Dr.Worthless

Lets have some opinions. http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ Watch the do-*BAD WORD*-entary they've put out. Its a 13 minute watch.

Furthermore, if -*BAD WORD*- goes down in Israel, who's to say the palestinians muslim brothers aren't going to jump in too? Monte's right.. we all need to be interested in this.

I'll just pipe in and say the UN is weak because it has no backbone. It wants to use resolutions and threats to enforce compliance. When it comes to putting troops out in the field to enforce the resolutions, the majority of the UN's members wont do it.

One probem really, Israel is supplied by the US, which means they use smart bombs and missles. Those go over walls =)

And you're a loser for taking the minute out of your life to type that. Thx for clearing that up for me internet superhero, a big problem of mine is confusing what I've accomplished in my life. <3

I wouldn't so no to that statement. I was refering to my above post speaking of the United States roll in european affairs over the past 70 years. All i've been hearing on these forums is how the US deserves no respect because they invaded Iraq, and how they've lost everyones respect. If the US didn't earn enough respect during WW2 from europe,and the cold war, then they will never have enough respect.

A scary proposition for mainland Europe, yes. Hitler would not have the technology to get a bomb over to mainland United States though. The US and Allies, on the other hand, had complete control of Northern Africa, and access to countless other airports in Europe. We would have been able to deliver a bomb with Hitler's name on it to Berlin in quick fashion, had Hitler decided to hold Europe hostage with Nuclear weapons. Worse case scenario for the US would have been the Cold War with Germany instead of Russia. It would have been lights out for Europe though.

Heh, While I do acknowledge my shortcomings, WW2 history isnt one of them. OOO, I'll pick A.) "The only remaning superpower in the world", and I'll make that my final answer. Funny that you defend your claim that with a statement with the word "might" in it. The exodus of major scientific minds from Europe, Einstien and others, is what lead to the United States leaping forward in the nuclear arms race. Though, Hitler with a bomb would not have been a major deterant to the United States. At most Hitler would have forced Britain out of the war. Although he was working toward employing his newly created jet engine into a long range bomber, he would have nothing more than a prototype made by the time Russian forces were rolling into Berlin. The British faught valliantly, the RAF's victory over Germany's operation Sealion was nothing short of a miracle. Without British bases, and engineering, a mainland european invasion would have been impossible. Russian's employed a wonderful campaign of victory by blood, losing nearly 30 million in its fight with germany. Russian fighters often had no equiptment, no food, but faught tooth and nail to defend their homeland, and eventually be the first to march into Berlin. Coincidence that the two nations that faught along side the US, tooth and nail, during WW2 are still allies with them to this day. Britain of course our ownly remaning ally, while Russia is still keeps friendly relations with the United States. Ironically, the nation that was practically a non-factor in the war and needed to be bailed out of german control is the one giving us the most fits. Funny how that works. I'm in no way belittling other countries efforts in World War 2. The alliance faught valiantly to take over a technologically advanced opponent, with superior equiptment and tactics. Though I'll be the first to point out the fact that Europe would be one messed up place right now had the United States decided to just fight in the pacific theatre, and let the Europeans fight their crazy wars. Funny that you still don't acknowledge what the United States has done. Coincidental? I think not. Please, make the arguement that the United States wasn't the main factor for the allied victory during WW2, I'd love to see you attempt it. Though I suspect you'll just make a non-substance post full of "mabye's" and "mights", and continue to dig at the United States. Funny thing is, losers don't write the history books, the winners do. It seems Canada's education system churned out a citizen that believes mabyes and mights won ww2, not the United States. I do get in moods upon occasion, but please do not insult my intelligence. I deal with your constant bashing of the United States, but if you want to make the insults personal trust me you provide alot of ammunition.

