UN second resolution ?

Do you agree there should be a second resolution before starting a war?

Isn't the last resort of a Diplomatic, open nation WAR, whilst the first resort is that of a Tyrant.

I personally can't think of a thing that is wrong with the current resolution... The US just wants any excuse it can get to invade.

Originally posted by Cbass
I personally can't think of a thing that is wrong with the current resolution... The US just wants any excuse it can get to invade.

George will have his war one way or another.He's told far too many lies to back out of it now.

Sure, why not have another resolution. We’ve seen how well the UN has acted on the last 12 years worth :rolleyes:













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)

This wouldn't be a second resolution, it would be the 18th!!!!
Saddam has thumbed his nose at the prior 17 over 12 years why would anyone think he would give a damn about #18?:bloated:

Originally posted by taranaki


George will have his war one way or another.He's told far too many lies to back out of it now.


DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! :D Bush has completely lost sight of what he should really be looking out for, and that is this countries best interest. Now he's got itchy trigger fingers and wants to bag a buck.

Originally posted by Luetic
This wouldn't be a second resolution, it would be the 18th!!!!
Saddam has thumbed his nose at the prior 17 over 12 years why would anyone think he would give a damn about #18?:bloated:

no but if we have a second resolution we wouldn't piss off the rest of the Arab world or anyone else who thinks going to war without a second resolution is wrong.

Hmm, who has heard of the US plans to "protect" the Saudi oil fields? They claim that Iran has threatened Saudi Arabia. Actually, Iran warned the US there would be severe reprisals if they were attacked, mentioning their missile range puts Saudi Arabia and Israel within reach.

War now,

As stated its going to be the 18th resolution, and the UN never does anything but making new resolutions. Look at the Balkans.

War may not be nice, infact its one of the worst things that can happen to people. But in this case its neccesary, 12 years is long enough to give anyone a chance. There has to be a point where enough is enough, Bureaucracies have there place sometimes, but not all the time.

Hes had his chance, and hes just killed more people.

sarujin

Bush is more of a threat to world peace.There are no Iraqi troops massing on the U.S.borders,and Bush is sitting on the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.Bush is hellbent on attacking Iraq,but so far I don't recall seeing Hussein trying to stampede the U.N. into a multi-national invasion of the U.S.,even though the threat to Iraq is a thousand times more credible than the alleged threat to the United States.

President Bush is sitting on the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile... yeah right, Russia has alot more nukes then America, even with all the ones that may have been stolen, and sold to rogue states. Plus France I think has more nuclear weapons per head of population then anyone else.

But hey, we can't have people like President Bush standing up for freedom, and democracy. Its much better to have dictators like Hussein that do whatever the hell they want, murdering thousands of Kurds, and attacking other countries.

sarujin

Originally posted by sarujin


But hey, we can't have people like President Bush standing up for freedom, and democracy. Its much better to have dictators like Hussein that do whatever the hell they want, murdering thousands of Kurds, and attacking other countries.

sarujin

Last time Hussein invaded another country,he was swiftly put in his place by the U.N.If Bush tries to invade another country without respecting international law,I would see no difference.And if Bush is so democratic,why does he constantly threaten to ignore the democratic processes of the United Nations?

George wants a war,he wants the votes,and he wants the oil.If he is prepared to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process,he's no better than Saddam.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taranaki

George wants a war,he wants the votes ,andhe wants the oil .If he is prepared to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process,he's no better than Saddam.

All the things highlighted are pretty much the purpose of this Iraq invasion, though Bush would like to claim otherwise. Now Is the President not supposed to be looking out for the well-being of his country and it's citizens? He is doing nothing of the sorts. He is getting what he thinks will help the economy=oil. He is attempting to get what will keep him in office for this war=votes, and he is almost successful in getting his fight over nothing= war. Ive said for a while that the society in which we live will be the downfall of our race. I still stand by this belief. I now stand by the belief that Bush will be the downfall of the United States.

So how did the UN put Iraq "swiftly" in its place back in 1991? I happen to remember the United States doing that job, the UN doing nothing.

