Alternative to war
Cbass
02-08-2003, 04:01 PM
— By Emma Thomasson
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions, a magazine said on Saturday.
A German government spokesman confirmed Berlin and Paris were working together to find a peaceful alternative to war with Iraq, but would not provide any details of the efforts.
Germany's leading news magazine Der Spiegel said the idea had originated in the office of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Berlin and Paris had been working on the details of the initiative in secret talks since the beginning of the year.
Asked about the joint proposals at a major security summit in the southern German city of Munich, German Defense Minister Peter Struck declined to comment, noting only that Schroeder planned to address the German parliament on Iraq on Thursday.
A French Foreign Ministry spokesman declined to comment on the report in Der Spiegel, but French diplomatic sources said: "We are discussing with Security Council members what additional measures could be introduced to bolster U.N. inspections."
French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told the Munich conference Paris believed inspections had proved more effective than the Gulf War of 1991 in disarming Iraq, but did not rule out military action as a last resort to make Baghdad cooperate.
"That's why France has proposed reinforcing the means given to inspectors, to reinforce the number of inspectors," she said.
In an advance copy ahead of publication on Sunday, Der Spiegel said Berlin and Paris wanted to publish their proposal in the next few days before weapons inspectors in Iraq report back to the U.N. Security Council on Friday.
Schroeder, who has angered Washington with his opposition to any war with Iraq, would discuss the idea at the weekend with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Der Spiegel said. France would probably take over driving the initiative forward and use it as a basis for a new Security Council resolution proposal.
Initial reactions from Russia, China and European Union president Greece were positive, the magazine said, while Pope John Paul offered German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer support for the initiative at talks in the Vatican on Friday.
Germany and France had not consulted Washington or its European allies in London, Madrid and Rome, the magazine said.
In what the magazine said was a foretaste of the plan, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed intensifying weapons inspections and offered French reconnaissance planes to support them this week after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented new evidence of Baghdad's alleged weapons programs.
U.N. PROTECTORATE
Der Spiegel said the initiative, which it said had been dubbed "Project Mirage," included the following proposals:
-- the some 150,000 U.S. troops already deployed to the Gulf should stay in place to force Baghdad to cooperate and be ready to invade if it breaches the new proposed U.N. resolution
-- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament, creating a de facto "U.N. protectorate"
-- the number of weapons inspectors should be tripled from the current 100 operating in Iraq
-- the no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq should be extended to cover the whole country and French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes should be allowed to patrol the skies
-- a permanent U.N. coordinator of arms inspections in Iraq could be appointed
-- sanctions should be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq's neighbors and tighten export controls
-- a special U.N. court should be established to oversee infringements of the new resolution and human rights abuses
The magazine said the initiative could help Schroeder out of the corner he seemed to have backed himself into over Iraq, risking international isolation if he sticks to his anti-war stance but political suicide at home if he changes course.
He could sell the proposal as a last-ditch bid to avert war, allowing him to swing behind any military action if Baghdad failed to go along with the plan, it said.
Germany and France pledged last month to cooperate closely over Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, which is due to hear a new report from arms inspectors on February 14. France is one of the Council's five veto-holding permanent members.
President Bush has said the United Nations must soon decide whether to back his demand that Iraq abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs or be disarmed by force. Iraq denies having any such weapons.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030208_166.html
Breaking news, now watch it get rejected by the Americans...
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions, a magazine said on Saturday.
A German government spokesman confirmed Berlin and Paris were working together to find a peaceful alternative to war with Iraq, but would not provide any details of the efforts.
Germany's leading news magazine Der Spiegel said the idea had originated in the office of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Berlin and Paris had been working on the details of the initiative in secret talks since the beginning of the year.
Asked about the joint proposals at a major security summit in the southern German city of Munich, German Defense Minister Peter Struck declined to comment, noting only that Schroeder planned to address the German parliament on Iraq on Thursday.