So 10,000 Iraqi's die in the process of removing their tyranically dictator and all -*BAD WORD*- is raised. Saddam kills millions of his own citizens while ruling with an iron fist, and all thats done is spineless resolutions. Heh. It is heartless and arrogant to think that standing on the sidelines barking resolutions of "you better stop or else" or "Thats bad, dont do that anymore meanie" did -*BAD WORD*- to help anyone in Iraq, or lessen Saddams threat. Ghandi sure as -*BAD WORD*- wouldn't have approved sitting back for decades and watching as Saddam pillaged, raped, and murdered his own citizens. Don't make America out as the bad guys in this situation, you'll lose everytime . I've said this before so let me say it again, Supporting Saddam in power in Iraq is supporting Rape, Murder, Torture, Genocide, and the whole other bag of tricks he used. You speak of peace, love, Ghandi, and all the other -*BAD WORD*-, but when it came to putting the muscle to the plow, all the UN did was sit back and spit out useless -*BAD WORD*- resolutions. The war very well could have been about something completely other than helping the Iraqi citizens, but when you try and make the US out as bad guys for the casulties caused by this invasion, and fail to mention the 20+ years of TERROR SADDAM PUT IRAQ THROUGH, you're full of horse-*BAD WORD*-. Seriously, we dug your european !@#$%^&*es out of world war 2 by ourselves, we defeated Japan by ourselves, we rebuilt wartorn europe by ourselves, we won the cold war by ourselves, we sure as -*BAD WORD*- can handle Iraq by ourselves. Yes, I'm in a "GO USA" mood today, I'm getting sick of logging on these boards every day and reading about how bad the USA is, and how we've gotten ourselves in a situation that we cant handle. The fact is almost 2x more people were lost on 1 day during september 11'th 2001 than the US military has lost in over 1 YEAR OF COMBAT in iraq. Heh, hardly what I would call a failure. Wake up. Heh, I don't see the US getting any respect for all its past friendly dealings with Europe and the world. Removing a dictator from power magically erased WW1, WW2, ColdWar, over 70 years of bending over backwards helping our Euro friends with manpower, $$, support, etc. If all of this can be absolutly ignored with 1 "Screwup", then why should we give a -*BAD WORD*- about your respect? Yeah, Harsh post that will get tore up im sure, Right now I don't care. Worthless

Atleast I know im getting my taxpayers money worth, go hump that 200 pound charger around some more.

Sorry, nuclear class submarines have made huge jumps technological wise from the 50's. Along with carriers, especially the computerized AA gunnery now installed (which are extremely bad!@#$%^&*.) A whole new ship class is slated to debut in 2012? Not sure of the year. The new ships are slated to make use of rail gun technology. In the army, can you say M1 Abrams? The most dominant land weapon in the history of warfare. The airforce has stealth technology, bigger, better, more accurate weaponry, faster, better airplanes (f15). Lockheed is also working on the joint strike fighter, which is to make its debut in the coming years. Sorry, Good try though, the military the united states has today, technologically speaking, makes the armed forces we had in the 50's look stoneage.

Only one of the presidents that helped bring an end to the cold war, preventing Russia from basically turning a war weakened Europe into commieville. Sorry bacchus, the 35% approval rating was in reference to you claiming france is wonderland. As A was trying to point out, even his own citizens think he's doing a -*BAD WORD*-ty job (Chirac) His approval ratings are far worse than Bush's. I'll call -*BAD WORD*- on this one. The US gave the UN EVERY CHANCE to be part of this, and they refused, so we did it on our own. WE ARE STILL PROVIDING EVERY CHANCE FOR THE UN TO BE PART OF THIS EFFORT, but Chirac's arrogance prevents him from doing it. Funny you should bring up a Hitler ran Germany, that was the last major case of a european alliance trying to appease a tyrant, guess what, It didn't work then and it sure as -*BAD WORD*- wont work now. And since you're bringing up past events, you're welcome for rebuilding Europe. Yep, last time I checked the President relies on intel to make his decisions. It was the very same intelligence provided the United States house/senate, they bought it to. Don't you remember that our president doesn't declare war, our legislative body does. I doubt you did, you're to blinded by your hate of America and its president. The UN is a broken s-*BAD WORD*- of what its founders hoped it to be. Want proof of its effectiveness? Just hop over to the thread I started and check out all the UN resolutions made pertaining to Saddam. My favorite is the 1992 resolution proclaiming "Saddam must immediatly cease in his inhumane treatment of his citizens". Alota -*BAD WORD*- good that did, heh. I'm glad you think so highly of France. I'll be here enjoying the US of A. Thank you sir.

Huh? If you're saying that the military is using the same things it used in the 50's, you need to find who told you that and slap them.

