@Yanny:

There are no figures about how many civilians died during the Gulf War, but the median estimates stats 5,000 by Amnesty International.

They did not celebrate 9/11. Show me proof of anyone who did. And I think you’d celebrate the death of someone who killed 5,000 of your civilians, like say Osama Bin Ladin? I’m sure as hell going to celebrate his death.

You don’t care about these people, your a heartless American. No wonder half the world wants us dead.

I’m Canadian.

The proof was on the news.
No, you have never seen a Iraqi burn an American flag.

Yanni, what do you suggest we do about Saddam?

Do you honestly think it’s in everyone’s best interest (and safety) to let Saddam freely develop any weapons he wants? Or how about the citizens of Iraq? Should we let them live in oppression? What about the POW’s that are still in Iraq from the Gulf War? Do we just abandon them? How about generations from now? Do you want to explain to our grand-kids who are facing nuclear war, why you put your trust into Saddam?

You’re right, we could go do humanitarian missions in Somalia and other such countries, but look at the crap that we went through there. Look at the miserable failure that Clinton put onto the American citizens’ shoulders as he embarked on so-called “humanitarian” missions around the world. T_6 is right, we give tons of money to foreign countries, much of it to combat the poverty there, does that really have anything to do with Iraq posing a threat to us?

UN Weapons inspectors are nothing but a GAME. I’m confident that Saddam is all ready moving chemical and biological weapons AS WE SPEAK. You liberals are joking yourselves if you think that weapons inspectors are going to solve the crisis in Iraq.

@Yanny:

To compare this to WWII is pathetic.

Not comparison . . an example of choices. Another example . . .
Yanny = Neville Chamberlain…or Russia (in a RR game) waiting til R2
to make any noncombat movement.
@Yanny:

…thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will die when we attack Iraq…I charge Americans to break the chain of history. I charge America to be the first Superpower to do good in the world.
Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia.

Millions of citizens of many countries will die if we
don’t do something. America will do something different. Bush will not
respond with nukes. Most likely he will repond or better yet, once
proof is laid out, initiate, with surgical incision of strike units. The
neighboring countries will be asked to help Iraqis to restructure their
government. The USA is not capable of doing that as we have a different
mindset(yes, this is an admission of American weakness, but we see it.)
If Saddam is permitted to build, use, and/or distribute biological,
neurological, and/or weapons of mass destruction millions of
citizens of many technologically advanced non-Islamic countries
will die. This will leave little help for the Third(or Second, depending on
your view of divisions) World countries.
America has done more to rebuild and help the world than any other
country. Most people quote the Charity statistics, but that is a drop in
the bucket. The US saved Europes’ sas in WWI and WWII. That’s why
Americans love to play these games(it makes them feel better about
their incosequential existence.) The US bailed out G.B., France, and
the U.S.S.R.(and dropped the debt). The US rebuilt Japan and Germany
so that WWIII would not resemble WWII. We founded the Red Cross
which helps all over the world and Caused the Muslim countries to found
the RED Crescent. We have defended pockets of democracy
(West Berlin, Taiwan, South Korea) which have helped strain and change
China, North Korea, the U.S.S.R.and Soviet satellites.
@Yanny:

Saddam Hussein is a bad person. But you shouldn’t punish the Iraq people for that! We all know Bagdag will be leveled to the ground if we go to war.
Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous person. He’s not crazy like Hitler, He isn’t going to commit virtual suicide by attack us or Israel.
Why are we attacking him?.