A French Foreign Ministry spokesman declined to comment on the report in Der Spiegel, but French diplomatic sources said: "We are discussing with Security Council members what additional measures could be introduced to bolster U.N. inspections."
French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told the Munich conference Paris believed inspections had proved more effective than the Gulf War of 1991 in disarming Iraq, but did not rule out military action as a last resort to make Baghdad cooperate.
"That's why France has proposed reinforcing the means given to inspectors, to reinforce the number of inspectors," she said.
In an advance copy ahead of publication on Sunday, Der Spiegel said Berlin and Paris wanted to publish their proposal in the next few days before weapons inspectors in Iraq report back to the U.N. Security Council on Friday.
Schroeder, who has angered Washington with his opposition to any war with Iraq, would discuss the idea at the weekend with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Der Spiegel said. France would probably take over driving the initiative forward and use it as a basis for a new Security Council resolution proposal.
Initial reactions from Russia, China and European Union president Greece were positive, the magazine said, while Pope John Paul offered German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer support for the initiative at talks in the Vatican on Friday.
Germany and France had not consulted Washington or its European allies in London, Madrid and Rome, the magazine said.
In what the magazine said was a foretaste of the plan, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed intensifying weapons inspections and offered French reconnaissance planes to support them this week after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented new evidence of Baghdad's alleged weapons programs.
U.N. PROTECTORATE
Der Spiegel said the initiative, which it said had been dubbed "Project Mirage," included the following proposals:
-- the some 150,000 U.S. troops already deployed to the Gulf should stay in place to force Baghdad to cooperate and be ready to invade if it breaches the new proposed U.N. resolution
-- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament, creating a de facto "U.N. protectorate"
-- the number of weapons inspectors should be tripled from the current 100 operating in Iraq
-- the no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq should be extended to cover the whole country and French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes should be allowed to patrol the skies
-- a permanent U.N. coordinator of arms inspections in Iraq could be appointed
-- sanctions should be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq's neighbors and tighten export controls
-- a special U.N. court should be established to oversee infringements of the new resolution and human rights abuses
The magazine said the initiative could help Schroeder out of the corner he seemed to have backed himself into over Iraq, risking international isolation if he sticks to his anti-war stance but political suicide at home if he changes course.
He could sell the proposal as a last-ditch bid to avert war, allowing him to swing behind any military action if Baghdad failed to go along with the plan, it said.
Germany and France pledged last month to cooperate closely over Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, which is due to hear a new report from arms inspectors on February 14. France is one of the Council's five veto-holding permanent members.
President Bush has said the United Nations must soon decide whether to back his demand that Iraq abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs or be disarmed by force. Iraq denies having any such weapons.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030208_166.html
Breaking news, now watch it get rejected by the Americans...
taranaki
02-08-2003, 07:07 PM
sounds very feasible,would cost a lot less than a full scale invasion,less chance of civilians getting hurt and more chance of finding the mysterious'weapons' if they exist.The archair commandos will hate this idea.
YogsVR4
02-11-2003, 10:04 AM
Nice idea. However it will not happen because
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament, creating a de facto "U.N. protectorate"
How will he be forced? Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US. Which is your choice. I say the same about the UN. I hope it disbands and the sooner the better.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament, creating a de facto "U.N. protectorate"
How will he be forced? Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US. Which is your choice. I say the same about the UN. I hope it disbands and the sooner the better.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Cbass
02-11-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
How will he be forced? Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US. Which is your choice. I say the same about the UN. I hope it disbands and the sooner the better.
For one, he would be forced as it being the only alternative to being invaded by the US. Secondly, the US would not be acting in the same temporary role, as the US plans call for a regime change, in which they would have a very active role in. Bush has already announced that "Things aren't going too well in Afghanistan, we're going to need to take an active part in the new Iraqi government". That's of course, a nice way of saying they're going to install a puppet government that they will control.
The UN is the only chance we have for global peace, and the biggest threat to world peace is not Iraq, it's America. For the record, I like Americans, and I certainly don't hate the US, only the few people who run it.