Highly intelligent post Sunny, you should participate more often.

If kerry gets elected I'll be curious to see the UN's response to him. I suspect it will be better, but I'll also have to wait and see just how much power Kerry ceades to the UN, because make no mistake its going to take some major major major -*BAD WORD*- kissing to get chirac and others back on the US side (If they ever were)

I agree, kerry's speech was very well put together. The delivery wasn't up to par though. I think Clinton stole the show, for alittle bit he actually had me thinking I was going to vote democrat this year, then I remember he wasnt the candidate running. *boggle* Where's the detail for plans? One of Kerry's #1 gripes is that no one knows his plans to fix the things he says he will. He promised higher minimum wages, tax cuts to the middle class, fixing the Iraq situation, working on womans rights, better prescription health plan, fixing healthcare, fixing social security, 3 ASSS and booze on friday nights. Ok, so the last was a lie, but pretty much EVERYTHING that's going bad right now kerry said he'd fix, yet gave us no information on HOW he'd go about doing this. Just seems to me Kerry's promising everything to everyone.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Lets have everyone overall opinions of the Democratic National Convention. I know we have ALOT of non-US posters, so I don't know if you all watched the convention or not. If that be the case, I doubt this thread goes much of anywhere

I thought I had already explained it. The part of the resolution I am refering to was the part stating that Iraq hasn't put forth every effort it could to comply with the terms of the ceasefire. Since Iraq was in breach of the terms, the ceasefire would be null and void. (This ceasefire being what ended the first gulf war.) Since the ceasefire was void, armed action COULD be taken against Iraq. This isn't a vote FOR agressive action or AGAINST agressive action, it's simply the UN security councle saying "Hey, if you wanna go -*BAD WORD*- their -*BAD WORD*- up, you're more than welcome too" Yes, its the same resolution you linked. Since they are in flagrant violation of UNSCR 687, Saddam has breached the contract. Explained above. Heh, it has nothing to do with anything "My government" has told me. Read the resolutions. The terms of the ceasefire to the first gulf war demanded that Saddam comply with all demands of the UN. If Saddam refused at any point during the process, he would be in breach of contract which would render the ceasefire null and void. It's all there in the UN resolutions. (The UN resolution is #687) True. But we're not "Justifying" anything. The point being we had every right to invade if need be back in 1998, because Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire. (AS said in resolution 1205) Oh, the modern day hitler was more compliant than he has been! Anything is more compliant than what *was* in place, a 4 year stint of allowing NO inspections what-so-ever. All of a sudden its now the UN inspectors that are the bad guys, picking on little ole Saddam. None of this conversation is about the recent invasion.. all of this pertains to Clintons right to invade if he had chosen to do so.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say about the 1998 resolution, but the resolution mentioned is a vote (which was 15-0) stating that Iraq was not making every effort to comply with UN requests. Since this being the case, he was in breach of the agreement he signed for the ceasefire proposed in 1991. Since he was in breach, the ceasefire was over which opened the door for Clinton to invade if he chose so. While the 15-0 vote wasn't a vote for invasion, it WAS a vote for allowing the use of armed force against Saddam. So, if in 1998 it was a unanimous vote to allow the use of force against Saddam, why the change of heart 4 years later? Yes, Saddam allowed inspectors back into the country in 2002, but Saddam wasn't 100% compliant, he refused to answer any questions provided him about activities that he engaged in during the inspector hiatus (1998-2002). He was completely compliant with Hanz, and in the 4 months of inspections Hanz completed inspections of 600 sites. All this stuff is in the article I posted. Yes, the article is slightly right slanted, but I wasn't after the slant, I was after the UN resolutions that were metioned, which I later cited in a followup article. You cant slant UN resolutions, they are what they are.

...

