hi ho, hi ho...it's off to war we go!

[Cedwyn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2293511.stm

yes, i was being facetious with the subject

[AthenA]

*sigh*

This has all become some horrible nightmare for me. Just when I though that maybe a few key parties were coming around (to realizing what a joke the president is), it all falls apart.

Anyone happen to catch the national news last night? The pictures "proving" that Saddam is posing a threat to troops in the area by firing missles "at U.S. planes"? Too bad you couldn't actually see what they were shooting at....Hell, those tanks could have been pictures from across the world, 5 years ago for all I know!

And poor Turkey...An ally of the U.S. for years. They lost billions of dollars in trade with Iraq during the Gulf War...And now Bush is pressuring them to side with us again! Just another example of how Bush seems to think of no one but himself.

I mean, hey, if we really think that Saddam is that big of a threat...Go in there and find out what he's got, but this full-fledged war stuff is bullshit. We should use only as much force as necessary to get the job done.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by AthenA

I mean, hey, if we really think that Saddam is that big of a threat...Go in there and find out what he's got, but this full-fledged war stuff is bullshit. We should use only as much force as necessary to get the job done.

I agree with you on most of what you said. In fact I don't think we should go in imho. However using minimal force and expecting everything to go as planned is how things like the incedent in sommolia happen. If you are going to do put peoples lives on the line, you should make do all that is possible within reason to asure victorey. Am I making sense over here?

[AziaNI2eD]

Damn. Go hug a fucking tree, sing Cum BaYa (sp) ya fucking hippies.

They've intercepted Weapons grade materials on it's way to Iraq. Saddam HAS gassed his OWN people in the past. You don't think he'd do it to us?

We went to war 10 years ago. HE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO END THE WAR. He has NOT lived up to that agreement. It's time to fucking do something about it.

Once the weapons inspectors get there it'll be the same bullshit. We should fucking level the country and make Iraq the 51st state.

[Justin]

There are UN resolutions that this nation is violating.

US interests are on the line.

We know they have weapons of mass destruction.

They're leader does not seem reasonable.

The middle east needs democratizing.

Invade Israel now!

[AziaNI2eD]

um. I think that Isreal needs to get out of the palestinian areas. Need to leave yasir (sp) alone. They haven't fired at american planes.

[Cedwyn]

saddam has been in compliance...he's only refusing access to 8 palaces, which is his right under an agreement with kofi anaan (sp?).

and azian:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28958

to think that our government doesn't act against its own citizens is naive at best.

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
There are UN resolutions that this nation is violating.

US interests are on the line.

We know they have weapons of mass destruction.

They're leader does not seem reasonable.

The middle east needs democratizing.

Invade Israel now!

Indeed.

[groove_E]

Originally posted by AziaNI2eD
Damn. Go hug a fucking tree, sing Cum BaYa (sp) ya fucking hippies.

They've intercepted Weapons grade materials on it's way to Iraq. Saddam HAS gassed his OWN people in the past. You don't think he'd do it to us?

We went to war 10 years ago. HE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO END THE WAR. He has NOT lived up to that agreement. It's time to fucking do something about it.

Once the weapons inspectors get there it'll be the same bullshit. We should fucking level the country and make Iraq the 51st state.

yay for brainwashing! horrah! jesus... why do you think saddam would be militarizing? do you really think any leader on this planet would be insane enough to try to attack the united states? if he's building weapons of mass destruction, its because he's being provoked by our fearless leader.

[AziaNI2eD]

Originally posted by groove_E


yay for brainwashing! horrah! jesus... why do you think saddam would be militarizing? do you really think any leader on this planet would be insane enough to try to attack the united states? if he's building weapons of mass destruction, its because he's being provoked by our fearless leader.

hey dip shit.


9/11 ring a bell?


No one is going to go head to head with us. But Covert ops. Like hijacking planes? or how about Chemical/biological weapons releases. They would be hard to track down

[DJ Rawkus]

*restricts urge to slap AzianRed into intelligence*

[AziaNI2eD]

I know about Gulf War Syndrome. But we don't know what caused it. It could have been the innoculations the soildiers recieved. I refuse flu shots and the like. Often they have mercury and other bad things in them... Could have been a biological released by saddam. COuld have been accidental.

I think the blanket denial is bullshit. I think the cover up is wrong.

But who's to say it was intentional. Accidents happen. And I think responsibility SHOULD be taken. But what does this have to do with us kicking his ass again?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
There are UN resolutions that this nation is violating.

US interests are on the line.

We know they have weapons of mass destruction.

They're leader does not seem reasonable.

The middle east needs democratizing.

Invade Israel now!

Doc do you really think that? Is this something you advocate out in the real world? Or is that, since your confined behind a computer screen you can put forth these wacky ideas without fearing looking like you have your head screwed on upside down? Becuase you know these statements would be rediculous in a real debate in public. With all due respect Doc, allot of what people say on these boards, as wacky as they are, I can only take some of them as cynical tongue in cheek comments, nothing really based on facts and reason. Out in the real world I think such ideas are as irrelevant as commentary on Iron Chef. But out of all people.. Doc please tell me your not surious. <G>

Yes Israel has more UN Resolutions against them than Iraq does, and what your saying is that every single one of them is legit? And your holding the UN up as a legitamite body behind them? The UN has declared Israel as a racist state while dozens of other states who acttually are stand un-touched. During many of the UN security counsel meetings leaflets of propaganda and anti-semetic cartoons are passed around the UN body. Is that what you call an impartial Global governing body? Doc out of all people I would never thought you would resort to stooping to a low level of thought. I hope you come back around. You been one of the most reasonable people here to discuss surious issues with on the board and that speaks volumes considering the atmosphere of thought that does occur on NWTekno.

Take Care,
Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
saddam has been in compliance...he's only refusing access to 8 palaces, which is his right under an agreement with kofi anaan (sp?).



He's not been in compliance. EVER! And that's unacceptable what the UN will agree too.

-Zupan

[ZupanGOD]

Wow.. that Muslim suspect sounded just like some of the left wing wacko board kids here.

haha

-Jason

[AziaNI2eD]

where's scott to defend the hijackers?

And no, Saddam was NEVER in compliance. The inspectors were turned away from NUMEROUS sites. The palaces were off limits according to the agreement made at the time...

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by groove_E


yay for brainwashing! horrah! jesus... why do you think saddam would be militarizing? do you really think any leader on this planet would be insane enough to try to attack the united states? if he's building weapons of mass destruction, its because he's being provoked by our fearless leader.

And if he's building them, it's with supplies/technology sold or given to him by us, during the Reagan administration. Just like we did for Osama.

[CloverKid]

Another day, another false information thread. First off, the Reagan administration NEVER armed Saddam, I have heard of this and come to find out, surprise, it's another misleading liberal news article. Saddam is an absolute evil person, the people of Iraq are oppressed and want him out. The Iraqi people want him out of the country. He has killed 1.5 million muslims and had gassed his own people as well. He aides and allows terrorist training in his country. He has turned down U.N. inspectors again and again. Him saying they will allow inspectors this time is just them attempting to buy time to hide their weapons in schools, just like they have done before. If he is not a threat, then why are his agents franticly searching for weapons grade uranium? Cedwyn, please do more research on a topic before posting. With all due respect I find it odd that you can be so naive. It's the liberal's and the democratic party now that won't trust the american people with a handgun, but now all of a sudden they want to trust a guy that has chemical/biological weapons. GIVE ME A BREAK.

He has had 11 YEARS to comply and he hasn't. So his time is way over-due. Invade now and save millions while getting rid of Saddam.

-Larry

[AziaNI2eD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss


And if he's building them, it's with supplies/technology sold or given to him by us, during the Reagan administration. Just like we did for Osama.

so let's go fix a mother fucking mistake :-)

[AziaNI2eD]

Originally posted by CloverKid
Another day, another false information thread. First off, the Reagan administration NEVER armed Saddam, I have heard of this and come to find out, surprise, it's another misleading liberal news article. Saddam is an absolute evil person, the people of Iraq are oppressed and want him out. The Iraqi people want him out of the country. He has killed 1.5 million muslims and had gassed his own people as well. He aides and allows terrorist training in his country. He has turned down U.N. inspectors again and again. Him saying they will allow inspectors this time is just them attempting to buy time to hide their weapons in schools, just like they have done before. If he is not a threat, then why are his agents franticly searching for weapons grade uranium? Cedwyn, please do more research on a topic before posting. With all due respect I find it odd that you can be so naive. It's the liberal's and the democratic party now that won't trust the american people with a handgun, but now all of a sudden they want to trust a guy that has chemical/biological weapons. GIVE ME A BREAK.



Okay we're on the same side but yer an idiot. We were sending aid (money and weapons) to Saddam untill the day he invaded Kuwait.

[CloverKid]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
Wow.. that Muslim suspect sounded just like some of the left wing wacko board kids here.

haha

-Jason

Yes Jason. You hit the nail right on the head on that one.