& "democratic process" of the UN, yeah right. So exactly WHO votes for the representation provided by the UN? Not I, not you, not any ordinary citizen of each country, they are just assigned. So yes in the case of democratic countries, the government chooses which in some sense is fair. But what about all those UNdemocratic countries in the UN. It really is quite ironic that half a supposed democratic orgainisation is run by some of the worst dictators of this world.

And exactly how many hundreds of thousands of civilians did the Bush Snr slaughter in the Gulf War? Or did they happen to be the ones kidnapped by Hussein and put in his facilities? So infact it was Hussein slaughtering them.

I also find it interesting that America supposdly wants this oil, when they already get plently from other countries. When infact the french companies like Total Elf Oil are infact the exporters of Iraqs oil, and quite possibly the companies giving canidate funding to polititions like Chirac (sp?).

Originally posted by sarujin
So how did the UN put Iraq "swiftly" in its place back in 1991? I happen to remember the United States doing that job, the UN doing nothing.

Your memory is playing tricks on you.

Early thunder began the previous summer, on August 2, 1990, when Iraqi tanks rolled into oil-rich Kuwait in what turned out to be an almost effortless invasion. The next day, the United Nations Security Council demanded an immediate, unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.


The U.S.-led forces arrayed against Saddam Hussein included soldiers from Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, and The United Arab Emirates.

and let's not forget who fucked up in the first place.....

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was stunned by the vehement response. He had expected a casual reaction from the West to his occupation of Kuwait, based on what U.S. ambassador April Glaspie had told him a week earlier, when she said, "We have no opinions on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Angry journalists confronted Glaspie, clutching copies of the transcript of her session with Saddam, accusing her of giving him carte blanche to take over Kuwait. At one of these sessions a rattled Glaspie replied, "I didn't think . . . the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."

Glaspie soon was removed from her post.



As to how civillians came to be killed,it matters not whether they were under the bombs accidentally,or as hostages,or simply as victims of fate,they were still killed.A new round of killings will not solve anything.


your point on oil forgets that he who controls the world's oil,controls the worl.Iraq has vast resources and the hand on the wellhead ultimately decides where the oil goes and at what cost.

in the last Gulf conflict,civilians were treated to some wonderful lingering souvenirs of the war,left behind by both sides.....

Among the detritus of the sandy battlefield was 40 tonnes of radioactive depleted uranium from coalition weaponry. Iraqi forces also left behind seven million land mines in Kuwait, which have killed nearly 2,000 people since the war ended.
After leaving his United Nations job as head of humanitarian relief in Iraq in 1999, Irish-born Dennis Halliday said, "We've got to classify sanctions as a form of warfare, given that they're producing 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi deaths a month."


The imbalance in battle skills was enormous,but the risk to U.N. troops was almost as great from their own side.

The final statistics show the brief war killed more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers, wounded another 300,000, with 150,000 Iraqi soldiers deserting and 60,000 taken prisoner. The war claimed 148 U.N. forces lives, another 458 were wounded, and 121 were killed in "non-hostile actions" – victims of "friendly fire."

The cost of the war to the West has been estimated at between $63 billion and $72 billion US.

Originally posted by sarujin

But hey, we can't have people like President Bush standing up for freedom, and democracy. Its much better to have dictators like Hussein that do whatever the hell they want, murdering thousands of Kurds, and attacking other countries.

sarujin

Ah, once more the US stands up for freedom by invading toppling another legitimate government and replacing it with a puppet regime.

And for the last time, he's not "murdering" Kurds, they are armed rebels, who are using terrorism to gain independence. The US wants to use them in the coming war as well, just like they used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

I suppose if Saddam hadn't been killing Kurds, he'd be accused of harbouring terrorists... Oh wait, CNN is already claiming that he is. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cbass


...CNN is already claiming that he is. :rolleyes:


CNN is so worthless.

I agree completely. CNN is willing to say whatever the White House wants them to.

I rarely watch CNN, but I am always disgusted when I do. It's quite easy to pick out the carefully crafted propaganda, and quite entertaining to listen when you hear it parrotted so well by so many people.

For instance, you hear lots of reports about how the US is investigating links between Bin Laden and Iraq, how key Al Qaeda figures could have been in Iraq, etc. They mention at the end there is no evidence as such, but they are investigating! They then run this one line every hour for a week, and gradually, people hear it enough to accept it as a "fact", even though it is a complete lie, and there was never any evidence in the first place.

