I Must Agree With Gmat

[gmat]

All countries that GW Bush never visited...

BB2K: Israel is not in Europe (and their problem is more subtle & complex than just 'terrorism')
And Germany ain't much affected by terrorism, only by a few marginal neo nazi groups.
France -> we have Corse, a nest of independantist bombers
Spain -> they have the ETA
UK -> the IRA
that's the 3 main sources of daily terrorism here, but i may have forgotten some...

Ah and no wonder that most of the New Yorkers are against war.. *They* know what it's like.

[phreenet]

Americans live with the same amount of Terrorism everyday if not MORE than those European countries, aside Isreal. And allowing terrorist to shape your country, your thoughts, and your actions is NOT acceptable. Its time we show these people that they CAN NOT stand up to the force of a nation or better yet a group of nations. Hunt them out and irradicate them is the only way. Of course someone will say, you can't stop them, you cut one head off three more grow. I think that is compleate nonsense. Eventually you will run them out of resources, and you will find out who is supporting them, and you can take them out as well. Total pasifiscm (sp?) does NOT work.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by phreenet
Americans live with the same amount of Terrorism everyday if not MORE than those European countries, aside Isreal.

Huh? How?:shrug:

[phreenet]

Link
Does this look like the actions of a man who should be in power?

[airspirit]

New Yorkers are against war because they are a Democrat run city that is furthering the liberal agenda. The RDDB liberals are hoping that Bush screws up this war so they can use it as ammunition against him and the Republican Party in the next election. I firmly believe that many of these "protesters" aren't war protesters as much as they are Bush protesters. Just look at their signs, for chrissakes, and you'll see that plain as day. Many of them are just pissed that the Dems aren't running things. Did you notice that the Kosovo conflict, which was in many ways a similar situation, wasn't protested by these hacks? The reason?: a Democrat in the oval office.

The issue in the US is more political than it is a moral debate.

[phreenet]

When is the last time a Jet Liner was crashed into a building in Europe or a federal building blown up compleatly, or the threat of an attack so great. It is a known fact that Germany and France are host countries, not willingly (I hope), for terrorist on their way into the USA, England, or Canada. And terrorist will leave France and Germany alone until they feel they are no longer needed. Then it will be free game on them as well.

[airspirit]

Oh, and I think he may be talking about the eco-terrorism crap (burning of Ag Sci/Vet Med buildings, blocking development, etc), worldwide targetting of US citizens since time began (you are a favored hostage/target because of your "rich nation"), US embassies and military fixtures worldwide (USS Cole, african embassies, Lebanon assassination, etc), and internal civil disobedience which would be crushed brutally in many of the "civilized" European nations.

If someone tries to block the road I'm on, though, I'll just run their protesting ass down. I don't need someone slowing down MY 6PM beer run!

[phreenet]

The issue in the US is more political than it is a moral debate.

Exactly, because some of these war protestors could care less about the people in Iraq. All they care about is their far left views. Democrats are often seen as pompus asses. They refuse to help repuplicans at all cost, even if in the long run it helps the country out. And the liberal media, CNN, ABC, NBC and several large newspaper organizations show these protesstors over and over and over again making it seem like there are millions of them in every large city. Take away the cameras and the protestors will go home. Thats all they care about, air time.

[bigben2k]

Ok, so there's 9/11, but Oklahoma was a local incident. The USS cole incident wasn't local to the US.

The question still stands: How do Americans live with the same amount of terrorism everyday if not MORE than those European countries, aside from Isreal?

[g.l.amour]

the future will hold the answers.

for now, noone can argue that:

iraq should be better off without saddam, IF the world can rebuild iraq after the war. it should be everyones wish that all goes well from here.

all economics and other issues set asside.

so being a supporter of the US stance, i sincerely hope i can show all the protesters a rebuilt and better Iraq in a couple of years. and i hope even EU can play a role in the rebuilding of iraq (seeing that humanitarian missions are all they can handle).

again, don't demonize eachother. just try to make the best out of the situation.

[gmat]

phreenet: okay so we're a nest of terrorists, all ready to jump on planes to crash on US buildings.
Really the USA should bomb out Europe.
Be serious. And your claim that the USA has seen more terrorism than all EU has no foundation.. Please give figures.
Already Moscow bombings did about 6000 victims in the '90s. Add to that victims from all terrorists groups in EU..

