The Iraq Thread

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, we could do that.  Or we could try to get as much international support we can and go in as a coalition.  This allows us to ensure that it goes smoothly, to our liking, and that another crazy dictator doesn't just take power once Saddam leaves.<span id='postcolor'>

Summation of US Foreign Policy in the latter half of the 20th Century:

Insane Dictators are ok, so long as they are OUR insane dictator.

And therein lies the problem...

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you've really got me stumped - do you believe that there is evidence Saddam will supply WMDs for terrorists to use against the US, or not?<span id='postcolor'>

You took my 3rd quote out of context, I was talking about his WMDs, not ties to terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

So let me get this straight -

You feel threatened by the possibility of Saddam supplying weapons to terrorists to use against America, even though he has no proven ties to terrorists, but just because you think he is "evil", and could do it?

Then I stick by the fact that it is a paranoid fantasy.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,01:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, we could do that.  Or we could try to get as much international support we can and go in as a coalition.  This allows us to ensure that it goes smoothly, to our liking, and that another crazy dictator doesn't just take power once Saddam leaves.<span id='postcolor'>

Summation of US Foreign Policy in the latter half of the 20th Century:

Insane Dictators are ok, so long as they are OUR insane dictator.

And therein lies the problem...<span id='postcolor'>

Well said Warin!

The problem at hand is that US always "justifies" their actions by claiming they are "fighting" for freedom and justice. First we had the Kaiser, then came the corporal and then there was communism. Now we have terrorism!

They wil never change their way of doing things, unfortunately!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know that. But it would be a lot easier on everybody if we had a coalition.

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh well, you have your "coalition of the willing" (to commit murder).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is resolution 1441 a second chance for Saddam getting rid of weapons? 1441 is the resolution that made him get rid of the WMDs in the first place.

<span id='postcolor'>

Resolution 1441 is understood by most nations to be the means to a achieve a peacefull solution. This is where we beg to differ.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Resolution 1441 is understood by most nations to be the means to a achieve a peacefull solution. This is where we beg to differ.<span id='postcolor'>

It is understood to be a means to achieve a peaceful solution by ALL nations. However, diplomacy is a two-way street, and we've already established that Iraq must do the lion's share of the proving that they shouldn't be attacked; meanwhile, Iraq is playing the same rope-a-dope type game they've played for years. That is, incidentally, another thing almost all nations agree on: that 1441 is a resolution introduced to break the current status-quo of Iraq's status.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Resolution 1441 is understood by most nations to be the means to a achieve a peacefull solution. This is where we beg to differ.<span id='postcolor'>

It is understood to be a means to achieve a peaceful solution by ALL nations. However, diplomacy is a two-way street, and we've already established that Iraq must do the lion's share of the proving that they shouldn't be attacked; meanwhile, Iraq is playing the same rope-a-dope type game they've played for years. That is, incidentally, another thing almost all nations agree on: that 1441 is a resolution introduced to break the current status-quo of Iraq's status.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you - almost. However, IF UN inspectors find illegal material US will use this as a reason to go to war. Most other nations would in that case prefer disarmament. That is - how I see it - the difference.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,07:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So let me get this straight -

You feel threatened by the possibility of Saddam supplying weapons to terrorists to use against America, even though he has no proven ties to terrorists, but just because you think he is "evil", and could do it?

Then I stick by the fact that it is a paranoid fantasy.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I feel threatened by the fact that Saddam has weapons that he's used on civilian populations before, and would obviously be inclined to attack America, and a terrorist would be the only feasable way to do it. I feel threatened because of what happened on Sept. 11th and afterwards. We know people out there will go to extreme lengths to attack our country, we know people out there (Saddam) have the resources to do it, our biggest fear is that they're going to get together.

And no, it isn't irrational because look at what happend. The Taliban and Al Queda got together and attacked America. It's a slightly different situation, but the point still stands. Al Queda wanted to attack us, but they needed a place to train and put their feet up. So they went to the place with the resources. Iraq wants to attack us, but they can't, they need terrorists. Terrorists want to attack us, but they cant, they need someone to give/sell them weapons and to harbor them.

Yes, it is speculation, but it's certainly not irrational. And it's just one of the many reasons why we're going after Iraq.

