brgnorway 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,05:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 13 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,04<!--emo&)</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">I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure I follow you here. Clearly the US was attacked correct? Clearly first blood was drawn in NYC. So why can't the US invoke Article IV, since they were attacked?<span id='postcolor'> I agree with you - they were attacked. However, there is a difference between a justified "war on terrorism" and preemptive attacks. The reason for US' will to war on Iraq is because of "preemptive actions". Clearly, such actions had no place in the former role of Nato and thus might pose problems for Nato in the future. I see no reason for Nato to once again become as "united" - as it was when we had a common cause - to protect eachother from the Warsaw pact. The Iraq crisis proves this beyond doubt.<span id='postcolor'> Ah yes. I agree Article IV shouldn't be invoked for Iraq. I have no problem with it being invoked for 9/11.<span id='postcolor'> I too agree with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 13 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We aren't attempting to help aid Turkey under Article IV, we are raiding Turkey ....<span id='postcolor'> Â Yeah! Turkey's gonna get it next!<span id='postcolor'> Shit! Consider me embarassed. Post has been edited to a point where we are no longer raiding Turkey, but aiding Turkey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 13, 2003 Maybe we all need to take a breather and play some OFP? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted February 13, 2003 Keep in mind that we dont know what Saddam did during the time the UN inspectors were banned. So what if Saddam has nucleair, biological or chemical warheads? Let him use them. Also, Saddam committed genocide. Somehow i think that's one valid reason to attack Iraq... just odd that the USA didn't use that for a valid reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 13, 2003 Because he's not the worst human rights abuser. Â Although he is incredibly horrible, he's not the worst. edit - Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted February 13, 2003 I don't know if that been posted here brfore and I can't really be stuffed looking thru 270 pages of that crap so.... http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 13, 2003 9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Feb. 13 2003,169)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know if that been posted here brfore and I can't really be stuffed looking thru 270 pages of that crap so.... http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml<span id='postcolor'> Thats the 3rd time its been posted in this thread now  Or is it the 4th? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 13, 2003 UN weapons inspectors have found what they believe to be ballistic missiles in Iraq....... But they have yet to have be fully anylised yet. Im sure that this prooves without a doubt that North Korea and Suddam Hussein are co-operating together Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted February 13, 2003 An excerpt from Pres. Bush`s wishlist: South Korea, China, Taiwan and Pakistan might have chemical weapons. We gotta do something about this! Oh, I forgot about Iran... Syria... Well, we already have parts of our fleet down there. Why not? Donald says it would be a piece of cake. Aethiopia! I will never forgive them for what they did to my marines in that Black Hawk Down movie thing!!! Don`t know what`s that called down there, but that sign says evil! I gotta do something about that! ATTACK!!! These guys were rags, they MUST be taliban!! Donald doesn`t like them... Should I? I always said these pyram... puram... things were bunkers!! Our shipments are official? ooops  Great, that`s near!! No expensive transport of our troops!  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 13, 2003 "Because he's not the worst human rights abuser. Although he is incredibly horrible, he's not the worst." Wait a minute, just a couple of pages ago, you said that he WAS the worst one... Hmm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jahve 0 Posted February 13, 2003 A conspiricy theory: I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.. And now Iraq.. he said to his muslim "brothers" in Iraq to fight USA if needed... this is just go give USA a reason to go into Iraq and take it out because its alledged terrorist connections.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 13 2003,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A conspiricy theory: I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.. And now Iraq.. he said to his muslim "brothers" in Iraq to fight USA if needed... this is just go give USA a reason to go into Iraq and take it out because its alledged terrorist connections....<span id='postcolor'> That thought had crossed my mind before... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted February 13, 2003 Who knows, who knows... I have already heard rumors about some US intentions behind 11. of september. But that would be too horrible if true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
der bastler 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 13 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A conspiricy theory: I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.. And now Iraq.. he said to his muslim "brothers" in Iraq to fight USA if needed... this is just go give USA a reason to go into Iraq and take it out because its alledged terrorist connections....<span id='postcolor'> As I mentioned before, a far better reason would've been Iraq attacking Turkey. Imho it's not impossible for intel agencies to push Saddam this way or that way... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."<span id='postcolor'> 'Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war.' He he Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 12 2003,11:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Because he's not the worst human rights abuser. Â Although he is incredibly horrible, he's not the worst." Wait a minute, just a couple of pages ago, you said that he WAS the worst one... Hmm<span id='postcolor'> If you want to invade every country that is being ruled by a dictator who has killed innocent people, you probable won't stop invading. There are a looooot of bad dictators out there and some of them are a lot worse than Saddam... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 13 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.<span id='postcolor'> Such a well thought-out and credible theory deserves an equally well thought-out and credible counter-argument, so here goes: i liek pie! Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DracoPaladore 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Feb. 12 2003,03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF the United States decided to attack without permission from either NATO or the UN, woulden't that be breaking international law? I'm curious, what will the breaking of that law actually do? Punishment? A slap on the wrist?<span id='postcolor'> Anyone? I'm still curious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Feb. 13 2003,17:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Feb. 12 2003,03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF the United States decided to attack without permission from either NATO or the UN, woulden't that be breaking international law? I'm curious, what will the breaking of that law actually do? Punishment? A slap on the wrist?<span id='postcolor'> Anyone? I'm still curious.<span id='postcolor'> It would be breaking international law. It wouldn't be the first time however. The NATO military action against Yugoslavia was also not sanctioned by the UN and therefor technically illegal. I don't think there will be any direct consequences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 13, 2003 A resolution, what else? Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 13 2003,05:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A conspiricy theory: I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.. And now Iraq.. he said to his muslim "brothers" in Iraq to fight USA if needed... this is just go give USA a reason to go into Iraq and take it out because its alledged terrorist connections....<span id='postcolor'> black helicopter crowd.. lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 13 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because he's not the worst human rights abuser. Â Although he is incredibly horrible, he's not the worst. edit - <span id='postcolor'> looks like the board software has hit its ceiling for max count of views (which appears to be a 15 bit binary word if I'm not mistaken) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
der bastler 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 13 2003,18: 00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">looks like the board software has hit its ceiling for max count of views (which appears to be a 15 bit binary word if I'm not mistaken)<span id='postcolor'> Or it's a signed 16 bit integer (range: -32768...+32767). Negative postcount possible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @ Feb. 13 2003,12:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 13 2003,18: 00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">looks like the board software has hit its ceiling for max count of views (which appears to be a 15 bit binary word if I'm not mistaken)<span id='postcolor'> Or it's a signed 16 bit integer (range: -32768...+32767). Negative postcount possible? <span id='postcolor'> logically, that makes more sense (more common). A negative post count possibility is intriguing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 13, 2003 Ask Shadow about his post-count Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
