Bush is pushing too far

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I may be wrong but I think he might of ment it in a funny sense.  I can see him getting suspended but I think 12/24 hours would more than get the point across.<span id='postcolor'>

As always, if you have a problem with a moderators decision, post the moderator in question

Now, as for the WW2 abombing - we have discussed that already earlier and there is no reason to drag that discussion up again. Obviously the views on that go apart. We were taught in school that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of the worst war crimes in WW2. That is my view today also, but I understand that there are people who don't agree.

[edc 0]

<s>That was a long time ago and there were some military targets in the citites.  I would bet that you would do the same thing if were in 1945 in that situation.</s>  Also there isn't anyone saying that the Welsh are developing a nuclear bomb.  If someone was I bet Britain would atleast do take out where there are developing them.  How would they be saving lives because they would be used when a war started.  Another point is that if Saddam used nuclear weapons against Israel then I would not be surprised if Israel retaliated with nuclear weapons.  They should if something like that happens.  Think of all the civilian deaths there too.

Oops sorry didn't see your post about not discussing the WW2 bombing.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another point is that if Saddam used nuclear weapons against Israel then I would not be surprised if Israel retaliated with nuclear weapons.  They should if something like that happens.  Think of all the civilian deaths there too.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam really has nothing against Israel. He only brings it up when he wants support from his Israel-hating neighbours.

On another note, why don't we attack Isreal? We know that they have nukes. They are in an exposed position and it is possible that they might use them if threatened.

What about India or Pakistan?

[edc 0]

But none of those countries has shown an intent to start war without themselves being attack. Iraq has started wars without being attacked.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 20 2002,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But none of those countries has shown an intent to start war without themselves being attack. Iraq has started wars without being attacked.<span id='postcolor'>

Well edc, if Americans start a war with Iraq without UN support, it will be an unprovoked war.

You will be the terrorists.

And if I had a little magic button to kill all US army and Govt at that time maybe I would, maybe not, but it's a possiblility.

I'll be watching the war how ever I can just hoping you guys get your ass kicked around a bit. And I hope if Iraq is attacked like that, that they get to use all the weapons they have efficiently!

EDIT: the US will be like Robert Pickton... murdering according to it's own law, nobody elses

[edc 0]

Saddam supports terrorism.  Terrorism attacked America.  Therefore using the transitive property of equality... oops getting mixed up with proofs from Geometry   .  Its pre- emptive action.

[Aaron Kane 0]

We're not gonna get kicked around, we're going to end up going in and beating the fuck out of alot of crappy soldiers who dont have any will to fight and blow up their thirty-year old tanks. Its going to be just like last time. Which means we didnt prove anything either time. Which means we're just wasting our time.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam supports terrorism.  Terrorism attacked America.  Therefore using the transitive property of equality... oops getting mixed up with proofs from Geometry   .  Its pre- emptive action.<span id='postcolor'>

So I can go kill my neighbor because he may or may not own a gun which may or may not be used to kill me if he even gets the chance?

[edc 0]

If they don't want to fight then why don't they surrender.  I think we should engage primarily the republican guard-they're the best and the most loyal people in the Iraqi army.

Your simile or metaphor or whatever it is is wrong. Your neighbor has expressed an intent to kill you, and is about to have the means to do it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It makes a difference because Saddam purposely attacked innocent civilians.  And also it was his own people not the Iranians that he attacked.  Just out of curiosity if two Iraqi scientist can't convince you that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons what will.  Also the CIA could have tons of evidence that is being kept secret so we won't reveal our sources.  If we do then we could loose a very valuable capability to get info on what Iraq is doing.  Another reason-logic.  He was developing nukes before the gulf war.  He has expressed a lot of interest in obtaining nuclear weapons, so one would assume that he would be developing them since theres nothing to stop him.  

PS I think 48hr. suspention might be a little harsh.<span id='postcolor'>

Ôkay I havent read further yet. But you are exaggerating here a little bit. Saddam was indeed killing civilians but then you must put it intot the context:

The Curds were one of the minorities that the US funded to destablise the Iraq during the Golf-war so Saddam reacted. OF course it is a treacherous way to use gas on civillians but maybe if the curds would have gotten the support from the US they were promised the whole thing wouldnt have happened. Guess why the Curds now say they have no motivation to fight against Saddam once again!

[Aaron Kane 0]

Well how can you tell who the Republican Guard is? Most people in that area look alike, and its going to be impossible to differentiate which enemy soldier is which enemy soldier in the middle of a war. It just cant be done.