Aside from all that, protecting American citizens isn't the only reason I support this war. There are other civilians overseas that are endangered by Saddam, there are also a lot of assets in the region he's sitting on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh well, you have your "coalition of the willing" (to commit murder).<span id='postcolor'>

yeah, right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Resolution 1441 is understood by most nations to be the means to a achieve a peacefull solution. This is where we beg to differ.<span id='postcolor'>

Which is what we get for using vague words in the resolution.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,07:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

No, I feel threatened by the fact that Saddam has weapons that he's used on civilian populations before<span id='postcolor'>

The US thousands of nuke weapons threatens me, just y do they need so many, saddiam was at war with iran apparnty WMDs were bad which the US gave him, USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which is what we get for using vague words in the resolution.<span id='postcolor'>

"The vague words" was a compromise. The members of the security-council differed greatly on how to form a text they could all agree on.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 27 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saw this on the CSMonitor, thought it was pretty interesting.

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

To publish an unsigned opinion piece is an exception to the Monitor's policy. But the views expressed here, if put with a name, could endanger the writer's extended family in Baghdad. The author - known to Monitor staff - was born and raised in Iraq. Now a US citizen with a business that requires extensive world travel, the author is in frequent touch with the Iraqi diaspora but is not connected with organized opposition to Saddam Hussein.

Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"

It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do?

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?

Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?

Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage?

Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country?

Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?"

Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?

Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?

Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq?

Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes?

No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.

Please, prove me wrong<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html<span id='postcolor'>

Remembered that I posted this a while ago:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=2830

My second post there is the most relevant in this case. How we probably care more about what our 'western equals' do, than what those (somewhere back in our heads) 'uncivilized, lazy, stupid poor bastards' do - we dont understand them anyway, right? So why care? (those latest comments was indeed sarcasms, but they are still around in our 'not as pure as we like to think' western thinking).

But I can tell you that I personally have never been as furious & engaged about any international happening in my 28 years long life, as I have been in US international politics since 9/11. They very much seems to be about increasing the 'terrorist threat' instead of decreasing it - and the benefits of that you can find in my other posts; if its not the current US administration is probably the most incompetent the world has ever seen. I have never participated in demonstrations before - but on feb. 15 I and many others fond reason to do it. Remember - it was the biggest demonstration since the Vietnam war - and the biggest ever in peacetime.

I'm a little tired, dont know if it made sense at all..

Good night

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,01:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem at hand is that US always "justifies" their actions by claiming they are "fighting" for freedom and justice. First we had the Kaiser, then came the corporal and then there was communism. Now we have terrorism!

They wil never change their way of doing things, unfortunately!<span id='postcolor'>

Y'know, the four examples you provided don't help your case very much.

Semper Fi

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Resolution 1441 is understood by most nations to be the means to a achieve a peacefull solution. This is where we beg to differ.<span id='postcolor'>

It is understood to be a means to achieve a peaceful solution by ALL nations. However, diplomacy is a two-way street, and we've already established that Iraq must do the lion's share of the proving that they shouldn't be attacked; meanwhile, Iraq is playing the same rope-a-dope type game they've played for years. That is, incidentally, another thing almost all nations agree on: that 1441 is a resolution introduced to break the current status-quo of Iraq's status.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you - almost. However, IF UN inspectors find illegal material US will use this as a reason to go to war. Most other nations would in that case prefer disarmament. That is - how I see it - the difference.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you nuts? How many times does the administration have to say that if Iraq cooperated fully, set it all out on the table, and let the UNMOVIC inspectors to do their job as defined by 1441, then war would be averted? I guess it comes down to the fact that you don't trust Bush or his administration. I guess I understand that, but it is still no reason for you to believe that we would use any possible outcome of 1441 as pretext for war.

American public support is absolutely contingent upon UN approval of a war. The numbers for a war with UN approval is upwards of 60%, however, going to war without UN consent levels out below 40%. So, to launch a major military operation with high risks and widespread geopolitical implications flatly against UN wishes just a little more than a year before presidential elections would be the equivalent of committing political suicide- Americans don't appreciate presidents that send American boys to die in wars we don't approve of.

So, to wrap up, your dim view of the American administration in this scenario stems from an inherent distrust in our ability to conduct ourselves in a reasonable or moral way.

