We definitely shouldn't go to war with Iraq because some innocent Iraqi citizens may be killed. It's much better to pull out of the area and let Sadaam kill many more innocent Iraqi citizens, as he's done for years. It's much better to let him continue to harvest his weapons of destruction and end up killing off a few million Americans or Europeans.
I don't know why everybody else can't see the logic in that.
I don't know why everybody else can't see the logic in that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We definitely shouldn't go to war with Iraq because some innocent Iraqi citizens may be killed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This war ain't happening fols ! Sure they'll drop some bombs here and there but a full scale war won't happen unless countries like France, Germany & Russia jump on board !
So you get rid of him but can you afford to have US troops walking the streets of Iraq for years to come ?
It ain't the subburbs over there folks ! Those are some means streets and troops will be under fire for years to come !
That's why the BusHitlers need the Frenchies and co to join so they can have their kids die over there for decades to come !
And if you really think the Iraqi people are just waiting for US liberation you have your head stuck up so far in GW's ass that your tasting the food he eats !
So you get rid of him but can you afford to have US troops walking the streets of Iraq for years to come ?
It ain't the subburbs over there folks ! Those are some means streets and troops will be under fire for years to come !
That's why the BusHitlers need the Frenchies and co to join so they can have their kids die over there for decades to come !
And if you really think the Iraqi people are just waiting for US liberation you have your head stuck up so far in GW's ass that your tasting the food he eats !
And if you really think the Iraqi people are just waiting for US liberation you have your head stuck up so far in GW's ass that your tasting the food he eats
Lmao. How true that is. The sad thing is that some of them really do believe that.
General,
We dont agree on the Bobby Knight issue, but I couldnt agree with you more on this issue.
Lmao. How true that is. The sad thing is that some of them really do believe that.
General,
We dont agree on the Bobby Knight issue, but I couldnt agree with you more on this issue.
The current economic conditions and resulting financial position of America makes WAR cost prohibitive.
America has far more important issues to address regarding the security of its own economic future and liberties...which WAR would only result in an additional economic burden upon the current and future generations of Americans...resulting in a negative impact upon the living standards America's have grown accustom to.
Techically, I believe going to WAR is "playing into the hands" of America's "fabricated enemy."
As it appears to be the objective of those who seem jealously hostile to America to see America's economy broken (911 attacks upon America's symbols of capitalism)...while benefiting their own economic situation...Which is likely to happen, post-war with Iraq.
"Should we go to WAR with IRAQ?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
America has far more important issues to address regarding the security of its own economic future and liberties...which WAR would only result in an additional economic burden upon the current and future generations of Americans...resulting in a negative impact upon the living standards America's have grown accustom to.
Techically, I believe going to WAR is "playing into the hands" of America's "fabricated enemy."
As it appears to be the objective of those who seem jealously hostile to America to see America's economy broken (911 attacks upon America's symbols of capitalism)...while benefiting their own economic situation...Which is likely to happen, post-war with Iraq.
"Should we go to WAR with IRAQ?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
"This is just a little battle that will be over soon and will rid Iraq of a SICK regime."
This may well be the smallest minded comment I've ever seen on the Prescription.
By those of the faith this will not be seen as an attack on Iraq, it will be seen as an attack against Muslims and the will retaliate! Even if Saddam himself is killed it will mean nothing. Killing Saddam or Bin Laden will only make them martyrs and provide one more reason for muslims to attack us.
This may well be the smallest minded comment I've ever seen on the Prescription.
By those of the faith this will not be seen as an attack on Iraq, it will be seen as an attack against Muslims and the will retaliate! Even if Saddam himself is killed it will mean nothing. Killing Saddam or Bin Laden will only make them martyrs and provide one more reason for muslims to attack us.
Someone mentioned the 'majority of the UN Security Council'
Let's look at who is currently on the Security Council right now.
UNITED STATES (Permanent Member)
GREAT BRITAIN (Permanent Member)
SPAIN
BULGARIA
The four above are solidly for military force to disarm Iraq.
FRANCE (Permanent Member) - has done business with Saddam's both before and after the 1991 Gulf War. During Chirac's first term as Prime Minister in the early 1980's he sold Saddam a NUCLEAR REACTOR (thank God Israel blew it up). Rumors abound that France has done business with Iraq that has violated the Gulf War sanctions. Bottom, France has a HUGE interest in keeping Saddam in power. Chirac's worst nightmare is US and UK intelligence sifting through Saddam's records post-war and finding all kind of evidence that France has violated the UN sanctions.
GERMANY - Currently has the most anti-US German government since a guy named Hitler was in charge. Also rumors of Germany violating UN sanctions and German fears of what could be exposed concerning these dealings post-war.
RUSSIA (Permanent Member) - Soviet Union was Saddam's biggest benefactor for 20 years and supplied Iraq with 95%+ of it's weapons. Has multi-billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq. Also would not like the US/UK gaining access to Iraqi records.
CHINA (Permanent Member) - Opposes anything that would raise the standing of the US. Also a HUGE supplier of arms and missile technology to Iraq.
CAMEROON - former French colony who's economy is held together by loan guarantees from France. Objectivity issues to say the least.
