George Bush makes a good speech on the Iraq crisis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html


George Bush Snr,that is.

Interesting reading

Nobody care to debate in this thread?:rolleyes:

Nope not I said the liar LOL. Well press being what it is. I read between the lines.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Nope not I said the liar LOL. Well press being what it is. I read between the lines.

I like to read between the lines too..........;)

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Well press being what it is.....

When Isee a piece of journalism that I don't like.............

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
......... I read between the lines.

...........I pretend it never happened.


Unless,of course,you can back up your implication that it's all a spin by the press?Perhaps you can find an article by George Bush Snr. denying that he said it?Don't think so.

Pretty piss poor when the President can't even get his old man to back him.Could perhaps be because on this occasion GWB has got it hopelessly wrong.

Hmm, very interesting indeed.

Just a little speculation on my part, of which there is a wealth of information to support, but no direct proof of course, which is why it's just speculation ;)

It seems that since the Gulf war, the US has been attempting to keep Iraq weak, what with strongarming those resolutions through in the UN, and regular bombings of Iraqi civil infrastructure.

I have been of the opinion that the US was going to go after Iraq since the mid 90s, when the Republican hawks, such as Perle and Rumsfeld were pushing for war. In case you haven't noticed, they are the same Republicans in power now.

My thinking is, this may go back to the Reagan years, or possibly further. Since the oil crisis' of the '70s, the US has been very interested in securing oil reserves, although in the past they have only used diplomacy and covert action.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but it looks like we have all the makings of a conspiracy to secure a large amount of oil, and it looks like Dubya is pushing just a little to hard for his fathers liking. Sort of a "don't screw this up, son!" tone.

Also interesting to note, they referred to Dubya as "Junior", which I have never seen in the US media before. I think the White House PR team have made it clear not to call him Junior...

Originally posted by Cbass
I think the White House PR team have made it clear not to call him Junior...

The White house PR team is losing credibility with the press.The days when journalists could be 'cut out of the loop' for failing to print only the approved stories are over.I'm sure the White House would have been much happier if this story had not been told.What name you put on a guy who can't even raise the support of his family is not really the issue,but is interesting to see the press losing respect for the most powerful man on the planet.Perhaps they realise that he's past his 'use-by date'.

I think we'll all find out what his measure is worth within 14 days...Nuff said!

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
I think we'll all find out what his measure is worth within 14 days...Nuff said!

Yes indeed.Aggressor,invader,war criminal and tyrant all come to mind....nuff said

Riiiiight. :)

I suppose those Afghani prisoners resting in Cuba don't count as prisoners of war, so they can't try Bush for war crimes :(

Ah, you mean the ones that were caught firing on the soldiers and all that right? Please don't tell me that you think all those prisoners we have locked up in Cuba are innocents or something.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Ah, you mean the ones that were caught firing on the soldiers and all that right? Please don't tell me that you think all those prisoners we have locked up in Cuba are innocents or something.

Ithought that the one of the main principles of justice was a trial of some sort?Isn't one of the main complaints about Saddam that he detains his opponents without trial?Frankly,until you have proven them to be guilty of an offence in a court of law,then yes,they are innocent.

Originally posted by taranaki


Ithought that the one of the main principles of justice was a trial of some sort?Isn't one of the main complaints about Saddam that he detains his opponents without trial?Frankly,until you have proven them to be guilty of an offence in a court of law,then yes,they are innocent.

Its not Amercian law, buddy. They are POW and tried to kill Americans, so they will be treated as they should be, as terrorists. You see, America is the only counry where innocent til proven guilty really matters. In international law, nobody cares.

Originally posted by Pick


Its not Amercian law, buddy. They are POW and tried to kill Americans, so they will be treated as they should be, as terrorists. You see, America is the only counry where innocent til proven guilty really matters.

Welcome to the board.:) Your statement about "America being the only country where innocent til proven guilty really matters. " Is ignorant codswallop.If you took the trouble to look into the legislature of most Western countries,you would find it to exist in almost all of them.Perhaps that is why most European and other democratic nations are opposed to George Bush's war.So far he has failed completely to prove that Saddam Hussien is a threat to any other nation.

