The Iraq Thread

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US did not start the war on Afghanistan, we only attacked. In other words, Afghanistan (namely, the Taliban) provoked us and technically attacked us, though indirectly. So no, we did not start the war in Afghanistan. And by going through with the war in Afghanistan we are trying to get peace in the world. Al Queda certainly wasn't picking flowers.<span id='postcolor'>

This is by far the greatest bullshit I have read for a while.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe this is precise enough to put you in a better mood <span id='postcolor'>

Yep, thanks...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whats to stop Bin Laden turning around and saying that America provoked him thus technically attacking him and Al Quada forcing him to have to attack America back?<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that he's a religious fundamentalist radical that would attack us and kill civilians with little or no provocation whatsoever?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is by far the greatest bullshit I have read for a while.<span id='postcolor'>

... and?

Why do you feel this way? What historical facts do you have to back up your opinion?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rather than beating around the bush, E6Hotel, could you please describe what you perceive to be the most relevant threat posed against the USA by Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a shocker for you:  The only "threat" Iraq poses to the U.S. is the possibility that they might provide WMD's to terrorists.  You can debate whether Iraq has ties to AQ or not; personally, I don't care WHICH terrorists Iraq deals with -- and as I stated in my "bush beating" post, Iraq DOES have past and present connections to terrorism, so it's a possibility.  (Unless, of course, you'd like to debate either of the two connections I mentioned.)

However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act.

Simply put, the "threat" posed by Iraq is to UN credibility.  If the UN doesn't care enough about its resolutions to ensure that they're enforced, it should stop passing them.  Speaking as a member of the U.S. military, it's my opinion that we've shed too much blood for the UN to give up on it, but it's hell-bent on undermining itself more and more by the day.

Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists ), let's consider what the non-stance on Iraq means w/ respect to other current events:

Imagine for a moment that the Security Council managed to find the guts to pass a resolution on North Korea.  (Yeah, I know it'll never happen, because NK's pimp-daddy has one of the vetoes.)  Even if a resolution passed, do you think for one second that NK would take it seriously, after having watched Iraq jerk the UN around for twelve years?  Hell, even if NK took it seriously, would the UN?

That's my opinion as a Marine.  My personal opinion, as an undoubtedly misguided idealist (who has, at least, put his money where his mouth is), is that tolerating Saddam's evil (woohoo, I'm feelin' judgmental tonight) regime is far more immoral than a war that would put an end to it.

Semper Fi

[foxer 0]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 20 2003,033)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US did not start the war on Afghanistan, we only attacked.  In other words, Afghanistan (namely, the Taliban) provoked us and technically attacked us, though indirectly.  So no, we did not start the war in Afghanistan.  And by going through with the war in Afghanistan we are trying to get peace in the world.  Al Queda certainly wasn't picking flowers.<span id='postcolor'>

This is by far the greatest bullshit I have read for a while.<span id='postcolor'>

Wasn't it russia who started the problems in the afghanistan first ?  I mean i doubt america would have anything to do with afghanistan if russia didn't invade them.So russia started it,america chip in to the help the small guy out,we left once russia left.They got upset.Blah blah.So it just wasn't america.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whats to stop Bin Laden turning around and saying that America provoked him thus technically attacking him and Al Quada forcing him to have to attack America back?<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that he's a religious fundamentalist radical that would attack us and kill civilians with little or no provocation whatsoever?<span id='postcolor'>

I think he had provacation. Just not worthy provocatation.

He finds Western society provoking just like most of Western society finds his actions provoking.

[Major Fubar 0]

It is my belief that the American media has drummed this imagined threat of "evil countries" (in particular Iraq) supplying WMDs to terrorists to strike at America to the point where many of the populace are paranoid about it

Maybe it's not the media, maybe people have taken movies like Sum of All Fears, True Lies and The Peacemaker too seriously.

Is there any evidence to back up that this is a possibility, or just rampant paranoia? (Not to mention that there are still no proven ties between Iraq and terrorist organisations).

Anyway, look at the last 2 mass attacks on civilians in the US: S11, and the Oaklahoma Bombing. One was perpetrated with hijacked planes, the other with a truckload of homemade explosives (mainly manure). No WMDs from overseas suppliers to be seen here. If these bogeyman terrorists want to strike at America (or any other country for that matter) they hardly need nukes to do it.