-Larry

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Doc do you really think that? Is this something you advocate out in the real world? Or is that, since your confined behind a computer screen you can put forth these wacky ideas without fearing looking like you have your head screwed on upside down? Becuase you know these statements would be rediculous in a real debate in public. With all due respect Doc, allot of what people say on these boards, as wacky as they are, I can only take some of them as cynical tongue in cheek comments, nothing really based on facts and reason. Out in the real world I think such ideas are as irrelevant as commentary on Iron Chef. But out of all people.. Doc please tell me your not surious. <G>

Yes Israel has more UN Resolutions against them than Iraq does, and what your saying is that every single one of them is legit? And your holding the UN up as a legitamite body behind them? The UN has declared Israel as a racist state while dozens of other states who acttually are stand un-touched. During many of the UN security counsel meetings leaflets of propaganda and anti-semetic cartoons are passed around the UN body. Is that what you call an impartial Global governing body? Doc out of all people I would never thought you would resort to stooping to a low level of thought. I hope you come back around. You been one of the most reasonable people here to discuss surious issues with on the board and that speaks volumes considering the atmosphere of thought that does occur on NWTekno.

Take Care,
Jason

I'm saying that the currently en-vogue reasons for attacking Iraq are total bullshit, as they can be applied to all sorts of countries.

[medea]

clover - did you even read the article?

During the talks with Mr Blix in Vienna, Iraq accepted all inspection rights under existing UN resolutions, which stipulate unconditional access - but crucially not to eight presidential palaces.

Those sites are covered under a 1998 memorandum of understanding agreed by Iraq and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, which includes giving the Iraqis prior notification of planned visits by inspectors.



so, how am i being naive?

so oops...I am cedwyn's roomie used her computer so uuhh...yeah cedwyn actually said that. For the record medea does not pay attention to anything war/bush related....thank you:D

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by CloverKid


Yes Jason. You hit the nail right on the head on that one.

-Larry

You saw this last night? The muslim suspect was saying some of the almost exact same America is at fault for x, America is x, America is the one who x, The US Gov is x, etc, etc, etc and many other baseless statements and hate America releated comments like kids here on NWtekno always post. Is there any board kids here helping write the script for Law and Order or something? There is no way this is a coincidence.

Lol

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


I'm saying that the currently en-vogue reasons for attacking Iraq are total bullshit, as they can be applied to all sorts of countries.

You said Israel though. But you think Iraq should not be disarmed?

[Boyd Main]

Fucking hell. An Anti-war thread hi-jacked by militant fools. Kind of reminds me of greater society at large.

A few things:

Those of you who think the UN is irrelavent, please stop using the argument that Saddam needs punishing because he is in violation of SC resolutions. You can't have it both ways.

Pre-emptive war is illegal. It is an act of unprovoked violence. It sets a dangerous precidence (sp?) for other countries to follow. Eg. USA wants to attack Iraq because they think Iraq might attack them. Then why the hell shouldn't Iraq attack America, the threat of American invasion is far more immiment and provable. America's hypocritical attitude is not going to fly with the rest of the world in the long run.

And anyway, all you fools sitting around rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of yet another war, you aren't in any kind of danger. Despite what the Bush Administration says, they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iraq is linked to Al-Queda, or that Iraqi based terrorism is any threat to the US at all.

I heard an al-queda guy being interviewed about the planning for 9-11. They considered targetting nuclear reactors, but thought better of it because "things might get out of hand". Hear that: "might get out of hand". They really weren't trying to kill as many people as possible, and the threat of retaliation really is a deterent. I can't beleive that anyone would think that Saddam, a national leader, and a sitting duck if it came to that, would use a nuclear weapon against anyone, when the repercussions would be so swift and devastating. (and I never quite understood why its okay for certain rogue states to have nukes (israel, america) and others not to (nth korea, iraq etc))

And as for biological attack, the only time its ever happened on American soil, the fucking Anthrax was US army sourced. And you expect that bunch of idiots to police the world. I, for one, do not feel safe.

You pro-war fools are a bunch of paranoid little children.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
Fucking hell. An Anti-war thread hi-jacked by militant fools. Kind of reminds me of greater society at large.

A few things:

Those of you who think the UN is irrelavent, please stop using the argument that Saddam needs punishing because he is in violation of SC resolutions. You can't have it both ways.

Right now everyone is hoping The UN passes a resolution with some teeth, if they don't and they allow Saddam to play them like a flute they will once again show they are not the world governing body they claim to be. If the UN does this they become irrelevant to disarm Iraq. Boyd I know your probaly a fairly smart guy. Who's gonna make Suddam disarm?

Pre-emptive war is illegal. It is an act of unprovoked violence. It sets a dangerous precidence (sp?) for other countries to follow. Eg. USA wants to attack Iraq because they think Iraq might attack them. Then why the hell shouldn't Iraq attack America, the threat of American invasion is far more immiment and provable. America's hypocritical attitude is not going to fly with the rest of the world in the long run.

Pre-emptive my ass. Firing missles at us isn't provoking the violence already?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,146499,00.html

And anyway, all you fools sitting around rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of yet another war, you aren't in any kind of danger. Despite what the Bush Administration says, they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iraq is linked to Al-Queda, or that Iraqi based terrorism is any threat to the US at all.

You havn't been reading reports than.

I heard an al-queda guy being interviewed about the planning for 9-11. They considered targetting nuclear reactors, but thought better of it because "things might get out of hand". Hear that: "might get out of hand". They really weren't trying to kill as many people as possible, and the threat of retaliation really is a deterent. I can't beleive that anyone would think that Saddam, a national leader, and a sitting duck if it came to that, would use a nuclear weapon against anyone, when the repercussions would be so swift and devastating. (and I never quite understood why its okay for certain rogue states to have nukes (israel, america) and others not to (nth korea, iraq etc))

Really? Please tell me your joking. So we should disarm?

And as for biological attack, the only time its ever happened on American soil, the fucking Anthrax was US army sourced. And you expect that bunch of idiots to police the world. I, for one, do not feel safe.

You pro-war fools are a bunch of paranoid little children.

They don't even know for sure bro. The investigation continues. They once thought that is was US Army now it just turns out that they were just investigating that possible end which didn't turn up anything.

Fools? Your the one who is being fooled by supporting Suddam by trusting him. haha..

-Zupan

[ZupanGOD]

THE GREAT TERROR
by JEFFREY GOLDBERG
In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

long but worth the read.

-Jason

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Right now everyone is hoping The UN passes a resolution with some teeth, if they don't and they allow Saddam to play them like a flute they will once again show they are not the world governing body they claim to be. If the UN does this they become irrelevant to disarm Iraq. Boyd I know your probaly a fairly smart guy. Who's gonna make Suddam disarm?



Everybody is also hoping that the US acts with the UN, not despite it. If the US goes it alone, they further undermine the UN as a governing body. If you want the UN to have teeth, don't support uni or bi-lateral actions which knock the very incisors, canines and molars from the mouth of the one hope this world has for lasting peace, as opposed to a perpetual war, as Bush, his cronies, and you would prefer.


You havn't been reading reports than.


That's right. I haven't read a single report linking Iraq to an immediate threat to the US. If you have any links I'd be happy to peruse them.



Really? Please tell me your joking. So we should disarm?



Well, not I'm not saying that. In fact, the deterrent of US WMD seems to have saved us all from a nuclear fallout last September (see my last post). My point is, what justification can be given for certain nations to be allowed WMD and others being bombed into yet another stone age for just thinking about it. And don't give me any shit about responsible vs rogue nations. The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is.



They don't even know for sure bro. The investigation continues. They once thought that is was US Army now it just turns out that they were just investigating that possible end which didn't turn up anything.

Ames strain? Well, anyway, where the hell is America's weapons of mass destruction moral high ground? Its lower than the bottom of the mariana's trench.

Fools? Your the one who is being fooled by supporting Suddam by trusting him. haha..

-Zupan

Fools? The real fools are the American public who are being distracted from the domestic issues of 2 million new jobless, spiralling budget defecits and the rest, by a murderous but well timed war campaign.

And as for the logistics of the war with its urban battlefields, it would just end up being another vietnam. I guarantee that if it happens the cost in American lives would be far greater than the cost through letting Saddam be, which would probably be zero. Not that I think nothing should be done. I'm fullly behind comprehensive weapons inspections (for ALL nations - funny how America wouldn't sign in on the biological weapons convention thingumy - something to hide perchance??)

And even then, in the long run, with hundreds or thousands of America soldiers dead, and thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians dead, and Saddam dead or banished, what then? Is there even a plan??? I mean, shit. That's a nice old power vacuum if I've ever heard of one. Just what the middle east needs - a civil war, with the victor being, more than likely, the most brutal of the lot. Either that or an installed client government who would sell oil for cheap and buy weapons for expensive. Oooo wait a minute, now I'm seeing the logic here.....

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is.

^^^^^^

Damn it.. just when I thought you were going to be a rational person who's ideas might actually be relevant to the debate. But you sound no different than that guy on law and order last night... someone who is totally deluded, and is removed from reality. These comments fall in the wacko camp just like the looney's on the right like Jerrry Falwell. Your comments about pretty much canceled out anything you had to say otherwise. If your willing to say something like that without a hint of reality to substain it it's like Jerry Falwell making something just as "pie in the sky" and it usually hinders youself to be irrelevant in your other points. Jerry especially made himself irrlevant when he said 9/11 had something todo with Gay and Lesbians now many people can never take the guy surious even if he may have a point, becuase he was willing to advocate something so rediculous, like your bassless comments they are just as irresponsible. I about had it with the wackos from the left and right. Ahh conspiracies, plots, aliens, elvis is still alive is that what your train of thought circles around? To state this president is willing to risk my life in a war to distract us all from the economy is rediculous. Boyd I'm dissapointed in you, I thought your were smarter than that.

