Akira 0 Posted January 31, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 01 2003,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if u can makea  treaty like that y dont they make a treaty where no one can have nukes, the fewer the better, iraq is not even close to the top of the list for dangrous countries with nukes, hell north korea has admitted to having them when they arnt allowed yet no one thing in the news about it,<span id='postcolor'> Talk to the UN. Not the US, China, Isreal, Russia, and the UK. They made it. Countries signed it *shrug* Though I agree no nukes would be better, that genie is out of the bottle and no country with them will be willing to give them up....yet. I hear all about N. Korea in the press. Editorial, and stories, like the one that just came out today about NK moving rods and preparing to make a bomb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted January 31, 2003 last one i promise Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted January 31, 2003 gee, i thought he was gona call it Mid East Texas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scanger 0 Posted February 1, 2003 does denoir not like me, my topic deserves it's own thread, and should get a good response Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 1, 2003 If you have issues with moderation, send a PM. All Iraq related topics go into this thread. You can choose between posting your story here or not posting it at all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scanger 0 Posted February 1, 2003 no PMs, i speak in public, this was asking what people thought of the attack on the plane NOT IRAQ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 1, 2003 Nah, thats the way this forum works. Stops dozens of threads taking up space. Your topic is about Iraq, so put it in the Iraq thread! As for Denoir, he loves you really, even if he is a lock happy, power crazy mod! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no PMs, i speak in public, this was asking what people thought of the attack on the plane NOT IRAQ <span id='postcolor'> Forum rule: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No discussion about how the forum is moderated. If you have a problem with a decision a moderator has made, send him a PM. <span id='postcolor'> Send me a PM and make your case and I might reconsider and reopen it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no PMs, i speak in public, this was asking what people thought of the attack on the plane NOT IRAQ <span id='postcolor'> Read the rules. If you don't, the mods won't hesitate to PR you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 01 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> last one i promise<span id='postcolor'> If someone could update me here. I remember learning the UN hadn't defined certian words such as terrorism for various reasons. But that was years ago, they probably have a definition by now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 1, 2003 Just to get the ball rolling... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a perfect example of how out of touch these people are, in her stupid attempt to save the lives of Iraquis she could have killed about 100-200 US soldiers, not very acceptable if your a PEACE ACTIVIST.<span id='postcolor'> No chance in hell that would have killed anyone. Not even the most incompetent of pilots would fail to notice that during their walkround checks, plus the caution lights flashing on in the cockpit. She shouldn't have done it, but you are overreacting in regards to this incident. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scanger 0 Posted February 1, 2003 man badger, i'm not overreacting, i'm dramatising, but we all know she was wrong and that's all that matters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Scanger @ Feb. 01 2003,01:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">man badger, i'm not overreacting, i'm dramatising, but we all know she was wrong and that's all that matters<span id='postcolor'> I'm not saying that she did right I just think that you see the things you want to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 1, 2003 Hmm... I don't get that Statue of Liberty cartoon either. New question: Â What if Saddam flees an invasion by going into hiding (with Osama, Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, etc.)? Â A while later the coalition forces determine that Iraq indeed had no WMDs. Â Should Saddam be allowed to return to power if it is determined that he was actually being honest with the UN? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scanger 0 Posted February 1, 2003 Simple answer, in my opinion no, he committed crimes against humanity in the past and should never be let rule again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 31 2003,23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 31 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is in violation of several weapons and weapons research agreements and has been for many years. Â They have refused to disarm and must now pay the price. Â They've had more than enough time to get their act together. Â Their time of defying the United States and the United Nations is over. Â Plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'> What the average war mongering American needs to consider are the words in italics. Â It is NOT up to The United States of Bush to decide it's time to go to war. Â It's up to the UN. Full stop. And thus Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the other warheads need to take a step back and let the UN decide when its time to act.<span id='postcolor'> Well said Warrin, couldn't have put it better myself. Just why do Bush and his cronies think they are above UN law? If they attack Iraq without UN sanctions then they are just as guilty as Saddam of breaking international law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted February 1, 2003 I enjoyed the cartoons HT posted above, so I am going to post my personal favourite on the subject: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 01 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... I don't get that Statue of Liberty cartoon either. New question: Â What if Saddam flees an invasion by going into hiding (with Osama, Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, etc.)