MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 The last nations on Earth that I want to lead a war, or even a battle, against terrorism are Israel or the USA. Unfortunatly, it seems we're the only nation willing to spend major $$ and send massive number of troops to the cause. The UN isn't serious about stopping terrorism. If they were the "war against terror" would have started a LONG time ago, see'ing that europe has been dealing with terrorism far longer than North America (on a grand scale.) No. The US is not the only nation willing to spend a lot of money to fight the war on terror. What about the UK? What about Canada and Germany in Afghanistan. Canada's contribution in Afghanistan is the same or more than the US on a per capita basis. Support for the invasion of Iraq is not the same thing as support for the war against terrorism. Most nations want to work with the UN. The fact that the US and Israel do not does not mean that the UN is failing. It could mean that the US and Israel are simply wrong. Anyway. massive numbers of troops are not an effective weapon to use against terrorists. If the US was interesting in stopping terrorism then they would reconsider their support for Israel and their defiance of UN resolutions that probably would help secure a peace in the region. The UN is the best tool that we have to fight terrorism. Israel and the US are amongst the biggest threats to world peace.
Dav Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 i couldnt agree more, the real istability in the middle east is israil, counties there still refuse to accept it as an offitial state. As far as i know they have aggreed to do so when a peaceful solution to the conflict is found.
Yupa Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 As far as i know they have aggreed to do so when a peaceful solution to the conflict is found.the people that aren't suicide bombing, anyways
Manus Celer Dei Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 As far as i know they have aggreed to do so when a peaceful solution to the conflict is found.the people that aren't suicide bombing, anyways -*BAD WORD*- straight! Suicide bombing is evil, the only method of bombing that is acceptable is one where guided munitions are launched from helicopters or jets part of a state funded air force. [/sarcasm]
Dav Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 As far as i know they have aggreed to do so when a peaceful solution to the conflict is found.the people that aren't suicide bombing, anyways true, it will take alot longer for that to go away but it will not be as bad, that can always be considerd a good thing. Anyway i was rering to the governments or other middle eastern states like jorden when i made that comment, but i guss it applies to the people as well.
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Umm yeah I think the US just got plan tired of the UN's excuses about Iraq they wanted something more to be done and the UN wouldn't do it. So the US took it into its own hands the UN is not always right but I am not say the US is ethier but you can't just -*BAD WORD*- out all the time. If talking will not work, or other peaceful methods will not be allowed then action may be taken.
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 O and about the Canada thing I really don't think it would effect us that dramatically what the heck does Canada even produce. Toilet Papers and beer is the only too things I have seen. -*BAD WORD*- ya we will keep getting out made in china import items
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Umm yeah I think the US just got plan tired of the UN's excuses about IraqWhat were the UN's 'excuses'?
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Here is my summary of it "Wait wait we will send more inspectors wait plz -whine- --*BAD WORD*-- -moan-" that concludes it
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 No. The US is not the only nation willing to spend a lot of money to fight the war on terror. What about the UK? What about Canada and Germany in Afghanistan. Canada's contribution in Afghanistan is the same or more than the US on a per capita basis. Support for the invasion of Iraq is not the same thing as support for the war against terrorism.Point taken. most nations want to work with the UN. The fact that the US and Israel do not does not mean that the UN is failing. I never claimed that the UN was failing. Its interesting to see what people *really* think, cause it always comes out when they jump to conclusions. Anyway, I simply stated that the UN isn't serious about stoping terrorism. If they were interested, this battle against them would have started along time ago. I'm basing my opinion on all the terrorism that Europe has went through, for a far longer time than the United States has. It could mean the US and Israel are wrong.The United States is wrong for wanting to attack those that attacked us? Consipracy theories aside, 3000 people did die on September 11'th, 2001. I think the majority of Americans forget how everyone felt that day. Anyway. massive numbers of troops are not an effective weapon to use against terrorists. They are effective in removing the terrorist cells power source, that is their $$. I know, I know, reports say that there is no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I don't buy it. I do know that Saddam hated the United States, and I do know that alot of middle eastern countries hate the "west" in general, for many different reasons. I also know that terrorism is a very effective weapon against developed countries. If folks can cook up conspiracy theories about bush planning 9/11 so he can make $$ from oil, and his buddies make $$ to rebuild the country, I sure as -*BAD WORD*- can cook up alittle less far-fetched theory about Saddam providing alittle under-the-table funds to groups willing to fight his battles for him. If the US was interesting in stopping terrorism then they would reconsider their support for Israel and their defiance of UN resolutions that probably would help secure a peace in the region. The UN is the best tool that we have to fight terrorism. Israel and the US are amongst the biggest threats to world peace.Heh, I do agree, a league of nations with like ideals all working toward a common goal would be the most effective way to stop terrorism. Unfortunatly, the UN is all bark and no bite. ALL the UN does is p!