I don't get it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US thousands of nuke weapons threatens me, just y do they need so many,<span id='postcolor'>

Now THAT'S an irrational fear.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">saddiam was at war with iran apparnty WMDs were bad which the US gave him<span id='postcolor'>

The US, along with several other countrys, gave him materials to make cures for some diseases, which he used to make weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)<span id='postcolor'>

Not only have we been warned not to discuss this, but an invasion WOULD of been necessary, Japan would NOT of surrendered. We saved lives by dropping those bombs. Now drop it or denoir will beat me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The vague words" was a compromise. The members of the security-council differed greatly on how to form a text they could all agree on.<span id='postcolor'>

Yet now we can't agree on what it means.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, to wrap up, your dim view of the American administration in this scenario stems from an inherent distrust in our ability to conduct ourselves in a reasonable or moral way.

I don't get it.<span id='postcolor'>

Well hell, Tex, it's not like they have any reason to trust us.

Semper Fi

[OxPecker 0]

@FSPilot

So what it boils down to is that after S11 America is feeling scared, which apparently gives them the right to initiate hostilities with any country who they are afraid might pose a threat?

Sorry, that just doesn't wash.

How about NK, who actually have threatened (verbally) the US with WMD?

If America feels it has the right to invade any country that it thinks has WMD and thinks harbours ill will to the mighty US of A, god help us all.

You could use that very same reasoning to attack almost any country in the world.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

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

No - are you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many times does the administration have to say that if Iraq cooperated fully, set it all out on the table, and let the UNMOVIC inspectors to do their job as defined by 1441, then war would be averted? <span id='postcolor'>

Oh dear! No matter what kind of progress there has been made (as Blix reported a few days ago), US find a reason to claim Iraq is not complying. If you ask me - and I suppose a few others - US had decided upon this strategy long before the inspections took place. There will definately be war. Bush cannot risk sending home all those soldiers and a big bill without the results he set out to achieve. That would be disastreous for the republicans in the next election - and would risk the goal of remapping whole of the middle east as planned by the neo-conservatists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess it comes down to the fact that you don't trust Bush or his administration. <span id='postcolor'>

You're right - I don't trust his government - and with good reasons too!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it is still no reason for you to believe that we would use any possible outcome of 1441 as pretext for war.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is certainly a very good reason. Just take a look at the rethoric used by his administration during the whole crisis?

"he's lying - he's hiding wmd's- he's hiding terrorists- Colin's dubious "evidence" presented in UN- He has links with Al Queda etc.- US & british intelligence first holding back the so called "evidence" only too deliver the "goods" wich by the way turns out to be outdated and wrong!

In my book that is fairly good reasons altogether!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">American public support is absolutely contingent upon UN approval of a war. The numbers for a war with UN approval is upwards of 60%, however, going to war without UN consent levels out below 40%. So, to launch a major military operation with high risks and widespread geopolitical implications flatly against UN wishes just a little more than a year before presidential elections would be the equivalent of committing political suicide- Americans don't appreciate presidents that send American boys to die in wars we don't approve of.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I've got to give your president this though - he certainly isn't afraid of taking chances! And how do you explain that he stated that USA would go in alone regardless of UN support or not?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, to wrap up, your dim view of the American administration in this scenario stems from an inherent distrust in our ability to conduct ourselves in a reasonable or moral way. <span id='postcolor'>

I trusted actually trusted your former government. What I don't get is how your president and his administration has managed to distance themselves (and your country) from almost the rest of the world - in such a short time. That takes an effort!

The part about "ability to conduct yourselves in a reasonable or moral way" - is I'm afraid beyond any doubt. Your history of foreign policy after WWII is proof enough. However, having said that I've always hoped for a US promoting a better and more just world. Guess that will take some time though.

[brgnorway 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 28 2003,041)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well hell, Tex, it's not like they have any reason to trust us.<span id='postcolor'>

Ohooo - here comes cheergirl! .............Sorry just couldn't help myself  

About those pics of yours - of course we are grateful! But don't forget we are grateful towards the russians as well. And don't forget that our soldiers died in the same trenches - at the same beaches as our american friends! However, if it's expected that our gratitude is supposed to let our policy be subordinated yours - then I'd rather be ungrateful.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 28 2003,04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well hell, Tex, it's not like they have any reason to trust us.<span id='postcolor'>

Please make the following correction:

'We', to me meaning most of the western world, actually trusts the American people quite a bit.