Sincerly Concerned,
Jason

[Carley]

Right now everyone is hoping The UN passes a resolution with some teeth, if they don't and they allow Saddam to play them like a flute they will once again show they are not the world governing body they claim to be. If the UN does this they become irrelevant to disarm Iraq. Boyd I know your probaly a fairly smart guy. Who's gonna make Suddam disarm?

I don't understand... what are you suggesting they do? "Teeth?"

Why can't the United Nations impose peace?

The UN does not have the capacity to impose peace by force. It is not a world government. It has no standing army, no military assets. It is not an international police force. The effectiveness of the UN depends on the political will of the Member States, which decide if, when and how the UN takes action to end conflicts. (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm)

Pre-emptive my ass. Firing missles at us isn't provoking the violence already?

From your article:

"WASHINGTON - President Saddam Hussein's forces have fired 406 times this year at American and British coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq.

And coalition forces have bombed Iraqi sites in retaliation some 44 times.

Despite their attempts, Iraqi forces have never hit a coalition plane."

Um, no. It isn't. Nice stretch tho ;) And hey, I'll wait for your evidence too :) Jeesh, you should probably send the documents to the Senate as well! I'm sure your evidence, Jason, could clear this whole misunderstanding up.

Ahh conspiracies, plots, aliens, elvis is still alive is that what your train of thought circles around?

Yeah! Is that kinda like liberal socialist conspiracies! Oh wait, those are true! ;) But really Jason, the ol' ad hominem? I really wish you had something better than that old crap. *shakes head* An entire paragraph even. Blech.

~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


I don't understand... what are you suggesting they do? "Teeth?"
“… I support the efforts of the prime minister and President Bush to get tougher with Saddam Hussein. I strongly support the prime minister's determination if at all possible to act through the UN. We need a strong new resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. The restrictions imposed in 1998 are not acceptable and will not do the job. There should be a deadline and no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbors and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear program. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the prime minister's speech a few days ago made clear,. even more were documented. But I think it is also important to remember that Britain and the United States made real progress with our international allies through the UN with the inspection program in the 1990s. The inspectors discovered and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction and constituent parts with the inspection program than were destroyed in the Gulf War, far more, including 40,000 chemical weapons, 100,000 gallons of chemicals used to make weapons, 48 missiles, 30 armed warheads and a massive biological weapons facility equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons. In other words the inspections were working even when he was trying to thwart them.
In December of 1998 after the inspectors were kicked out along with the support of Prime Minister Blair and the British military we launched Operation Desert Fox for four days. An air assault on those weapons of mass destruction, the air defense and regime protection forces. This campaign had scores of targets and successfully degraded both the conventional and non-conventional arsenal. It diminished Iraq's threat to the region and it demonstrated the price to be paid for violating the Security Council’s resolutions. It was the right thing to do, and it is one reason why I still believe we had to stay at this business until we get all those biological and chemical weapons out of there.
What has happened in the last four years? No inspectors, a fresh opportunity to rebuild the biological and chemical weapons program and to try and develop some sort of nuclear capacity. Because of the sanctions Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was in 1990, while we are stronger, but that probably has given him even more incentive to try and amass weapons of mass destruction. I agree with many Republicans and Democrats in America and many here in Britain who want to go through the United Nations to bring the weight of world opinion together, to bring us all together, too offer one more chance to the inspections.
President Bush and Secretary Powell say they want a UN resolution too and are willing to give the inspectors another chance. Saddam Hussein, as usual, is bobbing and weaving. We should call his bluff. The United Nations should scrap the 1998 restrictions and call for a complete and unrestricted set of inspections with a new resolution. If the inspections go forward, and I hope they will, perhaps we can avoid a conflict. In any case the world ought to show up and say we meant it in 1991 when we said this man should not have a biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program. And we can do that through the UN. The prospect of a resolution actually offers us the chance to integrate the world, to make the United Nations a more meaningful, more powerful, more effective institution. And that's why I appreciate what the prime minister is trying to do, in trying to bring America and the rest of the world to a common position. If he was not there to do this I doubt if anyone else could, so I am very, very grateful.” -- Bill Clinton speech to The Labour party conference yesterday.

Why can't the United Nations impose peace?

The UN does not have the capacity to impose peace by force. It is not a world government. It has no standing army, no military assets. It is not an international police force. The effectiveness of the UN depends on the political will of the Member States, which decide if, when and how the UN takes action to end conflicts. (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm)

Exactly my point. If the UN can’t make them disarm who will? Aliens on the planet Kaxlar? The US wants the UN to permit military action to make him disarm.

From your article:

"WASHINGTON - President Saddam Hussein's forces have fired 406 times this year at American and British coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq.

And coalition forces have bombed Iraqi sites in retaliation some 44 times.

Despite their attempts, Iraqi forces have never hit a coalition plane."

Um, no. It isn't. Nice stretch tho ;) And hey, I'll wait for your evidence too :) Jeesh, you should probably send the documents to the Senate as well! I'm sure your evidence, Jason, could clear this whole misunderstanding up.



Yeah! Is that kinda like liberal socialist conspiracies! Oh wait, those are true! ;) But really Jason, the ol' ad hominem? I really wish you had something better than that old crap. *shakes head* An entire paragraph even. Blech.

~c

SO because they missed that doesn’t count as provoking us into war? Ohh that’s right! Bed wetting Modern Liberal thinking doesn’t allow you to think rational.

[AthenA]

"To state this president is willing to risk my life in a war to distract us all from the economy is rediculous."

You thought Boyd was smart, and I thought you were realistic. What value do you think a life has to a man that will take life-saving AIDS prevention information off of government websites, all because of a personal agenda? I'm all for supporting my country and my president (when my president deserves support), but hell, Jason...It was history class as a child when I learned that as an American citizen, it is not just my right, but my duty to question the authority of my government and my president. Boyd's statement was far from ridiculous. In fact, it is frighteningly believable. I'm not saying Boyd is right. I don't know Bush personally, so I can't say. But based on his stance on more than a few life-or-death issues, I'd say you are putting far too much trust in a man that you don't know, either.

[seattle science]

Attack Iraq? Never! Why can't we just let Sadam be, he wouldnt lie to us or the UN would he? I seriously want to wait until he acquires a nuke, so Iraq can have a nuclear standoff with Israel, much like Pakistan and India. That would be 10x more entertaining than having us just go in and destroy his military in 3 hours like we're capable of doing. And if that doesn't happen, lets at least wait until Iraqi chemical weapons are used in a terrorist attack on US civilians, possibly killing millions. Once that happens, maybe I'll let an attack on Iraq cross my mind. But for now, lets just let the poor man be. Sadam is a harmless cuddly little thing, and Bush is the true monster.

[Carley]

Still confused Jason. Do you or not want the US to take military action against Sadaam and initiate a regime change? You allude to one thing, and then quote Bill. :p And if you could speak without trash ( ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)), that would be awfully helpful ;)

Exactly my point. If the UN can’t make them disarm who will? Aliens on the planet Kaxlar? The US wants the UN to permit military action to make him disarm.

Why? And "the US" doesn't want to permit military action to make him disarm, the "Bush Administration" does ;)

SO because they missed that doesn’t count as provoking us into war? Ohh that’s right! Bed wetting Modern Liberal thinking doesn’t allow you to think rational.

:) Jason, Jason, Jason. If everybody flew off the handle and went to war every time somebody else shot missles at them we wouldn't have a very stable earth. There are laws in place for US/UK offensive to deal with Iraqi firing in No Fly Zones, and they are just as described in the article. No, firing in no fly zones is not justification for war... says the world... not me.

~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by AthenA
"To state this president is willing to risk my life in a war to distract us all from the economy is rediculous."

You thought Boyd was smart, and I thought you were realistic. What value do you think a life has to a man that will take life-saving AIDS prevention information off of government websites, all because of a personal agenda?

Can you site a source for me? I know Bush appointed 4 gay americans to fill that department of HIV/AIDS. I have read reports that tax payer money was being used to promote health risks rather than prevent them. Maybe that was a reason something was removed. I dunno I just like a link to read it for myself. Can't really beleive people here no offence. People are willing to believe conspiracies

I'm all for supporting my country and my president (when my president deserves support), but hell, Jason...It was history class as a child when I learned that as an American citizen, it is not just my right, but my duty to question the authority of my government and my president. Boyd's statement was far from ridiculous. In fact, it is frighteningly believable. I'm not saying Boyd is right. I don't know Bush personally, so I can't say. But based on his stance on more than a few life-or-death issues, I'd say you are putting far too much trust in a man that you don't know, either.

I question my government all the time, but I'm not going to sound like an idiot by saying that " The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is."

Yeah I agree but Boyd is putting more trust into Saddam Hussain more than his own president. I don't get the rationel.. Saddam Hussain is really telling us the truth this time, honest! But Bush? No!! he's telling us a lie to goto war.

I question why President Bush has done nothing about the borders there in Arizona. Clinton did nothing and now Bush is doing nothing.. but most people could care less about it.