@#$%^&* resolution after resolution, and doesn't see that it is carried through with. Example: Read Topic ^^^^^^^^ If Israel refuses to carry out the order, do you think the UN will do anything about it? Doubtful. Did they ever do anything to Saddam when he refused to comply with countless UN orders?? Here's a wonderful article on Saddam's failure to comply with the UN, and the history of the US/Saddam relation in terms of war. I KNOW 90% of you will not read this article, so I'm going to copy/paste things here that will make this post rather lengthy, but in vain I will hope that you read it. **************************BEGINING OF ARTICLE*************************Saddam/US relations through 2 administrations When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction." As late as 1991, he was confirmed to have WMD's.. interesting. Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq--an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled--would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.Self Explanitory. In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort. They found alot of weapons, yeah we all remember that. We *should* all remember how he then began to give the first round of inspectors the run-around. Denying access to palaces, regulating when the inspectors could perform their jobs, etc. By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.Huh? Am I reading this right? 6 years ago congress voted to allow BILL CLINTON to forcably remove Saddam from power? He was openly against UN resolutions? 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. But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment. WOW this is a good one. Not only did the UN agree that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the orders, and the use of force granted, but Clinton was ready to kick some -*BAD WORD*-. OH SNAP wait a second, Clinton figured out that it would be PR murder to go into Iraq. Save face, or do what needed to be done. He obviously picked save face. So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quan!@#$%^&*ies of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this. From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.Speaks for itself. * There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system. * The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented. * The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security. * Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal. * He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance. * President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us. All I can say is WOW, please take the time read the full article.
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 I'd just like to point out, the writer of this article clearly is missing some historic facts. Specially those about US funding and supporting of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, US knew what Iraq woul do (War Crimes), also CIA training of Bin Laden to destroy the Soviet's social system in Afghanistan leaving that country in the Chaos of tha Taliban. There's a lot hidden in the Kuwait-Iraq War, that the author just ignored and kept going to make his "point". I won't keep reading this... It's clear the author ignored the WHY behind the same Rogue States he kept mentioning on and on. The knowledge to make weapons? what's this some joke? do you know where that knowledge came from in the first place? that's right from the West. It's amazing what people will say to justify the Iraq Invasion as Fighting Terrorism. In my opinion, the Afghanistan War was acceptable, considering the USA people were angry and wanted blood, but the Iraq War, that's just pushing it too far. What people is missing, it's the How? and Why? in the Rogue States. Why Iraq became a Rogue State? How they got their WMD?. Why Afghanistan became a rogue state? How the ruling group got their support?. Why Cuba haven't changed in the past years? How is it possible for 40 years they still have a trade embargo?, etc... Why doesn't anybody asks that? Maybe people'll say i'm living the past, but it's pretty obvious who created those problems, it's amazing that after the countries in the area suffered the consequences, when that same country got hit in his homeland, the administration started a full scale war against "terrorists" undermining its people's freedoms Patriot Act and the target countries Sovereignity. Now to look on the bright side, at least something positive might come out of this, like making another developing country [iraq] with all its main infraestructure privatized [Owned by Foreign Companies], but at least the quality of life [sweatshops] will go up, i guess they won't suffer the UN Blockaed [killing thousands] or the constant US-UK Air Bombing. -nintendo64
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Oh no, I'm not finished yet! =) President Bill Clinton, speaking of his decision to attack Iraq during 1998. Clinton speaks with CNN Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, g!@#$%^&*ing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. Clintons administration sure seemed to believe that he not only had WMD's, but he would sure as -*BAD WORD*- use them, just like he did in the past. Mabye the Bush Administration hasn't flown off their nob. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.So wait a second, 6 years ago we had 15-0 support to do this. Which means france, and chirac, were behind us. What has happened in those 6 years? As we read in the last article, Saddam has been virtually unchecked since the last threats. No solid proof provided that he's destroyed the weapons THAT EVERYONE WAS SURE HE HAD IN 1998. Can you say politics? I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Huh, I'm slightly confused, we're giving Saddam yet ANOTHER chance, even though he's constantly told the US and the UN to shove it? *boggle*. Atleast he vows to be strong THE NEXT TIME this happens. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying do-*BAD WORD*-ents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just do-*BAD WORD*-ents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the do-*BAD WORD*-ents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related do-*BAD WORD*-ents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.WOAH NELLY. So by President Clintons mouth, he states that the UN itself said ALL WORK DONE BY INSPECTORS IS A SHAM, because of Saddams tricks. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. Simply amazing, if I read the second point correctly, it sounds as if Bill Clinton is making a plee to the internation community (read UN) to put some bite behind its bark. If not, Saddam will truely believe we're nothing. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. Heh, anyone else know the meaning of Irony? Please read the whole speech, its full of wonderful stuff.