Originally posted by taranaki


Welcome to the board.:) Your statement about "America being the only country where innocent til proven guilty really matters. " Is ignorant codswallop.If you took the trouble to look into the legislature of most Western countries,you would find it to exist in almost all of them.Perhaps that is why most European and other democratic nations are opposed to George Bush's war.So far he has failed completely to prove that Saddam Hussien is a threat to any other nation.

Thanks for the welcome. Which western countries were you referring to? The communist/socialist countries of central and eastern Europe?

Originally posted by Pick


Thanks for the welcome. Which western countries were you referring to? The communist/socialist countries of central and eastern Europe?

firstly,socialism and communism are as different from each other as Republicanism and Fascism.

Secondly,if you read my post again,I specifically referred to the justice systems in Western countries in my last post.Clearly,east and west are two entirely different things,but the one thing that Eastern Europe and Western Europe do have in common is that the majority of states are opposed to unilateral action by the U.S.in Iraq.

Originally posted by taranaki


firstly,socialism and communism are as different from each other as Republicanism and Fascism.

Secondly,if you read my post again,I specifically referred to the justice systems in Western countries in my last post.Clearly,east and west are two entirely different things,but the one thing that Eastern Europe and Western Europe do have in common is that the majority of states are opposed to unilateral action by the U.S.in Iraq.

My fault, I meant the Socialist countries of the West. Also Socialism and Communism are the same. Socialism is communism with tweaks that make it look so much better.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by taranaki


firstly,socialism and communism are as different from each other as Republicanism and Fascism.

Secondly,if you read my post again,I specifically referred to the justice systems in Western countries in my last post.Clearly,east and west are two entirely different things,but the one thing that Eastern Europe and Western Europe do have in common is that the majority of states are opposed to unilateral action by the U.S.in Iraq.

Are YOU opposed to unilateral action by the U.S.? If so, why?And where are you from?

Originally posted by Pick


Are YOU opposed to unilateral action by the U.S.? If so, why?And where are you from?

I am TOTALLYopposed to unilateral action by the United States,for reasons that I have posted many times in this forum.Bush hasn't offered a shred of credible evidence to justify his bizzarre behaviour,the U.N weapons inspectors have not found enough evidence to convince the Security Council that Iraq poses a clear and immediate threat to any other nation.Regardless of how Hussein conducts his internal affairs,nobody is asking the U.S. to bomb the hell out of Iraq.

George Bush is determined to put Saddam Hussein out of power for many reasons,some are worthy,some are straight out greed.The U.N. has carefully monitored the situation for the last twelve years,and as yet has not deemed it neccesary to raise a multi-national force to take control of Iraq.

I am NOT a supporter of Saddam Hussein,I am a very staunch opponent of all war, and if anybody tries to tell me that 'sometimes war is the only way',I tell them that they lack the intelligence or the patience to find a better solution.Saddam is a fool for thinking that he can win,and Bush is a fool for trying to force him into a corner single-handed.


And where am I from?check out my avatar.:D If you don't know the flag,maybe world affairs are not your strong point.;)

I knew you weren't an American.

Now, I guess the Al samoud missiles weren't evidence. Or the missing cartons of VX gas, mustard gas, anthrax, all that aren't accounted for. Its not up to us to prove Saddam has weapons, it is up to the U.N. and Saddam to prove he doesn't. How in the hell are about 100 men in a freaking huge country going to simultaneously be at all the sites where weapons are supposed to be? The answere is they're not. He has money out the ass to hide these weapons.

About the greed, who is being greedy? The freaking pussy French who are jealous of the U.S.?

Thw U.N. has monitored shit. Remember in 1998 when Clinton began to bomb Iraq? None of you leftist wackos said anything. But now, because we have a Republican,not a socialist democrat, everybody all of the sudden hates us. Here's a little quote for you:

“Neither the United States nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception nor offensive threats on the part of any nation large or small. We no longer live in a world where the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.”
-President John F. Kennedy,Oct. 21, 1962

I'll end on that

Originally posted by Pick
I knew you weren't an American.

