:1orglaugh

wrong. what did Bush name as the axis of evil? Iraq, Iran, N. Korea was it?
looks like he actually knew something, eh?

Iraq was a threat and our military was already there. easy choice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3531956.stm
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=10053

I see "if" "could" "might" but if the world had a backbone, they could be starved into submission in months.
It's all about the world having no backbone.
Best thing that could happen is for them to fire an untested missile at us and it miss.
kentucky fried korea :winkwink:

Good lord you really need to stop watching television. Seriously, 2 weeks without it and your mind will start functioning properly.

haha, proved yourself wrong with a quick google search, rough. Nice backpedal though. You should really be a politician in a redneck state with a very, very stupid population. Not an insult, you'd win.

You missed my point. But anyway out of the 3 in Bush's "Axis of Evil" (muhahaha) which one do you thing deserved attention first? Out of the 3 Iraq was the weakest. Is that why they were attacked? Iraq - at the height of their power - couldn't defeat Iran in the 70s and 80s with the active support of the United States. So what makes them this "grave and growing" danger which Bush referred to? Could you clarify why Iraq posed a danger more tangible than the one the DPRK represents?

You're giving 12clicks waaaay too much credit. I don't even think he knows who the original WWII axis was.

This is so scary, I hope we or our children never see this.

don't take this the wrong way but you're confused.

no I didn't. you chose not to like my answer.
No, they were attacked because we were still at a state of war with them, they weren't living up to their surrender agreement and the people you are currently at war with are ALWAYS far more dangerous then the people you're not at war with.
look up the word active. they sold arms to iraq.
I just did. but to expand on it so that even the idiots like Bich can understand, Our military, allies, and oil supply were all in danger for an iraq who, although having surrendered, was not disarming or abiding by the surrender agreement.

you gotta love the argument the rabble brings to the table to refute what I say :1orglaugh

I often wonder how boring (but more intelligent) this board would be if the idiots had any self awareness.
:1orglaugh

Ok, from dictionary.com (I personally like #5c, #6, and #8):

You're right that Iraq broke the cease fire contract and should have been attacked, in 1995. I wouldn't have a problem with that either but that wasn't the war aim. The war aim was to rid Saddam of weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence leading to the decision was flimsy (some of it fraudulent) and of coarse no weapons were found. So then the war aim changed to regime change. Then the war aim changed again to liberating Iraq. Now I think it has something to do with speading democracy throughout the Middle East.

edit: spelling mistake...

You might want to check this out (or google it). Another example of active support for the Beast of Bagdad.

yes, the further down the list you go, the further away from the actual definition you get.

and what would the aim have been that was acceptable to you in 1995?

no, see I'll jot this down to the canadian press not having enough money to do a proper job of reporting.
The reason we went to war was WMDs. the added benefits were everything else you listed.

you're joking, right?

There is one hell of a load of total arrogance coming from countries who have nuclear capability - and not just talking about the US, tho that Admin reigns supreme in the position of King of Arrogance.

When ya got a scenario of the have's and have not's and idiot politicians from countries who have nukes start getting aggressive, - it does not take a brain cell to see that countries without nukes will want them.

It is no surprise that both North Korea and Iran want to accquire nuke capability, - especially after being included in an "Axis of Evil" by a *really* dumb President who made his position clear.

Each action has an opposite reaction and both Iran and NK's nuclear programs are the reaction to Bush's statement.

The US Admin are now whining, complaining and threatening over issues that were instigated as a direct result of their own verbal and policies.

The US has shown it's colors and it is now hard to reverse this. It is most unlikely that Iran or NK will "give up" nuclear capability - it's not even sane for them to consider this as an option at this time.

What has been achieved botton line and the overall scenario?

The largest holder of nuclear capability on the planet failed miserably in communication in any rational sense with both Iran and N.K. The "solution" was to threaten and embark on a political "anti" and use sanctions - that old failed US policy designed to "punish" others who disagree with em.

Both the threatened countries made progress towards nuke capability - an obvious sensible exercise under these circumstances.

Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation, the net result is that US promoted the expansion and gave others strong motivation to develop nuke capabilty. Gotta thank the US, once again, for yet another fuck up.

Both Iran and N.K. have different situations. Example, Iran, apart from US threats, also has a neighbor in possession of nuclear arms, (tho hell - that country is supported by the US as well!!), - it is common sense why Iran wants nuclear weaponary. Iran still claims, for what it's worth, that their nuclear development is for power generation blah.