Maybe Iraq has one of those laws that you have to join the military at a certain age? Who says that those guys want to fight? Most of those people arent as "financially stable" as Western citizens and are probably just trying to make a buck.

[edc 0]

I do belive that the Chem.  weapons incident happened before the Gulf War

edit:Yes it was in 1988

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 20 2002,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PS I think 48hr. suspention might be a little harsh.<span id='postcolor'>

Think a permanent ban is fairer? Because that's what I've just changed it to

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,02:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do belive that the Chem.  weapons incident happened before the Gulf War

edit:Yes it was in 1988<span id='postcolor'>

Anyone can aquire/make chemical weapons. They are common. Iraq is not only capable but willing to threaten the world. Why wait for him to arm himself? I would be happy with a complete return of weapons inspectors, backed by a UN resolution. We should capitalise on the ground we have gained from Bagdad on the issue, get the inspectors in there.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 20 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would be happy with a complete return of weapons inspectors, backed by a UN resolution. We should capitalise on the ground we have gained from Bagdad on the issue, get the inspectors in there.<span id='postcolor'>

I would be happy with that too.

[edc 0]

I would be somewhat pleased with that too if they were granted unlimited access-anywhere, anytime, and they didn't find anything.  But thats not going to happen.

And for the suspention/ban I think the 48hr. suspentions was maybe a little harsh but I can see why you might do that.  But I think a permanent ban is uncalled for--unless something else happened.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they don't want to fight then why don't they surrender.<span id='postcolor'>

Erm, what sort of logic is that meant to be?

I will tell you what sort of logic this is:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are either with us, or against us.<span id='postcolor'>

This kind of bullying may work on a high school playground, but in real world international politics it will end up very nasty very quickly.

You don't go around telling countries to show their secrets just because you are the US of A and think that this country may be a threat. The world doesn't work that way, and if someone tries to make the world work that way, he's doomed - that's a historical fact.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 20 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would be somewhat pleased with that too if they were granted unlimited access-anywhere, anytime, and they didn't find anything. But thats not going to happen.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay that's it, I want access to all US bases and government buildings for immediate unconditional inspection. I have reason to believe you have a new weapon of mass destruction in development. USA has shown it is willing to use any weapon in it's posession. You are a threat to the world, and you are terrorizing Iraq. You will comply immediately or we will remove the US regime from power. You are poisoning your population with unhealthy food and ridiculous media. This injustice to humanity must stop, we will destroy you.

EDIT: well something to that extent.. I wrote it quickly.

[edc 0]

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

Well I would somewhat agree with you there. The liberal media-especially the news channels (except for Fox News) are a problem. That was what you were refering to right?

[bn880 5]

Mostly that... bot not completely.

[SirLoins 0]

You guys will hate the source. He didn't make this stuff up.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home....st.html

All your illustrious European leaders were right behind the "let'

s act now before it's too late" crowd when Bill Clinton was president. Reason: because you knew he would never do anything about it. Now we have a man that has the balls to take the bull by the horns and actually do something about the terrorist situation.

The days of reactive military responses are over. Deal with it. Someday you'll thank this guy for standing up to the spineless UN.

Why don't you just call this the "I hate George Bush forums"

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you just call this the "I hate George Bush forums"<span id='postcolor'>

Because then it wouldn't make sense when we talk about Opf

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Sep. 21 2002,02:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would be somewhat pleased with that too if they were granted unlimited access-anywhere, anytime, and they didn't find anything.  But thats not going to happen.<span id='postcolor'>

How do you know it wont?

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. And right now the US is working on a lot of assumptions...

a) Iraq is developing nuclear weapons that it intends to use

b) Weapons inspectors will not be given unlimited and unrestricted access

c) Saddam has plans to use WMD on other coutries, specifically the US.

And basically we are being asked (We being the rest of the world) to just put our trust in Shrub, that he will look out for our interests...

And you will excuse me if I dont trust Curious George to forge the state of east (mid) / west relations for the next generation...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You guys will hate the source.  He didn't make this stuff up.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home....st.html

All your illustrious European leaders were right behind the "let'

s act now before it's too late" crowd when Bill Clinton was president.  Reason: because you knew he would never do anything about it.  <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. Talk is cheap. When confronted with the real deal, like now, they took the higher moral road. I am very glad for that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now we have a man that has the balls to take the bull by the horns and actually do something about the terrorist situation. <span id='postcolor'>

Balls to do what? Bomb a country that has been already destroyed by war?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is one of these kind of wars where things happen and you just don't know about it. But I bet we have hauled in over a couple of thousand of these people.