Sadie and his sons are sickos. Saddam has lackies poor gasoline down
the throats of suspected traitors, watches them suffer a couple of hours,
and then has one lacky light a match, play with it, and then torch the
suspect. Saddam would watch films of himself torturing suspected
traitors before having sex with his mistress(her testimony). His oldest
son learned to take hours to disembowel human prisoners by practicing
on sheep. I forget his second son’s perversions as I was distracted.
You think the worst of what will happen. That is your imagination
and indoctrination. Watch the Middle East join against Saddam
as they have experienced his dreams of grandeur. But, they will not lead.
They and the rest of the world need a point man. Someone and some
country taking the most risk. That is the Pesident Bush and USA. We
have the most to lose as we are the greatest power, target, and obstacle
that any warped country, religious figures, or anyone has to overcome.
Yes, we must be cautious to not overstep our limits, but that is why GWB
goes to Congress and the UN.
@Yanny:

We’re attacking him for Oil and votes…

Look at history. When EVIL Bush41 went into Iraq in 1991 the price
of oil dropped to $10 a barrel. The price of gas dropped to below $0.80
per gallon. This did not help the businesses that are accused of profits.
Remember, Chaney was part of the Bush41 admin. and didn’t run
Halibertin(sp.?) until later! It helped vacationers for a short time, but
that didn’t win EVIL Bush41 re-election,now, did it?
@Yanny:

…there will be long term consequences, death, and a happy Republican party.

Yes, the Republicans will be ALMOST as happy as when they took food
out of the mouths of starving elementary school students and
made senior citizens eat dog food by cutting programs.
I wouldn’t even accuse Clinton of murder for the aspirin factory or
Yugoslavia, which is where it looks like you might be headed with
EVIL Bush43 on your mind.

Another moderate reads verbatum from the LIBERAL Democrat
playbook. - Xi

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.” - Francis M. Voltaire

However, I reserve the right to call a pile of lfye a fecalith. - Xi

The European news media said they showed the celebrations in the
streets of Europe and the Middle East. However, the American news
media neglected to show it to us for some UNKNOWN reason. - Xi

The original estimates for the 1991 Persian Gulf War were
100,000 killed, mostly by B-52s plastering the desert. But,
of course, reality set in and the # was lowered to 5,000.
I paid attention because I had friends and relatives in it! - Xi

“The easiest thing to find is fault.” - Anonymous
–-----------------------------------------------------
Yeah, you are all at fault! :wink: - Xi

Yanny:

You don’t care about these people, your a heartless American. No wonder half the world wants us dead.

Well i tell ya Yanny, thanks for clearing that one up for me. I had no idea why 50% of the world hated us. But now we can all blame him for it :)

Would it be stupid to ask for numbers to back up the whole “50% of the world hates us…” or could I just assume that someone was, shall we say, grasping at straws.

Yanny:

You warmongers are so quick to kill these people. You people only care about Americans.

We only care about Americans… yea that makes alot of sence. That whole Somolia (sp?) that was all about helping Americans. We didn’t go to that country to help people, cause we only care about us.

And when we dropped food in Afganistan. That was all about the Americans. Had nothing to do with feeding civilians, it was all about saving Americans.

Well congrats Yanny. Ya figured us evil warmongers out.

I am just glad Yanny has not started talking about “the Man” keeping him down.

J-Z,
Shhh! The Man will here you.
WHAT WAS THAT?
Did you hear something?
It sounded like chains and duct tape.
Nevermind, I guess it was nothing.
–--------------------------------------
Now I’ve got myself all excited! - Xi

“Fifty percent of the citizens of this country have a
below average understanding of statistics.” - Anonymous

Sadistics? Yeah, I doan unnerstan um. - Xi

@Yanny:

To compare this to WWII is pathetic. …

I agree with most of it, and wholeheartedly!

@TG:

Heres a fact, thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will die when we attack Iraq

It is impossible to tell what will happen. To make that statement is as wrong as if I said, “no civilians will die.” Major flaws.

You warmongers are so quick to kill these people. You people only care about Americans.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You say we are quick to kill these people? Than why have plans been drawn up to avoid the least amount of civilian causalities?

avoid the least amount :) … i know what oyu wanted to say though. THe problem is that “least amount” never is “none”.

After all, Saddam was responsible for gassing 50,000-100,000 Kurds and killing another 1.2-1.5 million Muslims.

That’s true, but why did “the world” watch at that times? He had weapons of mass destruction since then, why is it suddenly that important to go in right now? What was the reason not to step in 15 or more years ago?

