Iraq executest POW's, violates Geneva Convention, no Protest


  • F_alk, if you don’t know what 9/11 has to do with Iraq you don’t understand what the Americans are thinking do you?

    I’m not sure what your quip about “What do the acronyms ETA, IRA, RAF tell you?” is about, are you implying you don’t know what 9/11 means? Sept 11 terrorist attack win which more US citizens were killed then during the Pearl Harbour attack.

    ETA is either Estimated Time of Arival or a terrorist group.
    IRA is Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group.
    RAF is Royal Air Force.

    What’s your point?

    As for me using Europe, I should have said Old Europe, that should clarify it for you since I obviously confused you as to what I really meant.

    Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. But as a source of radiation it is harmless. Since uranium is 70% heavier then lead it tends to sink to the bottom of things like deserts. Since U-238s radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years it is rather stable. Meaning NON ACTIVE. Plutonuim has a half life of 24, 000 years hence it is ACTIVE. That’s why Plutonuim makes bombs and U-235 makes bullets.

    Did you know that Abrams battle tanks use U-235 as armour? If tanks crews don’t get any more sick then the general population and they spend lots of time inside a shell made of tonnes of U-235 what makes you think a few burried bullets will make people sick?

    Frankly, there is only about 2 or 3 cubic metres of depleted uranium in Iraq, compare this to 50 Exon Valdez tankers worth of Oil Saddam dumped into the environment.

    In a contest Saddam wins hands down as the environmental villan.

    BB


  • After further review, it seems soldiers fighting in civilian clothes is NOT a violation of the Geneva convention, however, those capture fighting like that would forgeit certain rights as POW’s. Perhaps being shot as spies might be a legal reaction?

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030327-3d18e5c6.htm


  • @BigBlocky:

    F_alk, if you don’t know what 9/11 has to do with Iraq you don’t understand what the Americans are thinking do you?

    Form what i think, the US believes there is a close connection between (9/11 and Al’Quaeda) and Iraq. AFAIK it is even like it now that more than 1/3 of the US citizens believe (were mislead into believeing) the 9/11 attackes were conducted by Iraqis.
    That’s what i know. Are there other things you meant?

    I’m not sure what your quip about “What do the acronyms ETA, IRA, RAF tell you?” is about, are you implying you don’t know what 9/11 means? Sept 11 terrorist attack win which more US citizens were killed then during the Pearl Harbour attack.

    ETA is either Estimated Time of Arival or a terrorist group.
    IRA is Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group.
    RAF is Royal Air Force.

    RAF also is “Rote Armee Fraktion”, a terrorist group. So, what i named was three european terrorists groups.
    The RAF is not existant anymore, the IRA was “peaced down” a little, the ETA still is active, but losing support.
    How could the groups be defeated: They lost support in the population.
    So, the way to fight against terrorists is not only fighting the actual terrorists, but also cutting down their support in the population. Weapons you can get everywhere, a place to hide/food/etc. from where you start your actions not.
    What i also wanted to say:
    You sound like 9/11 was the first terrorist attack ever. It was the largest, true, but not the first. I think the IRA and ETA probably have killed more people in their existance than 9/11 did. Still, you treat the europeans as if we wouldn’t understand the concept of terrorism and the misery, pain and fear it causes. We do understand that. Just look at the reactions after 9/11 and the coalition for the War on Terror.
    But again, what has the Iraq to do with terrrorism? This connection is something that too much looks like the US gov’t made it up (after the WMDs argument didn’t work, and before they started to use the humanity-argument) to get into Iraq.

    Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. But as a source of radiation it is harmless. Since uranium is 70% heavier then lead it tends to sink to the bottom of things like deserts. Since U-238s radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years it is rather stable. Meaning NON ACTIVE. Plutonuim has a half life of 24, 000 years hence it is ACTIVE. That’s why Plutonuim makes bombs and U-235 makes bullets.

    (1) A desert is not a fluid
    (2) You mix up the isotopes
    (3) you have no idea how a nuclear bomb works.

    Did you know that Abrams battle tanks use U-235 as armour? If tanks crews don’t get any more sick then the general population and they spend lots of time inside a shell made of tonnes of U-235 what makes you think a few burried bullets will make people sick?

    Yes, i know that. I have read the WHO’s paper on working in such an environment.
    Buried bullets…. what happens to a bullet crossing some steel? Abrasive effects? Aerosols? Did you read you read the link i gave you?
    It seems like you (quasi-quote: “i won’t talk to people who don’t want to see”) didn’t.



  • I belive it was Rumsfeld that said that war criminals will be punished. Those pictures are an excellent chance for him to prove that he was serious when he said that.

    Just to make it clear, I want every war criminal to be punished. I don’t care if you are Iraqi,American,British, or Australian.

    @Meijing:

    Humiliation of POW:
    www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-253447-242241,00.html
    www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-252004-242424,00.html


  • F_alk, you think you know what 9/11 means but you don’t. Oh sure you quoted some facts and I won’t dispute those. What 9/11 really means to Americans is insecurity. Iraq as it was created more insecurity. I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.

    9/11 was the second foreign terrorist attack inside the US the other was the first world trade tower bombing. I never said Europe doesn’t know what terrorist attacks are, you said that. I am saying you don’t know the impact on the Americans of that terrorist attack. YOU ASSUME since europe is more used to these attacks the US should be. I assure you F_alk, it came as a FREAKING HUGE SHOCK to the average american that not only were they that vulnerable but that there were people that hated them that much. You’d think more Americans would know how hated they are by so many but they don’t, trust me.

    Sand behaves very much like a fluid. As for mixing up the isotopes, yes I did in the later part of my post. It should have been obvious to you as I had a contradiction in that post stating that U-238 has a long half-life thats why they use U-235 for bullets. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. ongratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this.

