Quote:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Sounds like something President Bush has said. But actually it was Clinton,and im sure that the Democratic party was applauding loudly behind this statement. Even though it is something a few years later that most are booing and hissing at, when the current commander in chief says basically the same thing.

Quote:

In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people who rose against his rule. And in 30 years has caused the death of almost 2 million men, women, children and daughters.

so lets kill thousands of Americans for what cause? was Iraq really that big of threat to America because i know Saddam just couldn't wait to attack America, in all of Iraqs history when have they ever attacked America
thats not our problem thats what the UN is for and if theirs a big enough problem they might do something, otherwise things should just be left alone
instead Bush just wanted to finish off his dads war. The war is pointless and Iraq will never be peaceful again atleast with Saddam there was some peace, yes maybe not a good peace for some of the people over there, but how often did you hear of the attacks in Iraq before Bush was in office we would have been better off staying out of it, Iraq is a personal goal for Bush it has nothing to do with the war on terror.

I'm sure that we'll loose countless more americans to more pointless wars, north Korea is probably next and then on to who knows were, with Bush probably Mars to kill the aliens because their planning a plot of world domination against us.

It is, and always has been about securing oil reserves.

Look at where the US has military bases and action. It forms a noose around 60% of all the oil in the world.

Check out work by Michael Rupert (LAPD, FBI, CIA, 23 years in DC), he has a video called "Denial Stops Here". Worth the hour or so it'll take to watch.

The ecomonmies of the world are completely dependent on growth. Growth can only be achieved through the expendature of energy. All production needs energy. Oil is the primary source of energy and therefore the economies of the world depend on oil. Those who have oil will keep their economies afloat while those without will wither and die. Oil is the single most important strategic resource on the planet. All the most powerful contries in the world are competing for control of the world's oil supplies right now. Through economic measures, diplomacy and war. Like it or not, oil is the life blood of the US economy and the US must do all it can to secure oil in order to survive. If they are to mantain the status quo. People in power like the status quo, afterall, they are in power. To them change is bad and they will do whatever it takes to keep things just the way they are.

PAX

I personally always thought killing 2,752 innocent americans while at work and then having 343 firefighters, and 75 police officers sacrifice there lives rescuing these people was a pretty good reason to show them that they arent gonna walk all over this country without there being consequences for there actions.

What has that got to due with Iraq?

PAX

Ex wrote:I personally always thought killing 2,752 innocent americans while at work and then having 343 firefighters, and 75 police officers sacrifice there lives rescuing these people was a pretty good reason to show them that they arent gonna walk all over this country without there being consequences for there actions.

(I'll emphasise this, because some people just don't get it)

9/11/01 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

SunfireN2o wrote:In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people who rose against his rule. And in 30 years has caused the death of almost 2 million men, women, children and daughters.

When was it ever peaceful over there?

I never said Saddam was a good ruler, but when did it get decided that the US should take over countries that don't have good rulers? There's just as much cruel leadership in China and some countries in Africa, but as Hahahaha said, they don't have oil.

And the US government isn't innocent as far as killing people who challenge the government here. Waco was just publicized more than the other smaller groups who are eliminated for challenging the US government. We don't have the exact numbers because they keep that under tight wraps, but I'm sure it happens.

Which brings back my other point... Should another country take over the US government for it's actions against world peace and because we possess weapons of mass distruction and a war monger for a leader?


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John: Keep quiet!!! I don't wanna send any of our trained beaver assassins to kill you and dispose of the evidence...












The Canuskistani plot to topple the US Gov't is Marching ahead at full speed!!!

You'll ruin everything!!!



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

/\/\/\/\ LOL! "Beaver assassins"... I've seen some pretty spectacular beavers, but never any killer beavers.






John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

You know why you've never heard of them????

They're very, very good.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think bush is doing a decent job. He is doing what any president in his position should do. As a previous post said, Clinton actually said that Sadaam should be removed from power and that he was a threat to world peace, he just failed to do anything about it. Bush is at least trying to take it to the enemy.

Brian said

"thats not our problem thats what the UN is for and if theirs a big enough problem they might do something"

Dude, are you serious. The UN is a friggin joke. We give the most money/troops/ supplies to the UN anyway so if the UN actually did anything, the US would be spearheading it/ paying for it. I personally wish we could get out of the UN.



My other car is an interceptor.

Quote:

I personally wish we could get out of the UN.

X2

Blame Rockefeller then, he built it, and he signed you up.

The fact is the UN does many good things, you guys are just pissy because the UN stalled the Iraq invation. Gee sorry for trying to solve an issue without killing thousands before resorting to war.

You haven't given much money in years, in fact you have the largest overdue accound if I'm not mistaken.

Like little parrots aren't you? The UN was good enough for you guys when the did everything you wanted, including a fumbled fowled US lead war in Korea that saw way more dead than needed because your generals just wouldn't listen to reason.

Stop parroting and start reading, might do you some good.

PAX

he was cool till he interupted family guy last night!! son of a bitch!!!!! lol j/k ive always hated that bastard


"Boost tuning"....... have you had your 8 PSI today?

future name of the winter shop!!!

SunfireN2o wrote:

Quote:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Sounds like something President Bush has said. But actually it was Clinton,and im sure that the Democratic party was applauding loudly behind this statement. Even though it is something a few years later that most are booing and hissing at, when the current commander in chief says basically the same thing.

LOL I dont mean to pick on you but this sounds nothing like a Bush speach. All of the words are intelligable and used with the correct context and meaning.

