Bush is pushing too far

[Burl 0]

Here's my two cents worth on this thread:

1.) Bush is not a mad man, he is only concerned with preventing further attacks by terrorist whether the target is the US,England,Isreal,etc..etc...

2.) The UN has had over ten years to make the Iraqis comply with the surrender terms of the "Gulf War".

3.) Yes... Oil is always an issue... maybe the US can swing a deal with Russia to boost their Oil industry?

4.) In the 80's the US backed Iraq in their war with Iran, and wouldn't you know it, but an Iraqi fighter missiled one of our Navy ships.. go figure

5.) Bush has the option of the "War Powers Act". Basicly 90 days of military action before meeting with Congress. In this case, he is asking Congress to approve proactive actions against "rogue" states.

Doesn't this just make your head spin???

Burl

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

1.) Bush is not a mad man, he is only concerned with preventing further attacks by terrorist whether the target is the US,England,Isreal,etc..etc...

<span id='postcolor'>

I still haven't seen any serious proof on Irak's support to Al-Qaeda. Until they i see evidences, i won't support invading Irak to get Saddam and killing a few thousand inocents in the proccess.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

4.) In the 80's the US backed Iraq in their war with Iran, and wouldn't you know it, but an Iraqi fighter missiled one of our Navy ships.. go figure

<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't USS Vicennes shoot down a iranian airliner back in 88'?

[Burl 0]

Yes.. The the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner with a surface to air missile. According to "new reports" the airliner was transmitting a identification signal used by F14 Tomcat fighter jets. In the 70's the US sold Iran a few F14s.....

Is your head spinning the other way now?

Burl

[Sadico 1]

Really? i had never heard about that... Supposedly the AEGIS identified the Airbus as an inbound hostile and automaticaly engaged it. Maybe you are right But all reports i've heard said that by that time all iranian F-14's were mothballed because they didn't have any spare parts.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sweeper @ Sep. 20 2002,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And one more thing moderators are supposed to be neutral.

Give me Hilandor back! Or Placebo, MAYDAY MAYDAY!<span id='postcolor'>

I see no bias or problem in what Ralph said.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll edit topic name. current one 'spot the mad man' seems a bit accusatory. <span id='postcolor'>

Totally valid comment and sensible action, something crass like "spot the mad man" only results in someone replying with "hes a brilant preasident so fuck of". Ralph's sibtle change at least tries to ensure mature discussion.

Ralph's a new moderator and in my opinion is doing a bloody good job, how about giving him a bit of support for what is a very tough job at the start instead of publically criticising him.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN has had over ten years to make the Iraqis comply with the surrender terms of the "Gulf War".

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I see! The time is over now! The UN tried long enough! They had their chance! Now it is time to let bullets speak!

May I remind you that the US is the strongest party within the UN, a political failure of the UN is also a significant failure of the US. But again I see that most of you see it from the pragmatic angle:

bad man = bad intententions

done it in the past = will do it in the future

UN tried with diplomacy, UN failed with diplomacy = dimplomacy is rubbish

Afghanistan is in the middle East & Iraq is in the middle East

After september 11 the US is justified to do anything since it is at war against terorism.

But there are other aspects to the story. With this attack you would ruin a lot of laws that the UN was capable to implement over decades. Suddenly China would be allowed to call oppositions terorists with future threat-potential. Russia could nuke down Georgia because of "sheltering" terorists. Arent you surprised that RUSSIA AND CHINA BOTH support the US in its war against IRAQ? You people gotta learn seeing the GLOBAL IMPACTS of POLITICAL ACTIONS!

[hugo2020 0]

What would you say if Pakistan Musharaf planed a preemptive attack against india? The role model for them is Bush. So thats show that your way is wrong. It is very improbaly that the UN resolutes a WAR aggainst IRAQ. A single way of Bush would destroy the terror coalition.

[theavonlady 2]

Some of you pacifist Europeans remind me of the Hakawi Indians.

Anyone over in the US remember them and know what I'm trying to say?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

If the US attacks on the ground that "A future potential threat", and use that an eskuse, the world would come apart. Russia would use it against other countries, China will use it....

You cannot justify a war if the opponent havent attacked you yet. The country that attacks first is called "The agressor".

[WhoCares 0]

Indeed, and the job of politics is to avoid war and not to force it...

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 20 2002,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some of you pacifist Europeans remind me of the Hakawi Indians.

Anyone over in the US remember them and know what I'm trying to say? <span id='postcolor'>

sorry, wrong answer.

-=Die Alive=-

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Sep. 20 2002,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US attacks on the ground that "A future potential threat", and use that an eskuse, the world would come apart. Russia would use it against other countries, China will use it....

You cannot justify a war if the opponent havent attacked you yet. The country that attacks first is called "The agressor".<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/06/19/doctrine/index.html

Check out the link above, and before people start throwing all their toys out of their prams, yes it's a cartoon and no, you don't have to agree with it. But you have to admit, it packages up what was said previously quite nicely.

(By the way, you all owe me a pint, on the pretext that you might spill mine one day)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 20 2002,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/06/19/doctrine/index.html<span id='postcolor'>

Lol Exactly

[Burl 0]

I imagine we can draw up a huge list of failures and accomplishments of the UN, but that's not necessary. The US is a fine country with equal opportunity for all. Our population is made up of individuals from every other country in the world. A few bad apples ( terrorists or whatever they call themselves ) are just plain jealous of our live style and living conditions and want to blame all of their troubles/problems on us, because it makes them feel better. Were else in the world can you walk,drive,bicycle or take a bus to your choice of at least 5 grocery stores and take your pick of 20 different bottles of orange juice, meats, etc? AND.. not worry about getting shot at or blown up?