Television is the greatest propaganda tool ever devised, considering most people get all of their news from it.

well i don't have heaps of time to reply but anyway.

Yes, some of the kurds are deemed to be terroists, but most of them are just bloodly normadic tent dwellers, who wander the sands of northern iraq, doing absoultly nothing. Just getting nerve gas rained upoun them.

& Taranaki, wow the UN helped "alittle" in the gulf war. It was still America that proved 80% of the troops, equipement, and money. I'rd like to see any other countries in the world giving these many resources away, in a sort of charity. What did France and Germany give? a couple of thousand troops, wow big deal.

Oh by the way, just so you people can realise, I don't watch CNN. Its Sky News, and BBC for me.

Plus remember for everyone instigating america as being terroists, France has been the only country that has launched a terroist attack against New Zealand. So much, for the peace makers of the world.

sarujin

Originally posted by sarujin
well i don't have heaps of time to reply but anyway.

Yes, some of the kurds are deemed to be terroists, but most of them are just bloodly normadic tent dwellers, who wander the sands of northern iraq, doing absoultly nothing. Just getting nerve gas rained upoun them.


Some of them are deemed to be terrorists? There are well armed and organized Kurdish groups making terrorist attacks against the Iraqi government and people.

How would you ask Iraq to deal with them? If they fly aircraft to determine where the terrorists are, the US will shoot them down, because they would be in the nothern "No Fly" zone, which is illegal, and not sanctioned by the UN. BTW, the Kurds are financed and supported by the CIA, so that means the US is supporting terrorists...

Originally posted by sarujin

& Taranaki, wow the UN helped "alittle" in the gulf war. It was still America that proved 80% of the troops, equipement, and money. I'rd like to see any other countries in the world giving these many resources away, in a sort of charity. What did France and Germany give? a couple of thousand troops, wow big deal.


How many troops do France, Germany, Canada etc give for peacekeeping every year? Far more than the US do. The US footed 25% of the bills for the Gulf War, some $20 billion, far more than any one nation, true. Don't think the US went it alone in that war, there were some 20 nations in that coalition force, and even more providing financial support. Then again, I would bet you believe the US defeated Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by sarujin

Oh by the way, just so you people can realise, I don't watch CNN. Its Sky News, and BBC for me.

Plus remember for everyone instigating america as being terroists, France has been the only country that has launched a terroist attack against New Zealand. So much, for the peace makers of the world.

sarujin

Every news agency is spreading propaganda to some degree, even if just for sensationalism. The BBC is heavily pushing for war, as they are sympathetic to the British government. Yes, the French did blow up the Rainbow Warrior, but the US mined the Nicaraguan harbours in the 1980s. The Contra were CIA sponsored terrorists. The US has probably been the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the last 50 years. Read your non US history books.

http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art92.html

Of course, you'll just say that all of this is made up by anti-American fanatics who hate the freedom you possess. Do you know much about the PATRIOT and PATRIOT 2 acts? If you don't, they are a complete violation of many of your civil liberties and rights enacted by the Republicans, in the name of fighting terrorism.

Originally posted by sarujin

& Taranaki, wow the UN helped "alittle" in the gulf war. It was still America that proved 80% of the troops, equipement, and money. I'rd like to see any other countries in the world giving these many resources away, in a sort of charity.
The important point is that all of the countries actively supported the action.And the U.S. spent the most on the campaign,because the U.S. IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST IMPORTER OF OIL.It doesn't matter that the oil came from nations other than Kuwait and Iraq,as soon as there is instability in the major oil-producing regions of the world,the spot price of internationally traded oil goes up across the board.Who stands to lose most?The U.S.Who loses his job in times of poor economic performance?The President.Which country makes most of the armaments and ordinance used in the Gulf war?The U.S.Which countrygets to keep people in jobs making military hardware?ooops,that's the U.S. again.Charity my ass.With a multi-billion dollar arms industry,war is becoming a major contributor to the U.S. economy.