-Jason

[Cedwyn]

zupan, how the hell is firing at planes in a no-fly zone (from your own article) an act of aggression? hello?

and as for your comment about what a monster saddam is, why don't you go and investigate some of the modern regimes in the world, discover the laundry lists of their human rights atrocities, and come back and tell us exactly how little the U.S. gives a fuck. but saddam, he has oil...therefore, we care this time.

you never cease to amaze me, and, sorry, i don't mean that in the good way.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley
Still confused Jason. Do you or not want the US to take military action against Sadaam and initiate a regime change? You allude to one thing, and then quote Bill. :p And if you could speak without trash ( ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)), that would be awfully helpful ;)

If that what it takes to disarm him.

Why? And "the US" doesn't want to permit military action to make him disarm, the "Bush Administration" does ;)

Well contrary to what Congressman David “slinging hash by day and attending night classes by night” (http://davidbonior.house.gov/biography.htm) Bonior *FEELS* and other pacifists *FEEL*.. the majority of the country is behind the president. They care about their future.

:) Jason, Jason, Jason. If everybody flew off the handle and went to war every time somebody else shot missles at them we wouldn't have a very stable earth. There are laws in place for US/UK offensive to deal with Iraqi firing in No Fly Zones, and they are just as described in the article. No, firing in no fly zones is not justification for war... says the world... not me.

~c

Which law are those? The worlds? No fly zones are for Iraq to comply to.

-Jason

[Carley]

why don't you go and investigate some of the modern regimes in the world, discover the laundry lists of their human rights atrocities, and come back and tell us exactly how little the U.S. gives a fuck.

And then ask yourself "Is it in US interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because we don't like them or agree with them in any circumstance?"

but I'm not going to sound like an idiot by saying that " The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is."

Heehee, no.. you sound like an idiot by ranting about socialist conspiracies, "bed wetting liberal" thinking, and other attack-on-the-man trash :) I'm glad we can all agree to free ourselves from idiocy. Now we can have real conversations uninhibited by crap :) Yay!

[Carley]

Well contrary what Congressman David “slinging hash by day and attending night classes by night” Bonior thinks and other pacifists think the majority of the country is behind the president. They care about their future.

Um, heh, it still doesn't matter... because it's the Bush Administration who feels this is the solution, not the United States (which includes Congress, Senate, etc.), or all potential administrations. You are just all about the spin/fallacies aren't you?

It’s because their provoking us dip shit.

Cute ;) But what the hell does that have to do with anything? They are "provoking us" ~ there are ESTABLISHED LEGAL ways to retaliate (they shoot back), dipshit, and you are asking for war? Hrm. I'm confused as to why you haven't enlisted into the military yourself? Head on down today... I'm sure they'd love to have you ;)

Which law are those? The worlds? No fly zones are for Iraq to comply to.

Oh nice edit ;) The no fly zones were an UN Security Council Resolution which require internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken while working under their specifications. Otherwise they wouldn't be very useful, would they?

~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


And then ask yourself "Is it in US interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because we don't like them or agree with them in any circumstance?"

Is that why? Suddam isn’t such a bad guy right? We just don’t like him right? <G>


Heehee, no.. you sound like an idiot by ranting about socialist conspiracies, "bed wetting liberal" thinking, and other attack-on-the-man trash :) I'm glad we can all agree to free ourselves from idiocy. Now we can have real conversations uninhibited by crap :) Yay!

Ohh I’m sorry, Socialism is so awesome dude.. Individual Freedom is wack man. Am I part of the cool crowd now?

:)

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


Um, heh, it still doesn't matter... because it's the Bush Administration who feels this is the solution, not the United States (which includes Congress, Senate, etc.), or all potential administrations. You are just all about the spin/fallacies aren't you?

You mean the same congress that is passing the resolution as we speak?

Cute ;) But what the hell does that have to do with anything? They are "provoking us" ~ there are ESTABLISHED LEGAL ways to retaliate (they shoot back), dipshit, and you are asking for war? Hrm. I'm confused as to why you haven't enlisted into the military yourself? Head on down today... I'm sure they'd love to have you ;)

No you missed the point. Don't worry about it your not up with the news. So why bother?

Oh nice edit ;) The no fly zones were an UN Security Council Resolution which require internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken while working under their specifications. Otherwise they wouldn't be very useful, would they?

~c

Well when you speak without knowing what the hell your talking about it's called being a dip shit.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
zupan, how the hell is firing at planes in a no-fly zone (from your own article) an act of aggression? hello?

HAHA

Do you know anything about the no fly zone??

hahahahaha

-Jason

[Carley]

Ohh I’m sorry, Socialism is so awesome dude.. Individual Freedom is wack man. Am I part of the cool crowd now?



Erm, no. You're still not cool. I am thinking this obsession with socialism you have is a tad unhealthy.

Is that why? Suddam isn’t such a bad guy right? We just don’t like him right? <G>

Ok. Is it in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys?"


You mean the same congress that is passing the resolution as we speak?


Absolutely! ;) Have you heard about it?

No you missed the point. Don't worry about it your not up with the news. So why bother?

What kind of argument is that? Honestly. I didn't miss the point : you missed the policy. This is not new(s) Jason.

Well when you speak without knowing what the hell your talking about it's called being a dip shit.

Hehheh ;) Could you be more specific? Or are you just lazy?

[Carley]

Do you know anything about the no fly zone??



No! Obviously not! Tell us all about it Jason.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


No! Obviously not! Tell us all about it Jason.

ok..

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

[Carley]

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

Oh! I thought no fly zones were agreed upon in UN Security Resolution 668 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm),

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


Oh! I thought no fly zones were agreed upon in UN Security Resolution 668 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm),

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html

Not so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

[Boyd Main]

ha ha ha, dueling links. I love it.

[Boyd Main]

Yeah I agree but Boyd is putting more trust into Saddam Hussain more than his own president. I don't get the rationel.. Saddam Hussain is really telling us the truth this time, honest! But Bush? No!! he's telling us a lie to goto war.

Hey now, don't be too hasty. He's not my president. I'm a paroled alien in this country with no vote.

No way, not my president (thankfully).

[Carley]

Jason: The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

BBC: The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

*blinks* Dude! You need to site sources when you "edit" like that.

Ok, so heh :) Breakdown: there are still internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken under Iraqi fire, and the Bush administration justified no fly zones with UN Security Resolution 668.

Point still being:

Says the BBC: But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.
Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.
Critics add that whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later, when the reasons for continuing the air patrols may have changed.

So! What were you arguing about? Do you think it is in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys," if so why? And where is our goddamned evidence!?!

(oh, and don't forget to carbon copy the senate and U.N. ;) )

Ciao,

~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley




*blinks* Dude! You need to site sources when you "edit" like that.

Ok, so heh :) Breakdown: there are still internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken under Iraqi fire, and the Bush administration justified no fly zones with UN Security Resolution 668.

Point still being:



So! What were you arguing about? Do you think it is in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys," if so why? And where is our goddamned evidence!?!

(oh, and don't forget to carbon copy the senate and U.N. ;) )

Ciao,

~c

Why would it matter? It's not like you care about facts anyhow.. it's pointless to to rationally discuss important issues with people who are willing to ignore the facts. Go right ahead ignore them, your only fooling yourself.

[Carley]

Ah ;)

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Why would it matter? It's not like you care about facts anyhow.. it's pointless to to rationally discuss important issues with people who are willing to ignore the facts. Go right ahead ignore them, your only fooling yourself.

Typically evasive. Looks like you've been learning some tricks from the White House. Kind of like a few pages ago where I asked you to post some links with sure evidence of the impending threat that Saddam supposedly poses to the world. In that case you took one sentence, obviously the least serious of my whole post (I do realise that the proper way to say it is "most dangerous") and used that as an excuse to weasel your way out of an uncomfortable request. Just like Republicans who sidestep difficult questions by calling the "patriotism" of the questioner into question.

So where's the evidence?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main


Typically evasive. Looks like you've been learning some tricks from the White House. Kind of like a few pages ago where I asked you to post some links with sure evidence of the impending threat that Saddam supposedly poses to the world. In that case you took one sentence, obviously the least serious of my whole post (I do realise that the proper way to say it is "most dangerous") and used that as an excuse to weasel your way out of an uncomfortable request. Just like Republicans who sidestep difficult questions by calling the "patriotism" of the questioner into question.

So where's the evidence?

I've already have shown some evidence, now it's your turn to show evidence that Iraq poses no threat to the world.

[Justin]

So is posing a potential threat the new rationel for invading people? What the hell sort of precendent is that. Besides, one of the most dangerous regimes to the world is N.Korea. Of course, they won't be invaded. Coincidentally, the don't have any oil.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=336691

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
So is posing a potential threat the new rationel for invading people? What the hell sort of precendent is that. Besides, one of the most dangerous regimes to the world is N.Korea. Of course, they won't be invaded. Coincidentally, the don't have any oil.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=336691

Potential? Have you been away for the last decade?

The same North Korea that is opening up diplomatic ties to the US, South Korea, and Japan? Hmm..

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I've already have shown some evidence, now it's your turn to show evidence that Iraq poses no threat to the world.

That is a logical impossibility. It is impossible to prove a negative hypothesis. That's like asking me to prove that gravity never works in reverse. I can tell you I think it doesn't but I cannot prove it. In this case the burden of proof is on you.

However your thinking does illustrate yet another one of America's egregious hypocrisies. What a grand justice system has this cuntry has, the envy of the world (or so we are led to believe). One of the central tennets (sp?) of that system is that "innocent until proven guilty" idea. But yet somehow in this case, and in many cases recently dealing with dang for'ners, that whole principle is out the window. Double standard-o-rama!!! I'm sure there are some other examples of this hypocrisy, let me think....