    I stated it’s not good to ingest uranium, that should have answered you question “Buried bullets…. what happens to a bullet crossing some steel? Abrasive effects? Aerosols? Did you read you read the link i gave you?”.

    I’ll answer that by asking you, did you read my previous post where I stated "Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. "? Yes, I did read your article, I like the ending where it states “Gaps in knowledge exist and further research is recommended in key areas that would allow better health risk assessments to be made”

    How can you say I have no idea how a nuclear bomb works? I never talked about how a bomb works so you made a grandiose statement not supported by any facts whatsoever as usual. Would you care to challenge me to a debate on it? I’d crush you.


  • @BigBlocky:

    F_alk, you think you know what 9/11 means but you don’t. Oh sure you quoted some facts and I won’t dispute those. What 9/11 really means to Americans is insecurity. Iraq as it was created more insecurity. I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.

    9/11 was the second foreign terrorist attack inside the US the other was the first world trade tower bombing. I never said Europe doesn’t know what terrorist attacks are, you said that. I am saying you don’t know the impact on the Americans of that terrorist attack. YOU ASSUME since europe is more used to these attacks the US should be. I assure you F_alk, it came as a FREAKING HUGE SHOCK to the average american that not only were they that vulnerable but that there were people that hated them that much. You’d think more Americans would know how hated they are by so many but they don’t, trust me.

    of course despite the VERY likely fact that Iraq was unconnected to Al Queda in these attacks, 9/11 is used as an excuse to invade Iraq. No real connection, however the “oh no! now we are vulnerable” excuse is being used to invade a sovereign nation. How nice is that? Gee, some people from Quebec committed terrorist acts, maybe we should invade Quebec in order to quell our feelings of insecurities (or New Brunswick - as many of those people speak French). You get the disconnect? This is why so many of us object to the repeated bastardization and abuse of the tragic events of 9/11 to further Bush’s apparent political agenda - not because we don’t feel horrified that it happened, or saddened by the loss of life.

    Sand behaves very much like a fluid. As for mixing up the isotopes, yes I did in the later part of my post. It should have been obvious to you as I had a contradiction in that post stating that U-238 has a long half-life thats why they use U-235 for bullets. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. ongratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this.

    wow This cost me several precious seconds of my life. I want them back.

    How can you say I have no idea how a nuclear bomb works? I never talked about how a bomb works so you made a grandiose statement not supported by any facts whatsoever as usual. Would you care to challenge me to a debate on it? I’d crush you.

    i would consider that it’s possible at the end you’d believe that you would have crushed F_alk, however given debate criteria at the end, and an independent 3rd party panel reviewing the debate, you might find that others might feel otherwise. . . . 😎


  • @cystic:

    of course despite the VERY likely fact that Iraq was unconnected to Al Queda in these attacks, 9/11 is used as an excuse to invade Iraq. No real connection, however the “oh no! now we are vulnerable” excuse is being used to invade a sovereign nation. How nice is that? Gee, some people from Quebec committed terrorist acts, maybe we should invade Quebec in order to quell our feelings of insecurities (or New Brunswick - as many of those people speak French). You get the disconnect? This is why so many of us object to the repeated bastardization and abuse of the tragic events of 9/11 to further Bush’s apparent political agenda - not because we don’t feel horrified that it happened, or saddened by the loss of life.

    As all of you have no doubt noticed, I support this war. However, the Bush administration’s repeated misguided attempts to convince the public that there is a direct connection between 9/11 & Iraq (besides Saddam Hussein’s remarks celebrating the attacks) will go down in history as one of the biggest PR blunders of the early 21st century. People didn’t need 9/11 as a reason to go to war in Iraq, but the administration figured it could pull the wool over people’s eyes–people saw through it, & now can use it as an example of the President’s lies & half-truths. Of course, that obscures the facts, but if the President hadn’t brought it up (trying to obscure the truth himself), there would’ve been no opportunity for people to have done so.

    i would consider that it’s possible at the end you’d believe that you would have crushed F_alk, however given debate criteria at the end, and an independent 3rd party panel reviewing the debate, you might find that others might feel otherwise. . . . 😎

    We may never know. But I’d get all my ducks in a row (& my facts straight) before taking on F_alk in a debate. Just a word to the wise 😉

    Ozone27


  • CC, agreed, the majority of Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not many in Canada do, I don’t think it was connected. I don’t recall any US representative drawing a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. I certainly do belive there is Al-qaeda in Iraq, there is some in the US too so that doesn’t prove much. However, we do know that al-qaeda does like to operate in failed states like Somolia and Afganistan. To a certain extent Iraq has parts that are a ‘failed state’. I agree that bush should have toned down the terrorist connection and concetrated on the argument that the Saddam regime was brutal and that alone should be enough to topple the regime.

    China is brutal too, but not much anybody can do about that. So why not do what you can when you can rather than do nothing because you can’t do everything?

    CC, if Quebec or New Brunswick acted like Iraq then the US should invade in my opinion. A few bombs does not make an Iraq, unless you think Iraq is all about just a few bombs.

    Quebec did have terrorists in 1970 I think, the FLQ. They killed a brit diplomat and Canada invoked the war measures act and called the army into Quebec and suspended civil liberties. This for just a few deaths.

    The nuke bomb understanding debate is an open challenge, I won’t even brush up. The point is, we weren’t even talking about nuclear bombs really, other than to say U-235 makes bombs and U-238 makes bullets so to speak. F_alk was the one who claimed I don’t know what I am talking about without testing me on the subject first. shrugs

    BB


  • @BigBlocky:

    China is brutal too, but not much anybody can do about that. So why not do what you can when you can rather than do nothing because you can’t do everything?