So please, don't use the "looming threat" of terrorist attack on the US as an excuse for action against Iraq. If you want to claim it's due to UN breeches, fine. I still disagree with the reason, but at least it's not a paranoid fantasy.

[9mm 0]

The problem with Iraq is that it doesn't have any pimp daddy next to its boundries. This is why Saddam is so unpredictable.

North Korea won't do anything unless China would allow it.

And if Kim would do anythig that might destabilize the situation in the region, his pimpy daddy would be the first one to bring him back in line.

And note that today's China is pretty much diffrent from the one it was during Korean War.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is my belief that the American media has drummed this imagined threat of "evil countries" (in particular Iraq) supplying WMDs to terrorists to strike at America to the point where many of the populace are paranoid about it

<span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan proved instrumental in giving Al-Qaeda the safe havens and support it needed to conduct the-attacks-I-don't-even-need-to-name that occurred in 2001. Is it so incredibly unreasonable that another country would be willing to attempt the same thing?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is there any evidence to back up that this is a possibility, or just rampant paranoia? (Not to mention that there are still no proven ties between Iraq and terrorist organisations).

<span id='postcolor'>

Think about it. You are a dictator who is pretty strapped for cash because you bit off more than you could chew about 12 years ago. Simultaneously, you have a score to settle with a certain Bush family, that just regained power in America. You're sitting on a large cache of WMD that would be just perfect to kill a large number of Americans, except you don't have a delivery means to get them to the target. So, who do you call? Why, the world's dumbest bombs, those wacky Islamic fundamentalists who think blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowd of their enemies will set them up in Paradise for eternity. You hate the Americans, the terrorists also hate the Americans; you have WMD that are just tailor-made for a little bit of Persian Gulf Payback, they have the means to get the weapons to the target. It's a match made in Heaven to use a bad metaphor.

Also, I'd like to correct you on one thing: there are no proven links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, however Iraq has been known to associate and fund other terrorist organizations (just because they aren't specifically anti-Western in their actions doesn't mean the crimes they commit aren't terrorist acts). To name a few, there is the Abu Nidal Organization (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/abu_nidal_organization.html), the MEK, also known as the People's Mujaheddin of Iran (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/mujahedin-e-khalq_organization.html), and of course the Palestinian Liberation Front (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/palestine_liberation_front.html), a splinter terrorist faction that is usually in line with the PLO.

Now, the whole idea of this amped up fight against terrorism is to get them before they get us; the attacks in 2001 created a worldwide sense of solidarity that allowed us to take care of business in Afghanistan. However we simply cannot afford a 9/11 situation, both economically and psychologically, every 3 years just to keep our allies on task. I mean, look at how jittery Americans are now even when we are fairly safe due to the hair-trigger level of security we currently are enforcing. There has been a nationwide run on duct tape and plastic sheeting, for Chrissakes! I mean, these Americans are so scared that they are willing to believe that plastic sheeting is going to protect them, and I'd like to point out that we haven't even been attacked in nearly a year and a half. But I digress.

As for the argument that terrorists don't need to use WMD to attack us effectively, this is only true up to a point. Terrorists have a seperate set of goals than the average person with a cause, and as such they may pursue unorthodox methods that allow for maximum effect. For example, Al Qaeda's modus operandi to this point has been large, dramatic attacks that are able to throw a large country off balance (see the USS Cole and 9/11 attacks). Now, they don't call nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons weapons of mass destruction for nothing; they have been proven to be some of the most cost-effective ways to kill people the world has ever seen. So, what would fit Al Qaeda's MO more appropriately than utilizing weapons that are inherently suited to the task of creating a large amount of death and destruction in ratio to the effort expended in deploying them?

That brings me back to the original logical equation you can draw that shows a possibility that Iraq could supply terrorists with WMD. Both sides hate America; however, only one side has the weapons that could really hurt us, and only one side has a viable way to get the weapon to us. So, a common goal + a mutual need for each other to achieve said goal = strange bedfellows.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I would say that two major components are required:

[*] Global police work to catch the terrorists

[*] Political work to prevent people from wanting to become terrorists

USA is going IMO in the completely wrong direction on both points. Military action is prefered before police work. Instead of trying to mend fences with the muslim world USA seems to do its best to piss it off. The sum of the results is that you don't catch the terroists since the military isn't organized to do that kind of work and you end up getting more enemies and potential future terrorists each day through ignorant politics.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes you can take down terrorist cells in cities with police forces but when you have to dig out heavily armed terrorists from the mountains you need to call in the military. That what the Special Forces are there for. Religious fanatics won't listen to political promises. But policy is of course needed in long-term reduction in number of terrorist recruits. But unfortunately many terrorists just hate the western way of life not the politics and their heads can't be turned.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,09:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><snip>