Weapons inspections for them, military secrets for us.

Free trade overseas, tarrifs at home

US soveringty (sp?) is unviolable, but foriegn governments we don't like the smell of are fair game for toppling.

etcetera.

You know what might make the world sit up and take notice and lend the US/UK cause a little more credibility? If both those hawks opened up their militaries for inspections of their biological and chemical weapon arsenals. But of course the double standard rules supreme and I'm pushing shit uphill with a pointy stick even asking for such reasonable behaviour.

America's worldwide credibility is largely a joke while it trumpets one standard for itself and another for everyone else.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by groove_E


yay for brainwashing! horrah! jesus... why do you think saddam would be militarizing? do you really think any leader on this planet would be insane enough to try to attack the united states? if he's building weapons of mass destruction, its because he's being provoked by our fearless leader.

Do i think any one would be crazy enough to attack.... i didnt used to untill 3000 of my fellow countrymen were murdered by a bunch of crazy guys blinded by religious extremism.. Now can you say with complete certainty that Saddam does not suffer from similar delusions.. especially if you stop to consider his past words and actioins.


MS

[psyanide]

Although it is impossible to rule out the possibility, I don't think Saddam wants to kill Americans at all costs. He's had the opportunity before to use bio/chemical weapons, but he didn't. Not even against Israel. He would certainly sign his own death warrant if he did and after all his efforts to stay in power, I doubt he wants to become a martyr. He maybe an extremist, but certainly not a religious one.

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S


Do i think any one would be crazy enough to attack.... i didnt used to untill 3000 of my fellow countrymen were murdered by a bunch of crazy guys blinded by religious extremism.. Now can you say with complete certainty that Saddam does not suffer from similar delusions.. especially if you stop to consider his past words and actioins.

But even those "crazy guys blinded by religour fervour" were deterred from actions even worse that those they perpetrated by the threat of America dropping nukes all over the Middle East. I agree with Joris. The threat from Iraq is blatantly overstated by the Bush Administration (which has been caught in numerous unthruths in the last couple of weeks... so why should anyone trust them?).

I will state it again -> This bluster is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to keep the public's mind off domestic issues that would otherwise threaten the Republican party's results in the mid-term elections.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


Do i think any one would be crazy enough to attack.... i didnt used to untill 3000 of my fellow countrymen were murdered by a bunch of crazy guys blinded by religious extremism.. Now can you say with complete certainty that Saddam does not suffer from similar delusions.. especially if you stop to consider his past words and actioins.


MS

Speaking about his actions. From Jeffery Goldburg's piece:

The people in the cellar were panicked. They had fled downstairs to escape the bombardment, and it was difficult to abandon their shelter. Only splinters of light penetrated the basement, but the dark provided a strange comfort. "We wanted to stay in hiding, even though we were getting sick," Nasreen said. She felt a sharp pain in her eyes, like stabbing needles. "My sister came close to my face and said, 'Your eyes are very red.' Then the children started throwing up. They kept throwing up. They were in so much pain, and crying so much. They were crying all the time. My mother was crying. Then the old people started throwing up."

Chemical weapons had been dropped on Halabja by the Iraqi Air Force, which understood that any underground shelter would become a gas chamber. "My uncle said we should go outside," Nasreen said. "We knew there were chemicals in the air. We were getting red eyes, and some of us had liquid coming out of them. We decided to run." Nasreen and her relatives stepped outside gingerly. "Our cow was lying on its side," she recalled. "It was breathing very fast, as if it had been running. The leaves were falling off the trees, even though it was spring. The partridge was dead. There were smoke clouds around, clinging to the ground. The gas was heavier than the air, and it was finding the wells and going down the wells."

I posted it earlier, Mike have you read this?

THE GREAT TERROR
by JEFFREY GOLDBERG
In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

Mike, I wouldn't bother replying with Boyd, if the guy is willing to say that " The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is" he's not willing to stay rational in our discussion.

-Zupan

[Carley]

if the guy is willing to say that " The US is the biggest dangerousest rogue state there is" he's not willing to stay rational in our discussion.

Um, yeah! ;) So... "Zupan,"

1) You need to site sources when you "edit" like that.

2) There are still internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken under Iraqi fire, and the Bush administration justified no fly zones with UN Security Resolution 668.

3) What were you arguing about?

4) Do you think it is in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys," if so why?

5) And where is our goddamned evidence (and don't forget to carbon copy the rest of the fucking world )!?!

Ciao,

~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


Um, yeah! ;) So... "Zupan,"

1) You need to site sources when you "edit" like that.

Edit what? Bill Clinton's speech outlining the threat posed by Suddam? Getting the simple information you requested about no fly zones?

2) There are still internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken under Iraqi fire, and the Bush administration justified no fly zones with UN Security Resolution 668.

Your gonna have to show me, I'm looking at it now and it's all about Cambodia and shit. Preciate the help, thanks.

Here's a list of them, perhaps it's in a different resolution? I don't know which one perhaps you can help.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

3) What were you arguing about?

I am arguing that the UN needs to step up to the plate, pass a resolution with some teeth, and do it's job so America does not have to goto war with Iraq. That's what.

4) Do you think it is in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys," if so why?

No not just becuase of bad guys. There's badguys all over the damn world, but if the "badguys" do pose a threat to the US and especially the world than well what would you suggest todo about it? Unfortunatley the US is the one the world looks to for help. ie: Somolia, Balkins, etc. Isn't it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology for the US to take action against a regime who is a threat to the US and world peace? Was it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology of the US to take action against Milosevic's regime? Wasn't he a "bad guy"?

5) And where is our goddamned evidence (and don't forget to carbon copy the rest of the fucking world )!?!

Ciao,

~c

Well perhaps Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, ex-Iraqi defectors from Iraq's nuclear program, Senate testimony, ex-Weapon inspectors, etc etc etc have forgot to carbon copy you.

-Z

[Boyd Main]

I hate going to the dictionary to make a point but....

from dictionary.com:

Rogue \Rogue\, n. [F. rogue proud, haughty, supercilious; cf. Icel. hr?kr a rook, croaker (cf. Rook a bird), or Armor. rok, rog, proud, arogant.]

4. An elephant that has separated from a herd and roams about alone, in which state it is very savage.

Sounds kind of like America, no?

America is a rogue state in that it shows little respect to the UN and world opinion. There is a distinct current of unilateralism in American foreign policy right now, and its "go-it-alone" attitude is almost the dictionary definition of rogue.

As for "dangerousest", it's kind of obvious isn't it? Who is the nation with the biggest stick, and is obviously not afraid to use it, even when unprovoked? Sounds dangerous to me. More dangerous than anyone else. Dangerousest in fact.

[Carley]

When you "edit" like this:

Jason: The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC: The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

You need to site the BBC as your source. At least it's not respectable, and could be considered plagiarism (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=plagiarism&r=3) if someone were a real hardass ;)

Here's a list of them, perhaps it's in a different resolution? I don't know which one perhaps you can help.

Oh you're right, sorry. It's 688. I should wear my glasses :p Although I am confused as to why you were forced to look it up when I provided the document for you earlier ~ and it clearly provides the UNSR# at the top of the page ;)

Here it is again: http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement

And you're welcome :)

I am arguing that the UN needs to step up to the plate, pass a resolution with some teeth, and do it's job so America does not have to goto war with Iraq. That's what.


So what was all that 'it isn't pre-emptive' bit about then? Are we officially 'done' with that?

There's badguys all over the damn world, but if the "badguys" do pose a threat to the US and especially the world than well what would you suggest todo about it?

Ok, and this goes back to the infamous evidence...

Well perhaps Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, ex-Iraqi defectors from Iraq's nuclear program, Senate testimony, ex-Weapon inspectors, etc etc etc have forgot to carbon copy you.

No no no... you promised us evidence. I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking around for evidence you promised to provide. And so far you've done nothing but throw insults and spin... now back up your argument with something stable, and we can have some fun :)

*waits*

~c

[Carley]

I hate going to the dictionary to make a point but....

;) hehheh, I have a sneaking suspicion "Zupan" is never going to let that one go. Hey, I mean ~ if he can discredit your argument based on irrelevant facts about you (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html), then he doesn't need to pay attention to your valid points. What's so shameful about that? ;)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
I hate going to the dictionary to make a point but....

from dictionary.com:

Rogue \Rogue\, n. [F. rogue proud, haughty, supercilious; cf. Icel. hr?kr a rook, croaker (cf. Rook a bird), or Armor. rok, rog, proud, arogant.]

4. An elephant that has separated from a herd and roams about alone, in which state it is very savage.

Sounds kind of like America, no?

America is a rogue state in that it shows little respect to the UN and world opinion. There is a distinct current of unilateralism in American foreign policy right now, and its "go-it-alone" attitude is almost the dictionary definition of rogue.

As for "dangerousest", it's kind of obvious isn't it? Who is the nation with the biggest stick, and is obviously not afraid to use it, even when unprovoked? Sounds dangerous to me. More dangerous than anyone else. Dangerousest in fact.