How will he be forced? Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US. Which is your choice. I say the same about the UN. I hope it disbands and the sooner the better.
For one, he would be forced as it being the only alternative to being invaded by the US. Secondly, the US would not be acting in the same temporary role, as the US plans call for a regime change, in which they would have a very active role in. Bush has already announced that "Things aren't going too well in Afghanistan, we're going to need to take an active part in the new Iraqi government". That's of course, a nice way of saying they're going to install a puppet government that they will control.
The UN is the only chance we have for global peace, and the biggest threat to world peace is not Iraq, it's America. For the record, I like Americans, and I certainly don't hate the US, only the few people who run it.
taranaki
02-11-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US.
My personal preference for the U.N. to be put in control of the situation are as follows.
1/ with the exception of the U.S. polls in most civilised countries, including Britain and Australia, have indicated that the populace would prefer it.That would appear to be the kind of democracy that George Bush claims is vital for Iraq.
2/ A multinational peacekeeping force would lessen the likelihood of revenge terrorist attacks against a single nation.If George Bush goes it alone,he puts his country at greater risk of terrorist attacks.
3/ A multinational effort to foster democracy in Iraq would be less open to claims of interference,puppet government,etc.
4/ A U.N. led mission would lessen the risk of a split within NATO,and would serve to strengthen the U.N. in its role of global peacemaker.
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.It seems ironic that when faced with a similar objective 60 years later, the U.S.and the U.N. both claim to want the same outcome,and yet they cannot agree on the execution of the operation.
Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US.
My personal preference for the U.N. to be put in control of the situation are as follows.
1/ with the exception of the U.S. polls in most civilised countries, including Britain and Australia, have indicated that the populace would prefer it.That would appear to be the kind of democracy that George Bush claims is vital for Iraq.
2/ A multinational peacekeeping force would lessen the likelihood of revenge terrorist attacks against a single nation.If George Bush goes it alone,he puts his country at greater risk of terrorist attacks.
3/ A multinational effort to foster democracy in Iraq would be less open to claims of interference,puppet government,etc.
4/ A U.N. led mission would lessen the risk of a split within NATO,and would serve to strengthen the U.N. in its role of global peacemaker.
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.It seems ironic that when faced with a similar objective 60 years later, the U.S.and the U.N. both claim to want the same outcome,and yet they cannot agree on the execution of the operation.
YogsVR4
02-12-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
The UN is the only chance we have for global peace, and the biggest threat to world peace is not Iraq, it's America.
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The UN is the only chance we have for global peace, and the biggest threat to world peace is not Iraq, it's America.
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Cbass
02-12-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
:huh: I'm not even going to bother refuting that.
Back on topic, I think this new Franco-German proposal is far more acceptable, it makes sure the weapons of mass destruction(if there even ARE any) get destroyed, ensures Iraq is not a threat to anyone, and would save half a million lives(current casualty estimates).
Of course then America doesn't get any oil...
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
:huh: I'm not even going to bother refuting that.
Back on topic, I think this new Franco-German proposal is far more acceptable, it makes sure the weapons of mass destruction(if there even ARE any) get destroyed, ensures Iraq is not a threat to anyone, and would save half a million lives(current casualty estimates).
Of course then America doesn't get any oil...
jon@af
02-12-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
I think this new Franco-German proposal is far more acceptable, it makes sure the weapons of mass destruction(if there even ARE any) get destroyed, ensures Iraq is not a threat to anyone, and would save half a million lives(current casualty estimates).
Of course then America doesn't get any oil...
Agreed, I would really like to see a peaceful(as peaceful as possbile) end come of all of this. But, Bush will push for war until his thirst is quenched. He is in too deep for himself now, he will not tolerate being proved wrong by signing a peace treaty between the US and Iraq. He will take Iraq by force, and many innocent lives will be lost in the process, all of which could have been spared.
I think this new Franco-German proposal is far more acceptable, it makes sure the weapons of mass destruction(if there even ARE any) get destroyed, ensures Iraq is not a threat to anyone, and would save half a million lives(current casualty estimates).