    Totally agree. That argument is stupid. People also bring up,“Well there’s a lot of countries that are brutal & the US supports them. So why attack Iraq?” To these people I say:“I agree. Let’s take on those countries after we deal with Iraq.” Usually shuts people up. Because for most of these people, no matter how bad a regime is, the prospect of the US fighting a war against them is even worse. So the situation festers. Which I guess is OK as long as its not on TV & you can blame it on good ol’ Uncle Sam…

    Ozone27


  • I think we’re in total agreement on that. The status quo is fine as long as it’s a good situation and slowly improving, even then one can argue that the situation ought to be improving faster. I can’t understand the argument that preserving the current situation will lead to a better situation if given more of the same.

    From a stand point of pure ugly logic, if you’re not American or British, how can you lose, things can only get better for everybody else except the aforementioned nations. Unless…… Unless somehow some countries benefit from more of the same terrible situation and won’t benefit from an Iraq controlled by a ‘good governence’ of new Iraqi leaders interested in benefits to the Iraqis first. But I’m sure France doesn’t know of any country like that, at least publicly that is.

    BB


  • I snip around a bit in BBs post, to bring some things closer together….

    @BigBlocky:

    F_alk, you think you know what 9/11 means but you don’t. …. What 9/11 really means to Americans is insecurity. Iraq as it was created more insecurity. … 9/11 was the second foreign terrorist attack inside the US the other was the first world trade tower bombing. I never said Europe doesn’t know what terrorist attacks are, you said that. I am saying you don’t know the impact on the Americans of that terrorist attack. YOU ASSUME since europe is more used to these attacks the US should be. I assure you F_alk, it came as a FREAKING HUGE SHOCK to the average american that not only were they that vulnerable but that there were people that hated them that much. You’d think more Americans would know how hated they are by so many but they don’t, trust me.

    Ok. So, just because the US have been sitting in the quiet, ignorant of how they are perceived, ignorant of the impact of their politics on other lives in other countries…… just because of this i shall cheer to the invasion of Iraq?
    Just because they now know how it feels to be vulnerable? Hey, i have felt so the whole of my life! I say: Feel sorrow, i feel with you. But learn out of it: change your ways.
    Instead: they choose to continue the politics that makes others hate them, so that they can try to go to the status quo ante, and “feel safe” regardless of the rest of the world and what they cause to happen there.
    I understand that they feel shocked, but i don’t understand that such a very very christian country can pull out and go on vengeance!!
    9/11 could have opened the eyes of the average US-american. It didn’t, still the old saying “war is the way to teach americans geography” remains valid.
    I have felt insecure for a long time, many people in europe did and still do. But they do not go out after “the enemy” (anymore), it was learnt that that is not a successful way, but only leads to more bloodshed, pain and suffer.

    I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.

    Something happening without a catalyst will happen faster with a catalyst.

    How can you say I have no idea how a nuclear bomb works? I never talked about how a bomb works so you made a grandiose statement not supported by any facts whatsoever as usual. Would you care to challenge me to a debate on it? I’d crush you.

    Quoting from another of your posts:
    @BB:

    . Since U-238s radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years it is rather stable. Meaning NON ACTIVE. Plutonuim has a half life of 24, 000 years hence it is ACTIVE. That’s why Plutonuim makes bombs and U-235 makes bullets.

    “That’s why”…… is not the reason at all for making bombs. Not the stability of (element)-(isotopenumber) is important, but its neutron-capture-capability, and the behaviour of (element)-(isotopenumber+1) in terms of stability and excess neutrons after reaction.


  • Ok. So, just because the US have been sitting in the quiet, ignorant of how they are perceived, ignorant of the impact of their politics on other lives in other countries…… just because of this i shall cheer to the invasion of Iraq?
    Just because they now know how it feels to be vulnerable? Hey, i have felt so the whole of my life! I say: Feel sorrow, i feel with you. But learn out of it: change your ways.
    Instead: they choose to continue the politics that makes others hate them, so that they can try to go to the status quo ante, and “feel safe” regardless of the rest of the world and what they cause to happen there.
    I understand that they feel shocked, but i don’t understand that such a very very christian country can pull out and go on vengeance!!
    9/11 could have opened the eyes of the average US-american. It didn’t, still the old saying “war is the way to teach americans geography” remains valid.
    I have felt insecure for a long time, many people in europe did and still do. But they do not go out after “the enemy” (anymore), it was learnt that that is not a successful way, but only leads to more bloodshed, pain and suffer.

    First of all, let me say that America never has (and I hope it never does) change it’s ways simply because someone else hates the way we live. Tough shit. If some Islamic-Radical-Nutball is envious because his third-world country hasn’t produced anything meaningful in the last 100 years, then too bad. He can go to hell. In fact, we’ll even help him get there. 😉

    Personally, I’d rather not get swept up in your passivist attitude. I’d prefer to FIGHT someone who wants to kill me, rather than say: “Okay, you win Mr. Bad Guy…I’ll just let you have your way.”

    Let me get this statement straight. 5000 civilians die in a murderous attack, and you can’t understand why we want to seek vengeance? If your’s is the predominate attitude, then I don’t neccessarily want your countries help afterall.

    As long as we’re on the subject of quotations, here’s one.
    I believe it was Toby Keith who proclaimed: “…We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way.”