'We' dont, however, trust the current administration.

And it looks like a lot of Americans seem to be losing trust in him as well. Not over Iraq, mind you, but over what seems to be looking like Reaganomics Part II.

BTW,

Dredging up pictures of US war graves, and then implying the world is sort of ungrateful in some way because they wont flop over to whatever comes out of Washington is a little disgusting.

Strikes me as a rather feeble way of implying 'if you aint with us, you're against us'

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 28 2003,03:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,01:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem at hand is that US always "justifies" their actions by claiming they are "fighting" for freedom and justice. First we had the Kaiser, then came the corporal and then there was communism. Now we have terrorism!

They wil never change their way of doing things, unfortunately!<span id='postcolor'>

Y'know, the four examples you provided don't help your case very much.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

You are right - I'll explain what I meant!

Terrorism is a differnt enemy than the other three examples. It isn't one enemy but several unknown ones. The underlying problem is the reasons for this phenomenon. There is suffering and poverty, lack of rights, domination by tyrants supported by your government and an economic system totaly dominating by us the western world, thus dictating their fate.

One could very well say that our way of life is funded by the poor - at their expence - for the benefit of us.

How's that for a reason. When US fucks up democracies, fund tyrants in order to provide US companies with low-wage production, and at the same time claims to fight for "freedom and justice" - it stinks!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I trusted actually trusted your former government.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean of course, Bill Clinton. Who, I might add, committed perjury on national television. I think you all can excuse me when I point out that your line of reasoning is fucked up to a degree not previously known in my experience.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh dear! No matter what kind of progress there has been made (as Blix reported a few days ago), US find a reason to claim Iraq is not complying. If you ask me - and I suppose a few others - US had decided upon this strategy long before the inspections took place. <span id='postcolor'>

Blix reported that Iraq still isn't doing enough to comply with 1441, as well as demanding that the Al-Samud missiles be destroyed, which Iraq has yet to comply with. And, if you might notice, we haven't kicked off an invasion yet, so I would not say we haven't given the inspectors a fair chance. I mean, they've been there for about 4 months now, and if Iraq were truly cooperating to the degree 1441 requires, that would have been more than enough time to either disarm or provide the proof that they have already disarmed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I've got to give your president this though - he certainly isn't afraid of taking chances! And how do you explain that he stated that USA would go in alone regardless of UN support or not?

<span id='postcolor'>

He did indeed say that. However, if you would take the time to actually read what I typed, you would see I never said that he wouldn't, merely that it would be a very bad idea as far as his re-election prospects are concerned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is certainly a very good reason. Just take a look at the rethoric used by his administration during the whole crisis?

"he's lying - he's hiding wmd's- he's hiding terrorists- Colin's dubious "evidence" presented in UN- He has links with Al Queda etc.- US & british intelligence first holding back the so called "evidence" only too deliver the "goods" wich by the way turns out to be outdated and wrong!

In my book that is fairly good reasons altogether!

<span id='postcolor'>

He is lying. Or is the massive shortfall in his own accounting of military arsenals, blatant propagandizing, and mile-long rap sheet not enough? Hiding WMD's? I think so. Large quantities of nerve and biological agents are still unnacounted for, in addition to his unwillingness to come clean with weapons inspectors from either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC now. The Al-Qaeda links are questionable, we already established that, but that was never a reason to go to war in the first place, and is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. And according to 1441 (this is the universal interpretation, not just America's), Iraq has the onus, the burden of proof. They have to trot out the evidence, they have to supply evidence, and they have to convince us that they are now in compliance with 1441 and 687.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are right - I'll explain what I meant!

Terrorism is a differnt enemy than the other three examples. It isn't one enemy but several unknown ones. The underlying problem is the reasons for this phenomenon. There is suffering and poverty, lack of rights, domination by tyrants supported by your government and an economic system totaly dominating by us the western world, thus dictating their fate.

<span id='postcolor'>

What you fail to see is that:

1) America fought against the Kaiser.

2) America fought against the lance corporal.

3) America is the absolute main reason that the Communist Manifesto is not required reading in all of Western Europe.

4) America is fighting against terrorism- maybe not all that effectively at the moment, but fighting nonetheless.