Is our main mission to kill the highest number of Iraqi civilians or remove Saddam and his miscreants from power? We are talking about the same Saddam that straves his own people to feed his military.

True for the second, and from any dictators point of view totally understandable. For the first: Why should the mission be “remove him from power”? That’s something that must be started from the arabian world/iraqi opposition (the bits that exist). Going into a country for no other reason than “we don’t like their boss” is total crap. If the US does that, then you agree with the the rest of the world combining their economic/military/poilical power against you, if we don’t like one of your presidents. What about Zimbawe, what about any other dictator? Will you “go and get them all”, because they were not elected in a “proper american-democratic” way?
Going for a head of a state just for the one reason to go for the head of the head of the state is stupid, arrogant, and in retro-respect does make any terrorsit attacks on the US look justified (as they were “pre-emptive” strikes…. see the logic why i hate pre-emptives strikes? Starting a war always creates teh reaction of the attacked fighting back. Therefore, the attacked “proves” that he wanted to fight… flawed logic, isn’t it?)

I charge America to be the first Superpower to do good in the world.

Hahaha this line reminds me so much of Monty Python and the Life of Brian. Sure the Romans bring us the aqueducts, trade, paved roads, ect. but… they’re still evil!

you are right in a sense with that, but did you ask to build the aqueduct? Do you know how much cultural knwoledge and riches have been destroyed by the US-american culture-imperialism?
You need sensitive fingertips when installing new things somewhere else, and that’s not something the US are famous for.

means people live happier than 75% of the people in the world.

Wealth and standard of living do not determine happiness.

That contradicts your last line, you brought wealth and standard of living to a lot of countries (“trade, paved roads, aqueducts”…), and now that isn’t such important anymore?

Why are we attacking him? We’re attacking him for Oil and votes. The Republicans don’t want to talk about their failing economy, they want to talk about their idiotic war. President Bush is using the emotions of the American people left over from 9/11 to keep himself in power.

And to protect us and others from him using weapons of mass destruction maybe?

Well, that could and should have been done long ago then.
I love how GWB threatens the irque that they are not allowed to threaten the US or one of its allies. Different rights for different people? The US being “More equal”?

@Deviant:Scripter:

Do you honestly think it’s in everyone’s best interest (and safety) to let Saddam freely develop any weapons he wants? Or how about the citizens of Iraq? Should we let them live in oppression? What about the POW’s that are still in Iraq from the Gulf War? Do we just abandon them? How about generations from now? Do you want to explain to our grand-kids who are facing nuclear war, why you put your trust into Saddam?

Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque. You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.
Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible. Germany overran a lot of countries in WWII, does that make us more sensible than the ones we conquered?

I put my trust in Saddam because i know he wants to stay in power.
Therefore, together with Quwait-adventure he lost, he will not dare to do more than saber-rattling. Look at Lybia: in the 80’s it had the role that the Iraque has now, the evil arab terrorist host. Lybia was shown its limits, and it sticked to it.
I see no reason why Saddam would be such a fool and not do the same.
If he does, we (the world) still have enough time to annihilate him and anybody who fights on his side.

UN Weapons inspectors are nothing but a GAME. I’m confident that Saddam is all ready moving chemical and biological weapons AS WE SPEAK. You liberals are joking yourselves if you think that weapons inspectors are going to solve the crisis in Iraq.

The cuba crisis was just a GAME, called “chicken race” in game theory.
Nature often behaves like “it’s just a game”.
Weapon inspctors will not solve the PROBLEMS we have with the Iraque, but they will add to keep Saddam “in bounds”.
The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead. That’s more a crisis the world has with the superpower.

@Jazz:

Would it be stupid to ask for numbers to back up the whole “50% of the world hates us…” or could I just assume that someone was, shall we say, grasping at straws.

just go out and look around. If you substract the ppl form the US from the count, i would say that way less than 5% of the world “love” or “like you very much”. And saying that 50% hate you (to a higher or lower degree) doesn’t sound that irrational to me.

