fungku Posted April 3, 2003 Posted April 3, 2003 I'm against it. And for the people who think oil isn't involved or that it's what Iraqi people want are kidding themselves. Visit Shaolin, Chinese Martial Arts - I don't fear the 10,000 techniques you've practised once, I fear the one technique you've practiced 10,000 times. -
Maestro Posted April 3, 2003 Posted April 3, 2003 Perhaps you are kidding yourself. You have no way of knowing either way. I've said it before and I will say it again--I know two people who lived in Iraq under Saddam and it is exactly what they want. They will not return to Iraq until it happens. So you can tell them that they're kidding themselves. Might as well take my advice--I don't use it anymore.
Martial_Artist Posted April 3, 2003 Posted April 3, 2003 Saddam is a monster. Regardless of what his country's natural resources are, he doesn't need to be leading a country. Second, he has built weapons of mass destruction in the past AND has led the UNSCOM on wild goose chases. It's nothing new. In 1994 he claimed to have no weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM couldn't find them after four years of searching. A defector from the Ministry of Information came out and admitted Iraq's possession and testing of weapons of mass destruction. Immediately afterward Saddam admitted to having those weapons, including a nuclear warhead fitted for a soviet SCUD missle, but they had unilaterally destroyed them. The current chief of inspections of UNSCOM at that time did not believe Saddam. Every inspection was preceded by an Iraqi barricade and it would be days before they could inspect a site. The UNSCOM officials of the day admitted they couldn't find anything because Saddam was hiding and moving them before they could search a site. In 1994 Saddam had a working nuclear warhead for SCUD missle application. He only lacked, according to sources, usable fissle to power the device. He has murdered countless members of his own country for no other reason that difference of opinion. A man and regime as such should not possess weapons of mass destruction. Especially as it remains that Iraq is a terrorist state. That is it supports and continues programs of state-sponsored terrorism. The WTC bombings of 1993 had Iraq trails but because of the legal system in the US governing prosectution Iraq, as a state-sponsor of terrorism, was never pursued. Instead, a Dept. of Justice approach was taken and only those directly involved with the bombing were apprehended. In light of terrorist attacks on US soil, and the likelyhood of more brazen and inspired attacks being a possibility it is more than in the best interests for the US to target states that sponsor international terrorism. The US cannot afford to lose thousands of citizens to terrorist attacks in the future. To protect the lives of thousands and millions, the US must take action first. Especially against a state so open in its hatred for the US and its past history of sponsoring terrorist actions in the US. Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi intelligence officer. Oil? Oil? The US isn't going to take the oil, is it? No. We may get special pricing for liberating Iraq from a monster, but that's fair. We're not going to rob the people of Iraq and take from them their rights to their oil and livelihood. So what if they give us a nice discount? Sounds like a fair trade. And, given the current circumstances, even if Iraq had no oil we would still attack Iraq. The coincidence of Iraq having oil is just that: a coincident. Afganistan had no oil. MA "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.Imagination is more important than knowledge.Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Einstein
G95champ Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 America is not perfect but we are pretty close to being there. We are the only country that in all reality can be trusted. I tursh our gov. We are helping the people of Iraqi to be FREE. Yes Free thats what allows us to say things and do things. Iraq could be a rich country with many great people but Saddam as taken the money for himself and the country is a mess. In 50 years Iraqi will be as strong and Germany and Japan are today after we rebuilt them after WWII. GOD BLESS the USA and our boys doing the work we all know needs to be done. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
superleeds Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 America is not perfect but we are pretty close to being there. We are the only country that in all reality can be trusted. I tursh our gov. We are helping the people of Iraqi to be FREE. Yes Free thats what allows us to say things and do things. Iraq could be a rich country with many great people but Saddam as taken the money for himself and the country is a mess. In 50 years Iraqi will be as strong and Germany and Japan are today after we rebuilt them after WWII. GOD BLESS the USA and our boys doing the work we all know needs to be done. Are ur foreign policy really that close to peprfection G95champ? And the only country that can be trusted? The way I see it, far from it. Let's look back for a moment abd seee how perferct and trustworthy the US.government is: 1.Chile A lot of people in Chile blame your government for helping a deranged madman named Pinochet, seize power and kill the elected president Salvador Allende. The Iraq/Iran war. It was the US government that was Saddams biggest supporter in this war, as for trustworthiness need I mention Peter North. Which brings us from that conflict to the Contras forces. How many people in Latin-south America has died because of the US's funding of contras? I agree that America as such is a great nation and my support and thoughts go to ur troops (they are heroes!)but dont make your government out to be saints, because if they are saints, then who are evil? Read a book!
kchenault Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 Our gov't. is not perfect. But alot better than most. It was Oliver North, not Peter North. Get it straight before saying something. Oliver North was the fall guy in the Iran contra affair, nothing more. He no more made the decisions than I did. He was what he was supposed to be, a soldier. He did what he was told. Good excuse? No. Plausible one? Yes. Ken ChenaultTFT - It does a body good!
superleeds Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 Well my apologies to Peter North who has absolutely nothing to do with politics unless there is a xxx rated film about it. Ah the useless things i know.... Read a book!
G95champ Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 Again not perfect. We backed Iraq because Iran was the worse of the 2 evils at the time. Just like we sided with the USSR in WWII to beat the Germans. As far as Latin America goes they are a mess. Yeah we have backed some scum but in order to protect the people at that time. O. Norith and President Regan may have borke US rules but trading outdated weapons for peoples lives and helping support and anti communist movement is ok in my book. Again were not perfect and far from saint hood but show me someone else with a better track reccord. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
fungku Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 I've said it before and I will say it again--I know two people who lived in Iraq under Saddam and it is exactly what they want. They will not return to Iraq until it happens. So you can tell them that they're kidding themselves. I also know people who are IN Iraq right now, and this is NOT what they want. Visit Shaolin, Chinese Martial Arts - I don't fear the 10,000 techniques you've practised once, I fear the one technique you've practiced 10,000 times. -
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