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    Ok. So, just because the US have been sitting in the quiet, ignorant of how they are perceived, ignorant of the impact of their politics on other lives in other countries…… just because of this i shall cheer to the invasion of Iraq?
    Just because they now know how it feels to be vulnerable? Hey, i have felt so the whole of my life! I say: Feel sorrow, i feel with you. But learn out of it: change your ways.
    Instead: they choose to continue the politics that makes others hate them, so that they can try to go to the status quo ante, and “feel safe” regardless of the rest of the world and what they cause to happen there.
    I understand that they feel shocked, but i don’t understand that such a very very christian country can pull out and go on vengeance!!
    9/11 could have opened the eyes of the average US-american. It didn’t, still the old saying “war is the way to teach americans geography” remains valid.
    I have felt insecure for a long time, many people in europe did and still do. But they do not go out after “the enemy” (anymore), it was learnt that that is not a successful way, but only leads to more bloodshed, pain and suffer.

    First of all, let me say that America never has (and I hope it never does) change it’s ways simply because someone else hates the way we live. Tough sh*t. If some Islamic-Radical-Nutball is envious because his third-world country hasn’t produced anything meaningful in the last 100 years, then too bad. He can go to hell. In fact, we’ll even help him get there. 😉

    ahhh yes, but you are missing the point.
    i think much of the world does not care so much about how America lives as they care about how America makes THEM live through its often bizaare, consistently self-serving policies.
    The fact that America is Christian/Jewish/whatever and has tv is not going to get people to attack Americans, but rather the effects of American interference in their lives in furthering American interests, particularly where “stopping communism” or Johnson’s mandate to secure oil supplies has disrupted the day to day life of these people to the extent that they will listen to the ravings of a “mad cleric” if they feel it will better their lives. I think it is about time that if America does not change its ways, that it becomes aware of the consequences of maintaining its ways. Of course if America is the moral authority on everything, then it may use force to justify its ways, i suppose - might making right and all that.

    Personally, I’d rather not get swept up in your passivist attitude. I’d prefer to FIGHT someone who wants to kill me, rather than say: “Okay, you win Mr. Bad Guy…I’ll just let you have your way.”

    Let me get this statement straight. 5000 civilians die in a murderous attack, and you can’t understand why we want to seek vengeance? If your’s is the predominate attitude, then I don’t neccessarily want your countries help afterall.

    still looking for the proof that Iraq is behind the twin towers attack. Especially when it is well known that Saddam and Osama pretty much hate each other. I think that if other countries made the link then America would have much more backing then she does. Canada would doubtless be putting all available resources to helping in Iraq as well if there was any verifiable thread tying the two together.
    I think that you and many other Americans have been fooled with this little bit of propaganda. A little of Georgie boy’s smoke and mirrors tricks again . . . .

    As long as we’re on the subject of quotations, here’s one.
    I believe it was Toby Keith who proclaimed: “…We’ll put a boot in your a**, it’s the American way.”

    ahhh yes. It seems to be working for you. Congratulations.


  • @F_alk:

    I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.

    Something happening without a catalyst will happen faster with a catalyst.

    Just like to point out I’ve heard this argument many times before in the last few months and it is completely bogus. Essentially it runs,“We better not do anything to pi$$ the terrorists off, 'cuz that might lead to more terrorism.” If we do nothing to anger the terrorists for fear of their terrorism, we are doing exactly what they want & justifying terrorism.

    Now, that doesn’t mean the answer to terrorism is to invade every terrorist-sponsoring nation. Israel attacks every time they are hit by a terrorist act & its done nothing to improve the situation. So I am against that. But if we can mend a few fences, while cracking down on the terror networks–that is the way to go: IF it can be done…

    Iraq sponsors terrorism, but I do not buy the direct “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection. However there were plenty of reasons to attack Iraq other than terrorism. I argue that of the three available options–return Iraq fully to “normalized” relations to the outside world; continue w/ inspections & sanctions; and war, that war was the best out of 3 pretty lousy options. If the world normalized relations w/ Iraq, we’d be back to square 1, with Hussein spending the oil resources of Iraq buying new weapons to expand his influence in the region–which would have eventually led to war. The UN sanctions were a joke, serving only to strengthen Hussein’s regime at the expense of his people (like the US sanctions against Cuba). Except the UN sanctions were weakening due to steady whittling away at their effectiveness–starting in 1999, the UN voted to lift all limits on the amount of oil Iraq sells (for food & reparations only of course 😉 ). Since the whole world wants to get its hands on Iraq’s “black gold”–not just the USA–it was only a matter of time before the world started selling the guy weapons & again we would return to square 1–hell, there is evidence other countries were already selling Hussein weapons DURING the so-called embargo.

    Therefore I argue that eventually, unless the world decided to put up with Hussein’s shenanigans ad infinitum, all roads led to war as the “least poor” of the three poor options. The big regret is that the two sides in the big UN tussle could not come to some kind of agreement so as to present a united front. With the whole industrialized world behind us, there would be few outside the Islamic world for Hussein to spread his foolish propaganda to. As it is it falls on fertile ground…

    JMO

    Ozone27


  • @Ozone27:

    @F_alk:

    Something happening without a catalyst will happen faster with a catalyst.

    Just like to point out I’ve heard this argument many times before in the last few months and it is completely bogus. Essentially it runs,“We better not do anything to pi$$ the terrorists off, 'cuz that might lead to more terrorism.” If we do nothing to anger the terrorists for fear of their terrorism, we are doing exactly what they want & justifying terrorism.

    That is not exactly what i say:
    The difference is between fighting terrorism, and fighting others where terrorists see themselves affirmed in the “rightfulness” of their deeds and therefore have the possibility to gain support from “their” people.
    Fighting terrorism as a whole needs fighting the actual terrorists and fighitng the circumstances that let others become terrorists, if you forget the second, you will fight forever.