There is nothing "good" about nuclear proliferation. There is also nothing good in *anyone* having nuclear weaponary and assuming they can threaten other nations using these tools.

In real life... this nuclear deterrant has been claimed to have worked successfully during the cold war years. Who knows?? Was there anyone in either the US or Russia so insane and out of touch with reality that they considered "invading" each others countries?? Seriously doubt that! :-)

Enough time wasting and bullshit for today - little doubt a select few idiot leaders on this planet will be responsible for blowing us all up in the end!

Each action has an opposite reaction and both Iran and NK's nuclear programs are the reaction to Bush's statement.

right .. :) bush is to blame for thier nuclear programs ??

Oil is not important for only energy. You can't make sterile plastics, for instance, from the sun.

weaponising it: YES


Called " self- defense", deterrent , etc...

After what happened to Iraq, what do you expect.... US wants to wage war .

What do you expect countries to do when threatend? Sit on their asses and listen to the bullshit from the US Admin? :-)

When, in the last few years, did you hear any leader of another country who has nukes, apart from the US, start off threatening others then mount a "campaign" against them? Not one did - only the Bush Admin.

Ironic the threats started when neither of these countries even threatened the US. Why would they threaten?? They don't give a fuck - they have their own problems.

Benefits? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BENEFITS? are you drunk? the reason you went to war was to expand - as imperialism does - France is doing the same thing in the Ivory Coast right now.

your media lies to you. jessica lynch is one stunning example. Canadian Media DOES NOT create stories. especially the CBC. in fact many Americans tune into CBC because it is relatively unbias for federally funded radio, unlike CNN

American print news has been reprimanded by AP and reuters for editing stories. THAT is Flimsy. During war, some this called 'propaganda' becomes the driving force behind media.

Killing, torture, exploitation, and dehumanization are NEVER beneficial....ever.

Not directly related to your post.... but... Just ask any serious journalist what syndication his/her reports get. :)

Apart from countries where media is.. primitive and almost non-existant, most have their work in print in a majority of countries - with one glaring exception, - the US.

I'm not talking about some local hack reporters - these are people who have plenty cred and awards for their work. Some, if not the majority, don't even bother to submit material to the US media - it's a pointless exercise.

On several occasions, tho these are rare, when something worth saying does get broadcast - often by some cable channel or local broadcaster, it ends up being acclaimed.

A few years back a documentary made by a journalist friend was shown in the New York area on a local network. That year he was awarded some bullshit in Hollywood for his "contribution", - not that he fell overboard at getting this - he already has enough "awards". But this does illustrate that when non-superfluous material is shown - it is appreciated.

You can tell who's new here when they start trying to explain things to 12clicks.

Don't waste your time bro, his mind is not capable of independent thought. He won't actually read what you're writing, he'll just think of ways to insult you and make himself think he's right about everything.

fair enough. He related to TheKing by any chance?

Na Icon :-) He's got the disease where the effects are usually blindness, more than a touch of arrogance and a feeling of superiority, coupled with an inability to say much. This results in a frenzy of cut/paste with one-line derogatory responses to posts with nada actual content.

It's probably something in the air or a congenital defect - balance ain't his strong point - just excuse him.

No, they're both idiots but in a different way. theking is a delusional wannabe veteran who apologizes for anything the US military does. Think of him as John Goodman from "the Big Lebowski" without the military background.

12dicks made a couple million bucks scamming foreigners in the early days of online porn, and now he thinks everything he says is the word of God. He's more of a hard core Republican apologist, incapable of disagreeing with the right wing media on anything. In his mind anyone who disagrees with this line of thinking isn't someone to be listened to. He has at best grade school comprehension abilities, just the way republicans like them. Don't bother trying to explain anything to him, or offer any alternate view. They've already made up his mind for him about everything.

Alot of words used...but nothing of any import said...but that is SOP for a Webby.

Speaking of "delusional"...this coming from the one that hears voices that tell him he owns three of the largest casinos on the net...and has three degrees. In addition to being one that repeats the same mis-information (as do a handful of other haters of the USA) over and over...ad naseum. You do amuse me though...Richy boy.

Sadly another one-line response loaded with no content or substance whatsover and in keeping with the usual banal comments in past track records.

Is "pigshit" the next valued contribution to GFY?? :winkwink:

theKing:

Classic choice of words!!!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Enough said!!

