Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 oh I know about him attacking israel, something he is likely to do again if we attack him. if he gets them with a WOMD, then they retaliate with a nuke (I believe that is their policy) and the whole region could plunge into war of catastrophic proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward yeah, his own people. what would he have to gain from attacking anyone else, apart from certain death? Tell that to Kuwait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Oh yeah, it's much better to wait until Saddam nukes us before we do something about him. Great game: Who nukes whom first... Legitimate? Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Hence why it's better to disarm him BEFORE he uses his weapons of mass destruction (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 I suppose it depends on your defintion of 'better', which in turn depends upon your definition of 'disarm'. Disarm = remove WOMDs from Iraq, rendering the country relatively harmless? or Disarm = Annihilate the country using your own WOMDs, sending most of the population to oblivion, both the innocent and the guilty, to let God sort them out? Bears a little thought I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Disarm = remove weapons and remove an insane and cruel dictator from power. Spare us your ignorant anti-war far-left "but the people of iraq are innocent" spiel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Disarm = remove weapons and remove an insane and cruel dictator from power. That's perfectly reasonable. I have absolutely no issues with that. Spare us your ignorant anti-war far-left "but the people of iraq are innocent" spiel. I will, if you spare us your ignorant, pro-war, far-right paranoid "lets bomb the bastards before they bomb us" speil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Disarm = remove weapons and remove an insane and cruel dictator from power. Spare us your ignorant anti-war far-left "but the people of iraq are innocent" spiel. I've not heard that Hussain can be regarded as insane. Why do you say this? Last I knew they were innocent; is this ignorant? We don't know he has WOMD in general. We know he had chemical weapons, and probably still does. however we have been hostile to iraq for a decade; i.e. longer than the duration of the planning of the last wave of terrorist attacks. Therefore if he was interested in, and capable of assisting, a pre-emptive assualt it would already have occurred. So far he has only used WOMD in his own interest. This tends to preclude using them on us, or at all if we brought the threat of war to bear on that basis. This is only false under the condition that we are already at war. Under 'peaceful' circumstances he would only use WOMD on us with a guarantee of anonymity. If that were possible, then Iraq would be the least of our worries. this leads inescapably to either the conclusion that the information released to the public is erroneous and contrary to the governments' declared aims (which seems unlikely), OR that our policy in Iraq over the last few decades has been to protect our interests in the region. 'shocker'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Tell that to Kuwait. just because he did it once and was utterly crushed in the process, doesn't mean he will do it again. In fact he is pretty unlikely to try it again, since he knows full well he will be slapped down. If there is one thing that Hussein craves, it is self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 So then why is he refusing to account for large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted January 27, 2003 Author Share Posted January 27, 2003 First of all, I would like to say how surprised I am at how many replies I've recieved. Secondly, the school board at El Dorado County helps me by posting what I forward to them from Washington D.C. ( this is not the president typing this. I'm a presidential service worker. I type what is forwarded to me by the president). It's always nice to be suspicious, Fafalone, but you are wrongly mistaken about doubting my identity. As for the war on Iraq, I have sad news to tell you all. This has been an inside secret that only the government and press knows about and might as well be given out to you now. The United States of America goes to war with Iraq tomorrow on January 28, 2003. I would only hope that the more ignorant ones on this forum would quit thinking that I'm "nuke" happy. Nuclear warfare is the last option when nothing else will work. Several hundred thousand American troops are curently active in Iraq and will stop Saddam and his crazy followers with the force ordained on us by God from the beginning of time... the bigger guns. It is my responsibility to not only govern this great nation but to also care enough about the rest of this world to save them from nuclear warfare. It is important that we remember to stand strong together during these times. In God We Trust - George W. Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Those are K-12 schools boards. Further more, despite the rather amusing speech problems of Bush, a president or his speech writers would never publically use language like ""nuke" happy," "crazy followers," "ordained by us from God," ... ever. Furthermore, he would not have classified information posted on a public internet forum, especially one with international reach, ever. Another thing, President would always be capitalized, 'currently' would not be spelled wrong, and if you really are the President, have one of your "service men" post from an IP address registered to a government organzation, and of course I can always call up the FBI and tip them off to an impersonator, which I'm sure you understand, is my patriotic duty as a law-abiding American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone So then why is he refusing to account for large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Um, is he? The US/UK won't release the intelligence data, and all the weapons inspectorate will say is that he isn't providing full cooperation. His possession of WMD does not legitimise a war, nor is it even neccesary on grounds of self preservation, as I have shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Intelligence