite whining about the light ridicule I gave you. It was meant to show that the answers to your questions should have been obvious. When answers to questions are obvious, that usually means the person asking them hasn't been paying much attention. I have no idea what you're talking about with the reference to joe6. Why bring stupid side-arguments into it?

And I fucking said "my mistake" about that second question already, so what is your problem that you can't just accept that and move on?

You're strangely quiet today.

my punching bag is gone and I am quite subdued in the abscence of the dirt bags to punch
;-)))

And I suppose you're privy to some top-secret information which is only available to key players like yourself?

:1orglaugh Are you honestly attempting to argue that US Presidents in possession of military "intelligence" have always made the right decisions?

:1orglaugh That's a bit rich coming from a guy who was ridiculing questions that he hadn't even read correctly.

You me and a lot of other people at GFY get irritated by Sixpack's tendency to ridicule and attack people who have a perspective contrary to his own. You are one of the chief critics of Joe's behavior. So it struck me as ironic that you felt the need to ridicule my questions just because you don't share my views.

I'll move on when you stop presenting bogus, irrational and irrelevant information to prove that it was appropriate to ridicule my questions. Christ, you've basically conceded that you agreed to half of what I said, so how is it reasonable for you to keep asserting that my questions were worthy of contempt and ridicule?

I thought they were rhetorical questions not meant to be answered and you thought he was seriously asking, hence him taking offence when you thought he didn't know the "obvious" answers.

Noooo - If I sell you a gun - that does in no way mean I would not try to stop you from trying to shoot me with it.

That was an easy one.

Yep, they were rhetorical questions :)

But that fact was apparently lost on CDSmith.

Who cares what Joe's political beliefs is?

If you have a flag in your sig he can have an upside down one in his. Maybe your flag offends him as much as his offends you.

Debating on a forum is one thing but taking it personally and getting into huge flame wars out of it is just plain stupid. You're right wing I like Marx and you like Reagan. Who fucking cares, it's the damn internet. We're all in the same business, let's not mix that with our personal lives.

This reminds me of my IRC war days, thank god I've grown up a little since I was a freshman in high school :glugglug

When did Saddam threaten to attack the US?

You were talking about the U.S. arming Iraq as though where he got his weapons somehow should matter in disarming him.

I was just pointing out that wasn't the case.

I think it's a given fact that Saddam is a "threat" - to a lot more people than just those in the U.S.

That is not what I said or meant. I have never suggested that Saddam should not be disarmed. I was simply suggesting that there's an irony associated with the fact that the two countries who provided Saddam his weapons of mass destruction (ie. the US and UK) are now the ones leading a military invasion to take the weapons of mass destruction away from him.

Saddam is a threat to the people of his own country, but he is presently in no position to invade another country. What other country is he threatening to invade? Who is he going to use these weapons against?

If you're arguing that the US should invade Iraq to liberate them from a despotic dictator, then I guess the US will also need to invade most of the other countries in the Middle East, including its so called allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

If the USA was concerned about the wellfare of Iraqi citizens, they wouldn't have economic sanctions that prevent them from getting medicine. Fact is however many people die at the hands of Saddam over there, more are dying because we won't let them import medicine.

300

Bastard.

302

You REALLY think Saddam needs all his weapons JUST to threaten his OWN people? - All his's gone through for 12 years JUST to keep his own people in line? You really believe that?

Bit of an Over-Kill won't it be? Pardon the Pun.

Invading Egypt compared to Iraq? -
Let's just pretend you didn't make such an asinine comparison.

Who is he threatening to attack?

And what are you thoughts about the Saudis?

Under international law it is illegal to invade a sovereign state unless they have attacked you or are about to attack you. If the US invades Iraq without the support of the UN it will be committing an illegal act.

oh well....



:1orglaugh

You are fucking kidding me right?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...004766310.html

First Israel, who knows when us.

No, it was a simple statement of fact. It *is* illegal to unilaterally attack another nation unless it attacks you first or it's clear that attack is imminent. The only exception is if the action is approved by the UN.

Your point?

The US and the UK say that they intend to invade Iraq because Saddam will not destroy his weapons of mass destruction. I have not heard anyone claim that they're doing so to cut-off Saddam's funding to the families of Palestinian terrorists.

Following your logic, it would be OK for any state which feels threatened by the US's weapons of mass destruction and bellicose attitude (and there are many!) to attack the US!

\

The Administration said from the beginning that it did not have to go to the UN to act. The Administration, will be merely imposing the terms of the cease fire that the UN imposed upon Iraq in 1991, so no it will not be acting illegally. In addition Iraq has been committing acts of war weekly since 1991 in that it has repeatedly fired upon coalition forces (the USA and the British). In addition Saddam has more than once called for the killing of Americans where ever they may be found so a case can be made that he his an imminent threat to the security of US assets abroad and even mainland. Legalities are usually open for interpretation.

We allow a certain amount of Iraqi oil to be sold for food and medicine. In addition Iraqi has side stepped this program and sold additional oil. Saddam decided to spend the money on things other than medicine, such as continuing to build Palaces. It is Saddam allowing his people to die, no one else.

Very true :thumbsup

Okie dokie. Suicide bombers and Sept 11th...

Oh yeah, the US has paid families of Nuclear Physists for their sacraficing their lives for ALLAH and to rid the world of the infidels.

Blah blah blah.

Hmm...

http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/26/billionaireland.html

Says here that Saddam is worth at least 2 BILLION dollars. Hmm... I'm wondering how he accumulated that much money, all while his people are short of food and proper medicine. Surely, he's too humane to steal donated supplies and sell them for personal gain.

my god.

Who?

my christian god who will no doubt strike you all down for all your sinning.

There's a big storm outside...

Looks like I might be first! :helpme

there's a special place waiting for you, in my god's hell. hehehehehehe.