We only care about Americans… yea that makes alot of sence. That whole Somolia (sp?) that was all about helping Americans. We didn’t go to that country to help people, cause we only care about us.

And when we dropped food in Afganistan. That was all about the Americans. Had nothing to do with feeding civilians, it was all about saving Americans.

….SIGH…

that’s too stupid ot even comment.

just go out and look around. If you substract the ppl form the US from the count, i would say that way less than 5% of the world “love” or “like you very much”. And saying that 50% hate you (to a higher or lower degree) doesn’t sound that irrational to me.

Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?

Weapon inspctors will not solve the PROBLEMS we have with the Iraque, but they will add to keep Saddam “in bounds”.

Ask yourself this, is the access to Iraq unrestricted? Is it possible that Saddam has/already has moved his NBC facilities to sites that UN peacekeepers cannot access? Is it likely that Saddam will continue producing weapons of mass destruction, using the UN as a clever guise to hide his true agendas? How much good did weapon inspectors due to a rapidly mobilizing Germany pre-WWII?

The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead.

So except for Saddam preaching the destruction of the US, Iraq is perfectly fine? Sure… :roll:

Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque.

I would rather have the new generation of Americans grow in a Iraq that doesn’t harbor terrorist, that hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, that doesn’t gass their own people.

You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.

If they were in any ways harboring and aiding terrorist that slammed airplanes into our buildings - I would not hesistate to do so.

Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible.

Let’s see, and the moral of the story: we should let Russia build missile silos in Cuba pointed directly at the United States. Right… :roll:

@TG:

Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”. So, for those you “actively” hate the US, i can’t tell wether they would do that. But you are right, many people from the “dislike” or “silent hate” fraction would do that.
By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy. I doubt that, i think there is more behind that (but if i start that, i wouldn’t survive the flaming by your patriotic-to-the-level-of-nationalistic fellows. :) )

Ask yourself this, is the access to Iraq unrestricted? Is it possible that Saddam has/already has moved his NBC facilities to sites that UN peacekeepers cannot access? Is it likely that Saddam will continue producing weapons of mass destruction, using the UN as a clever guise to hide his true agendas? How much good did weapon inspectors due to a rapidly mobilizing Germany pre-WWII?

AFAIHH, the game over what is unrestricted access is on. But the UN inspectors are trained in finding hidden, forgotten, left-over traces. I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.
For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there, Hitler ignored the treaties openly after a first secret start of development and cooperation with other “rogue states” like the USSR in that time. In the “rapidly mobilizing” phase, everyone even from the outside could see what happened in germany.

The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead.

So except for Saddam preaching the destruction of the US, Iraq is perfectly fine? Sure… :roll:

As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.

We will see how the UN-inspectors do, and wether one of the two nutcases is smart enough.

Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque.

I would rather have the new generation of Americans grow in a Iraq that doesn’t harbor terrorist, that hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, that doesn’t gass their own people.

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq.
And let me tell you that: Germany now is a friend, partner and ally of the US. The generation of our grandfathers did all of the above.
In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.
So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.

If they were in any ways harboring and aiding terrorist that slammed airplanes into our buildings - I would not hesistate to do so.

Fortunately, in that time there were enough regimes outside in the fringes of the blocks were the superpowers could fight each other without fighting each other openly.
And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.
That by the way is one of the first lessons to learn from game theory (coming back to “life is a game”): Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.
You want to pay back more, imagine your opponent reacts the same way.
Escalation is never smart, especially not if weapons of mass destruction are in the weapons arsenal of one of the sides.

Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible.