    Now, that doesn’t mean the answer to terrorism is to invade every terrorist-sponsoring nation. Israel attacks every time they are hit by a terrorist act & its done nothing to improve the situation. So I am against that. But if we can mend a few fences, while cracking down on the terror networks–that is the way to go: IF it can be done…

    agreed

    …I argue that of the three available options–return Iraq fully to “normalized” relations to the outside world; continue w/ inspections & sanctions; and war, that war was the best out of 3 pretty lousy options.
    …The UN sanctions were a joke, serving only to strengthen Hussein’s regime at the expense of his people (like the US sanctions against Cuba). Except the UN sanctions were weakening due to steady whittling away at their effectiveness … Since the whole world wants to get its hands on Iraq’s “black gold”–not just the USA–it was only a matter of time before the world started selling the guy weapons & again we would return to square 1–hell, there is evidence other countries were already selling Hussein weapons DURING the so-called embargo.

    Hmm, i have heard that even US companies sold weapons during the embargo.
    One thing that you didn’t mention in the above reasoning was inspections (wether combined with threat of force or not). And still, we are lacking any proof for the WMDs that Saddam Hussein should have. (btw, if there was proof that he has them, why is it then so difficult to locate them, once the existance is “proven”? Why were the UN-inspectors so utterly disappointed by the material given from the US agencies (leading to two or three “minor” hits on Iraqs weaponry in general)?)
    So, taking this into account, i do not see more than two reasons why the invasion had to be done: humanitarian action and oil.
    For cooperations selling weapons during the embargo: You know that i am no friend of capitalism, and this is just purest capitalism: The embargo promised huge profits, well illegal, but huge…. Can you blame people just for “overdoing” something good like capitalism ;)? With the “trickle-down”-effect, some of that money should have reached the lower levels, and everyone should be happy 😉 :)?

    Therefore I argue that eventually, unless the world decided to put up with Hussein’s shenanigans ad infinitum, all roads led to war as the “least poor” of the three poor options. The big regret is that the two sides in the big UN tussle could not come to some kind of agreement so as to present a united front. With the whole industrialized world behind us, there would be few outside the Islamic world for Hussein to spread his foolish propaganda to. As it is it falls on fertile ground…

    Even with the whole industrialized world the ground would be as fertile i fear. And as you might have noticed, i disagree strongly with the automatism towards war. It is a poor sign though, that the one side who was about to “lose” in the UN didn’t try harder (beforehand) to convince (not with sugar and whip) members of the other side, but once the “defeat” was inevitable took action, stubbornly claiming they were “right”….


  • CC said already most that i would reply…

    @Deviant:Scripter:

    If some Islamic-Radical-Nutball is envious because his third-world country hasn’t produced anything meaningful in the last 100 years, then too bad. He can go to hell. In fact, we’ll even help him get there. 😉

    CC already picked on that attitude that is displayed by your “In fact, we’ll even help him get there.”…. Even if it was a joke, you should remember how much truth is in jokes.
    And of course, well, what meaningful things did the US produce(invent) in the last 100 years :):
    … the internet… the motorized flight (and that’s just in the 100 years) …
    … tanks and nuclear bombs, if you count weapons… the transistor… rock’n’roll and later hip hop…
    aynthing know others?

    Personally, I’d rather not get swept up in your passivist attitude. I’d prefer to FIGHT someone who wants to kill me, rather than say: “Okay, you win Mr. Bad Guy…I’ll just let you have your way.”

    Hey, i also fight people who want to kill me…… but i don’t fight people who don’t. And sometimes, the people who want to kill you are your friends and allies… and sometimes your friends and allies fight you even though you don’t want to kill them.
    (Example for the first: NATO would have “sacrificied” most of western germany in case of a WP attack.)

    Let me get this statement straight. 5000 civilians die in a murderous attack, and you can’t understand why we want to seek vengeance?

    I cannot understand how anyone claiming to be christian can use revenge and god in one sentence.
    And i know the next may sound cynical, but it’s not meant like that: what is the main difference between 5000 and 3500 victims of terrorism? The second number is taken from northern ireland. And somehow, it seems like the British have learnt from that.

    As long as we’re on the subject of quotations, here’s one.
    I believe it was Toby Keith who proclaimed: “…We’ll put a boot in your a**, it’s the American way.”

    Yup, it seems like thinking before acting never was your way.


  • @F_alk:

    That is not exactly what i say:
    The difference is between fighting terrorism, and fighting others where terrorists see themselves affirmed in the “rightfulness” of their deeds and therefore have the possibility to gain support from “their” people.
    Fighting terrorism as a whole needs fighting the actual terrorists and fighitng the circumstances that let others become terrorists, if you forget the second, you will fight forever.

    I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism–that is nations like Iraq–is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. The way I see it (and this is speaking purely from my own experience in the world), most people are not capable of offensive killing or especially suicide attacks unless they are whipped into religious or quasi-religious fervor or are heavily trained. However, a few such individuals can accomplish much when supported by a great mass of people who while not “bloodthirsty” in a personal way, sympathize with the supposed “cause” of the bloodthirsty. I think that is what you are seeing in the Middle East today–a (relatively) few hate-mongers who are only able to do what they do because of the degree of popular support for their actions. These masses could hopefully be swayed by increased care and education about the good things about the West–combine that with hunting out the relatively few “killers” and you might be onto something.

    But the one cannot work without the other.

    Hmm, i have heard that even US companies sold weapons during the embargo.
    One thing that you didn’t mention in the above reasoning was inspections (wether combined with threat of force or not). And still, we are lacking any proof for the WMDs that Saddam Hussein should have. (btw, if there was proof that he has them, why is it then so difficult to locate them, once the existance is “proven”? Why were the UN-inspectors so utterly disappointed by the material given from the US agencies (leading to two or three “minor” hits on Iraqs weaponry in general)?)
    So, taking this into account, i do not see more than two reasons why the invasion had to be done: humanitarian action and oil.
    For cooperations selling weapons during the embargo: You know that i am no friend of capitalism, and this is just purest capitalism: The embargo promised huge profits, well illegal, but huge…. Can you blame people just for “overdoing” something good like capitalism ;)? With the “trickle-down”-effect, some of that money should have reached the lower levels, and everyone should be happy 😉 :)?

    Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun–either through the immediate implementation of military strikes, or the threat thereof. Thus: force is the only stimulus Hussein responds to. Without force, or the threat of force, the UN inspectors were playthings for Hussein–he could force them out, prevaricate, lie, delay, blow smoke or what have you and the UN could do nothing realistic about it. By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack. I hear:“Give the inspections time to work.” Forget about the 12 years they were already given to work–what exactly would constitute proof the inspections were “working” or “not working”? A few demolished missiles proves its working? The discovery of missiles supposedly nonexistent proves the inspections are not working? What…

    Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.

    Even with the whole industrialized world the ground would be as fertile i fear. And as you might have noticed, i disagree strongly with the automatism towards war. It is a poor sign though, that the one side who was about to “lose” in the UN didn’t try harder (beforehand) to convince (not with sugar and whip) members of the other side, but once the “defeat” was inevitable took action, stubbornly claiming they were “right”….

    To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are. I didn’t hear any of you crying over the estimated 3,000,000 people who have been executed in Iraq since 1968, any more than we were. Now a few hundred killed in a productive action & everyone’s up in arms. Not trying to belittle human life here–1 life lost is a tragedy–just pointing out the hypocrisy.

    Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder since it was not backed by credible information. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it could & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, WAR. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper. Please explain to me under what circumstances (besides Iraq invading another power) Europe would have been willing to fight–that is before the Coalition attack.

    Ozone27


  • @Ozone27:

    I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism … is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. …But the one cannot work without the other.

    I guess we agree pretty much here.
    Something that would come to my mind as a next possible point to discuss is why a nation that sponsored a lot of anti-communist terrorism should be allowed to lead anti-“terrorist-sponsors” action. But it’s not like we really have to discuss that :).

    Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun.

    I can accept that, you mentioned it in earlier posts.

    By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack…

    The thing that more or less all of the world’s nations disagreed was the quick automatism to war. None of the US/UK planned ultimatum to “totally disarm and prove it in a week or so, and we are to decide on our own then” was in any way realistic. It all was just a slightly hidden “we will go to war”. That is what the world didn’t want. Had the ultimatum had a longer timescale, and kept the decision of fullfillment to the inspectors or the security council, it would have looked different. Germanys position (not being a veto-member) was rather simple and the most extreme: No agreement to a war. The French, Russians and Chinese all left themselves small backdoors to the war and kept their veto against the UN-uncontrolled automatism of war. So, they very porbably would have agreed to a war after failure of the cooperation iraq-inspectors, or the inspectors finding the “smoking gun”. But, as you said as well, the Iraq increased its level of cooperation, from sec. council meeting to sec. council meeting. I firmly believe the Iraq would even have accepted a “robust madate” for the inspectors, well, we would have had to to avoid armed conflict. And yes, all that cooperation was only due to the threat of force. But, if someone bows to your commands because you threat to beat him up, do you then have to beat him up? Because he bowed? Because he wouldn’t have bowed without the threat? That just doesn’t make sense, next time, you can threat and the other one won’t care, because you are going to beat him up anyway. See what i mean?
    So: reasons for France, Russia and China would have been: Iraq not complying, or the inspectors finding proof for either non-cooperation or other new breaches against the resolutions.

    Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.

    You take the Germans position as the positions of France, Russia etc. etc… Have you watched one of the sec. councils sessions? The Germans were the only one who had this total anti-war position (and even they left themselves the neutrality, they just would not agree but could say nothing instead of Nay). The others position disagreed with the american position, but hte american position was obvious in its outcomes (this automatism to war), so as long as the US didn’t give the UN a chance (but more used it as its plaything: here play with that, we then can do what we want), why should UN give the US a legitimation?

    To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are.

    “Sugar and whip” is very old concept of diplomacy. “Reason” came after it. Sure, noone was motivated by pure humanitarianism.
    But blunt “agree and we give you money, disagree and we cut all the money you get from us” is not diplomacy, it’s blackmail. And no country wants to be blackmailed. So, the US should have given the world real proof and evidence, or -lacking this proof- try to buy off other countries without threatening. That could have worked. Instead the US tried to bully smaller nations into agreement. Just think you were a kid, would you join the street gang of the bully or the street gang were everyone is respected and woth equal rights?

    Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it should & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, war. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper.

    I would call the whole affair a huge diplomatic blunder, and mainly from the US side. The German stance wasn’t that smart either, but not agreeing is not necessarily active opposition. But, it lead the US into total stubborness, calling each and everyone not agreeing “irrelevant”. How can the US believe the UN would decide in their way because they would be “irrelevant” otherwise? That again is blackmailing, and giving in to that would have made them irrelevant. The US very soon brought the UN into a position were giving in would have resulted in a massive loss of trust/face/national pride etc. for the UN itself and the member countries. If you are in a lose-lose situation (and that is what the US created), then there is no reason not to fight! There is none to fight, but hey, you don’t have anything to lose! Maybe the one who made you lose can suffer a bit for that. …. That’s the way humans think, and that was not taken into account by the US gov’t at all! So, the US took a stance even less flexible than Germany. I think it is their fault for the failure of diplomacy for the most of it. And it seems the “even distibution of fault” is something that not many except the US see.