we have doesn't stop the fact that they are blatantly refusing to tell weapons inspectors what happened to the weapons in direct violation of UN resolution 1441, and this is something Mr. Blix said himself this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 I haven't seen the news today but as far as I know, the UN inspectors have failed to find evidence for the existence of WOMDs, or for an active programme for their development. Apart from a failure to provide full cooperation, there seems to have been nothing of any significance found at all. It's starting to sound a bit like there will be a war unless Iraq can prove the non-existance of WOMDs. Can anyone see the flaw in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 The arms inspectors have said Iraq letting them go wherever they want is nothing more than a game of hide and seek. The burden is on Iraq to account for weapons they've admitted to having. I don't see how people don't understand this. They are refusing to explain what happened to weapons they admitted to having; the inspecters have not found any evidence of their destruction. Iraq is also refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed in private. Their declaration, which was supposed to address what happened to the weapons they had at the end of the Gulf War, did not contain any new information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone "ordained by us from God," actaully bush did say something like this, let me see if I can find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone The arms inspectors have said Iraq letting them go wherever they want is nothing more than a game of hide and seek. The burden is on Iraq to account for weapons they've admitted to having. I don't see how people don't understand this. They are refusing to explain what happened to weapons they admitted to having; the inspecters have not found any evidence of their destruction. Iraq is also refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed in private. Their declaration, which was supposed to address what happened to the weapons they had at the end of the Gulf War, did not contain any new information. (1) Even If true, this constitutes breach of the UN declaration in the sense of non-cooperation but not in the sense of the Iraqi statement being shown to be false by the results of the weapons inspectorate. "Material breach" - which under the resolution is neccesary but not sufficient (see point 3) for war - is a condition governed by an 'and' clause and consequently has not been met. (The UN "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations") (2) The Iraqi statement is required to provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, andother delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and productionfacilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;" which does not include any specific reference to either abandoned programs or disposal programs. (3) The UN acts as follows: 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director- General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider thesituation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. This does not specify war. (4) Previous Iraqi breaches are moot because the UN 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; (5) It is not clear whether the UN can make a pre-emptive attack legal. (6) Legal authority does not make it just. (it is not clear that the UN's authority should be considered legitimate). (7) Justice does not make it advisable. All these points must be dealt with. (All quotes from the text of 1441 at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/09/eng20021109_106531.shtml) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 (1) Omissions in the declaration WERE made. Iraq HAS NOT cooperated fully. Both conditions of material breach are met. (2) The Iraqii statement was not currently accurate. First off all, the warheads they "forgot about" were not listed in the supposedly complete report, second of all, the question has still not been answered, and is required to be answered, of what happened to their stockpiles. (3) A resolution calling for action has been drafted and will soon be presented. (4) Refusing to provide information as to if their stockpiles were destroyed is a PRESENT breach. (5) Yes, it can. (6) Where's the justice in letting the injustice of a maniac dictator continue to oppress the Iraqii people? (7) It is even less advisable, for the safety and security of Iraqii people as well as our nations, to allow him to stay in power with his unaccountedfor biological and chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 So, did your government publish every single information which was - legally in my eyes - longed for by some other state or your own people. Kennedy assassination. When did some of the most important information get published (when existent any more)? It is absolute nonsense to let a second Vietnam happen. Your government had many people killed in order to fight against communism (by the way: unsuccessfully). However, did this justify an attack? No. Does the fact that Iraq might have ABC weapons justify an attack on the people of Iraq? No at all. By the way, what does Iraq interest you? They are just that far away from your country? Why not letting them live like they want to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Well the US has weapons of mass destruction and has indicated it could invade Iraq soon. Does this justify a pre-pre-emptive strike by Iraq? Course then the US would be allowed a pre-pre-pre-emptive strike. And then Iraq would have the option of.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 It is not the matter of weapons of mass destructions, the only reason they allowed inspection first was to figure out what saddam did to the chemicals he had left after the gulf war 12 years ago, The government has very little intelligence information regarding those. The real invasion is gonna start in Febuary and for the purpose of OIL FIELDS control, that's all bush wants, THE OIL!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Why do you even care Adam, you're convinced the world is ending in March anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now