"war protestors could care less about the people in Iraq. All they care about is their far left views." + "They refuse to help repuplicans at all cost, even if in the long run it helps the country out."
This is what our neo facist party leader Le Pen usually says of his political opponents.
Can you give a serious argument backing up your claims ? Or can you just read into people minds ?
And do you really think that Putin (a strong opponent to war) is a left-wing activist ? Or Chirac for instance ?

(edit) ah and whats wrong with being left-wing. How's that, that everyone who has a divergent political opinion from yours, must have an anti-american secret agenda ?

[phreenet]

I would also like to add, that I am not just some hater of world peoples. I would love to take a trip to France, Asia, and/or the Middle East. Even the pictures that come from Iraq show a beautiful place with beautiful people there. All the more reason to set them free. Remember Stalin, err, I mean Hitler, err, I mean SADDAM, is the murder, Saddam is the one killing his own people and tring to kill the people around him. The US didn't wake up one morning and go, lets blow up Iraq. We have reasons and if not for the fact that Saddam continues to threaten peace than for the simple fact that Saddam has done unimaginable things in the past and he still needs to pay for those before we even consider making him pay for what he is doing today.

[bigben2k]

A good point, g.l.amour.

I would also add that regardless of our different positions, even some war protesters would not hesitate to go to Iraq, if called; I certainly wouldn't.

Maybe we could focus on why the UN has allowed so much time to pass? Were they duped by Saddam, or were they absolutely unwilling to engage them? How could this have been handled better/quicker?

[gmat]

By giving more power to the UN...
(that's the short version)
(i'm tired and want to take a break from this crap. we see enough hate and violence in the news. i'm off on a MMOG)

[phreenet]

More power? They are a bunch of scabbling nations, the US included, they can't agree on anything, and they take WAY to long to make up their minds. Show me they can operate effeicently at solving world problems, then ask for more power.

[phreenet]

This is the UN

This is the US

This is me

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by phreenet
This is me

If you weren't in the US, I would have pictured you with a gas mask!

[phreenet]

STING

OBTW: I lub you all, even you gmat... So don't take it to hard

[zoson]

I didn't read all of the responses to this post. Most of it is just petty bickering with no real value.
The issues at hand are:
1. Is the US wrong for attacking Iraq?
2. Has Saddam sufficiently voilated treaties and agreements to warrant the use of force?

We can see that question 1 will be answered by the finding's of question 2.

Now lets look at the world of politics where word of mouth means nothing, the power of the pen means everything, and those who are good at manipulation and have the best intelligence win everything.
The FACTS:
1. Saddam Hussein agreed to and SIGNED a treaty stating that he would cooperate and disarm. He has FAILED to do so. This is PROVEN by the fact that he has used WMD against the United States in theses early attacks (SCUD as noted by phreenet).

Quite honestly, I can stop right here - and I'm going to. Saddam broke a united nations treaty that had to do with WMD. The consequences of these actions are now falling on Iraq. The US gave Saddam every opportunity to come clean and disarm. Had Saddam faithfully followed through none of this would have happened at all.

Lets look at the real world now.
the FACTS:
1. The United States is the largest, most intelligent, most successful, and most powerful country in the entire world. Time and again we(the people of the US) have proven our worth and our concern for the world. I'd like to see ANYONE try to dispute the fact that the US gives back to the world more than any other nation. We head the red cross, we head the blue shield, we give billions in support to the world in the form of food, money, and supplies.
2. The world is subject to Darwin's law's of natural selection whether anyone likes it or not. Those most fit for survival do just that - they survive. If something/someone is threatening the survival of the strongest, they're going to get squished. It's just like when you kill a bug - it was not fit for survival, and thus did not survive.

Those are the bare facts. Saddam broke his written word, Saddam causes his whole country and the middle eastern region a whole lot of pain. Saddam gets spanked. He is a bad man that needs to be straightened out.

In no way am I saying that I support war, or George Bush (I hate the man) but the simple fact is that George Bush is not breaking international laws and Saddam is, and that provides every justification needed.
.02
-Zoson
EDIT: I pity the fool that does not recognize that the US is looking out for world benefit.