-- George W. Bush, South Bend, Indiana, Sep. 5, 2002<span id='postcolor'>

Btw. Where is the head of Osama bin Laden that your great beloved leader Bush promised you on a plate?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The days of reactive military responses are over. Deal with it. Someday you'll thank this guy for standing up to the spineless UN.

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes. I am already writing a thank-you letter to Bush. He has won my heart with his "subliminable" words

[SirLoins 0]

My link apparantly doesn't work so here it is.

Question....what has changed in the last four years.

European Leaders' Statements Supporting U.S. Position on Iraq

Tuesday, February 17, 1998

BALTIC STATES

Joint statements of the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania:

"We believe that strict compliance with international commitments, including United Nations resolutions, is an uncontested obligation of every country of the world community.

"We unequivocally support the United Nations resolution of destroying chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission should be allowed to continue its work without any limitations.

"We believe all diplomatic avenues should be exhausted to solve the current crises, but we also support other actions of the international coalition that are necessary to guarantee compliance of Iraq with its international commitments and demolition of weapons of mass destruction.

"The Baltic States are ready, if necessary, within their means to provide support to the international coalition to ensure implementation of United Nations resolutions."

BELGIUM

Foreign Minister Erik Derycke spoke in favor of a settlement of the crisis between the United Nations and Iraq by diplomatic rather than military means. He called on the United Nations to take initiatives in this direction. He pointed out that full responsibility for the present crisis lay with Iraq. However, he stressed that during the present "interim" situation all diplomatic initiatives must be supported. He expressed the hope that Great Britain and the United States will go back to the UN Security Council to heat the opinion of other Security Council members. If these initiatives fail, the use of force should not be ruled out as an ultimate solution to make the Iraqi government give way.

"The Iraqi situation is very different from what it was in 1991 when there was a war involving the international community as a result of the invasion of Kuwait, a war conducted in accordance with a UNSC resolution.

"In the present situation, Belgium will asses requests as they are made. As a member of NATO it has obligations, but no requests have been made at that level either."

[Rush's tip: focus on Canada, the EC, France and Germany]

CANADA

1) Prime Minister Chretien told Parliament on February 9 that, "If we do not act, if we do not stand up to Saddam, that will encourage him to commit other atrocities." He continued that "the choice is clear (for Canada). It is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and an understanding of the history of the world in this century."

2) Defense Minister Eggleton explained that although Saddam says he does not have chemical or biological weapons, the UN believes otherwise. As such, Eggleton prefers, "to believe the UN and its multilateral inspection team. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past that we cannot trust his word." On Feb. 10, Eggleton said that if a number of countries join the US-led military coalition, "this might be enough for Saddam Hussein to back off and to comply with UN resolutions."

3) Foreign Minister Axworthy at the UN Feb. 11 told reporters that "This whole thing could be solved in 10 seconds if Saddam Hussein lives up to the commitments made in 1991."

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

President Jacques Santer:

"Iraq must execute in an unconditional manner all the UN resolutions" or face "grave consequences."

FRANCE

Office of the French President Jacques Chirac:

"France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international community.

The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential sites.' Now time is running out."

GERMANY

Mr. Rudolf Scharping, Chairman of the SPD Bundestag Group:

"I would like to state the central issues once again. First, there is only one individual who bears the responsibility for the current confrontation with the United Nations, and that is Saddam Hussein. Second, he has to see to it that Iraq satisfies all the UN resolutions. Third, every possible political effort has to be made to arrive at a peaceful solution. Fourth, the danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is a matter that no one can view with indifference, and that is the case for all the other states in the region, especially Israel, as well as for the Europeans and the Americans. (applause) That is why Iraq should stop refusing to cooperate, and if all the political efforts that are being made do not result in success, a military operation cannot and should not be ruled out in this case. (applause) The United States and Great Britain can absolutely count on German solidarity."

Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel:

"Incidentally, I believe that we Germans in particular have good reason to work toward preventing a dictator from causing something terrible yet again. There was one dictator who was stopped too late. This one has to be stopped in good time. (applause)

"I personally pin hopes on Russia, Turkey, and France. At the moment, if anyone has the connections making it possible to help, it is undoubtedly these three countries. I hope it still proves possible to arrive at a diplomatic solution.