Now, I guess the Al samoud missiles weren't evidence. Or the missing cartons of VX gas, mustard gas, anthrax, all that aren't accounted for. Its not up to us to prove Saddam has weapons, it is up to the U.N. and Saddam to prove he doesn't. How in the hell are about 100 men in a freaking huge country going to simultaneously be at all the sites where weapons are supposed to be? The answere is they're not. He has money out the ass to hide these weapons.

About the greed, who is being greedy? The freaking pussy French who are jealous of the U.S.?

Thw U.N. has monitored shit. Remember in 1998 when Clinton began to bomb Iraq? None of you leftist wackos said anything. But now, because we have a Republican,not a socialist democrat, everybody all of the sudden hates us. Here's a little quote for you:

“Neither the United States nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception nor offensive threats on the part of any nation large or small. We no longer live in a world where the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.”
-President John F. Kennedy,Oct. 21, 1962

I'll end on that


If you are going to paralell Bush and Kennedy then just think about what happened to Kennedy- just replace the gunman with a crazed extremeist.

And if you are going to speak of the French- please don't speak of them- or any nation in such an absurd manner- if you feel Chirac is a pussy- say so- but don't call a whole nation a pack of pussies- you are making yourself look even stupider :rolleyes: and makes you sond like a damned redneck (Not calling you one- just saying that the mentality you are applying is similar to one)- either that or don't get all over my ass about stereotyping.


You cannot prove he is hiding them- just like there is no proof he destroyed them- but seeing as there is no proof of them existing any more, then there is no proof that he is armed- simple as that. Hell Bush is packing 50 times more heat than Saddam- and I sure as hell don't trust Bush- so why not get him to disarm as well????? Either way- Bush has heavy double standards

Originally posted by Pick
I knew you weren't an American.

Point being?Much as you may like to think otherwise,my opinion counts just as much as yours.I'm glad that you appear to have the intelligence to spot that it's not the stars and stripes in my avatar,but Istill don't think you have any clue as to what it is.

Now, I guess the Al samoud missiles weren't evidence. Or the missing cartons of VX gas, mustard gas, anthrax, all that aren't accounted for. .The Al Samoud missiles?care to explain to me which part of U.S.soil they could hit?.None.So Bush needn't get his Y-fronts in a knot about them.Leave it to the U.N. to sort out the problems in the Middle East,peacekeeping ,defence and invasion are three separate concepts to the rest of the world,but all the same process if you are U.S.'defence' forces.And missing weapons are not proof of their existence.Seems to me that Bush has made a fool of himself,there are no weapons and the 'missing ' weapons are just another of his excuses.

Its not up to us to prove Saddam has weapons, it is up to the U.N. and Saddam to prove he doesn't. Says who?That's utter bullshit and you know it.Show us the proof,you might get some respect.Bush is only trying to start this war as soon as possible to divert attention from his poor performance at home.There's some really dodgy business deals gone sour and exposed key Republicans in a big way in the last year[Enron,anyone]Why should Bush account for them,hell,he's much too busy starting a war!



How in the hell are about 100 men in a freaking huge country going to simultaneously be at all the sites where weapons are supposed to be? The answere is they're not. He has money out the ass to hide these weapons.


And the U.S. has BILLIONS of dollars worth of survillance sattelites,Stealth planes and unmanned drones that could photograph Saddam's loose change if it fell out of his pocket.If the U.S. had a single shred of evidence of suspicious activity,it would have notified the inspectors and plastered it all over the media by now.They ain't got shit,but don't let the truth stop a good story.....
Thw U.N. has monitored shit. Remember in 1998 when Clinton began to bomb Iraq? None of you leftist wackos said anything. But now, because we have a Republican,not a socialist democrat, everybody all of the sudden hates us.