I mean, look at how jittery Americans are now even when we are fairly safe due to the hair-trigger level of security we currently are enforcing. There has been a nationwide run on duct tape and plastic sheeting, for Chrissakes! I mean, these Americans are so scared that they are willing to believe that plastic sheeting is going to protect them, and I'd like to point out that we haven't even been attacked in nearly a year and a half. But I digress.

<snip><span id='postcolor'>

I agree with Fubar, that the government uses the fear of its citizens to rally them for a war in Iraq. However, it is not the media, generating this fear, but the government itself. Wasn't it the government that told them to buy the duct tape? By this they fake an imminent threat...

Back in Cuba, October '62, that was a real threat. And a very imminent threat. It almost left no time and space for a political solution. However, because the alternative was a war, that nobody would have won, they managed to find another way. And after the retreat of the russians from Cuba it was not like the Cold War suddenly ended.

About this storing WMDs on ships on the sea: almost all ships heading to or leaving Iraq are controlled by a big fleet in the persian gulf to enforce the embargo. But it is good to see, that the government suddenly starts to care about the nature

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Afghanistan proved instrumental in giving Al-Qaeda the safe havens and support it needed to conduct the-attacks-I-don't-even-need-to-name that occurred in 2001.<span id='postcolor'>

Afganistan? They planned it in Germany and trained in USA. Where does Afganistan come into the picture?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean, look at how jittery Americans are now even when we are fairly safe due to the hair-trigger level of security we currently are enforcing. There has been a nationwide run on duct tape and plastic sheeting, for Chrissakes! I mean, these Americans are so scared that they are willing to believe that plastic sheeting is going to protect them, and I'd like to point out that we haven't even been attacked in nearly a year and a half.<span id='postcolor'>

What is obvious is that this is a systematic policy from the Bush regime to keep people on their toes. Scaring people is the main point of terrorism and it has worked better in USA then Osama could have ever dreamed about. So why is Bush enforcing a policy that plays right in to the terrorists' hands? It's quite simple - scared people are willing to reduce their freedom without a proper reason. Scared people are willing to go to war over much less. I don't know who has done a better job frightening the US public - Osama with the WTC attacks or Bush with his constant diffuse terror warnings. Any sane person can see that an attack on Iraq will only benifit Osama and that the number of his followers will dramatically increase.

These things are very plain to see and so far Bush seems to be getting away with it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That brings me back to the original logical equation you can draw that shows a possibility that Iraq could supply terrorists with WMD. Both sides hate America; however, only one side has the weapons that could really hurt us, and only one side has a viable way to get the weapon to us. So, a common goal + a mutual need for each other to achieve said goal = strange bedfellows.

<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has not liked America since 1991. Saddam has had plenty of time to give WMDs to terrorists but has not. He didn't even use them during the gulf war. And I'll also point out that the biggest single terrorist attack in the world was executed by using civilian airliners, not WMDs.

Assuming that Iraq has WMDs, the only risk of them giving it away to terrorists is Iraq is invaded and Saddam about to be removed from power. So why start a war when you run the risk of causing the very thing you are trying to prevent?  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death.

Otto Von Bismarck

<span id='postcolor'>

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I remember correctly he is the one who has in a two year period started one war and about to start another. And before you start saying that you were the ones that were attacked first I'll just point out that it wasn't Afganistan who attacked you. You started the war against Afganistan since they refused to extradite certain persons.

Bush is the main danger to peace and stability in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I was sitting on my hands until I saw this.  The US did not start the war on Afghanistan, we only attacked.  In other words, Afghanistan (namely, the Taliban) provoked us and technically attacked us, though indirectly.  So no, we did not start the war in Afghanistan.  And by going through with the war in Afghanistan we are trying to get peace in the world.  Al Queda certainly wasn't picking flowers.<span id='postcolor'>

Same problem than before, Afghanistan is NOT Taliban (no wonder Massoud did have followers), Taliban are NOT the one who have prepared and executed 9/11 (UBL was just hiding amongst Taliban), but US (and others...) come and drop cluster bombs over Kabul. You attacked UBL by starting a war in Afghanistan.