Of course then America doesn't get any oil...
Agreed, I would really like to see a peaceful(as peaceful as possbile) end come of all of this. But, Bush will push for war until his thirst is quenched. He is in too deep for himself now, he will not tolerate being proved wrong by signing a peace treaty between the US and Iraq. He will take Iraq by force, and many innocent lives will be lost in the process, all of which could have been spared.
YogsVR4
02-13-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
:huh: I'm not even going to bother refuting that.
Thats only because it can't be.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
:huh: I'm not even going to bother refuting that.
Thats only because it can't be.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Cbass
02-13-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Thats only because it can't be.
Well I obviously can't convince you the country that threatens world peace the most is the US, because no matter what I say, you won't accept it, and we'll just kill this thread. :(
As for world peace itself? I believe there will be one day. Whenever the standard of living is raised, peace follows. It happened in Europe, it happened in Asia, and now it's happening in the Middle East. Of course, now America is going to destroy that...
Once peoples basic needs are taken care of, and no one is starving or being persecuted, wars seem to stop... Just my reflections of course.
Thats only because it can't be.
Well I obviously can't convince you the country that threatens world peace the most is the US, because no matter what I say, you won't accept it, and we'll just kill this thread. :(
As for world peace itself? I believe there will be one day. Whenever the standard of living is raised, peace follows. It happened in Europe, it happened in Asia, and now it's happening in the Middle East. Of course, now America is going to destroy that...
Once peoples basic needs are taken care of, and no one is starving or being persecuted, wars seem to stop... Just my reflections of course.
taranaki
02-14-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
The country with the capability to destroy the civilised world several times over,and a President who spouts his determination to go to war at every opportunity is obviously more dangerous than a tinpot dictator who has little or no capacity to wage war and has made no moves to escalate existing tensions.
Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?
has the Iraqi government threatened to 'go it alone' against the American regime?
Is Saddam running around trying to shore up support for an invasion plan that is unpopular with the rest of the world?
The U.S. poses far more of a threat.Period.
Osama Bin Laden is a very real and credible threat to peace.He has been broadcasting messages of hatred through a television network in Qatar.He has denounced Saddam Hussein as an infidel and urged the moslem world to fight a holy war against any American invasion.And yet,the U.S seems to be concentrating its efforts on capturing territory,rather than terrorists.Little is said publicly thesedays about the man who engineered the attacks on the World Trade Center,the Pentagon,and a fourth hijack-and-crash attempt[quite possibly the White House] as well.Is he no longer wanted in connection with these crimes?Why has the focus for justice slipped away from Osama and onto Saddam?
The fact that the world is not at peace is no excuse for creating new battlefields.One may as well argue that if the kitchen is on fire,there's no harm in throwing a little petrol around in the lounge.
I find the claim that the US is the biggest threat to world peace to be laughable. Its that way for a lot of reasons but one very easy one is that the world is not currently at peace. Never has been. Probably never will be.
The country with the capability to destroy the civilised world several times over,and a President who spouts his determination to go to war at every opportunity is obviously more dangerous than a tinpot dictator who has little or no capacity to wage war and has made no moves to escalate existing tensions.
Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?
has the Iraqi government threatened to 'go it alone' against the American regime?
Is Saddam running around trying to shore up support for an invasion plan that is unpopular with the rest of the world?
The U.S. poses far more of a threat.Period.
Osama Bin Laden is a very real and credible threat to peace.He has been broadcasting messages of hatred through a television network in Qatar.He has denounced Saddam Hussein as an infidel and urged the moslem world to fight a holy war against any American invasion.And yet,the U.S seems to be concentrating its efforts on capturing territory,rather than terrorists.Little is said publicly thesedays about the man who engineered the attacks on the World Trade Center,the Pentagon,and a fourth hijack-and-crash attempt[quite possibly the White House] as well.Is he no longer wanted in connection with these crimes?Why has the focus for justice slipped away from Osama and onto Saddam?