Let me see,Iam a nasty foreigner,a leftist wacko who hates you personally because you are a republican?riiiiiiight.Frankly,you are irrelevant.The reason I rally against the war is that I happen to believe that any invasion is wrong,and that Bush is a lying sleazebag for pretending that it's a matter of national security.He won't find any weapons,he wont find Al Quaeda,and certainly wont find Bin Laden.He's only there to settle old scores and manipulate the oil markets.
And you can keep your Kennedy quote,all politicians are bullshit artists,and the higher they rise,the more they bullshit.What America needs right now is not the words of another Kennedy,it's a bit of spine,a bit of backbone,a demonstration of democracy in action.Saddam will only be contained by the rest of the world speaking as one,and at the moment,the country that is furthest out of step with world opinion is the U.S.A.

Originally posted by Jimster



If you are going to paralell Bush and Kennedy then just think about what happened to Kennedy- just replace the gunman with a crazed extremeist.

And if you are going to speak of the French- please don't speak of them- or any nation in such an absurd manner- if you feel Chirac is a pussy- say so- but don't call a whole nation a pack of pussies- you are making yourself look even stupider :rolleyes: and makes you sond like a damned redneck (Not calling you one- just saying that the mentality you are applying is similar to one)- either that or don't get all over my ass about stereotyping.


You cannot prove he is hiding them- just like there is no proof he destroyed them- but seeing as there is no proof of them existing any more, then there is no proof that he is armed- simple as that. Hell Bush is packing 50 times more heat than Saddam- and I sure as hell don't trust Bush- so why not get him to disarm as well????? Either way- Bush has heavy double standards

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Chirac is a pussy.

"not one shred of evidence" :rolleyes: The evidence has been shown again and again. Repeating ignorance of the facts does not change them.













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)

Or debunked as "propoganda and lies".

Originally posted by taranaki


Let me see,Iam a nasty foreigner,a leftist wacko who hates you personally because you are a republican?riiiiiiight.Frankly,you are irrelevant.The reason I rally against the war is that I happen to believe that any invasion is wrong,and that Bush is a lying sleazebag for pretending that it's a matter of national security.He won't find any weapons,he wont find Al Quaeda,and certainly wont find Bin Laden.He's only there to settle old scores and manipulate the oil markets.
And you can keep your Kennedy quote,all politicians are bullshit artists,and the higher they rise,the more they bullshit.What America needs right now is not the words of another Kennedy,it's a bit of spine,a bit of backbone,a demonstration of democracy in action.Saddam will only be contained by the rest of the world speaking as one,and at the moment,the country that is furthest out of step with world opinion is the U.S.A.

You are such a typical misinformed person. I'm sorry that you are jealous of the U.S. and it's power. Did you get attacked by Muslim pstchopaths? Did you have 3,000 people killled by cowards? I realize that America is arrogant sometimes, but for god's sake cut us some slack. As the saying goes,"everybody's gunning for you when you're on top."
Now, You are from Australia, a very nice, respectable country. If I were to go to war today, and I had to chose who would fight with me, it would be your country. I just thought I would tell you that.
I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

One last question. If we did not go to war and Iraq attacked us or Israel in the next little bit, would you feel bad? We cannot risk another Sept.11. That's what it all boils down to.

Originally posted by Pick


Now, You are from Australia, a very nice, respectable country. If I were to go to war today, and I had to chose who would fight with me, it would be your country. I just thought I would tell you that.
I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.



Wrong- he is from New Zealand- right next to Australia and yes- it is time for a new flag

well australia is in it now too. hey jim have you seen my other thread about the speech?

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Pick


You are such a typical misinformed person. I'm sorry that you are jealous of the U.S. and it's power. Did you get attacked by Muslim pstchopaths? Did you have 3,000 people killled by cowards? I realize that America is arrogant sometimes, but for god's sake cut us some slack. As the saying goes,"everybody's gunning for you when you're on top."
Now, You are from Australia, a very nice, respectable country. If I were to go to war today, and I had to chose who would fight with me, it would be your country. I just thought I would tell you that.
I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

One last question. If we did not go to war and Iraq attacked us or Israel in the next little bit, would you feel bad? We cannot risk another Sept.11. That's what it all boils down to.