I hope you do not wonder why you (err... In fact I mean "we") are not welcome in Middle East countries and why the audience to UBL bullshit is so high. And why the situation we have let before "departing" is so bad now, as this situation is refused.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The only "threat" Iraq poses to the U.S. is the possibility that they might provide WMD's to terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Is this just speculation or is there actual evidence of Iraq providing or seeking to provide WMDs to terrorists?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Iraq DOES have past and present connections to terrorism, so it's a possibility.  (Unless, of course, you'd like to debate either of the two connections I mentioned.)<span id='postcolor'>

Each of those two connections involve a single cause that has nothing to do with the US.  Do you consider every nation that has ever had some connection to terrorism (not including the US itself) to be a threat to the US?

And by the way, why do you put the word threat in quotation marks?  Is it not a word you would use in this context?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act.<span id='postcolor'>

When the act is invasion of a sovereign nation then you should probably wait with acting until the threat moves beyond the realm of speculation.  I don't expect you to agree with that given the career you've chosen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Simply put, the "threat" posed by Iraq is to UN credibility.  If the UN doesn't care enough about its resolutions to ensure that they're enforced, it should stop passing them.  Speaking as a member of the U.S. military, it's my opinion that we've shed too much blood for the UN to give up on it, but it's hell-bent on undermining itself more and more by the day.<span id='postcolor'>

Please tell me why the UN hasn't already collapsed under the weight of alllllllllllllll those other resolutions (hundreds) that remain unenforced?  E6Hotel, I'm just looking for some consistency in the policies of your country.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists )...<span id='postcolor'>

Anger the terrorists?  You must be joking.  Al-Qaida would rejoice.  The USA would be proving to all the world's would-be radicals that America is indeed the Great Satan.  Al-Quaida's numbers would skyrocket and, to deal with the increased threat, the US military would have to double its budget to pay for all the additional marines and...

Oooooh... I understand where you are coming from now.  

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Simply put, the "threat" posed by Iraq is to UN credibility. If the UN doesn't care enough about its resolutions to ensure that they're enforced, it should stop passing them. Speaking as a member of the U.S. military, it's my opinion that we've shed too much blood for the UN to give up on it, but it's hell-bent on undermining itself more and more by the day.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll tell you something about the U.S. and U.K. repeating this "credibility of U.N." B.S.: If the U.S. and U.K. was not currently pushing for war and massing troops near Iraq, the credibility of the U.N. would be much better off, also, massing the troops near Iraq is the biggest undermining of the U.N. in itself.

And as to all the pro war debaters, going behind the U.N.'s back to enforce it's resolutions is absurd. It's not protecting anything, it's a vigilant move.

And it's NEVER about the U.N. resolutions, it can't be. Israel has been in defiance of several dozen U.N. resoutions with respect to the state of Palestine, all sorts of WMD's, and human rights violations. If you want to start talking enforcing U.N. resolutions, turn the troops around and get the god damn Israeli terrorist forces out of Palestine and speperate the two states by force. Get rid of the Israeli WMD's, and all's in order. About 10 years later you can look at reslolutions on Iraq...

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 20 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Afganistan? They planned it in Germany and trained in USA. Where does Afganistan come into the picture?<span id='postcolor'>

They also trained in Afganistan on Al-Quaida training camps where they sent terrorists around the world to form cells. Evidence of all these connections was presented to European prime ministers before Americans commenced the attack and they were all convinced of it. Now the operation itself has shown that all these have been true. Frankly I don't know why you question things that are clearly proved?

[Longinius 1]

"They also trained in Afganistan on Al-Quaida training camps where they sent terrorists around the world to form cells."