The fact that the world is not at peace is no excuse for creating new battlefields.One may as well argue that if the kitchen is on fire,there's no harm in throwing a little petrol around in the lounge.
YogsVR4
02-14-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
The country with the capability to destroy the civilised world several times over,and a President who spouts his determination to go to war at every opportunity is obviously more dangerous than a tinpot dictator who has little or no capacity to wage war and has made no moves to escalate existing tensions.
Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?
has the Iraqi government threatened to 'go it alone' against the American regime?
Is Saddam running around trying to shore up support for an invasion plan that is unpopular with the rest of the world?
The U.S. poses far more of a threat.Period.
Osama Bin Laden is a very real and credible threat to peace.He has been broadcasting messages of hatred through a television network in Qatar.He has denounced Saddam Hussein as an infidel and urged the moslem world to fight a holy war against any American invasion.And yet,the U.S seems to be concentrating its efforts on capturing territory,rather than terrorists.Little is said publicly thesedays about the man who engineered the attacks on the World Trade Center,the Pentagon,and a fourth hijack-and-crash attempt[quite possibly the White House] as well.Is he no longer wanted in connection with these crimes?Why has the focus for justice slipped away from Osama and onto Saddam?
The fact that the world is not at peace is no excuse for creating new battlefields.One may as well argue that if the kitchen is on fire,there's no harm in throwing a little petrol around in the lounge.
Sorry - your argument is being based on “moral equivalency” and doesn’t make much sense. Going by that I would assume you believe sending troops into Yugoslavia several years ago was also unacceptable because Milosevic posed no threat to America or the UK.
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
I am also upset by the lack of public statements on getting Osama. The news media is talking about the lack of that around here. Its not being ignored. However, that does not mean Iraq should be ignored.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The country with the capability to destroy the civilised world several times over,and a President who spouts his determination to go to war at every opportunity is obviously more dangerous than a tinpot dictator who has little or no capacity to wage war and has made no moves to escalate existing tensions.
Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?
has the Iraqi government threatened to 'go it alone' against the American regime?
Is Saddam running around trying to shore up support for an invasion plan that is unpopular with the rest of the world?
The U.S. poses far more of a threat.Period.
Osama Bin Laden is a very real and credible threat to peace.He has been broadcasting messages of hatred through a television network in Qatar.He has denounced Saddam Hussein as an infidel and urged the moslem world to fight a holy war against any American invasion.And yet,the U.S seems to be concentrating its efforts on capturing territory,rather than terrorists.Little is said publicly thesedays about the man who engineered the attacks on the World Trade Center,the Pentagon,and a fourth hijack-and-crash attempt[quite possibly the White House] as well.Is he no longer wanted in connection with these crimes?Why has the focus for justice slipped away from Osama and onto Saddam?
The fact that the world is not at peace is no excuse for creating new battlefields.One may as well argue that if the kitchen is on fire,there's no harm in throwing a little petrol around in the lounge.
Sorry - your argument is being based on “moral equivalency” and doesn’t make much sense. Going by that I would assume you believe sending troops into Yugoslavia several years ago was also unacceptable because Milosevic posed no threat to America or the UK.
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
I am also upset by the lack of public statements on getting Osama. The news media is talking about the lack of that around here. Its not being ignored. However, that does not mean Iraq should be ignored.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
02-14-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Sorry - your argument is being based on “moral equivalency” and doesn’t make much sense. Going by that I would assume you believe sending troops into Yugoslavia several years ago was also unacceptable because Milosevic posed no threat to America or the UK.
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
I am also upset by the lack of public statements on getting Osama. The news media is talking about the lack of that around here. Its not being ignored. However, that does not mean Iraq should be ignored.
The whole flimsy pretext for Bush's war aspirations is that "Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.".So far,the U.N. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS,and the only evidence that Bush's missile jockeys can offer is "missing" chemicals.Seems to me that having been given no evidence that would support this war,Bush is now trying to tell us that'lack of evidence' is sufficent excuse.