Quote:

LOL I dont mean to pick on you but this sounds nothing like a Bush speach. All of the words are intelligable and used with the correct context and meaning.

Lol, you know what I mean.

What gives the US the right to determine which country is allowed or not allowed to possess weapons of any kind? What if Canada decides to persue a nuclear weapons program, does that give Bush the right to invade Canada? What if Saddam really did have wmd's? What if he had warehouses full, does it make any difference?

Why does my country always stick it's nose in where it doesn't belong? Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?






(This entire post was composed entirely of questions, except this last sentense.)






John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Well, Canada will not persue WMD's... Canada is the only CBRN WMD capable nation that chooses to not ramp up those programs.

And... Dubya knows that if US military personnel set a petulant foot in Canada, they'd have to contend with the Beaver Assassins, Moose Infantry and the Wolverine Artillery, then if they made it to Montreal, they wouldn't want to leave because french chicks have low standards.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

"The fact is the UN does many good things"

No, the UN has done many good things. But now it seems to have degenerated into a large contingent of nations, that while respectable in size, lacks the cohesion and solidarity to actually get anything done. The security council is anything but secure.
Do you really think that France, China, the UK, the USA, and Russia are ever going to agree on anything? I don't. But they all have veto power and all have to agree for anything to go forward so go figure.
Also Rockefeller did'nt build a damn thing, he gave the UN the $8.5 mil to buy the land that the headquarters now sits on. And as far the UN delaying the invasion of Iraq, If you want to think that france and Germany were trying to "solve an issue without killing thousands before resorting to war" thats fine but in
reality they were trying to cover up the corruption and illegal dealings they were making with saddam. Have you not heard about the "oil for food" scandal, Koffee Annans' son, among others including the director of the UN oil for food program, got rich off that @!#$. Basically, Saddam would give these high-ups in the UN oil-vouchers that could be sold for huge profits. But wait, I thought this was the "oil for food" program, right? Then why is Iraqi oil being used for the profit of a select few? Let's see if we can figure this out. OK Saddam gives UN and French officials oil vouchers, then in return these officials will turn a blind eye to anything that saddam might be doing that would be against international law. There, that was'nt too hard was it?
Just face it the UN is now nothing more than a way for nations to get together and decide on just exactly what it is that they are going to do nothing about. It is pathetic that people still view the UN as an admirable institution. But that can be explained by the lack of ANY major news network even talking about issues such as this.
I think your just pissy because we overrode the stupid UN.

have a nice day,

Steve


My other car is an interceptor.

I agree with Steve on a few points regarding the UN. First off, some delegates are authorized by their governments to sell their votes. The US has paid countries (or "forgiven" loans) in exchange for voting the way we want. Anyone else see the problem with that?

Second, the French/Saddam/Oil/Food deal may actually be the real reason Bush got his panties in a bunch about Saddam. Releasing that much oil into the world market would drop the price considerably, even if it's done on the barter system.

And Gam, speaking as an American, I have to agree with you about the French chicks but that still doesn't answer the question...

What gives the US the right to decide which countries are allowed to have WMD's?





John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Because 16 years ago Saddam Hussein started a war, and lost it. Then he agreed to dissarm all of his WMD's. Then years later he violated that agreement by pursuing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He broke an agreement. He agreed not to biuld them.

He made the agreement with the UN, not the US and Britain.

It was the UN's decision on whether or not to invade.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

And the UN Security Council voted 17-0 in favor of 1441 that "serious consequences would result".....and then when it came time to back it up, the French(shocker uh) said uh nope, we are going to veto any war resolution because they didn't want to loose the cash cow deal they had with Saddam.

We did what we had to do.

You did what you had to do based on the evidence provided. If the truth about Iraq was know prior to the invation, do you think there would have been public support?

The day of initial actions, given what we thought we knew at the time, I reluctantly agreed that something had to be done (I am never a proponent of war, but the situation seemed to warrant some kind of intervention).

The fact is everyone was lied to. There are no WMDs, no manufacturing plants, no big caches. Saddam was (as suspected by many) sabre rattling in order to look bigger than he was. He was trying to save face as the tough guy who'll stand up to the US. He made a terrible error in that action. He had nothing to hide, but wanted people to think he did. That played right into the hands of those who fed us the lies and proceeded to invade a nation and create all new enemies.

It should sicken anyone who thinks about it long enough.

PAX

a lot of you sound like Team America World Police.

The UN is in place for a reason.

Bush is finishing his daddy's dirty work in IRAQ.

We Sold IRAQ their WMD's, or rather the supplies needed to create them, we knew what they had.

IRAQ didn't have any WMD's, they havn't found any. Article.

America needs to stop this strike first, make appologies later campaign that Bush is leading. It only makes us look bad in the world view. For those that would say who cares what the rest of the world thinks, we are part of it and our economy is heavily supported by the products we export and import.

I'd be willing to comment on weather or not Bush is doing a good or a bad Job, but he doesn't do enough work for that to be commented on by racking up the largest amount of vaction time of any US president EVER in history.

Lastly as Gam said so nicely:
9/11 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!!

but thanks for proving the point that the president would like you to belive this.

The "War on terrorism" is nothing but America's idea of a JIHAD. You don't believe in our ways and won't do what we want you to do, so you must be bad.

In good ole american fashion, we don't have nearly enough troops for a successfull campaign in IRAQ, we've done nothing but present american lives to the extremeist for local sacrifice. (We're giving them easy access to kill americans) They don't have to come to the US anymore, they've got their own private disbursment of US citizens to kill.


-Chris