I intepreted that as what Bush has done, IE invade Iraq, remove Saddam, and install a new Iraqi Government. Believing that it could be done from the inside is wishful thinking, at best. Clinton was ready to send troops into Iraq. You believe that the troops objective was to destroy all wmd sites, and just leave Saddam alone? Or mabye it was closer to 90%, or %, mabye 40%, or 30% you're guess is as good as mine. The post above pertaining to a dialogue of Butler, he makes it sound pretty strong that he believed Saddam needed to be out of power. In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998. Linkage Alternativly, while not "voting" on the invasion, stipulations set forth in the 1991 ceasefire agreements state that if Saddam broke any part of the agreement, that the ceasefire would be null and void. In 1998 the security councle voted and unanimously agreed Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire agreement, thus ending the ceasefire agreed to at the end of the first gulf war, and opening the door for the Clinton administration to open an attack. Sorry. Can only go by what the man says. Somehow I don't truely believe he was wanting the overthrow to happen from the inside, that was already tried, multiple times. I do believe Clinton knew Saddam had to be removed from power, and I believe he was ready to do so before calling off a ground attack. Why he called it off, who knows. I can speculate though =) BUSTED, (gets out the hypocrite stamp and stamps his forehead). Sorry, let opinion slip in there. Happens to the best of us =) Ultimatly I suppose it comes down to where the weapons went. In 1998 we were positive he had them. 4 years of non-investigation insued, who knows what Saddam could have done with them. Destroying them is doubtful.. look at the mans track record. Believing he would destroy the weapons is akin to believing a rabid dog wont bite because it looks cute. While we're in the habit of looking at UN passed resolutions, please browse the many many resolutions passed commanding Saddam to stop suppressing his population, and increase humanitarian efforts. These stem as far back as 1991. Over 10 years of resolutions passed telling him the same thing, with no sign of real action to inforce those resolutions, other than "sanctions" which didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out only hurt the general Iraqi population. Sorry, this dude was s-*BAD WORD*- and needed to be removed from power. I still believe that Saddam possessed "WMDs", and just because there hasn't been any signifigant stockpiles found doesn't mean he didn't hide them, or try to acquire them on the black market. I just don't understand how removing a sadistic tyrant can destabalize a region. Then again I never understood any opposition to the war to begin with. Yeah you have all the oil hypothesis, etc, etc.. Which all very well may be true, all I'm seeing right now is a really son of a -*BAD WORD*- out of power. Its late, I'm tired, and the above probably didn't make sense.

Butler Interview Make no mistake, France and Russia would have NO part in any invasion of Iraq. In an ideal world they would want an active role in the process, but they didnt. For Chirac, it wasn't about Iraq, it was about wanting to see the lone superpower of the world, and backbone of the UN, fail. The second paragraph also is very interesting, especially coupled with the Clinton speech of how "Saddam must be removed".

Undisputed meaning Saddam did not allow any inspectors into the country of Iraq for those 4 years. 1) Saddam has weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destruction between 1998-2002, 4 month investigation finds that Iraq has no weapons left in 2002. Where did the weapons go? Alittle more indepth explination. If Saddam had weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destroying them during the time of 1998-2002, and Hanz didn't find said weapons (that he had in 1998) where did they go? 2.) A convinced UN votes unanimously for invasion in 1998. 4 years later a 4 month investigation changes the minds of 2 countries. Why the sudden change of opinion? 3.) Before invasion, Russia and France make a plee against force, stating there is no proof that Iraq has WMD's, yet in the SAME memorandum states that Inspections cannot continue forever and that Saddam must disarm. Disarm what, the weapons he doesn't have? I'm not suprised there was opposition to a war. Well actually I kind of am. Why would a UN security councle that just 6 years previous voted 15-0 for invasion of the country suddenly be in opposition of an invasion, when no signifigant cooperation was shown on Saddam's part. Sure, he allowed inspectors back in (after a 4 year hiatus) but refused to answer any questions given to him about weapons. Hanz made his judgment off of 4 months of inspections. The posted article above is fairly factual. The fact still remains that in 1998 he was confirmed to have WMD's. 6 years later (4 months of that being times of inspection) it was deemed that he no longer had the weapons. Saddam would not provide proof that the weapons were destroyed or answer questions as to where the weapons had gone. So, what happened to them? I was quoting the article. You no more know Bill Clintons intentions for calling off the War than the man who wrote the article does. Though, It's no secret Bill Clinton wouldn't do much of anything that would cause a drop in his public approval.

Very good read, everyone take the time to read it. Though this all applies to past administrations. None of the information could imaginably be used in an arguement on why Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Still none the less quite interesting information, Shows quite well that the US is not adverse to providing an enemy with anything they need to fight another enemy.