The U.S. has Already overrun Afghanistan in it's hunt for Osama and Al Quaeda.Osama remains at large.Afghanistan is now under occupation by a foreign power.The American 'defence' policy doesn't appear consistent with the threat.The U.S. is not being attacked by ANY other nation,it has been attacked by a group of radical religious terrorists.If Bush plans to bring them to justice,I have no problem with that,but if he intends to take over every country that doesn't support the U.S. under the pretext of war on terrorism,that is a gross abuse of power and a huge threat to long term stability in the region.
As for you diversionary argument about Yugoslavia...that was a U.N. peacekeeping operation.I supported it.Just the same as I supported the Gulf war.I'd support a preventative action in Iraq if the U.N. agreed that there was any evidence that something actually needed preventing.
At the moment, the world seems to be dividing into 3 groups.Those who wish to invade Iraq,those who want no part of it,and those who would back it if the U.N. gave the claims of the U.S. some credibility.The third group is by far the largest,but the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to bully them into joining him.
George Bush's threats to 'go it alone' are becoming laced with the rhetoric of dictatorship.His total lack of respect for the U.N.,his blind determination to unseat the leader of another country,coupled with his vast arsenal of weapons makes him UNQUESTIONABLY the most dangerous man on the planet.
Sorry - your argument is being based on “moral equivalency” and doesn’t make much sense. Going by that I would assume you believe sending troops into Yugoslavia several years ago was also unacceptable because Milosevic posed no threat to America or the UK.
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
I am also upset by the lack of public statements on getting Osama. The news media is talking about the lack of that around here. Its not being ignored. However, that does not mean Iraq should be ignored.
The whole flimsy pretext for Bush's war aspirations is that "Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.".So far,the U.N. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS,and the only evidence that Bush's missile jockeys can offer is "missing" chemicals.Seems to me that having been given no evidence that would support this war,Bush is now trying to tell us that'lack of evidence' is sufficent excuse.
The U.S. has Already overrun Afghanistan in it's hunt for Osama and Al Quaeda.Osama remains at large.Afghanistan is now under occupation by a foreign power.The American 'defence' policy doesn't appear consistent with the threat.The U.S. is not being attacked by ANY other nation,it has been attacked by a group of radical religious terrorists.If Bush plans to bring them to justice,I have no problem with that,but if he intends to take over every country that doesn't support the U.S. under the pretext of war on terrorism,that is a gross abuse of power and a huge threat to long term stability in the region.
As for you diversionary argument about Yugoslavia...that was a U.N. peacekeeping operation.I supported it.Just the same as I supported the Gulf war.I'd support a preventative action in Iraq if the U.N. agreed that there was any evidence that something actually needed preventing.
At the moment, the world seems to be dividing into 3 groups.Those who wish to invade Iraq,those who want no part of it,and those who would back it if the U.N. gave the claims of the U.S. some credibility.The third group is by far the largest,but the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to bully them into joining him.
George Bush's threats to 'go it alone' are becoming laced with the rhetoric of dictatorship.His total lack of respect for the U.N.,his blind determination to unseat the leader of another country,coupled with his vast arsenal of weapons makes him UNQUESTIONABLY the most dangerous man on the planet.
Cbass
02-16-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
Isn't that the same argument the US is using about Iraq?
Oh I forgot, "He's an Evil man!"
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/13/tomo/story.jpg
We've had the ability to "blow up the world" for decades now. Its not happening. It isn't going to happen. Suggesting that because we can, somehow makes us a threat to world peace is ridicules. Period.
Isn't that the same argument the US is using about Iraq?
Oh I forgot, "He's an Evil man!"
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/13/tomo/story.jpg
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
The whole flimsy pretext for Bush's war aspirations is that "Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.".So far,the U.N. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS,and the only evidence that Bush's missile jockeys can offer is "missing" chemicals.Seems to me that having been given no evidence that would support this war,Bush is now trying to tell us that'lack of evidence' is sufficent excuse.