? Â A while later the coalition forces determine that Iraq indeed had no WMDs. Â Should Saddam be allowed to return to power if it is determined that he was actually being honest with the UN?<span id='postcolor'> It's not that hard, it is being sarcastic. Basically it is saying the the US is going to use the same tactics against Iraq which it is supposed to be opposed to (terrorism, in it's most basic definition). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 31 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... I don't get that Statue of Liberty cartoon either. <span id='postcolor'> You do not? Ok, it shows that the US inflicts the most terror in the world, alongside from the Israeli Terrorist Forces of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 1, 2003 Ahhh... ok thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NavyEEL 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 01 2003,02:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 31 2003,23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 31 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is in violation of several weapons and weapons research agreements and has been for many years. Â They have refused to disarm and must now pay the price. Â They've had more than enough time to get their act together. Â Their time of defying the United States and the United Nations is over. Â Plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'> What the average war mongering American needs to consider are the words in italics. Â It is NOT up to The United States of Bush to decide it's time to go to war. Â It's up to the UN. Full stop. And thus Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the other warheads need to take a step back and let the UN decide when its time to act.<span id='postcolor'> Well said Warrin, couldn't have put it better myself. Just why do Bush and his cronies think they are above UN law? If they attack Iraq without UN sanctions then they are just as guilty as Saddam of breaking international law.<span id='postcolor'> the UN has had plenty of time... and they have turned over plenty of evidence. add that to the evidence the US already has, and it clearly shows that military action needs to be taken against Iraq. like it or not, these are the facts. oh, and yes i believe it IS up to the US and Bush to decide when it's time to go to war. last time i checked we were the only ones taking initiative and doing the dirty jobs that need to get done but everyone else is afraid to do. how about you present me some facts that military action is NOT justified? it has been proven time and time again that iraq is in the wrong and needs to be stopped. so rather than asking us to fork over more and more evidence, how about you give us some good reasons NOT to take down saddam? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted February 1, 2003 What, so membership to the UN is only convenient for the US when it likes it's policies? Just because you don't agree with their decisions doesn't mean you can ignore them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh, and yes i believe it IS up to the US and Bush to decide when it's time to go to war. Â <span id='postcolor'> No it's not. Wars without the approval of the UN are illegal. An attack on Iraq without the approval of the UN will legally have the same status as when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted February 1, 2003 again i urge u to take note of this cartoon http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pics/ACFOAAAwaywo.JPG its my fav one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted February 1, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 01 2003,024)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 31 2003,23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 31 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is in violation of several weapons and weapons research agreements and has been for many years. They have refused to disarm and must now pay the price. They've had more than enough time to get their act together. Their time of defying the United States and the United Nations is over. Plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'> What the average war mongering American needs to consider are the words in italics. It is NOT up to The United States of Bush to decide it's time to go to war. It's up to the UN. Full stop. And thus Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the other warheads need to take a step back and let the UN decide when its time to act.<span id='postcolor'> Well said Warrin, couldn't have put it better myself. Just why do Bush and his cronies think they are above UN law? If they attack Iraq without UN sanctions then they are just as guilty as Saddam of breaking international law.<span id='postcolor'> the UN has had plenty of time... and they have turned over plenty of evidence. add that to the evidence the US already has, and it clearly shows that military action needs to be taken against Iraq. like it or not, these are the facts. oh, and yes i believe it IS up to the US and Bush to decide when it's time to go to war. last time i checked we were the only ones taking initiative and doing the dirty jobs that need to get done but everyone else is afraid to do. how about you present me some facts that military action is NOT justified? it has been proven time and time again that iraq is in the wrong and needs to be stopped. so rather than asking us to fork over more and more evidence, how about you give us some good reasons NOT to take down saddam?<span id='postcolor'> heres one reason, who will do the dieing it wont be saddam i can tell you that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