They trained in the US aswell. I dont see any US airplanes bombing US cities. All though we know for a fact that there are Al Queda operatives in the US.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this just speculation or is there actual evidence of Iraq providing or seeking to provide WMDs to terrorists?<span id='postcolor'>

For the third time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Each of those two connections involve a single cause that has nothing to do with the US.  Do you consider every nation that has ever had some connection to terrorism (not including the US itself) to be a threat to the US?<span id='postcolor'>

For the fourth time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And by the way, why do you put the word threat in quotation marks?  Is it not a word you would use in this context?<span id='postcolor'>

I used quotation marks because it's a hypothetical.  For the fifth time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the act is invasion of a sovereign nation then you should probably wait with acting until the threat moves beyond the realm of speculation.<span id='postcolor'>

The threat to the U.S. is speculation.  The threat to the UN is not.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't expect you to agree with that given the career you've chosen.<span id='postcolor'>

[Confederate General voice] You wound me, Suh. [/Confederate General voice]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anger the terrorists?  You must be joking.  Al-Qaida would rejoice.<span id='postcolor'>

Glad you picked up on the sarcasm.  It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oooooh... I understand where you are coming from now.  <span id='postcolor'>

Obviously you don't.

Semper Fi

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 20 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They trained in the US aswell. I dont see any US airplanes bombing US cities. All though we know for a fact that there are Al Queda operatives in the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Well is this thread getting ridiculous or what?

That's why there is police force to deal with domestic terrorism.They don't have assault rifles, RPGs, mountain forts, tanks and caves in downtown New York you know?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the U.S. and U.K. was not currently pushing for war and massing troops near Iraq, the credibility of the U.N. would be much better off, also, massing the troops near Iraq is the biggest undermining of the U.N. in itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you seriously suggesting that UN inspectors would have been re-admitted without the threat of action by the U.S. and UK?

Semper Fi

[Longinius 1]

"Well is this thread getting ridiculous or what?

That's why there is police force to deal with domestic terrorism.They don't have assault rifles, RPGs, mountain forts, tanks and caves in downtown New York you know?"

No, but they could have those things in other places in America. If you want to build an army, America must be the best place.

Besides, the fact that there were training camps in Afghanistan does not give the US the right to bomb that land and invade. Like you said, its a question for lawenforcement. If they cant handle it, you should have the UN deal with it. You cant just go around like Rambo, killing people left and right because you feel its OK.

[Bernadotte 0]

When I asked you to describe what you perceived to be the most relevant threat posed against the USA by Iraq, you said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only "threat" Iraq poses to the U.S. is the possibility that they might provide WMD's to terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Yet, at the same time, you state (repeatedly):

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that the same as saying Iraq does not pose a relevant threat to the USA?  (I did ask you not to beat around the bush, didn't I?)

Please bear in mind that I did not ask your opinions about why the US should invade Iraq or what threat Iraq poses against the UN.  However, since you offered your opinions anyway (so much for not beating around the bush), why did you avoid the following question:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please tell me why the UN hasn't already collapsed under the weight of alllllllllllllll those other resolutions (hundreds) that remain unenforced?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Glad you picked up on the sarcasm.<span id='postcolor'>

Umm... awful glad you're not beating around the bush.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.  So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oooooh... I understand where you are coming from now.  <span id='postcolor'>

Obviously you don't.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... Did we touch a nerve or do we just need to lighten' up a bit?  

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,12:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the U.S. and U.K. was not currently pushing for war and massing troops near Iraq, the credibility of the U.N. would be much better off, also, massing the troops near Iraq is the biggest undermining of the U.N. in itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you seriously suggesting that UN inspectors would have been re-admitted without the threat of action by the U.S. and UK?

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying what I wrote there...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,12:o2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the U.S. and U.K. was not <span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>currently</span> pushing for war and massing troops near Iraq, the credibility of the U.N. would be much better off, also, massing the troops near Iraq is the biggest undermining of the U.N. in itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you seriously suggesting that UN inspectors would have been re-admitted without the threat of action by the U.S. and UK?<span id='postcolor'>

Are you seriously suggesting that the military build up that bn880 is referring to happened before UN inspectors were re-admitted?

[foxer 0]

I'll just say this again,but seems like alot of people that are anti war don't think about this.If America/brits didn't sends thousands of troops over there next to iraq,iraq wouldn't be doing anything.

Also i never knew how crazy this board is until i seen this...

"Well is this thread getting ridiculous or what?

That's why there is police force to deal with domestic terrorism.They don't have assault rifles, RPGs, mountain forts, tanks and caves in downtown New York you know?"

No, but they could have those things in other places in America. If you want to build an army, America must be the best place.

Besides, the fact that there were training camps in Afghanistan does not give the US the right to bomb that land and invade. Like you said, its a question for lawenforcement. If they cant handle it, you should have the UN deal with it. You cant just go around like Rambo, killing people left and right because you feel its OK.

Lay off the CrAcK.