Let’s see, and the moral of the story: we should let Russia build missile silos in Cuba pointed directly at the United States. Right… :roll:

Well, i have lived all my life in a border-country. Even allies had nuclear weapons aimed at us to stop the red army on our territory. Not 100 km from whereever i lived i would have been deep in the former GDR with SS20s around. I have no idea where the US had their rockets and cruise missiles stationed….
Well, the war didn’t come. I am alive and well, my country is alive and well.
Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you? Did you ever spend a thought about your borderline allies?
You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner? You call for a “war on terrorism” and don’t follow the rules for POW with your captives?
You should be thankful that the Soviets were more sensible than the US-americans in the Cuba-Crisis. Had they gone on as stubborn as you, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss. Saving the world is something were i am thankful to anyone, regardless what else he might have done.
(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

Oh, F_k!
….SIGH…

Then don’t comment on it.

“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury
you.” [Khrushchev later explained this remark as an idiomatic
expression to mean “We will outlive you” (i.e. communism will triumph).
On another occasion, 8/24/1963, addressing a group of Westerners in
Split, Yugoslavia, he referred to his controversial statement:
“Of course we will not bury you with a shovel.
Your own working class will bury you.”]

• Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet Premier. Remark(11/18/1956),
  to Western diplomats, Kremlin, Moscow.
  Quoted in Times (London, 1119/1956)

Yeah, you picked a winner there! - Xi

@F_alk:

@TG:

Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”. So, for those you “actively” hate the US, i can’t tell wether they would do that. But you are right, many people from the “dislike” or “silent hate” fraction would do that.
By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy. I doubt that, i think there is more behind that (but if i start that, i wouldn’t survive the flaming by your patriotic-to-the-level-of-nationalistic fellows. :) )

Ask yourself this, is the access to Iraq unrestricted? Is it possible that Saddam has/already has moved his NBC facilities to sites that UN peacekeepers cannot access? Is it likely that Saddam will continue producing weapons of mass destruction, using the UN as a clever guise to hide his true agendas? How much good did weapon inspectors due to a rapidly mobilizing Germany pre-WWII?

AFAIHH, the game over what is unrestricted access is on. But the UN inspectors are trained in finding hidden, forgotten, left-over traces. I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.
For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there, Hitler ignored the treaties openly after a first secret start of development and cooperation with other “rogue states” like the USSR in that time. In the “rapidly mobilizing” phase, everyone even from the outside could see what happened in germany.

The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead.

So except for Saddam preaching the destruction of the US, Iraq is perfectly fine? Sure… :roll:

As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.

We will see how the UN-inspectors do, and wether one of the two nutcases is smart enough.

Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque.

I would rather have the new generation of Americans grow in a Iraq that doesn’t harbor terrorist, that hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, that doesn’t gass their own people.

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq.
And let me tell you that: Germany now is a friend, partner and ally of the US. The generation of our grandfathers did all of the above.
In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.
So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.

If they were in any ways harboring and aiding terrorist that slammed airplanes into our buildings - I would not hesistate to do so.

Fortunately, in that time there were enough regimes outside in the fringes of the blocks were the superpowers could fight each other without fighting each other openly.
And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.
That by the way is one of the first lessons to learn from game theory (coming back to “life is a game”): Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.
You want to pay back more, imagine your opponent reacts the same way.
Escalation is never smart, especially not if weapons of mass destruction are in the weapons arsenal of one of the sides.

Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible.

Let’s see, and the moral of the story: we should let Russia build missile silos in Cuba pointed directly at the United States. Right… :roll:

Well, i have lived all my life in a border-country. Even allies had nuclear weapons aimed at us to stop the red army on our territory. Not 100 km from whereever i lived i would have been deep in the former GDR with SS20s around. I have no idea where the US had their rockets and cruise missiles stationed….
Well, the war didn’t come. I am alive and well, my country is alive and well.
Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you? Did you ever spend a thought about your borderline allies?
You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner? You call for a “war on terrorism” and don’t follow the rules for POW with your captives?
You should be thankful that the Soviets were more sensible than the US-americans in the Cuba-Crisis. Had they gone on as stubborn as you, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss. Saving the world is something were i am thankful to anyone, regardless what else he might have done.
(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

Cowards because they didn’t want missiles in their backyard?
I guess USSR were cowards too, they didn’t like U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Maybe your country had enemy missiles so close because, your country didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

You have some serious American envy.