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 O and about the Canada thing I really don't think it would effect us that dramatically what the heck does19 Arabs armed with box cutters cost your country $23 Billion in rescue and recovery costs alone. Your CIA thought that they couldn't affect you 'that dramatically' either. Wrong. Your government cannot win this "war" without the support of a lot of other nations - just like Canada. Your government's resources are already stretched occupying Iraq. Nobody is going to organise a 9/11 style attack against Canada. You need them much more than they need you.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 I'd just like to point out, the writer of this article clearly is missing some historic facts. Specially those about US funding and supporting of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, US knew what Iraq woul do (War Crimes), also CIA training of Bin Laden to destroy the Soviet's social system in Afghanistan leaving that country in the Chaos of tha Taliban. There's a lot hidden in the Kuwait-Iraq War, that the author just ignored and kept going to make his "point".You cannot know or claim that the US "knew that saddam would commit war crimes against Iran" Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I've got some ?? I need to ask you I won't keep reading this... It's clear the author ignored the WHY behind the same Rogue States he kept mentioning on and on. The knowledge to make weapons? what's this some joke? do you know where that knowledge came from in the first place? that's right from the West. It's amazing what people will say to justify the Iraq Invasion as Fighting Terrorism. Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Ins!@#$%^&*ution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress. I believe his credentials speak for themselves. I doubt he purpously ignored anything. Yes, there is no doubt Saddam was put into power by the United States. Yes, there is no question that it was a -*BAD WORD*-up. Please stay on topic, or state how you equate that situation with the one that the world was dealing with during the Clinton Administration/Bush administration. Please dont tell me you have some messed up conspiracy theory for THAT too.
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Your government cannot win this "war" without the support of a lot of other nations - just like Canada. Your government's resources are already stretched occupying Iraq. Nobody is going to organise a 9/11 style attack against Canada. You need them much more than they need you.Yes. i agree on one thing, Terrorism is a problem that must be dealt with, but not by the current methods. Education it's the main key to fix any problem a country may have. If the USA used those billions into educating the Iraqi people, instead of blowing them up, something positive might come out of this, teach them how to work in the Free Market. Yes, also, the USA cannot defeat terrorism alone, they must fight the terrorism cells and educate the "Rogue States' people" throught international organisms such as the UN. You know if you were poor and hungry, and you saw some rich guy eating a delicious piece of meat, you'd wish that was you, but don't you think some people might go as far as killing for that? or at least stealing?. Terrorism exist because of something they WANT, but do not have. A peaceful deal can be made with them [think of it like teaching you to get a delicious piece of meat]. -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 ...The United States is wrong for wanting to attack those that attacked us?... ...They are effective in removing the terrorist cells power source, that is their $$.... ...I know, reports say that there is no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I don't buy it.... ...If Israel refuses to carry out the order, do you think the UN will do anything about it? Doubtful. Did they ever do anything to Saddam when he refused to comply with countless UN orders?? ....Iraq did not attack you. There is no link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq. The fact that you don't buy it means nothing. Where is the evidence? Terrorists don't need an effective power source. If by $$ you mean money then you can manage that without a war. Al Qaida is still considered a threat even though all of their major funding sources have been cut off. It doesn't cost much to board a plane with a box cutter. If by $$ you mean something else, what do you mean? The Bali bombers were almost autonomous. If the UN and security council want to do something to force Israel to comply, they probably can. Of course the US would block any such resolution using its veto powers. The UN is not a law enforcement agency. It relies on member states to do the right thing. The US and Israel are recalcitrant.