I have made my comments about North Korea in prior posts...as well as refuting mis-information from the likes of you...Richy boy and others...about said subject...as well as other subjects. There is nothing new for me to comment on...and I do not have the inclination to comment on the same subjects over and over again. In additon I am in work mode...and do not care to take the time...thank you very much.

Pig shit is a summary I use when the majority of the post equals...more than ridiculous...and deserves no further comment...which is a what a large number of your posts equal...pig shit.

Christ, 12clicks your ignorant... face the facts please.

HA HA I know what you mean, Fox news is so much better. That said, by no means is the CBC unbiased. It has been Liberal rag for many years and have covered up stories embarrasing to the administration (remember it's publicly funded).

I agree about there not being any need at all for nuclear weapons, not even for the US but please, tell me on what planet or what world nuclear weapons are considered a "defensive" weapon? Iran or N Korea having nukes has absolutely NOTHING to do with them needing "leverage" either but has everything to do with them wanting to threaten neighboring states.

Huh? What does that mean?

An acceptable war aim for me in 1995 would have been breaking the cease fire agreement and firing on coalition war planes patroling the no fly zones. I think I already mentioned something to that effect. War should always be the last resort taken after all other options have been exhausted. No one disagrees with that. Well, I'm sure some do but they usually don't have anything constructive to add to an argument. The point is that the UN inspections were working believe it or not. There was no reason for the US to go to war when they did especially when they could of had the support of several other nations if they would have waited. If Bush considered the 'Canadian Plan' which involved another 3 months of inspections he would of had the support of 20 more UN General Assembly nations as well as possibly Germany on the Security Council (France was going to veto no matter what). Instead he ordered the attack.

I don't have a problem with going to war for good reason. The US was happy to have international support in the first Gulf War but if you don't want to abide by internationally accepted standards then don't involve the international community.

Iraq broke a contract and should be held responsible. The US has broken several over the years though. I believe in the rule of law. Period.

P.S. I'll be more than happy to start a thread bashing the actions of the Canadian government. Seriously, I'm not a US basher I just enjoy political debate :)

True, but they have been involved in instances where their funding was threatened because of what certain people said. They are by no means completely unbias, but they are one of the better radio news stations around. Just today they did a bit on publicaly funded post secondary education. Interesting debate, they covered both extremes very well.

Yea.. the pigshit is predictable!! :winkwink:

Yea another illustration of it.....

I may have to think of a special classification for the garbage you spew forth.

well, you'd be the only one. everyone else would call us war mongers and explain how the inspections were working.
10 years of inspections were NOT working and another 3 months wouldn't have made a difference. There are unaccounted for WMDs to this day. If you think they never existed or iraq destroyed them, you're being naive.
10 years of inspections did not work. all they did was let WMDs go missing.
The world loved endless inspections since the US was picking up the security tab. As long as the international community remains spineless, it will continue to not like the US's actions.

I predict that the US will tell N korea to fuck off now that it has demanded 1 on 1 talks with the US. Then you'll hear from the spineless world community that the US is being unflexable.

Korea having nukes is a world problem just as Iran having them is a world problem. watch how the world juggles the ball before dropping it. Both these countries can be brought to heel with a total economic embargo but the world won't do it because they are gutless.

I'd love someone to set me strait and explain when in all of history being kind and friendly to an aggressive country ever turned them into a peaceful member of the world community.

No suprise they have nucs!

?Successful disarmament of Iraq is possible without Baghdad?s active cooperation...?
Hans Blix Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Feb. 7, 2003 Reuters

?...we did ascertain a 90-95% level of verified disarmament.
This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling
of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons
manufacture, all significant items of production equipment,
and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.?
Scott Ritter Former U.S. Marine and UN Weapons Inspector

Could you post some links to some articles? About the inspections I found a Time magazine story about Scott Ritter, a FOX "News" *snicker* interview with Scott Ritter.

What I truely like is how everyone seems to be so preoccupied with 'what if' scenarios (smoke screen?) concerning Iraq and Iran and not discussing why the one man that successfully carried out the most horrific attack on US soil is still on the loose. Shouldn't he be considered a bigger threat than he is? You would think since he's the head of the most elaborate terrorist network in the world he might be a top priority. If there were 140,000 US troops and civilian military contractors (does that mean mercenary?) in Afganistan I'm sure bin Laden's head would be on a pole as we speak. I for one would love to see it but alas I don't see that ever happening...