Plus remember for everyone instigating america as being terroists, France has been the only country that has launched a terroist attack against New Zealand. So much, for the peace makers of the world.

sarujin

More mistakes from Sarujin.
The French attack on the Rainbow Warrior was not an act against New Zealand.It was an attack against Greenpeace.It just happened in one of our harbours.It was an isolated incident involving the French Secret Service,compare it with the repeated perversions of international law that the CIA have been covertly involved in,and the trigger-happy approach to 'peacekeeping' of the U.S. military over the past 20 years,and you should see who presents the bigger threat to world peace.

OK so there is a fair bit to reply to in this thread but anyway............The United Nations is possibly the most important organisation in the world today- it is what literally keeps countries from non-stop going at each-others throats- The more nations that are in this organisation the better as the forums often allow leaders of clashing nationst o talk the problems over and avoid a full scale war. However Dubya is pretty much blocking out Iraqs voice from UN forums- so it sort of defeatst he purpose- it is Bush that is dragging down the UN, nobody else.

The US does bugger all in terms of peace keeping- while nations such as Canada, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany etc....Have large peace keeping forces- they are far outnumbering US peace keepers at the moment- and guess what they are peace keeping in? Conflicts that the US only intensified and then deserted.

And as for the French attacking New Zealand- not true- they attacked a Greenpeace boat- not a Royal NZ Navy frigate- if it were stationed at a US or Australain port- they would have done the same thing- and Greenpeace are somewhat guilty of pissing the French off before 1985 as well- so it serverd them right:rolleyes:

Well, the French had no justification to do that, but it's irrelevant.

How about Israel, where the IDF routinely engages in terror attacks against Palestinians in the refugee camps they have herded into?

How about the United States, who mined Nicaraguan harbours in the 80s, or napalmed entire villages in Vietnam, because they suspected them of containing Viet Cong? What about the Contras, and their mandate to terrorise civilians? The unilateral support of Israel, a country founded by zionist terrorists?

The US is the biggest state sponsor in the world, at least in the past 50 years.

"The U.N. inspectors, however, have also been unable to
resolve scores of crucial questions about Iraq's former weapons programs, including the location of 1.5 tons
of VX nerve gas, 2 tons of anthrax growth media, 400 bombs for germ warfare agents and 550 artillery shells
filled with mustard gas.. The teams have confirmed that over the last four years, Iraq illicitly obtained
hundreds of missile engines without U.N. approval, as well as raw materials for rocket fuel and chemical
agents. Such imports, as well as Iraq's failure to provide an accurate account of its weapons programs, are a
violation of U.N. resolutions aimed at disarming the Hussein regime, according to U.N. and U.S. officials.”
[Los Angeles Times 1/26/03] C) Iraq may have been guilty of committing two minor infractions.
(1) Between 1998 and 2002, Iraqis attempted to obtain missile parts. [Los Angeles Times, 12/31/01]
(2) Between 1998 and 2002, Iraqis altered missile parts without notifying the U.N. [Los Angeles Times, 12/31/01]
(D) Iraq was found in possession of two empty chemical warheads.
(1) Summary.
(a) On January 16, 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered a cache of 12 warheads designed to carry chemical
warfare agents in the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area located about 80 miles (120km) south of Baghdad.
According to UN and U.S. officials, the warheads had not been included in Iraq’s December 7 declaration to the
U.N. [Washington Post, 1/16/03; Reuters, 1/17/03; Reuters, 1/17/03b; New York Times, 1/17/03; New York Times
1/18/03; Press Trust of India 1/18/03] Iraq later called the omission an oversight, promising to check if they had
any other old warheads in storage, which they did. On January 19, they disclosed that they had discovered 4
additional empty warheads. [Associated Press 1/19/02; Independent 1/20/03; New York Times 1/20/03;
Washington Post 1/20/03] HOW LONG ARE YOU WILLING TO WAIT< THE UN WONT DO ANYTHING SO SOMEONE HAS TO.

This weeks Time: 3-3-2003

Extract of an Time interview with Hans Blix

Q: So the buildup of US forces actually has helped you?
HB: I don't think there would have been any inspection but for outside pressure, including US forces.