"We are maintaining intensive contact with the United States and with our partners and friends in the EU. However, our experience of Saddam Hussein to date, and I believe that this is also of key importance, shows that, unfortunately, he is only prepared to observe UN Security Council resolution when he is under pressure. The international community cannot simply accept always being made a fool of. That is why the military option must remain available. He who wants a peaceful solution in particular cannot waver in this regard."

[End of Rush's focus area]

LITHUANIA

Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Political Director Usackas:

"The Lithuanian Foreign Ministry condemns the refusal of (the) Iraqi leadership to comply with resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and allow UN weapons inspectors in to objects that are thought to contain weapons of mass destruction."

THE NETHERLANDS

Prime Minister Kok:

"We all know how Saddam Hussein operates. We know that the diplomatic-political channel should be matched with the threat of sanctions and pressure.... We cannot wait indefinitely until Saddam Hussein is finally again brought to reason. We must exert pressure."

NORWAY

Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek:

"Compliance with a binding resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council must be an absolute requirement. Norway has on a number of occasions strongly deplored the lack of willingness on the part of Iraq to fulfill its obligations and cooperate with UNSCOM. The government considers it important that respect for the Security Council as a guarantor of international peace and security is maintained."

"If attempts at a peaceful solution are not successful, and military action should be taken against Iraq, the government considers that, taking everything into account, such action can be justified within the framework of the Security Council's resolutions. The international community has the right to ensure that Iraq complies with UN resolutions."

SPAIN

President Aznar:

"This is the Spanish position. This crisis will be solved if Iraq's government clearly complies with its obligation and does the right thing. If not, the duty of the Spanish government is to let it be known that other means might be used -- a possibility we do not look forward to. But if these other means are finally used, Spain, I repeat, will obviously live up to its commitments and side with its partners and allies."

SWEDEN

Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen:

"The government hereby warns that the United Nations will take firm, unanimous action in Iraq. The resolutions passed by the Security Council have to be respected, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated."

UNITED KINGDOM

Prime Minister Blair at the White House Joint Press Conference with President Clinton on Friday, February 6, 1998:

"And what we agreed was that we had to do three things in particular. We have first of all to make sure that our own public opinion was properly educated as to why it's so essential that the UN inspectors are able to do their work, the amount of weapons that they have already uncovered in the six or seven years that they have been doing this task, and why it is therefore absolutely essential that Saddam Hussein is brought back into line with UN Security Council resolutions and the inspectors can go about their tasks unhindered.

"Secondly, though, in relation to Iraq, it is important that we stress all the time, of course we want a diplomatic solution, but it must be a diplomatic solution based on and fully consistent with the principles that we have set out. The question of whether there is such a diplomatic solution rests ultimately with Saddam Hussein. He has the choice. He can bring himself back into compliance with the agreements he entered into, and then that diplomatic solution can be fulfilled.

"Thirdly, however, we have of course to prepare in case diplomacy cannot work. In view of the situation, we in Britain have been looking at our own military readiness in case a diplomatic solution does not in the end prove possible. We have decided to base eight Tornado GR-1 aircraft in Kuwait, with the full agreement of the government of Kuwait.

"Remember, he agreed -- he undertook to destroy any weapons of mass destruction capability, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological. Now he's in breach of that. We've got to make sure he complies one way or another with it."

Foreign Secretary Cook:

Cook said that Kofi Annan has got to go to Iraq with two things.

"First of all, he has to go with the message that Saddam must carry out the undertakings which he himself actually signed up to do, namely to allow the UN inspectors to carry out their work without obstruction, without refusal to get into certain sites, without any no-go areas.

"... Secondly, he has got to go with the clear understanding of what would be an acceptable outcome to the Security Council."

"... We are proposing a precise, specific military strike to carry out by military means what Saddam is currently preventing us from doing through the UN inspection regime, namely to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. But ... we would prefer a diplomatic solution."

Doorstep interview with UK Foreign Secretary Cook and Mr. Salman Rushdie in London:

"We have always stressed that we want to explore all diplomatic avenues before any military action is taken, and we are very supportive of the idea that Kofi Annan should visit Baghdad, provided we are clear that Baghdad will treat him seriously...; the objective must be effective inspection by UNSCOM that stops Saddam Hussein (from) acquiring chemical and biological weapons."