Congratulations,you call me misinformed,and yet you can't even manage basic geography.If you INSIST on thinking that I am an Australian,perhaps you might like to read up on the terrorist bombing of Australian tourists at Kuta Beach in Bali late last year.Perhaps then you would understand why Australia has been one of the few countries that has consistently supported America's call for war.

As Jim has already mentioned,I live in New Zealand, although I was born in England and saw active service for the Royal Navy.I like New Zealand,it is one of the few countries that has had the balls to successfully assert its sovereign rights over the United States.We don't want nuclear weapons or nuclear powered warships in our harbours,and have enacted legislation to back this position.Unlike the U.S., our military forces are primarily engaged in U.N.peacekeeping missions,and have no weapons of mass destruction.Thanks to a sensible and civilised foreign policy,nobody feels the need to launch terrorist attacks against us....

As to your last question,I will feel sorry for the innocent Americans who will suffer in the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.Nobody can say for sure how it will happen,or when,but if Bush takes war to the Middle East, the terrorists will counter-attack,and violently,as surely as night follows day.

Originally posted by taranaki

As Jim has already mentioned,I live in New Zealand, although I was born in England and saw active service for the Royal Navy.I like New Zealand,it is one of the few countries that has had the balls to successfully assert its sovereign rights over the United States.We don't want nuclear weapons or nuclear powered warships in our harbours,and have enacted legislation to back this position.Unlike the U.S., our military forces are primarily engaged in U.N.peacekeeping missions,and have no weapons of mass destruction.Thanks to a sensible and civilised foreign policy,nobody feels the need to launch terrorist attacks against us....

this is in no way of offense to you our NZ but i relaly dont think NZ has the size or numbers to even do that. hell people may even want new zealand ot be a world power but you have to admit it is a second world country.

Originally posted by Taranaki


As to your last question,I will feel sorry for the innocent Americans who will suffer in the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.Nobody can say for sure how it will happen,or when,but if Bush takes war to the Middle East, the terrorists will counter-attack,and violently,as surely as night follows day.

ireally still fail to see your logic behind this one and sum it all up to mostly specualtion myself. i would really really like to see where you are getting this idea. i mean people have an idea that this will turn into WW3 but do you really believe that either???

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3


ireally still fail to see your logic behind this one and sum it all up to mostly specualtion myself. i would really really like to see where you are getting this idea. i mean people have an idea that this will turn into WW3 but do you really believe that either???

-GTi-VR6_A3

Please don't tell me that you are one of the spectacularly naive people who think that everything will end 'happily ever after' once Saddam has been ousted? Invading the Middle East will have negative repercussions for the United States and possibly Australia as well.Be certain of it.This is not about Iraq,this is about religious fanatics.Their reasons for attacking America will be as fatuous and self-serving as Bush's excuses for taking on Iraq.

Originally posted by taranaki


Please don't tell me that you are one of the spectacularly naive people who think that everything will end 'happily ever after' once Saddam has been ousted? Invading the Middle East will have negative repercussions for the United States and possibly Australia as well.Be certain of it.This is not about Iraq,this is about religious fanatics.Their reasons for attacking America will be as fatuous and self-serving as Bush's excuses for taking on Iraq.

i defineately dont think that everything will be all peachy and i resent the anive statement. i wish i was naive its so much easier that way im sure. the religious fanatics have just as much reason to attack us for not invading iraq as they do for invading so why contemplate. IF THEY WANT TO ATTACK THEY WILL. this is just one excuse option for them out of many... and tosay that this could set prescident is true but it could just as easily set precident without action in the way of that UN will not enforce its resolutions or it could send no prescident at all and it could be a circumstantial case. being as we are now sending aid to N korea and working on diplomacy. you must remember that this is the olast effort by bush as he is tired of waiting for the un to pas resolution after resolution just because france want s to keep ITS oil hold instead of giving it to the iraqi people and because it doesnt want anyone to find oput about all of the technology chirac has been selling to saddam(last sentence is all speculation but hey everyone has been doing it so i figure i get the right to speculate too)

-GTi-VR6_A3

I would like to see taranaki speak about his views on certain UN members with veto power announcing before a resolution was even put up that they would veto it. After all, this is all about diplomacy right?