Its a very interesting interview, since i can't type it all out, you'll have to find it somewhere to read. By the looks of it Blix is feedup with Iraq, and Iraq always trying to get more time.

sarujin

Hmm, from the reports I have read from Hans Blix, Iraq has been complying with all of the demands they are faced with, except for a few issues that were not yet diplomatically resolved. Those would be the issues that the US media cites as non compliance, such as the dismantling of their medium range missiles.

www.un.org

Originally posted by Cbass
Hmm, from the reports I have read from Hans Blix, Iraq has been complying with all of the demands they are faced with, except for a few issues that were not yet diplomatically resolved. Those would be the issues that the US media cites as non compliance, such as the dismantling of their medium range missiles.

www.un.org Saddam has had over 12 years, since the end of the Golf war to disarm. The only reason he is finally doing it now, is to make a big show out of it. Look at me I destroyed 4 missles today, wow. He cant drag his feet anymore, because the US is pushing the issue. Peace or war all depends on saddam. He can disarm peacefully or he can be disarmed by force. It is now up to him and only him.

Well actually It is already been published by the UN that the US footed 80 percent of the costs of the Gulf War. Hmm others better get their facts straight. How many German and French Carrier forces were present? Uhhuh gotcha didn't I? US has footed the majority of the costs for every UN "Peacekeeping" engagement since its inception. As far as the UN being needed, I seriously doubt their credibility anymore. Nothing more then a bunch of self serving backstabbers

Ok, so the Kurds are more like freedom fighters when they are fighting Iraq, but terrorists when the CIA funds them? Besides, the CIA stopped funding the uprising when clinton took office. Again, we have funded shady groups before but not to carry out terrorist activities. Terrorist tactics, yes, but not activities as in to blatantly target non-combatants.

And if the Kurds are killing non-combatants, let's not forget how saddam likes to mix lawful and non-lawful targets. But then again, the Iraqis and the Kurds didn't sign any Geneva Convention (actually, I think I am mistaken on Iraq not signing any of the conventions), so fuck 'em.

Yep, the US footed the most personnel, money, and carried out the most missions. Still the UN was far from inferior in thier support. One of the times I was proud of the UN.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Saddam has had over 12 years, since the end of the Golf war to disarm. The only reason he is finally doing it now, is to make a big show out of it. Look at me I destroyed 4 missles today, wow. He cant drag his feet anymore, because the US is pushing the issue. Peace or war all depends on saddam. He can disarm peacefully or he can be disarmed by force. It is now up to him and only him.

See my reply regarding this in another thread.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=821145#post821145

I say bomb Saddam's ass to pieces! He has personally said that he wins as long as he lives! :mad:

Originally posted by I-Tech
I say bomb Saddam's ass to pieces! He has personally said that he wins as long as he lives! :mad:

:huh:

Why are you so keen to see Saddam go? The only good reasons I can see are for oil and a directly US controlled nation in the middle east.

Unless of course, you use the all conquering argument.


Originally said by Dubya

"He's an evil maaaan!"

If Saddam was smart he would just step down and avoid a war. But that means he would have to put his country before him, and we all know that isnt going to happen.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
If Saddam was smart he would just step down and avoid a war. But that means he would have to put his country before him, and we all know that isnt going to happen.

Remove the word 'Saddam' from that quote and use 'Bush' instead,the world would be a far better place.

The sooner the shooting starts the less time Saddam will have to dig in and the faster it will be over. Drop a few of those new MOABs just outside the Republican Guard bunkers and this might be over as fast the first ground assault in Desert Storm.













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)

Originally posted by taranaki


Remove the word 'Saddam' from that quote and use 'Bush' instead,the world would be a far better place. No thanks, I like Saddam better.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
The sooner the shooting starts the less time Saddam will have to dig in and the faster it will be over. Drop a few of those new MOABs just outside the Republican Guard bunkers and this might be over as fast the first ground assault in Desert Storm.

MOAB bombs,chemical weapons,what's the difference?seems that whatever the U.S. builds into its warheads,be it napalm,depleted uranium,whatever,that's O.K. - but as soon as the opposition start making their weapons more effective,that's immoral..............:rolleyes:

And Saddam has had decades to build his defences around Iraq.The infrastructure will already be in place.Claiming that delays in starting this war will give him more time to prepare are utter poppycock.He's been in a state of seige for the last 12 years.