[bigben2k]

You missed a part:

Originally posted by bigben2k
Us officials disagree: "A senior U.S. official told NBC’s Robert Windrem that the rockets, in all likelihood, were Al Samoud I missiles, which have a range of up to 90 miles. "

found here

As for the 2 questions, I would prefer to address them seperately.

#1: Is the US wrong? No, no one has advanced that it was "wrong", in the extreme sense of the words, but many feel that it was premature.

#2: Is Saddam in violation? Probably! But to judge the answer without considering the reasons, is exactly what lead us to where we are today, no? Why is Saddam holding on to WMD, if in fact he is?

[bigben2k]

A clip from www.un.org :
"THE UNITED NATIONS is a unique international organization of 191 sovereign States, representing virtually every country in the world.* It was founded after the Second World War to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote social progress, better living standards and human rights. "

found here

The reason I bring this up, is because the UN has a mandate limited to the PROMOTION of "social progress, better living standards and human rights", which clearly (to me?) excludes any action that would topple a government.

As such, I maintain that by its very nature, the UN cannot sanction an action that would topple Saddam. In that view, it is perfectly understandable that a top member of its security council would state publicly that a proposal to such an action would be vetoed.

So to which extent would the UN apply, and/or authorize the use of a military force, I ask you?:shrug:

[zoson]

bb2k, saddam is insane, and would like to take over the world. his reasoning is impossible to understand, as is the hate felt towards the US from that region of the world.

It is painfully clear that Saddam has not complied to all the treaties he signed at the end of the Gulf War. He has been lying to us and stringing us on, it is time for the charade to end, Saddam is a threat to the WORLD, not just the US.

Unfortunaly for peace, we must first wage war, because we are human and not perfect. There is no possibility for compromise with a man like Saddam.

-Aeknor (zoson's new watercooler apprentice, lol)

[phreenet]

I agree with Zoson on the last post. I think a lot of the problem comes from people tring to reason with insanity and tring to figure out what is going on in Saddam's head. And by problems I mean the difference between supporters and protesters. I feel that the protestors, using their own God given right, are tring to understand Saddam and try to reason with his logic in hopes of avoid military action and to end this peacfully. Whereas, supporters of the war, like myself, realise that Saddam can not be understood and that he can not change. Therefore, we must remove him from power. And if the rest of the World wants to turn a blind eye to this, then by saying "we" I mean the United States of America. We have a right to defend ourselves, and no country in the world has a right to question that. If it is mutally agreed that Saddam is a threat to the world, then why is there so much bickering about removing him? He has already stated that he would not leave power without force. Well end of the story, he chose his destiny to go down in flames, instead of dying on an Island Paradise in peace and exile.

[bigben2k]

Much of the bickering, as you put it, comes from the fact that a member of the UN security coucil, who happens to have a veto right, also happens to be French, and is imposing the "beatnick" approach, as is his right.

Otherwise, I'm glad to see you (Phreenet) unsderstand clearly both sides, but I'm sorry that you've chosen the side of war.

Zoson (or Aeknor?), I think no one will argue that Saddam has malevolent intentions, but the extension of it can be argued to no end. He attempted to invade Kuwait, 12 years ago, but other than that, and mistreating his own people, what has he done?

As for being a threat, certainly he is, but to what extent, is what we don't really know. So he fired a short range missile (this morning): he's still allowed to have those, as long as the range doesn't exceed 90 miles (see UN security council resolution 1441).


A funny bit: my stepdaughter is afraid that the NASA center here in Houston will be attacked with a nuclear warhead...:shrug: I wonder where she picked that up at?

[bigben2k]

Actually, it isn't terribly difficult to understand Saddam's position. If Saudi Arabia has long range missiles, Israel has them, Turkey has them, and (especially) Iran has them, why on earth should he get rid of them too? Is it because he used them 12 years ago? And to make it worse, he's being asked to get rid of everything, or else face war, where the same weapons he's been banned from using, will be used against him. Where's the logic in that? ?He's got to be wondering, who the heck the US is, to tell him what to do!

Of course there's the alledged link to Al-Quaeda. That alone, if demonstrated, would justify the american action, as they have warned the world that supporting terrorism will not be tolerated, and the UN is in agreement on this point (within their power).

BTW, if you're still looking for Osama, look in Iran (if they'll let you).