Originally posted by taranaki


Congratulations,you call me misinformed,and yet you can't even manage basic geography.If you INSIST on thinking that I am an Australian,perhaps you might like to read up on the terrorist bombing of Australian tourists at Kuta Beach in Bali late last year.Perhaps then you would understand why Australia has been one of the few countries that has consistently supported America's call for war.

As Jim has already mentioned,I live in New Zealand, although I was born in England and saw active service for the Royal Navy.I like New Zealand,it is one of the few countries that has had the balls to successfully assert its sovereign rights over the United States.We don't want nuclear weapons or nuclear powered warships in our harbours,and have enacted legislation to back this position.Unlike the U.S., our military forces are primarily engaged in U.N.peacekeeping missions,and have no weapons of mass destruction.Thanks to a sensible and civilised foreign policy,nobody feels the need to launch terrorist attacks against us....

As to your last question,I will feel sorry for the innocent Americans who will suffer in the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.Nobody can say for sure how it will happen,or when,but if Bush takes war to the Middle East, the terrorists will counter-attack,and violently,as surely as night follows day.


First of all, I apologize for my lapse in geography.

Now, I have a question. If Iraq, Saddam, or any of his people have NO ties to terrorists, then why would there be a counter-attack for us attacking Iraq? It doesn't make sense, and neither do you. We attack Iraq, so these terrorists that are supposedly not connected in any way to Saddam or Iraq attack us? Iraq definitely has ties to terrorism and that is why we are going in.

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3


this is in no way of offense to you our NZ but i relaly dont think NZ has the size or numbers to even do that. hell people may even want new zealand ot be a world power but you have to admit it is a second world country.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Maybe it doesn't- but New Zealand was never intended to be a super-power. A second world country???? Depends on how you look at it- for example- the economy is VERY dependent on agriculture- yet the technology in the agriculture industry is phonomenal- I would even go as far to say that it is more advanced than that of the US. New Zealand is also an open-market economy- Kiwis perfer thier stuff cheap- and with the agriculture industry employing so many there is no need for any flashy industries- In fact Fisher and Paykel are the only electrical goods I can think of that are made in New Zealand. And with a GDP per capita of a smidgeon over US$20,000 I would say that New Zealand creeps into the 1st world nations catagorey. Kiwis also have the best human rights records in the world.

Originally posted by taranaki


Please don't tell me that you are one of the spectacularly naive people who think that everything will end 'happily ever after' once Saddam has been ousted? Invading the Middle East will have negative repercussions for the United States and possibly Australia as well.Be certain of it.This is not about Iraq,this is about religious fanatics.Their reasons for attacking America will be as fatuous and self-serving as Bush's excuses for taking on Iraq.

True dat. It's one man's words against another's. Bush calls ppl in Arabic countries terrorists. People over there call the US terrorists. The war will persists regardless of Saddam's ousting. And there are more political issues behind all this..... anyone remember all that precious OIL... and RELIGION... and the US's uncontrollable lust for POWER?

Your post shows an ignorance I am ashamed to say is carried by many people, including many anti-Americans around the world. That is all that needs to be said.

Originally posted by Pick

We attack Iraq, so these terrorists that are supposedly not connected in any way to Saddam or Iraq attack us?

Right or wrong, if a bunch of Catholics were killed in the name of some ridiculous cause, I, as a staunch Protestant, would be pissed and I would support a rebellion. This crisis won't get fixed soon, because as we "wipe-out" the extremists, the moderates become more and more extreme because we are still attacking a part of their belief system. The conservatives become more moderate, and the chain continues. Obviously wiping out the entire nation isn't a good solution, but it goes to show that people who may at first glance be entirely unattached to these "terrorist cells" may eventually become increasingly more supportive.