  • You take the Germans position as the positions of France, Russia etc. etc… Have you watched one of the sec. councils sessions? The Germans were the only one who had this total anti-war position (and even they left themselves the neutrality, they just would not agree but could say nothing instead of Nay). The others position disagreed with the american position, but hte american position was obvious in its outcomes (this automatism to war), so as long as the US didn’t give the UN a chance (but more used it as its plaything: here play with that, we then can do what we want), why should UN give the US a legitimation?

    I’ve been reading your posts, and I can’t help but wonder why you continously refer to it as an “automatism” of war. Hmmm, did we not try:

    1.) 12 years of opportunity to disarm
    2.) Economic sanctions
    3.) Oil for Food (which Saddam took advantage of–big surprise :roll:)
    4.) ANOTHER round of inspections
    5.) ANOTHER UN resolution (1441)
    6.) A clear opportunity for Saddam to leave his country and save everyone from war

    My point is, there WAS no quick rush to war. We did everything that could be asked of us, including (most importantly) having patience on the issue.

    For your second part, it was abundantly clear that France told us that they would veto a vote-for-war at any cost. As soon I can look up some sources, I’ll list them. But you’re trying to tell me that Germany was the only country who was adamantly oppossed to war? 😮


  • France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.

    France supplied 22% of the imports of Iraq, another good reason for the status quo.

    Germany does not seem so against it right now. Typical politics, acquiece to public pressure then back pedal to appease the other side.

    DS, some people are ‘true believers’, try to argue with a good catholic that god doesn’t exist and that evolution is fact. You can’t expect to convince that believer nor can you expect to convince other believers. The basis of belief is that belief in of itself is all that one needs. Evidence that goes against the belief is a mere test of the belief and need not be examined with an open mind.

    BB

    Arguements of the believer.

    1. He did disarm, and even if he didn’t the US helped him get the stuff, the US created Saddam, what do you expect from Saddam. It’s not his fault, it’s the Americans fault.

    2. Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.

    3. Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1

    4. Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1

    5. More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1

    6. What right does the allies have to prevent a insane dictator from butchering a few more million. Just because Saddam is responsible for more deaths of Islamic peoples than any other figure in the history of humanity does not give anybody the right to do anything. You must wait until he directly attacks your country. Then you must get permission from the French to do anything. Besides, see #5, 4, 3, 2, 1

    Thankfully, the decision has been made and finally somebody has done something to end the nightmere of the Iraqis.

    BB


  • @BigBlocky:

    France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France
    France supplied 22% of the imports of Iraq, another good reason for the status quo.

    Germany does not seem so against it right now. Typical politics, acquiece to public pressure then back pedal to appease the other side. .

    I think this was a problematic and hypocritical stance by France - it was inappropriate, self-serving, and did nothing for the peace process, but i think that it accelerated the push for war.
    w.r.t. Germany - like American or Canadian or any other world leader has never done the same? I don’t have a problem with Germany taking a position for peace, and then re-evaluating the situation as it changes.

    DS, some people are ‘true believers’, try to argue with a good catholic that god doesn’t exist and that evolution is fact. You can’t expect to convince that believer nor can you expect to convince other believers. The basis of belief is that belief in of itself is all that one needs. Evidence that goes against the belief is a mere test of the belief and need not be examined with an open mind.

    BB

    now i don’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but are you being metaphor by comparing spiritual/religious belief to the belief in one’s position? Kind of an interesting comparison given that 2 of the sides in this conflict (the two warring ones) invoke God and God’s will in their struggle. Bush is all about using religion, and the way that he ties religion in with the need to go killing a bunch of people for oil (right right, this isn’t about oil . . . blah blah blah bullsh*t) is hypocritical and sacriligious. The same goes for Saddam.
    My beliefs about this war are, i don’t believe, as deeply rooted as my faith in The Lord, but my beliefs do affect the way i feel about this war. Also do not insult Yanny, F_alk and myself with innuendo about lack of objectivity and having a closed mind (retracted if you were being simply philosophical and not speaking metaphorically with regards to our feelings in regards to this war)

    Arguements of the believer.

    1. He did disarm, and even if he didn’t the US helped him get the stuff, the US created Saddam, what do you expect from Saddam. It’s not his fault, it’s the Americans fault.
    2. Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.
    3. Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1
    4. Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1
    5. More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1
    6. What right does the allies have to prevent a insane dictator from butchering a few more million. Just because Saddam is responsible for more deaths of Islamic peoples than any other figure in the history of humanity does not give anybody the right to do anything. You must wait until he directly attacks your country. Then you must get permission from the French to do anything. Besides, see #5, 4, 3, 2, 1
    1. If he did, and this was the basis for 1441, and if 1441 was the basis for war, then there is something wrong with Bush’s reason for going in. Maybe they will find something in Bagdad, but so far, if they are looking for wmd, they have been coming up empty
      2)i don’t really buy this. not yet. mind you, i’m not a big fan of sanctions (look at Cuba)
      3)again - i am not buying or using this as an argument. i don’t think many of “us” do
      4)no one is saying this either. we are saying that inspections can work, and they were in the process of working. It was nice of the American military to help move things along, but fullscale war?
      5)we don’t believe this either. after all, how could they? There was no time, and Bush couldn’t keep it in his pants any longer.
      6)you really think that you are making us look stupid with these arguments don’t you? i mean no body has been using these arguments, and yet you think you can dismiss what we say by claiming these as the basis to our beliefs about unilateral action against a sovereign nation. Really, this is pretty ridiculous.

    Thankfully, the decision has been made and finally somebody has done something to end the nightmere of the Iraqis.

    BB

    it’s been interesting to see the response of the Iraquis so far. Many of them seem quite pleased that the Americans have “liberated them”. Many have returned from whatever country they were living in to Iraq to fight them, and some 1250 odd civilians are dead not living the nightmare because they’ve been collateral damage. They are indeed lucky to have had their “nightmere” ended, i suppose.