Now your gonna try to justify what you said? Meaning you actually stand behind your baseless points? Boyd I'm sorry but you have no clue of what your talking about. It's fucking hilarous, don't make me laugh harder than I already am. With all due respect, are you being surious? Becuase America isn't signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, and the International Criminal Court the US is a rogue state? Sorry Boyd The US Constitution comes before the UN Charter no matter how much you wish otherwise, that doesn't make us a rogue state. I can't believe your that willing to say the US is rogue state like that of Iraq. Boyd I suriously suggest you read "Defense policies of Nations" you can pick it up in the public library. Then come back to our conversation and tell me who's a rogue state. If were a rogue state it's time The US yanks all of the international support it gives, aid, and comfort to the international community. Boyd your suriously lacking the facts here, I think you know that. But I respect your opinion, like always your entitled to it, but I'm entitled as well to proove how wrong you are. ;)

Later,
-Zupan

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley
When you "edit" like this:





You need to site the BBC as your source. At least it's not respectable, and could be considered plagiarism (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=plagiarism&r=3) if someone were a real hardass ;)

BTW, I gave you a link to the article when you wanted to know the legal rangling behind the no fly zones. But telling you what a no fly zone is, that’s not plagiarism! Plagiarism is the ideas or writings that bind to the individual who owns the ideas and writings, and someone takes the work of the individuals thought through their ideas and writings and calls it their own. Stating something that is fact is not plagiarism. If you asked what the answer is to a math problem was and I give you the answer, do I have to cite the calculator as the source if I give you the answer from it? NO! And besides it’s a damn message board not a research paper. All I did is tell you what the no fly zone was. Remember that Bill Clinton speech I quoted, if I was to use what he said as my own words, that would be plagiarism. To sum up your logic, does the BBC own the “idea” of no fly zones now? Do they now own the reference to it? Go to google do a search up and down there are shit loads articles that define the no fly zone, I don’t see any citing where they got the definition. Unless the BBC is the owner of the “idea” or “thought” of no fly zones, it’s not plagiarism. Plagiarism is to present as a new original idea when it is taken from someone else's orginal idea.

Oh you're right, sorry. It's 688. I should wear my glasses :p Although I am confused as to why you were forced to look it up when I provided the document for you earlier ~ and it clearly provides the UNSR# at the top of the page ;)

Here it is again: http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement

And you're welcome :)

Thanks, but the resolution says nothing about a no fly zone. But what the Americans and British and the French at the time suggested is that since Saddam was threatening his people in the north and south almost on a daily basis and the UN Resolution forbid Saddam to do this, the Alies were able to justify these no fly zones. Am I missing something?

So what was all that 'it isn't pre-emptive' bit about then? Are we officially 'done' with that?

Well that’s why the UN needs to take pre-emptive diplomatic measures before military ones are taken.

Ok, and this goes back to the infamous evidence...



No no no... you promised us evidence. I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking around for evidence you promised to provide. And so far you've done nothing but throw insults and spin... now back up your argument with something stable, and we can have some fun :)

*waits*

~c

Well I figured since your involved in these type of discussions, I only was left to assume you were up to speed on the topic. Do you need me to bring you up to speed? I'm in the process of getting my car out of the shop just got some body work done so it will be a few days. But in the mean time it would help to research some yourself. <G>

Take Carley,
Zupan

[Carley]

. But telling you what a no fly zone is, that’s not plagiarism!

You're right. But you didn't tell me what a no fly zone was. You edited: "in what was described as" from the BBC article and presented the BBC's exact language as your own ~ which they weren't ~ and that w/could be considered plagiarism if this weren't an internet message board :)

I'm not calling you a plagiarist. I'm saying you need to site sources when you "edit" like that (or better yet, don't "edit" like that), otherwise you are asking for trouble in life, work and scholarship. Just some advice.


Thanks, but the resolution says nothing about a no fly zone.

Dejavu... remember this?


Breakdown: there are still internationally agreed upon procedures for any actions taken under Iraqi fire, and the Bush administration justified no fly zones with UN Security Resolution 668.

Point still being:

Says the BBC: But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.
Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.
Critics add that whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later, when the reasons for continuing the air patrols may have changed.

You're welcome :) You know, I'm really enjoying the cordial relationship we have now. It's nice.



Well I figured since your involved in these type of discussions, I only was left to assume you were up to speed on the topic. Do you need me to bring you up to speed? I'm in the process of getting my car out of the shop just got some body work done so it will be a few days. But in the mean time it would help to research some yourself. <G>

Ohhh nice! Hey, if I do your research for you, will you do my history paper for me? ;)

I'm obviously "up to speed," Jason, but I'm not the one arguing your point. YOU are arguing your point, and if you would like to continue arguing your point, you will need to supply your own argument with some evidence.

Lata,
~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


You're right. But you didn't tell me what a no fly zone was. You edited: "in what was described as" from the BBC article and presented the BBC's exact language as your own ~ which they weren't ~ and that w/could be considered plagiarism if this weren't an internet message board :)

Ok, fair enough. Last time I checked your still free to have the opinion to interupt what is or isn't plagiarism, I'm just trying to help you here.

What I did was paste a small excerp from the BBC article that explained what a no fly zone was, there was nothing in it for me to claim anything but by giving you the defintion. You are trying to argue that this is plagiarism and it's not. If it's plagiarism than the BBC obtained it's information by plagarism. Which they did not, look at the previous post before this one, I have already explained why it's not for me or the BBC. A message board is like having a conversation, and in that conversation who would expect anyone to stop and cite source after source? Of course not that's not feasable, we all give links or cite source when it is nessesary. If conversation between us isn't about publishing but about communication I don't see your logic here. Isn't a golden rule of Plagiarism that you should acknowledge your sources even when your words are that of your own, but your conclusion was built upon some source?

from some source:

The no-fly zones were imposed on Iraq by the U.S.-led Western coalition after the 1991 Gulf War, with the claimed aim of protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Muslims in the south from what they called possible persecution from the Iraqi government troops.

from some source:

The no-fly zones, which cover about two-thirds of Iraq, were set up by the United States, Britain and France after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Iraq from using its air force against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south.

from some source:

Britain, France and the United States originally declared the no-fly zones to protect Iraqi-Kurds in northern Iraq and Iraqi-Shiites in southern Iraq. The move came after both groups launched rebellions against the government of Saddam Hussein and then became the targets of brutal reprisal measures, including the use of air power against them.

I don't see any cites to any sources where that information was obtained. Why? Becuase they don't need to, even if this information has obviously surfaced from somewhere. It didn't just magicaly appear as the defacto knowledge obtained by some birth right. It's just common knowledge. As for our little discussion and when we are typing to each other as if we were in the same room discussion anything at all. Again if you ask me what time it is when answering you, do I have to cite my watch as the source? If you ask me what 28,345 x 789 and when I answer, do I have have to cite my calculator as the source? If you ask me what day it is when I answer do I have to cite the calender? If you ask me what does the first amendment say and when I answer you do I have to cite the Constitution? You get my drift.

I'm not calling you a plagiarist. I'm saying you need to site sources when you "edit" like that (or better yet, don't "edit" like that), otherwise you are asking for trouble in life, work and scholarship. Just some advice.

I know your not. My contention is I didn't need to cite the source for just answering your question with a quick paste from one of my bookmarks. The purpose of citing a source would be only for you to read it for yourself independently, and you only asked for what the no fly zone was and I didn't find it nessessary to cite a source becuase it's just common knowledge. You asked a follow up question, well obviously you wanted to know more about it so I posted my source.

Dejavu... remember this? <? explain..>

You're welcome :) You know, I'm really enjoying the cordial relationship we have now. It's nice.

It's always a pleasure and always stimulating.

Ohhh nice! Hey, if I do your research for you, will you do my history paper for me? ;)

Actually history is one of my favorite subjects, I'd be glad to help you but I don't think I could do your paper for you, after all that would be plagiarism. HAHA! <G>

I'm obviously "up to speed," Jason, but I'm not the one arguing your point. YOU are arguing your point, and if you would like to continue arguing your point, you will need to supply your own argument with some evidence.

Lata,
~c

I answered your questions, I asked a few myself, and all I ask is an answer as well. You don't even have to answer them right away. Take some time and think about it.

Take care,
Jason

[CloverKid]

Originally posted by Boyd Main

But even those "crazy guys blinded by religour fervour" were deterred from actions even worse that those they perpetrated by the threat of America dropping nukes all over the Middle East. I agree with Joris. The threat from Iraq is blatantly overstated by the Bush Administration (which has been caught in numerous unthruths in the last couple of weeks... so why should anyone trust them?).

I will state it again -> This bluster is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to keep the public's mind off domestic issues that would otherwise threaten the Republican party's results in the mid-term elections.

So the democratic party right now is better than the republican party?? What are you talking about? If you want to point a finger at a certain party point to the good ol' dems. They are the ones that have undermined the military, the Clinton administration slashed the military spending, they wanted to abolish the C.I.A.. Gore was the one that wanted to have a complete nuclear freeze during the cold war. Clinton had a chance to get Osama and didn't. O, and what did Clinton do when our embessey's got bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, NOTHING. What did he do when the USS Cole got bombed?? He bombed an asprin factory in Afghanistan. What a leader he was huh? At least Bush has the nads to do stuff instead of talk tough and having affairs with interns while our servicemen are at risk. Look at the Democratic party now, THEY are the ones trying to take public's mind off of homeland security and towards the plunging economy, which by the way was on it's way down when Clinton was in office. The Dem's are getting caught with taking bribes and accepting gifts. Look at former New Jersey Senator Robert Torriselli, he took a look at the polls and saw that there was no way in hell he would win the upcoming election. So what did he do? Pulled out after his name is already on the ballot and wants a better person for his party to run. Really good party they have become by trying to change the law and ethics of politics and the constitution.