The U.S. has Already overrun Afghanistan in it's hunt for Osama and Al Quaeda.Osama remains at large.Afghanistan is now under occupation by a foreign power.The American 'defence' policy doesn't appear consistent with the threat.The U.S. is not being attacked by ANY other nation,it has been attacked by a group of radical religious terrorists.If Bush plans to bring them to justice,I have no problem with that,but if he intends to take over every country that doesn't support the U.S. under the pretext of war on terrorism,that is a gross abuse of power and a huge threat to long term stability in the region.
As for you diversionary argument about Yugoslavia...that was a U.N. peacekeeping operation.I supported it.Just the same as I supported the Gulf war.I'd support a preventative action in Iraq if the U.N. agreed that there was any evidence that something actually needed preventing.
At the moment, the world seems to be dividing into 3 groups.Those who wish to invade Iraq,those who want no part of it,and those who would back it if the U.N. gave the claims of the U.S. some credibility.The third group is by far the largest,but the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to bully them into joining him.
George Bush's threats to 'go it alone' are becoming laced with the rhetoric of dictatorship.His total lack of respect for the U.N.,his blind determination to unseat the leader of another country,coupled with his vast arsenal of weapons makes him UNQUESTIONABLY the most dangerous man on the planet.
Wrong again. There is evidence. You chose to ignore it.
Afghanistan is not under occupation by a foreign power. Are you really that blinded in your hatred of the US?
Yugoslalvia is not a diversionary arguement. It was in direct response to your statements against the war like Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?.
The UN deserves no respect. Its been around decades to long already.
And your conclusions are very questionable.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The whole flimsy pretext for Bush's war aspirations is that "Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.".So far,the U.N. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS,and the only evidence that Bush's missile jockeys can offer is "missing" chemicals.Seems to me that having been given no evidence that would support this war,Bush is now trying to tell us that'lack of evidence' is sufficent excuse.
The U.S. has Already overrun Afghanistan in it's hunt for Osama and Al Quaeda.Osama remains at large.Afghanistan is now under occupation by a foreign power.The American 'defence' policy doesn't appear consistent with the threat.The U.S. is not being attacked by ANY other nation,it has been attacked by a group of radical religious terrorists.If Bush plans to bring them to justice,I have no problem with that,but if he intends to take over every country that doesn't support the U.S. under the pretext of war on terrorism,that is a gross abuse of power and a huge threat to long term stability in the region.
As for you diversionary argument about Yugoslavia...that was a U.N. peacekeeping operation.I supported it.Just the same as I supported the Gulf war.I'd support a preventative action in Iraq if the U.N. agreed that there was any evidence that something actually needed preventing.
At the moment, the world seems to be dividing into 3 groups.Those who wish to invade Iraq,those who want no part of it,and those who would back it if the U.N. gave the claims of the U.S. some credibility.The third group is by far the largest,but the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to bully them into joining him.
George Bush's threats to 'go it alone' are becoming laced with the rhetoric of dictatorship.His total lack of respect for the U.N.,his blind determination to unseat the leader of another country,coupled with his vast arsenal of weapons makes him UNQUESTIONABLY the most dangerous man on the planet.
Wrong again. There is evidence. You chose to ignore it.
Afghanistan is not under occupation by a foreign power. Are you really that blinded in your hatred of the US?
Yugoslalvia is not a diversionary arguement. It was in direct response to your statements against the war like Are there thousands of Iraqi troops massing around the U.S. borders?.
The UN deserves no respect. Its been around decades to long already.
And your conclusions are very questionable.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
YogsVR4
02-17-2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Cbass
Isn't that the same argument the US is using about Iraq?
Oh I forgot, "He's an Evil man!"
No its not the same thing. I might be to a anti-American zealot such as yourself, but that doesn't make it the truth.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Isn't that the same argument the US is using about Iraq?
Oh I forgot, "He's an Evil man!"
No its not the same thing. I might be to a anti-American zealot such as yourself, but that doesn't make it the truth.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025