So yes... when some jerks decide to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings killing over three thousand people ( of all ethic backgrounds, but still Americans ) we get a little ticked off and want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There are people in the UN that figure we "deserved" to have the attack... well they can come right over to my house and tell that to my face, if they have the back bone to do it. The United Nations??? How about the crazy dictators club??

Burl

[DarkLight 0]

I vote for this: Gun control....

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 20 2002,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/06/19/doctrine/index.html

Check out the link above, and before people start throwing all their toys out of their prams, yes it's a cartoon and no, you don't have to agree with it. But you have to admit, it packages up what was said previously quite nicely.  <span id='postcolor'>

lol I'm saving that one. Sad part is, it's true

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Burl @ Sep. 20 2002,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I imagine we can draw up a huge list of failures and accomplishments of the UN, but that's not necessary. The US is a fine country with equal opportunity for all. Our population is made up of individuals from every other country in the world. A few bad apples ( terrorists or whatever they call themselves ) are just plain jealous of our live style and living conditions and want to blame all of their troubles/problems on us, because it makes them feel better. Were else in the world can you walk,drive,bicycle or take a bus to your choice of at least 5 grocery stores and take your pick of 20 different bottles of orange juice, meats, etc?  AND..  not worry about getting shot at or blown up?

So yes... when some jerks decide to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings killing over three thousand people ( of all ethic backgrounds, but still Americans ) we get a little ticked off and want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There are people in the UN that figure we "deserved" to have the attack... well they can come right over to my house and tell that to my face, if they have the back bone to do it. The United Nations???  How about the crazy dictators club??

Burl

<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, any other wester country perhaps?

Btw, that cartoon was hillarious

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Usually I am happy with one grocery store and one sort of orange juice (the one with orange flavour)!

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Burl @ Sep. 20 2002,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were else in the world can you walk,drive,bicycle or take a bus to your choice of at least 5 grocery stores and take your pick of 20 different bottles of orange juice, meats, etc?  AND..  not worry about getting shot at or blown up?<span id='postcolor'>

Pretty much in 99.9% of all western developed countries. And BTW, I lived in Cuba, and in Russia when it was still communist. Now I may not have had a choice of 20 different kinds of orange juice, but I never had to worry about getting shot at or blown up either.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Burl @ Sep. 20 2002,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few bad apples ( terrorists or whatever they call themselves ) are just plain jealous of our live style and living conditions and want to blame all of their troubles/problems on us, because it makes them feel better.<span id='postcolor'>

This show a total lack of understanding of the situation. They are not jealous, on the contrary. They don't want to be force-fed the western lifestyle. Plus, you don't think that the US involvment around the world has something to do with it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were else in the world can you walk,drive,bicycle or take a bus to your choice of at least 5 grocery stores and take your pick of 20 different bottles of orange juice, meats, etc? AND.. not worry about getting shot at or blown up?

<span id='postcolor'>

Almost everywhere in Europe and the rest of the western world (generally speaking - you can get all those things in most eastern countries as well).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So yes... when some jerks decide to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings killing over three thousand people ( of all ethic backgrounds, but still Americans ) we get a little ticked off and want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

<span id='postcolor'>

What does Saddam have to do with the WTC attacks? All attempts to link him with Al-Queida has failed so far.

[Burl 0]

1.) Ok.. let me clarify... The Al Qaeda doesn't like:

Americans

American Lifestyle

Any non-Islamic religion

Sooooo.... they start a campaign of bombing buildings, ships, etc... trying to eliminate the "infidels" also as known as Americans and this campaign will last until every one us gone. After that they will switch to "lesser infidels" such as Brits,Russians,Canadians, etc..etc..

2.) You guys got me on the grocery store.. I'll work on another idea...

3.) Saddam.. in my opinion.. has been as is currently seeking groups including Al Qaeda to carry out missions against "infidels" and suppling them with training, materials, etc. I have no evidence to support this, but I'm certain that we may have some in the future.

4.) Ok.. fire away...

Burl

[WhoCares 0]

1) You forgot the US-involvement in the Middle-East

2) d.c.

3) CIA will most likely be creative on this one

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Burl @ Sep. 20 2002,17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam..  in my opinion..  has been as is currently seeking groups including Al Qaeda to carry out missions against "infidels" and suppling them with training, materials, etc.  I have no evidence to support this, but I'm certain that we may have some in the future.<span id='postcolor'>

And I think that Kermit the Frog is conspiring with Chinese neo-nazis to overthrow the democratically chosen government in Norway. I have no evidence to support this, but I'm certain that we may have some in the future.

Saddam is not an islamic fundamentalist (unlike al-Qaida). He is not motivated by any higher ideology. He only wants to stay in power and continue being the two-bit dictator that he is now. He only uses Islam and anti-Israelism sometimes when he needs to rally support from his neighbour countries.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 20 2002,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I think that Kermit the Frog is conspiring with Chinese neo-nazis to overthrow the democratically chosen government in Norway.  I have no evidence to support this, but I'm certain that we may have some in the future. <span id='postcolor'>

I always suspected that blasted frog was up to something!

No-one can be that content with sitting on a log in a festering swamp, all this time the little green git has been planning our downfall. Grrrrrrrrr!

[Burl 0]

Are you saying the answer is to sit back and take a "wait and see what happens" stance?

Burl