They want the economy to keep falling so they can get votes, but at the same time they don't give a damn if another 9/11 or worse happens just as long as they get a vote. So who's the real threat in the senate?? Not the Republicans. I state facts and I don't need to be sarcastic towards other people's posts. Just grow up and open your eyes. You left-winged people just don't seem to understand that there is evil out there and as history has showed, that evil does not prevail in the end.

-Larry

[Boyd Main]

Whoa there Larry! I'm not sure where all that vitriol came from. Who said anything about the Demon-cratic party? I sure didn't.

Sheesh. You Americans and your simple dualistic thinking.

Anyway, let me address a point or two of yours. Of course Democrats are trying to bring the economy into the public's focus. That's politics. The difference between that way of doing it and starting a war to get votes is that nobodie dies when someone stands up and says "Hey wait a minute. What about those 2 million new unemployed people". On the other hand lots and lots of people die when the commander in chief stands up and says "Send in the military". And believe me, a lot more American's are going to die in a war against Iraq than would die if Saddam was left to himself. Remember no-one has any proof that he is planning to attack America, that he is training or equipping terrorists to attack America, nor is there any proof of any threat whatsoever against America from Saddam's WMD, even if he has any. If you think otherwise, well I'm just sorry for you that you've let Bush's propoganda machine warp your mind into a state of un-founded paranoia.

[CloverKid]

I'm just sorry for you that you've let Bush's propoganda machine warp your mind into a state of un-founded paranoia. [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm sorry that left-winged propaganda has made your's into mush.

-Larry

[Carley]

I don't see any cites to any sources where that information was obtained. Why?

:) Because they are using their own language. Copying language word for word (even with "editing") without citing the source is plagiarism (regardless of the 'idea' behind it). Otherwise you wouldn't need to avoid plagiarising novels, literature, people :) Those sources all use their own words.


It's just common knowledge.

Yes, no fly zones are. If you had told me what a no fly zone was without copying someone elses' language, then it would have been just another piece of common knowledge :)

Regardless, I'm still not calling you a plagiarist :)

Actually history is one of my favorite subjects

Mine too! :) Didya hear about this? (http://hnn.us/comments/1337.html)

Are you refering to these questions: There's bad guys all over the damn world, but if the "badguys" do pose a threat to the US and especially the world than well what would you suggest todo about it?

Unfortunatley the US is the one the world looks to for help. ie: Somolia, Balkins, etc. Isn't it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology for the US to take action against a regime who is a threat to the US and world peace?

Was it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology of the US to take action against Milosevic's regime? Wasn't he a "bad guy"?

If not, could you please paste them in a new post for me?

danke :)
~c

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Carley


:) Because they are using their own language. Copying language word for word (even with "editing") without citing the source is plagiarism (regardless of the 'idea' behind it). Otherwise you wouldn't need to avoid plagiarising novels, literature, people :) Those sources all use their own words.

Well than all of them commited plagiarism in your opinion.

Yes, no fly zones are. If you had told me what a no fly zone was without copying someone elses' language, then it would have been just another piece of common knowledge :)

What difference does it make?

Regardless, I'm still not calling you a plagiarist :)

I'm not saying you have, I'm just asking why would you waste your time trying to stretch my little attempt of giving a quick paste from my bookmarks as plagiarism.

Mine too! :) Didya hear about this? (http://hnn.us/comments/1337.html)

Yeah I read the link, but what's the point?

Are you refering to these questions:

If not, could you please paste them in a new post for me?

danke :)
~c

Yeah I'll get a post ready with questions for you shortly, My car gets painted tomorrow.

Good night,
Jason

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by CloverKid
I state facts and I don't need to be sarcastic towards other people's posts.

-Larry
Originally posted by CloverKid
I'm sorry that left-winged propaganda has made your's into mush.

-Larry
yip.

[Carley]

Well than all of them commited plagiarism in your opinion.


Um, no... I said they didn't :) Remember, they used their own words!


What difference does it make?

Because when you paste somebody else's words without giving them credit for it, it's called plagiarism :)

I'm not saying you have, I'm just asking why would you waste your time trying to stretch my little attempt of giving a quick paste from my bookmarks as plagiarism.


I'm wondering why you are wasting your time arguing with me on the definition of plagiarism when I only suggested you cite the source from which you copy word for word :) I think we're all clear now, right?

Yeah I'll get a post ready with questions for you shortly, My car gets painted tomorrow.


Um, ok :) I thought you implied you had already asked them. No rush. Um... nice to hear about your car :) I'm giving my dog a bath tonight.

~c

[TenshiEmi]

Originally posted by CloverKid


So the democratic party right now is better than the republican party?? What are you talking about? If you want to point a finger at a certain party point to the good ol' dems. They are the ones that have undermined the military, the Clinton administration slashed the military spending, they wanted to abolish the C.I.A.. Gore was the one that wanted to have a complete nuclear freeze during the cold war. Clinton had a chance to get Osama and didn't. O, and what did Clinton do when our embessey's got bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, NOTHING. What did he do when the USS Cole got bombed?? He bombed an asprin factory in Afghanistan. What a leader he was huh? At least Bush has the nads to do stuff instead of talk tough and having affairs with interns while our servicemen are at risk. Look at the Democratic party now, THEY are the ones trying to take public's mind off of homeland security and towards the plunging economy, which by the way was on it's way down when Clinton was in office.

The problem with your argument is that not everyone would consider those statements bad things =)

[ZupanGOD]

Carley wrote: Do you think it is in the United States' interest/foundation/policy/ideology to wipe out a regime because they are "badguys," if so why?

Zupan wrote: No not just becuase of bad guys. There's badguys all over the damn world, but if the "badguys" do pose a threat to the US and especially the world than well what would you suggest todo about it? Unfortunatley the US is the one the world looks to for help. ie: Somolia, Balkins, etc. Isn't it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology for the US to take action against a regime who is a threat to the US and world peace? Was it in the interest/foundation/policy/ideology of the US to take action against Milosevic's regime? Wasn't he a "bad guy"?

[cringe]

You know what's really funny is that people somehow get the contorted idea that human governments will actually solve some problems. Shoot man, they can't even feed a few hundred thousand people?? How do you ever expect them solve these violent issues? If somebody's got some good ideas, PM me.

But the governments are going to see these Muslims as a threat. Once they make a good dent in them (violently, which is really unfortunate) they'll say "Hey, look how good things are now that we got rid of the Muslims! Maybe if we get rid of all religions EVERYTHING will get better!" So then the human governments will step in and destroy religion. Why do I believe this you ask? Because its in the Bible. Do you believe in the Bible? Then PM me and i'll show you...

[Daz]

Senate, in 77-23 Vote, Passes Iraq Resolution
By ALISON MITCHELL and CARL HULSE


WASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11 - The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night.

The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military ``against the continuing threat'' posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that ``the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally.'' He added, ``The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.''

While the votes in favor of the resolutions were large and bipartisan, they highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic party over how and when to use force. This was particularly true in the House. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, put his weight behind the force authorization, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than for it, splitting 126 to 81. Only 6 Republicans opposed it.

The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that Iraq would imminently develop nuclear potential, fears that military action would take away from the war on terrorism, and sentiment against war among constituents. [Page A14.]

In the Senate, as the debate stretched on, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who called the vote ``probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.''

Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations ``more likely and, therefore, war less likely.''

Other Democrats, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, were determined to vote against the measure, saying there were still many questions about how a war would be waged, what its costs would be and how long it would last.

``We have very little understanding about the full implications in terms of an exit strategy,'' Mr. Kennedy told reporters.

In the end, the Senate Democrats split, with 29 for and 21 against the measure. One Republican and one independent opposed it.

Most Republicans stood behind the president, including Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy. Despite his differences with Mr. Bush on the issue, Mr. Armey closed the House debate with a plea for authorizing force. Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war.

``Mr. President,'' he said, ``we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, `Sleep soundly, my baby.''' He choked up and walked out of the House chamber.

The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democratic dissidents who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments.

Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, ``I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment.''

He alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago.


The actions came after long days of debate in the House and Senate over Mr. Bush's decision to confront Iraq. The president argued that in the post-Sept. 11 world, Mr. Hussein could provide terrorist groups with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or use them himself.

The resolution authorizes Mr. Bush to use the armed forces ``as he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to defend the nation against ``the continuing threat posed by Iraq,'' and to enforce ``all relevant'' United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.


The resolution was far less broad than the initial resolution put forward by the White House, which members of both parties said was too open-ended and could conceivably allow military action throughout the Middle East. In a concession to Democrats, the resolution encourages the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone. Still, it leaves him with broad latitude.

Mr. Bush has said his powers as commander in chief already permit him to act in defense of the nation. Without seeking a formal declaration of war, however, he wanted Congress to be involved in the issue, he said, , so he could argue to the United Nations that he was expressing not only his own view but that of the American electorate.

Most Republicans stood solidly with the president and many echoed the call to oust Mr. Hussein.

``The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was thrust upon us,'' said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip. ``Our only choice is between victory and defeat. Let's be clear: In the war on terror, victory cannot be secured at the bargaining table.''