Originally posted by saturntangerine


Right or wrong, if a bunch of Catholics were killed in the name of some ridiculous cause, I, as a staunch Protestant, would be pissed and I would support a rebellion. This crisis won't get fixed soon, because as we "wipe-out" the extremists, the moderates become more and more extreme because we are still attacking a part of their belief system. The conservatives become more moderate, and the chain continues. Obviously wiping out the entire nation isn't a good solution, but it goes to show that people who may at first glance be entirely unattached to these "terrorist cells" may eventually become increasingly more supportive.

What you just said makes no sense. Supposedly Saddam has NO connections to any of these terrorists cells, except that he is in the Middle East. That is completely not true, and you know it.

Originally posted by Pick


What you just said makes no sense. Supposedly Saddam has NO connections to any of these terrorists cells, except that he is in the Middle East. That is completely not true, and you know it.


It is a well-proven fact that terrorism and Saddam are both well distaced from eachother- in fact these terrorists HATE Saddam and his whole secular regime.

Originally posted by Jimster



It is a well-proven fact that terrorism and Saddam are both well distaced from eachother- in fact these terrorists HATE Saddam and his whole secular regime.

THen, once again, why would they attack us if we attack Iraq? Alsi, an Al-Quieda camp was found inside Iraq.

Originally posted by Pick


THen, once again, why would they attack us if we attack Iraq? Alsi, an Al-Quieda camp was found inside Iraq.


Well- if the US attacks Iraq they are killing Muslims- Al Qaeda like Muslims, they like Iraq but they don't like Saddam- So if Muslims die then Al Qaeda retaliates for killing these Muslims

Originally posted by Jimster



Well- if the US attacks Iraq they are killing Muslims- Al Qaeda like Muslims, they like Iraq but they don't like Saddam- So if Muslims die then Al Qaeda retaliates for killing these Muslims \

cept that they are shiitie muslims and sunni and bin laden is a wahabist(sp?) so technically they are infidels and al qaeda will use any excuse they can to try to justify their heinous crimes...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Pick, there was never any Al Qaeda camp in Iraq, Saddam would have shut them down instantly.

Bin Laden is furious because there are US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. How do you think his people will feel about the US invading and conquering a Muslim nation?

How do you think the millions of anti-American muslims will see this? They'll fight back the only way they can. Terrorism.

Originally posted by Cbass
Pick, there was never any Al Qaeda camp in Iraq, Saddam would have shut them down instantly.

Bin Laden is furious because there are US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. How do you think his people will feel about the US invading and conquering a Muslim nation?

How do you think the millions of anti-American muslims will see this? They'll fight back the only way they can. Terrorism.

but really as i stated before its a big excuse. they will attack for any reason they can find. this is just ht first one that pops up. if bin laden was really the man he says he is he woudl have never blown up the WTC and he would have dposed saddam a long time ago...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Cbass
Pick, there was never any Al Qaeda camp in Iraq, Saddam would have shut them down instantly.

Bin Laden is furious because there are US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. How do you think his people will feel about the US invading and conquering a Muslim nation?

How do you think the millions of anti-American muslims will see this? They'll fight back the only way they can. Terrorism.

There was an Al-quieda camp in Iraq. I watched a special on ABC about it.

Originally posted by Pick


There was an Al-quieda camp in Iraq. I watched a special on ABC about it.

:huh: That's ludicrous... Find me ONE piece of evidence on this, and not "the CIA is investigating" propaganda.

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3


but really as i stated before its a big excuse. they will attack for any reason they can find. this is just ht first one that pops up. if bin laden was really the man he says he is he woudl have never blown up the WTC and he would have dposed saddam a long time ago...

-GTi-VR6_A3

These are not "excuses", these are the reasons why they hate the US so passionately. The term Evil Empire is thrown around quite a lot in those circles, and with damned good reason.