So, what was your point again?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean of course, Bill Clinton. Who, I might add, committed perjury on national television.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thats the man! I agree that the Lewinsky-story didn't do him any favour in the integrity-department. But, he did try to broke a peace deal between Israel and the palestinians. Also, he did not share his government with politicians that declare that he couldn't care less if Arafat was hanged. Sorry, but Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang leaves something to be desired.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think you all can excuse me when I point out that your line of reasoning is fucked up to a degree not previously known in my experience. <span id='postcolor'>

That was not a particulary nice thing to say - however I'll restrain myself from replying because saying something like that is so fucking stupid!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blix reported that Iraq still isn't doing enough to comply with 1441, as well as demanding that the Al-Samud missiles be destroyed, which Iraq has yet to comply with. <span id='postcolor'>

Not yet, but soon maybe!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2806795.stm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, if you might notice, we haven't kicked off an invasion yet, so I would not say we haven't given the inspectors a fair chance. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, the last thing Bush & Co needs is Britain leaving the "coalition of the willing". So no war until Britain says go then.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean, they've been there for about 4 months now, and if Iraq were truly cooperating to the degree 1441 requires, that would have been more than enough time to either disarm or provide the proof that they have already disarmed.

<span id='postcolor'>

The inspectors asked for more time! Why do you think they did that? Could it possibly be because the whole mess would take longer than an average american working day?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He did indeed say that. However, if you would take the time to actually read what I typed, you would see I never said that he wouldn't, merely that it would be a very bad idea as far as his re-election prospects are concerned.

<span id='postcolor'>

Fair enough!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is lying. Or is the massive shortfall in his own accounting of military arsenals, blatant propagandizing, and mile-long rap sheet not enough? Hiding WMD's? I think so. Large quantities of nerve and biological agents are still unnacounted for, in addition to his unwillingness to come clean with weapons inspectors from either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC now. <span id='postcolor'>

This could very well be - but that is perhaps why the inspectore are there in the first place!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Al-Qaeda links are questionable, we already established that, but that was never a reason to go to war in the first place, and is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. <span id='postcolor'>

It was not questionable - it was utter crap! And it was indeed meant one of the factors to be building a foundation for going to war. Why the hell do you think Colin mentioned it in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And according to 1441 (this is the universal interpretation, not just America's), Iraq has the onus, the burden of proof. They have to trot out the evidence, they have to supply evidence, and they have to convince us that they are now in compliance with 1441 and 687.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but politics sort of change that a bit doesn't it! Why do you think there is no war yet? Don't you think that has a wee bit to do with other nations resisting such an act?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,05:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, what was your point again?

<span id='postcolor'>

What - can't you read:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The underlying problem is the reasons for this phenomenon. There is suffering and poverty, lack of rights, domination by tyrants supported by your government and an economic system totaly dominating by us the western world, thus dictating their fate.

One could very well say that our way of life is funded by the poor - at their expence - for the benefit of us.

How's that for a reason. When US fucks up democracies, fund tyrants in order to provide US companies with low-wage production, and at the same time claims to fight for "freedom and justice" - it stinks!

<span id='postcolor'>

[OxPecker 0]

Say what you want about Clinton, at least he wasn't a far-right wing warmonger.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The underlying problem is the reasons for this phenomenon. There is suffering and poverty, lack of rights, domination by tyrants supported by your government and an economic system totaly dominating by us the western world, thus dictating their fate.

One could very well say that our way of life is funded by the poor - at their expence - for the benefit of us.

How's that for a reason. When US fucks up democracies, fund tyrants in order to provide US companies with low-wage production, and at the same time claims to fight for "freedom and justice" - it stinks!

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER GONE WRONG IS THE UNITED STATES' FAULT. Because, as we all know, the US was the reason the WWI started (it couldn't have been anachronistic European concepts of empirialism, that's just silly! ). And of course, the US was the reason Hitler came to power and proceeded to steamroll all of Europe. Meanwhile, it was those champions of principle, the French, who finally saw through the madness of the American position and waged a war to end the horrors of the Third Reich. And naturally, it is America's fault that Communism was such a popular alternative to democracy, because it was the AMERICAN aristocracy and its exploitation of the European proletariat that led to the concept of the worker's revolt! Give me a fucking break. And since America has a monopoly on exploitation of 3rd world populations (why don't you ask Ran why the Foreign Legion spends so much time in Africa), the European countries become the dispensers of morality for the world. That is rich.