Saddam might not be a threat to the world, but is certainly a threat to the U.S.
After 9/11 the USA isn’t taking any chances and I dont blame them.
If " the World" dosen’t like the way American conducts itself, why not do something about it.

I am not saying that the entire world loves us just like i would not say that i love the whole world F_alk. My point is that I am sure than there are alot of people who are just indiferent to what we do.

F_alk:

that’s too stupid ot even comment.

Stupid yes. As stupid as saying that Americans only care about Americans, slightly more stupid. IMHO of course :)

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”.

Already way ahead in terms of what? :-?

By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy.

There is so much more that materialistic jealousy -prestige, power, ect. A lot of it is simple thumbing of the nose rebellion without cause. I see a lot of those.

I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.

You didn’t answer me. Do UN weapon inspectors have unrestricted access to anywhere in Iraq or what? Also, what will be the size of such a UN peacekeeping effort?

For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there,

You seriously believe this? “Germany Disarmed and Rearming, 1925-1935” by Berenice Carroll and tell me other wise. Go ahead.
This tells us something. Will the UN rigorously check to make sure Saddam has NBC weapons or become lax after a while?

As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.

Perhaps you did not understand my question: is Iraq a perfectly stable country except for George Bush’s tough talks? Has Saddam been directly and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions)? Has Saddam used chemcial weapons before on his own people? Has Saddam purposely ejected UN Inspectors from Iraq and endured UN sanctions on his own people? Has Saddam violated the Cease-Fire agreement after the Gulf War?

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq

Why not? If Iraq does become a place different from today, I could see it happen.

In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.

No, it proves what Saddam has done in the past and what he’s capable of doing again. And to amend past mistakes.

Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.

The so called game theory is flawed. So should I have Americans hijack one a plane and crash it into one of their buildings?

And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.

And what would’ve happened? Let them get away with it? Guess what, yesterday Pearl Harbor was bombed. I say we sit buy and watch it happen over and over without doing anything about it. :roll: Now who is worse off? So our so called “terrorist” didn’t belong in Europe, didn’t belong in South Korea, didn’t belong in Vietnam?

So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

There has already been proof of this, and I would end it. And your alternative would be? Let them openly arm and train terrorist for future operations?

Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you?

And I sure ICBM’s didn’t matter much, did they? Sure… :roll: I would never give the Soviets a chance of pre-emptive strike. As Ghoul said, missles pointed at Russan and they wanting them gone – they must be cowards too! :roll:

You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner?

At least our actions were condoned by the UN. Did the Russians and Saddam every bother to do that?

(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

I am sure you would’ve said the same thing 10 years ago.

Because you know he’s going to put his weapons next to well known schools and residential areas

Hmmm… sounds awfully close to what Saddam is planning on doing now with his policy for the return of UN bomb inspectors.

I propose we send in the weapons inspectors, and see what happens.

Tell me, what happened the last time we did this?

However, right now, we have no UN resolution. We have no reason. Saddam is no where near a Nuclear weapon. He’s not getting any new Bio/Chem weapons, and is going to be struggling to hold on to what he has with the inspectors.

This is what we call the waiting process. I have answered the post about nuclear availability many times. Khidir Hamza, a former member of Iraq’s weapons-building program, and other former bomb makers told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam is actively developing weapons of mass destruction and will have accumulated enough enriched uranium and gas centrifuge to have three nuclear bombs before 2005. Saddam makes his own BC’s. Based on documents by UN inspectors, Saddam still has 6,000 chemical bombs,12 to 24 mobile weapons platforms, and unmanned drones to deliver BC’s. What inspector are there?

Y,
If you ain’t gonna respond to my post re: your post . . .

HUSH!

:P

“Audentis fortuna iuvat.” (‘Fortune assists the bold’
or ‘Fortune favors the bold.’ - Virgil

You go, Virgie! - Xi