The only reason that Bush is so keen to start this war with any urgency is that the climate in the Middle East will be against his troops in three months.Put simply,it will be too hot during the day to fight in protective suits.Why,you may ask,should they be wearing protective suits?Is Saddam going to use chemical weapons against them?Possibly,but the U.N.inspectors found very little evidence to suggest that they exist.No, the real need for protective suits will come when the U.S.starts using its massive stocks of depleted uranium shells and bombs.They are a great weapon for incinerating tanks and other armoured vehicles,but the massive contamination that they cause creates a health risk for years to come........

Iraq is going to be contaminated with radioactive waste on a massive scale.It's a war crime,and when it happens,Bush should be put on trial.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
No thanks, I like Saddam better.

I like Saddam more than Bush too :)

He provided free post secondary education and health care for all of his citizens, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, and is now exposing the US to a new wave of terrorists.

Well to this day, me or nobody I know has been gassed, locked up, tortured, killed, etc. People will fight for Bush, but they won't for saddam as some of his troops tried to surrender before the war. I know a lot of people in the military and Bush hasn't shot any of his generals or other military personnel. saddam has shot one personally, who knows what else. But yeah, saddam is a-ok. Pffft!

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Well to this day, me or nobody I know has been gassed, locked up, tortured, killed, etc. People will fight for Bush, but they won't for saddam as some of his troops tried to surrender before the war. I know a lot of people in the military and Bush hasn't shot any of his generals or other military personnel. saddam has shot one personally, who knows what else. But yeah, saddam is a-ok. Pffft!

Nobody I know has been gassed,tortured ,etc,etc,.....so until it actually becomes my business,I'm not going to go interfering.Frankly there's a couple of dozen countries around the world that have human rights records that are as bad,if not worse,than Iraq......there's more than a couple that train and arm terroristst too.But Iraq is the only one being demonised by the numbskull in charge of America,clearly there's alternative reasons for his eagerness to remove Saddam from power.

Originally posted by Cbass


I like Saddam more than Bush too :)

He provided free post secondary education and health care for all of his citizens, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, and is now exposing the US to a new wave of terrorists. And the truth comes out, if you like him so much why dont you move to Iraq and become his buddy. As for me I like Bush better, so I will stay right here. AS for your opinions, do you have any facts to back them up?

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
And the truth comes out, if you like him so much why dont you move to Iraq and become his buddy. As for me I like Bush better, so I will stay right here. AS for your opinions, do you have any facts to back them up?

I despise Hussein, but he is the lesser of two evils. At least his alleged crimes are committed within his own borders. Bush's crimes are committed abroad.

I always have facts to back up my opinions. Just ask for them specifically.

Originally posted by Cbass


I despise Hussein, but he is the lesser of two evils. At least his alleged crimes are committed within his own borders. Bush's crimes are committed abroad.

I always have facts to back up my opinions. Just ask for them specifically. So by Bush telling everyone what he is doing and then doing exactly like he says is worse then Saddam saying he has no ground to ground missles that are illegal, but then uses these missles he doesnt have to try to hit kuwait, as for me I dont like liars. How about how the U.S. (Bush) treats P.O.W.S, we feed them, give them medical aid if needed, basically take care of them, while Saddam tries to kill and exacute anyone he can, I remember a certain thing called the Geneva Convention, guess Saddam never heard of it, as for me I dont like people who murder other people in cold blood. Who do you think cares more about the people of Iraq, Bush who is trying to hit targets that are away from heavy concintrations of innocent people, or Saddam who puts his troops near schools and hospitals, seems like he really cares about who gets killed. Saddam cares about himself and that is all, he will kill, he will lie, he will do what ever it takes to protect himself, no matter what it is, so if you think this is the better of 2 evils, I must strongly disagree.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
So by Bush telling everyone what he is doing and then doing exactly like he says is worse then Saddam saying he has no ground to ground missles that are illegal, but then uses these missles he doesnt have to try to hit kuwait, as for me I dont like liars.


:huh: Iraq never denied having those missiles, they have been negotiating with the inspectors about how and when they will be destroyed or modified so they are in compliance.