The only "evidence" that Bin Laden had anything to do with those attacks was that one video tape that was supposedly found in Afghanistan by US forces.

Here's a humourous article on it.

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/obl-video-makingof.html

These are not "excuses", these are the reasons why they hate the US so passionately. The term Evil Empire is thrown around quite a lot in those circles, and with damned good reason.

Cbass you are clearly ANTI AMERICAN, You must hate all Americans with a passion. Evil Empire? Something must have happened to cause you to feel this way.

The US is clearly not Evil and I depise anyone making such a statement.
I won't go into the thoughts of what your youth must be like to condemn the US and our people as being evil. I just hope you grow up soon. And God Forgive you should you ever come to Texas and say that.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i

. And God Forgive you should you ever come to Texas and say that.


pppphhhbbbtttt.............True I guess- but then again it's not as bad as going to Texas and saying that you're there to confiscate thier guns :rolleyes:

pppphhhbbbtttt.............True I guess- but then again it's not as bad as going to Texas and saying that you're there to confiscate thier guns


They can pry my guns from my cold dead hands LOL.
Texans are a breed different from anyone in the US much less the rest of the World. But considering the number of folks from the north US and Canada that spend the winters here we must not be all that bad.

Originally posted by Cbass


These are not "excuses", these are the reasons why they hate the US so passionately. The term Evil Empire is thrown around quite a lot in those circles, and with damned good reason.

The only "evidence" that Bin Laden had anything to do with those attacks was that one video tape that was supposedly found in Afghanistan by US forces.

Here's a humourous article on it.

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/obl-video-makingof.html

great site my friend. but really id believe that its funded at least by osama. i mean they are his operatives if you can call them that being its such a loose group of people. and the reasons they hate the us may be valid but they still have no good excuse to attack things liek emabassies and the wtc and the like. that is unjustified to the max for real yo.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Cbass


:huh: That's ludicrous... Find me ONE piece of evidence on this, and not "the CIA is investigating" propaganda.

They had aerial pictures and even had a name of the guy who ran it. They are now finding new evidence that Saddam gave money to Al-quieda martars families when they died.

Originally posted by Pick


Its not Amercian law, buddy. They are POW and tried to kill Americans, so they will be treated as they should be, as terrorists. You see, America is the only counry where innocent til proven guilty really matters. In international law, nobody cares. Well are they POWs or terrorists? In a war the Geneva Convention makes no distinctions as far as I'm aware between POWs and terrorists. One sides terrorist is another sides freedom fighter. So to correct you, in international law, POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
I think we'll all find out what his measure is worth within 14 days...Nuff said! It's been more than 14 days now, how is he measuring up?

Originally posted by T4 Primera
It's been more than 14 days now, how is he measuring up?

Now that he's passed the point of no return,he's starting to tell the truth.This is not going to be a swift and surgical operation to get rid of Saddam,a significant proportion of the Iraqi people don't want to be liberated,and he has no idea how long it will take or how many of his men will die in this operation.

Proof that Iraqi's support terrorism camps.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kso0

http://www.house.gov/markey/iss_nuclear_taskforce_ed011212.htm

Maybe New Zealand does not go to war with anybody because they know that their nation has one of the smallest populations in the world and that they would recieve a serious ass stomping if they did. I can guarentee one thing though that if another country made aggressions toward New Zealand like the Japanese were trying to do in WWII the you would be happy as shit that we would get in to it on your behalf.

Originally posted by tomlong
Maybe New Zealand does not go to war with anybody because they know that their nation has one of the smallest populations in the world and that they would recieve a serious ass stomping if they did. I can guarentee one thing though that if another country made aggressions toward New Zealand like the Japanese were trying to do in WWII the you would be happy as shit that we would get in to it on your behalf. And your post is in response to what?!? Or did you just feel the need to lecture us on why we should be forever grateful to the US and how insignificant you consider other countries to be.

And speaking of aggressions - when did Iraq make aggressions towards the US and UK? In fact, when did they make agressions towards anybody at all since the Gulf War?