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 You cannot know or claim that the US "knew that saddam would commit war crimes against Iran" Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I've got some ?? I need to ask you I believe his credentials speak for themselves. I doubt he purpously ignored anything. Yes, there is no doubt Saddam was put into power by the United States. Yes, there is no question that it was a -*BAD WORD*-up. Please stay on topic, or state how you equate that situation with the one that the world was dealing with during the Clinton Administration/Bush administration. Please dont tell me you have some messed up conspiracy theory for THAT too.First off, War Crimes are just called upon the "loser", and also i forgot to mention the US ignored those War Crimes committed. Credentials or no, i believe he forgot the why, which will be understandable since he doesn't wants to bring up the "-*BAD WORD*- ups" as you call them. -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 You cannot know or claim that the US "knew that saddam would commit war crimes against Iran" Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I've got some ?? I need to ask you The US sold biological and chemical materials and !@#$%^&*ociated weaponry and technology to Iraq for the specific purpose of use in chemical and biological weapons. This was in contravention of the Geneva Convention. The US did know that war crimes were going to be committed. They didn't care.
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Yes Monte, the VETO it's certainly a problem, and it must be revoked. Why doesn't anybody investigate how many times the USA has vetoed resolutions regarding Israel? how can you force Irael to comply, when the USA doesn't let the UN do its job. -nintendo64
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 The US did know that war crimes were going to be committed. They didn't care.Where is the evidence? I'll use one of your own quotes, it fits well.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Yes Monte, the VETO it's certainly a problem, and it must be revoked. Why doesn't anybody investigate how many times the USA has vetoed resolutions regarding Israel? how can you force Irael to comply, when the USA doesn't let the UN do its job. -nintendo64 /agree. I am in no way an advocate of the majority of the US's actions in being buddy buddy with Israel. Keep in mind though that neither faction over there is going to rest until the other is completely gone. Giving up % of whatever to the palestinians may buy temporary peace, but the palestinians want all the land. Same on the flip side, palestinians giving % of whatever to the israelies may provide temporary peace, but israel wants it all to. Bad situation over there, Really bad. I should make a new thread about the Iraq thing, and while the whole "America is responsible for Saddam" thing is agreeable, its slightly off topic of what I was attempting to create discussion about. If the Clinton administration was ready to attack Saddam and remove him from power due to WMD's. And we know that past 1998, no major UN inspector presence was seen in Iraq, and we also know that Saddam provided no proof that he had destroyed his weapons, where did they go? The whole issue of bush being wrong is that "Iraq obviously had no weapons since we didnt find any, saddam wasnt a threat" . If he was a threat 6 years ago, with no action to prevent him from being a threat from 1998 (still threat) to 2002-3 (invasion prep-invasion) , what makes him not a threat in 2003? Do you believe he disarmed under his own orders?
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Well, Dr. Worthless, make that thread, it'll be interesting, now about USA looking the other way on Iraq, in the Iraq-Iran incident, i'll try to look for some historical sources you might believe they are "reliable". Well i'm off to bed. -nintendo64
Himura Kenshin Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 worthless you've proven your self you dont know anything so please just stop posting. Becuase monte is right. There is NO link between iraq and 9/11. Hence youre page long quates worthless. And next trime try finiding unbiased writers that write from both sides not one.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Well, Dr. Worthless, make that thread, it'll be interesting, now about USA looking the other way on Iraq, in the Iraq-Iran incident, i'll try to look for some historical sources you might believe they are "reliable". Well i'm off to bed. -nintendo64 I don't doubt the occurance. I do know you cannot speculate on intentions, because speculation is hearsay. Another thing I do know is, Saddam was not put into power during the Bush Administration. So how can the Bush Administrations actions be disputed/justified by something he had nothing to do with? You cannot make the arguemant that Bush was wrong for invading Iraq because the US was responsible for him being there, simply because Bush had no part in Saddam being put into power.
Recommended Posts