Bush is not telling everyone what he's doing, he's insisting on feeding us lies about Iraqi freedom, and propaganda about Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913

How about how the U.S. (Bush) treats P.O.W.S, we feed them, give them medical aid if needed, basically take care of them, while Saddam tries to kill and exacute anyone he can, I remember a certain thing called the Geneva Convention, guess Saddam never heard of it


You're not very good at debating these issues, considering the atrocities and human rights violations the US is committing at "Camp X-Ray", with Afghanis who should legally be prisoners of war.

If you haven't noticed, even CNN is talking about how the US is trying not to take any prisoners in Iraq, instead opting to leave them unsupplied in the desert.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913

as for me I dont like people who murder other people in cold blood. Who do you think cares more about the people of Iraq, Bush who is trying to hit targets that are away from heavy concintrations of innocent people, or Saddam who puts his troops near schools and hospitals, seems like he really cares about who gets killed.


I'm sure that Bush doesn't want to see anyone die that doesn't have to die for him to get his oil, and his political distraction from the mess he's made of the US.

None the less, 1.4 million innocent people have died in Iraq already as a result of the US, and I suppose a few hundred thousand more won't make a difference to Bush, or people like you for that matter.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913

Saddam cares about himself and that is all, he will kill, he will lie, he will do what ever it takes to protect himself, no matter what it is, so if you think this is the better of 2 evils, I must strongly disagree.

I think that describes Bush pretty well also. Do you know Saddam? No you do not. All you know of Saddam is the propaganda you have been fed. I bet you don't like Hitler either.

Originally posted by Cbass


I like Saddam more than Bush too :)

He provided free post secondary education and health care for all of his citizens, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, and is now exposing the US to a new wave of terrorists.

Why shouldn't the rich get a tax cut? The top 1% of salaries in America pay 50% of our taxes. Did you hear that boys? We should tax success. What a socialist and liberal idea. My parents are in the top 1%(over $150,000 a year) and Clinton was killing them.

Originally posted by Cbass


Cbass, I can't even believe you said that we shouldn't be excited to see Saddam go. He was a Hitler in the making. You know Hitler took care of his people too, just not Jews.

Originally posted by Pick


Why shouldn't the rich get a tax cut? The top 1% of salaries in America pay 50% of our taxes. Did you hear that boys? We should tax success. What a socialist and liberal idea. My parents are in the top 1%(over $150,000 a year) and Clinton was killing them.

That's a misleading statement, because they aren't salaries. Salaries are payed to you by another. Those are income taxes on corporations, not salaries paid to individuals.

Clinton sure was killing your parents eh, bet they could only afford one new home every five years, or trading in their Mercedes Benz for a newer model every two?

Sure sounds rough to me.... you know there are millions of people in the US who are getting deeper and deeper in debt just to survive and enjoy a middle class living standard? I think they're the ones who need the tax relief, not the people enjoying a ridiculous life of opulence...

Originally posted by Pick

Cbass, I can't even believe you said that we shouldn't be excited to see Saddam go. He was a Hitler in the making. You know Hitler took care of his people too, just not Jews.

I think it's far more accurate to say Bush is another Hitler in teh making, but he doesn't even take care of his people.

Originally posted by Pick

You are aOFFENSIVE TERM DELETED Your opinion means nothing to me.


Let's try to keep personal attacks to a minimum, before a moderator closes this thread. If my opinion means nothing to you, why do you insist on presenting yours to me? :)

Cbass

($*&@#!*)


Ok mods? I know what I wanted to say but didn't?

Seriously though Cbass you need to try and see opinions from others points of view which I am just now beginning to learn. Not even democracy can survive in a onesided form. Instead of posting rants like alot of us are guilty of find out why the otherside always counts on "plausible deniability"

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


Seriously though Cbass you need to try and see opinions from others points of view which I am just now beginning to learn. Not even democracy can survive in a onesided form. Instead of posting rants like alot of us are guilty of find out why the otherside always counts on "plausible deniability"

I think that a lot of people in this forum need to chill a little.If I see any more references like the one that I have just edited out of cbass' post,then I will be banning peopleregardless of which side of the debate they are supporting.


Since this thread is off topic,and too far out of date to return,I'm closing it.