  • @F_alk:

    The thing that more or less all of the world’s nations disagreed was the quick automatism to war. None of the US/UK planned ultimatum to “totally disarm and prove it in a week or so, and we are to decide on our own then” was in any way realistic. It all was just a slightly hidden “we will go to war”. That is what the world didn’t want. Had the ultimatum had a longer timescale, and kept the decision of fullfillment to the inspectors or the security council, it would have looked different. Germanys position (not being a veto-member) was rather simple and the most extreme: No agreement to a war. The French, Russians and Chinese all left themselves small backdoors to the war and kept their veto against the UN-uncontrolled automatism of war. So, they very porbably would have agreed to a war after failure of the cooperation iraq-inspectors, or the inspectors finding the “smoking gun”. But, as you said as well, the Iraq increased its level of cooperation, from sec. council meeting to sec. council meeting. I firmly believe the Iraq would even have accepted a “robust madate” for the inspectors, well, we would have had to to avoid armed conflict. And yes, all that cooperation was only due to the threat of force. But, if someone bows to your commands because you threat to beat him up, do you then have to beat him up? Because he bowed? Because he wouldn’t have bowed without the threat? That just doesn’t make sense, next time, you can threat and the other one won’t care, because you are going to beat him up anyway. See what i mean?
    So: reasons for France, Russia and China would have been: Iraq not complying, or the inspectors finding proof for either non-cooperation or other new breaches against the resolutions.

    But the inspectors DID find evidence–if not of the vaunted “smoking gun” (that is, a chemical weapons factory), then certainly of Iraqi bad faith. I wasn’t at all stating “threaten to beat him up, then when he complies, beat him up anyway…” I’m saying when you threaten to beat him up if he doesn’t comply, then when he doesn’t comply you just threaten him again, the whole process just makes you look ridiculous. According to the reports of the UN inspectors (which I watched religiously) there was ample evidence of Iraqi BAD FAITH–that is, saying you want to comply but acting otherwise.

    As far as France, Russia etc. being willing to act if the inspectors said go–that is just a smokescreen. It’s preposterous that the decision for war or peace lies in the hands of a small group of academics. The job of the weapons inspectors was to observe & report, & make recommendations. The decision for war or not was always in the hands of nations & governments. They just chose to interpret Iraqi bad faith in the most favorable possible light for internal & external political reasons.

    I would call the whole affair a huge diplomatic blunder, and mainly from the US side. The German stance wasn’t that smart either, but not agreeing is not necessarily active opposition. But, it lead the US into total stubborness, calling each and everyone not agreeing “irrelevant”. How can the US believe the UN would decide in their way because they would be “irrelevant” otherwise? That again is blackmailing, and giving in to that would have made them irrelevant. The US very soon brought the UN into a position were giving in would have resulted in a massive loss of trust/face/national pride etc. for the UN itself and the member countries. If you are in a lose-lose situation (and that is what the US created), then there is no reason not to fight! There is none to fight, but hey, you don’t have anything to lose! Maybe the one who made you lose can suffer a bit for that. …. That’s the way humans think, and that was not taken into account by the US gov’t at all! So, the US took a stance even less flexible than Germany. I think it is their fault for the failure of diplomacy for the most of it. And it seems the “even distibution of fault” is something that not many except the US see.

    Your argument has everything to do with US diplomacy & little-to-nothing to do with Iraq: just like the arguments of the antiwar powers (& the antiwar faction in the US). As I have agreed, US diplomacy in the GW Bush era is clumsy and counterproductive. But what the US was saying may sound insulting but it was TRUE! If the UN says–disarm in 15 days & 12 years later is still giving Iraq more breaks, the UN begins to look irrelevant. If the UN starts an oil-for-food program with a spending cap, then progressively loosens the cap until 1999, whereupon they remove the cap totally–it begins to lok like the UN is simply a vehicle for the member nations to get rich off others misfortunes without having to feel bad that their cash is going to the purchase of more weapons. The US delegation to the UN ought to have been more willing to compromise on the timing & the circumstances for war, but the antiwar powers ought to have been more willing to compromise on the possibility of war in the 1st place. So you see, its not all about the US being uncompromising–its about everyone losing sight of the purpose of the UN presence in Iraq in favor of narrow political vendettas & infighting.

    As I stated, war was basically inevitable unless Hussein began to really act in good faith vis-a-vis the UN resolutions. Inevitable that is unless you are tacitly willing to accept his right to rule over Iraq in order to prevent war & prolong a favorable situation for the major powers at the expense of the people of Iraq. Sorry life isn’t always sunrise & moonbeams but thats the way it is.

    Ozone27


  • you really think that you are making us look stupid with these arguments don’t you? i mean no body has been using these arguments

    You’d be surprised how many people are using that argument. All you gotta do is open up the newspaper or listen to a politician. :roll:


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    you really think that you are making us look stupid with these arguments don’t you? i mean no body has been using these arguments

    You’d be surprised how many people are using that argument. All you gotta do is open up the newspaper or listen to a politician. :roll:

    i’m thinking that BB was being facetious when he said that we have to wait until Saddam directly attacks our country and then get permission from the French. I have never ever heard anyone say either of these things. '91 he attacked Kuwait, not America, and i was all for intervention. I didn’t give a s**t if the French wanted it or not. And there are a few other regimes that i think could use similar intervention. The fact that America is dwelling on this one makes many of us very suspicious of its motives.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 15
  • 889
  • 2
  • 6
  • 31
  • 7
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

58
Online

15.3k
Users

36.5k
Topics

1.5m
Posts