Still, the fight fractured the Democratic Party. In the Senate, an array of Democratic presidential hopefuls stood behind the president. Mr. Gephardt, who is a likely presidential contender in 2004, joined Republican leaders in making the case for the president instead of standing in opposition to Mr. Bush.

As one of the last speakers in the House, Mr. Gephardt, who opposed the last gulf war, argued that Sept. 11 had ``made all the difference'' and that Mr. Hussein had to be stopped from developing weapons of mass destruction.

``The events of that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad, but to strike us here at home,'' he said.

But only a minority in his caucus followed his lead and his second-in-command, Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority whip, took the other side. Ms. Pelosi, a senior member of the intelligence committee, pointed to a C.I.A. letter declassified this week that judged that Mr. Hussein was not likely to use his weapons against the United States but could lose his restraint if faced with an American-led force.

She said attacking Mr. Hussein would turn the country away from what should be its true national security focus - the terrorist threat. ``There are many costs involved in this war, and one of them is the cost of the war on terrorism,'' she said.

Many Democrats said they agreed that Mr. Hussein was a dangerous tyrant. But they expressed fear of giving Mr. Bush so much power, or argued that by striking a nation that has not struck first, America could lose its moral standing. They also said Mr. Bush had not presented a definitive case that Iraq was an imminent threat.

In the end the vote was not all that different from the House vote on the gulf war. At that time, 86 Democrats voted to grant Mr. Bush's father, President George Bush, the right to use force, and 179 opposed him.

On Thursday, the opposition was particularly strong among House Democrats from the urban Northeast, the West Coast and among minority members.

House Democrats rallied around an alternative by Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina, that would have authorized force in conjunction with the United Nations. The president would have had to return to Congress for a second approval to act unilaterally.

If Americans do not act in concert with allies, Mr. Spratt said, ``This will be the United States versus Iraq, and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world.'' The measure was defeated by a vote of 270-155, but attracted 147 Democratic votes.

Senate opponents were thwarted in several attempts to alter the resolution. One alternative was written by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who proposed a two-step process similar to what was defeated in the House.

Mr. Levin said pushing the president to build an international coalition would mean that Mr. Hussein ``will be looking down the barrel of a gun, with the world at the other end rather than just the United States.''

[Daz]

Waste of america's time and money...

Saudi Arabia--- You aren't allowed to practice any relgion other than Islam there... women's rights are shit... dictatorship... we dont' fuck with em

Pakistan... large muslim regime that wants our ass dead... huge amount of nukes... THEY FUCKING HAVE NUKES AND WE KNOW IT AND THEY ARENT AFRAID TO "TEST" THEM... but where are we in taking those away?

Saddam killing his own people? We act like Kurds = Iraqis... HELLO... Kurds are a whole different set of people... like... Israelis and Palestinians are different.. and guess what? they fucking HATE Iraqis... in fact.. you MIGHT even call them Terrorists....

If Bush had any other evidence of the link to Al-Qaida other than the fact that one of their men was hospitalized in Iraq... I'd buy it... but shit... we KNOW they are in Pakistan... which once again brings me to the question of WHY THE FUCK ARE WE INVADING IRAQ AND NOT PAKISTAN?!?!?!?!


*sigh* that is the ONLY country in the world i think it would make sense for us to be invading right now for "preventative measure"

Jeff

by the way... this whole.. tearing a country's government apart and let it piece itself back together hasn't worked too well for us in the past (Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan...)

lets not let this be Vietnam 2...

[Hookups]

Here's a new article to fan the flames of this discussion.
Read, digest, learn.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=340836

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Daz
Waste of america's time and money...

American lives are not worth the time and money? Maybe I am just misunderstanding your comment.

Saudi Arabia--- You aren't allowed to practice any relgion other than Islam there... women's rights are shit... dictatorship... we dont' fuck with em

Yea the Saudi's suck, let's get a protest suggesting action for their human rights abuses. I'm with ya!

Pakistan... large muslim regime that wants our ass dead... huge amount of nukes... THEY FUCKING HAVE NUKES AND WE KNOW IT AND THEY ARENT AFRAID TO "TEST" THEM... but where are we in taking those away?

I know President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was working with the US, he seems like a moderate guy. But read this though.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021011_73.html

Imagine a world with the likes of the Taliban with nukes! I think there will be some interests on the part of the US in Pakistan for sure. The Taliban with nukes is like Saddam with Nukes.

Saddam killing his own people? We act like Kurds = Iraqis... HELLO... Kurds are a whole different set of people... like... Israelis and Palestinians are different.. and guess what? they fucking HATE Iraqis... in fact.. you MIGHT even call them Terrorists....

There have slight different ethic background. In a democratic Iraq these people would have a voice in government As of now they are stuck with a Dictator that has killed shit loads of that ethnic group.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

If Bush had any other evidence of the link to Al-Qaida other than the fact that one of their men was hospitalized in Iraq... I'd buy it... but shit... we KNOW they are in Pakistan... which once again brings me to the question of WHY THE FUCK ARE WE INVADING IRAQ AND NOT PAKISTAN?!?!?!?!


*sigh* that is the ONLY country in the world i think it would make sense for us to be invading right now for "preventative measure"

Jeff

by the way... this whole.. tearing a country's government apart and let it piece itself back together hasn't worked too well for us in the past (Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan...)

lets not let this be Vietnam 2...

Read this.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Hookups
Here's a new article to fan the flames of this discussion.
Read, digest, learn.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=340836

Robert Fisk?

Reading though the article, this guy's moral relativism is so duluted with wishfull thinking and 20/20 hindsight that it feels like a wet dream. Isn't this the same guy who blamed himself for getting mugged.

Ohh yeah here it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=109257



-Jason

[booboo69]

Good article (hookups).

It makes me ashamed to be an American when the so called "leaders" of this country will take a dump on the rest of the world, without hesitation, simply to further their own (or their puppetier's) agendas.

This sounds awful, but I almost hope that these reports about another Al-Qaeda attack are true, so when Bush is so damn focused on Iraq, something happens and all the nay-sayers will utter a "told-you-so" in unisen.

[ZupanGOD]

I thought his article was interesting..

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=386BB2E7-2907-4532-8CFB-B22134E87980

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by booboo69
... when Bush is so damn focused on Iraq, something happens and all the nay-sayers will utter a "told-you-so" in unisen.

Well that'll be a first! <G>

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Enjoy!

Leaving the Left Behind
by Tim Cavanaugh
http://reason.com/links/links101002.shtml

Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee
by Ron Rosenbaum
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp

Taking Sides
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021014&s=hitchens

[Hookups]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Robert Fisk?

Reading though the article, this guy's moral relativism is so duluted with wishfull thinking and 20/20 hindsight that it feels like a wet dream. Isn't this the same guy who blamed himself for getting mugged.

Ohh yeah here it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=109257



-Jason

Hmmm...
Interesting article. I suppose in his shoes, the article you would've written would rationalize the use of nerve gas.

Can you elaborate on how Fisk's article is like a wet dream? You treat it as if it were irrelevant, but I think the issues he brings up are highly relevant and deserve attention.

Like this point:

We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds – when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al –President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

Please explain how is this like a wet dream. Is it because you feel embarassed? Wet dreams make you wake up feeling pretty embarassed. I feel pretty embarassed to be a citizen of a country which subsidized genocide. I guess that might make it like a wet dream...

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Hookups


Hmmm...
Interesting article. I suppose in his shoes, the article you would've written would rationalize the use of nerve gas.

Can you elaborate on how Fisk's article is like a wet dream? You treat it as if it were irrelevant, but I think the issues he brings up are highly relevant and deserve attention.

Sorry if I brushed the guy as irrelevant so quickly, perhaps I was just showing my reaction, after I read it I looked up at who wrote it and Fisk was up their and I was like well that explains everything. His stuff comes off more of a idelogue rant than a informative journalist piece. But of course that's just my humble opinion. Allot of the left champions him becuase he tells them what they like to hear. He mirrors the likes of Noam Chomsky. You know Anti-Americanism at it's best. These guys are the best at 20/20 hindsight, and moral relativism.

Like this point:
Like this point:
We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds – when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al –President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

Good example, what Mr. Fisk is trying todo here is attempt to pass off something innocent as something sinister. Why doesn't he say what the subsidies were actually for? Becuase providing bio cultures for agricultural research and genetically altering foods for humitarian purposes is a far cry from weaponizing and manufacturing bio-warfare materials in quantity for Iraq. Countless of countries have also gave the same type of research to Iraq for humitarian purposes. Why doesn't Fisk address that? Well becuase that would intellectually honest to admit that the US wasn't the only country who gave Iraq "Dual-Use" material, and therefor cut into his anti-america rant.

Please explain how is this like a wet dream. Is it because you feel embarassed? Wet dreams make you wake up feeling pretty embarassed. I feel pretty embarassed to be a citizen of a country which subsidized genocide. I guess that might make it like a wet dream...

No what i mean is Mr. Fisk's wishes and feelings on hindsight moral relativism that he has 20/20 vision on, is like a wet dream for him.

-Jason

[Jeffro]

Fuck Iraq (http://www.ehowa.com/story/show/picture.html?image=navyoniraq.jpg#)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Jeffro
Fuck Iraq (http://www.ehowa.com/story/show/picture.html?image=navyoniraq.jpg#)

haha.. is that a US carrier?

-Jason

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


haha.. is that a US carrier?


Shee-it...need you even ask? ;)