ANGOLA - Former Soviet client state that has no lover for the USA. Strongly supported Communist North Vietnam against the US. Closely allied with Communist Cuba.
GUINEA - Another former FRENCH colony who's economy is largely dependent on France. Objectivity issues to say the least.
SYRIA - Terrorist state that is Iraq's closest ally. Objectivity issues to say the least.
PAKISTAN - Islamic nation that borders on fundamentalist. Any support for an attack on Iraq could lead to fundamentalist revolution. VERY difficult position for leadership of Pakistan regarding the Iraq issue.
MEXICO - Always looking for concessions from US on border/immigration issues. Post 9-11 increased border security has strained US-Mexican relations. Likely will support US.
CHILE - likely to support US.
So, I would argue that if the Security Council does not vote to use force, it is because of bad fortune alone. At once, you have Syria (Iraq's closest ally), Germany (govt. hates USA), Angola (Cuba's closest ally), Guinea (French puppet state) and Cameroon (French puppet state), all as rotating memebers of the Security Council at this moment in time.
Let's look at who is currently on the Security Council right now.
UNITED STATES (Permanent Member)
GREAT BRITAIN (Permanent Member)
SPAIN
BULGARIA
The four above are solidly for military force to disarm Iraq.
FRANCE (Permanent Member) - has done business with Saddam's both before and after the 1991 Gulf War. During Chirac's first term as Prime Minister in the early 1980's he sold Saddam a NUCLEAR REACTOR (thank God Israel blew it up). Rumors abound that France has done business with Iraq that has violated the Gulf War sanctions. Bottom, France has a HUGE interest in keeping Saddam in power. Chirac's worst nightmare is US and UK intelligence sifting through Saddam's records post-war and finding all kind of evidence that France has violated the UN sanctions.
GERMANY - Currently has the most anti-US German government since a guy named Hitler was in charge. Also rumors of Germany violating UN sanctions and German fears of what could be exposed concerning these dealings post-war.
RUSSIA (Permanent Member) - Soviet Union was Saddam's biggest benefactor for 20 years and supplied Iraq with 95%+ of it's weapons. Has multi-billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq. Also would not like the US/UK gaining access to Iraqi records.
CHINA (Permanent Member) - Opposes anything that would raise the standing of the US. Also a HUGE supplier of arms and missile technology to Iraq.
CAMEROON - former French colony who's economy is held together by loan guarantees from France. Objectivity issues to say the least.
ANGOLA - Former Soviet client state that has no lover for the USA. Strongly supported Communist North Vietnam against the US. Closely allied with Communist Cuba.
GUINEA - Another former FRENCH colony who's economy is largely dependent on France. Objectivity issues to say the least.
SYRIA - Terrorist state that is Iraq's closest ally. Objectivity issues to say the least.
PAKISTAN - Islamic nation that borders on fundamentalist. Any support for an attack on Iraq could lead to fundamentalist revolution. VERY difficult position for leadership of Pakistan regarding the Iraq issue.
MEXICO - Always looking for concessions from US on border/immigration issues. Post 9-11 increased border security has strained US-Mexican relations. Likely will support US.
CHILE - likely to support US.
So, I would argue that if the Security Council does not vote to use force, it is because of bad fortune alone. At once, you have Syria (Iraq's closest ally), Germany (govt. hates USA), Angola (Cuba's closest ally), Guinea (French puppet state) and Cameroon (French puppet state), all as rotating memebers of the Security Council at this moment in time.
On the contrary froggy fred, I really don't think US national security should be determined by the self-centered whims of nations such as Syria, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon. If those four were replaced with Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Australia and Lithuania, then the resolution would pass easily.
So in other words, the UN really means little.
So in other words, the UN really means little.
Only the Muslims EXTREMEISTS will feel that way and they only make up a very very SMALL % of the world's Muslims.
True Muslims know Saddam is what the U.S. and others are after because he is NOT muslim and do not represent them, and they feel the same way about Osama, as he does not represent them. They have made these staement in the press many times but it seems you only remember things coming from the EXTREMEISTS.
You know it seems that many small minded and uninformed posters come out of Costa Rica lately on these political issues.
True Muslims know Saddam is what the U.S. and others are after because he is NOT muslim and do not represent them, and they feel the same way about Osama, as he does not represent them. They have made these staement in the press many times but it seems you only remember things coming from the EXTREMEISTS.
You know it seems that many small minded and uninformed posters come out of Costa Rica lately on these political issues.
hungover and the child,
I wish your hero Clinton had the balls to take Saddam out and liberate 23 million people. Then you would be in favor of the war.
We will see very soon if 23 million people rejoice in their new freedom for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, or whether you 2 fools are correct that they prefer Saddam. You are making an idiot's argument.
I wish your hero Clinton had the balls to take Saddam out and liberate 23 million people. Then you would be in favor of the war.
We will see very soon if 23 million people rejoice in their new freedom for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, or whether you 2 fools are correct that they prefer Saddam. You are making an idiot's argument.
They ALWAYS make an IDIOTS argument.
And the SCARY
thing is they may be serious.
And the SCARY
