Oh crap, I bolded the entire post sorry about that I still suck at html. Only one sentence was supposed to be in bold. Anyway surge, read DocT’s post. The thing you keep missing is that Iraq surrendered to the US/UN and agreed to disarm etc, etc… In order to avoid having Baghdad overrun and Sadaam taken out of power. Now Sadaam is still playing his stupid little evasion games, and kicked the inspectors out in 1998. Unfortunately Clinton chose to ignore the problem because he couldn’t run for office again anyway so he was like “F*** it, I’ll leave that problem for the next president”. Now Bush looks like he is continuing his daddies war or some crap like that and he very well may be. Personally I don’t care what Bush’s motives are, I just hate Sadaam and everything he stands for and he has provided the US/UN with the enough excuse to take him out of power. I feel that the US has been more than fair and patient with Iraq and it’s time to just put our foot down. As far as the fact that other countries are just as bad or worse than Iraq, yah we know but we have more justification to go after Iraq considering our past interactions with them. In addition, you have to start somewhere and Iraq is a good start. Of course the global politics involved are more complex than that and yah, other countries are in violation of UN policies that they agreed to but not in the same way that Iraq is. Iraq lost a war and agreed to follow the UN sanctions in order to end the war, the other countries didn’t so we have to use different diplomatic approaches with them. Anyway, sorry you were offended that I thought you were ignorant, it’s just that you keep ignoring certain statements repeatedly and I am starting to wonder if you are all right in the head. That last sentance will probably offend you too so I will apologize in advance. Sorry, sorry, blah, blah, balah.
Thanks Stella –
When one lives in an environment like Massachusetts and have libertarian/conservative views such as mine, one gets lots of practice analyzing and articulating. I’m sure you understand if you’re in the Bay Area. =-)
BB–
You’re welcome!
I’m only working in SF. I’m really based out of Fairfax, VA. 
And I believe that we should just bomb Iraq and get it over with. The whole dragging it out is worse.
But to mess w/ the people in SF, I always tell them that I’m a very liberal Republican (or very conservative Democrat, depending on what they say they are), and it really confuses them. wink
Surge for your information the al-samoud missiles are ban by Hans Blix the UN chief inspector…
Not the United States…
Anways they seem to only destory 2 at a time or something like that so they destoryed I think 10 so far…
The UN is a f*cking joke!!!
So is france and germany. Now the real reason why France and Germany doesn’t want war is because they trade w/ Iraq and they lose millions of dollars in trade… Its all politcal BS.
Now why is Iraq compling to the UN now is be cause the US practicly got a gun to its head. That all no if ands or buts… enuff said about this… BOMBS AWAY I SAY!!!
Say:
An admitted Communist? We sure know how well that form of government works.
The evidence presented is indisputable. There is no such thing as an unannounced visit by the inspectors. No matter how hard they try, they are being followed, bugged, spied on, etc.
There is a reason Bush increased spending on defense. Clinton so severely depleted the defense of the United States that it put us in grave danger. He is just bringing back to where it should be.
And talk about bringing other countries to their feet? No other country in the world has done more to help third world countries than the United States. When it comes to turmoil and starvation, the United States is always there. Somalia, Haiti, Ethiopia, Bosnia, just to name a small few. The United States has even helped those who are against the U.S. now, and continues to assist them. The 6% are supporting the other 94%.
Just a quick note to those who think that the U.S. is somehow abandoning the war on terror because the U.S. hasn’t yet produced Osama bin Laden (who many believe is dead anyway), or who buy in to the whole argument that the U.S. cannot pursue Iraq and the war on terror simultaneously. The capture of the “Brain” of the al Queda network, military chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, along with numerous documents and several laptop computers, was surely a coup. Additionally, the U.S. has recently captured other dangerous al Queda members, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole bombing), Ramzi Binalshibh (a key 9/11 planner), Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi (also involved in the Cole bombing, killed in Yemen) and Abu Zubaydah (an important al Qaeda operational commander).
It is hard to come up with solid metrics for measuring success in the war on terrorism, but bringing in the bad guys is definitely one of them. It makes good on the president’s promise relentlessly to hunt down the enemies of the civilized world, and makes critics who say the U.S. has made no such progress look uninformed and opportunistic. Additionally, all these captures were effected while we have been gearing up for the possible conflict with Iraq.
On another, tertiary note, I wanted to point out how amusing it is to examine the countries that are threatening to use their vetoes on the U.N. Security counsel to block a resolution favoring action in Iraq. Firstly, I don’t recall the Russians asking anyone’s permission to beat the hell out of the Chechens. Secondly, I don’t recall the French asking anyone’s permission to go insert themselves militarily into the mess in Eastern Africa. It’s amazing that the U.S. is painted as the bad guy for actually attempting to work through the U.N. system – I guess the U.S. and its allies are just being “unilateral” again…
I think people are starting to catch on to Bush’s bullshit. There was an Associated Press article in the local paper where Bush said once again that Iraq must disarm, the article said “without saying what specifically that means.” Wouldn’t it be easier for Iraq to disarm if they knew what exactly Bush wanted them to destroy? & I don’t just mean WMD, but what kind of WMD, where to find it, etc.
Say, your arguments are getting tired.
The terms of disarmament are clear and are part of the cease fire document signed by Iraq at the conclusion of the Gulf War.
Just because you and the AP doesn’t know exactly what those terms are doesn’t mean that there aren’t any.
Your arguments are weak as hell.
I aint gonna get drawn into this but
George Bush is an imbecile.
He tries to link Sept 11 to Iraq,he’s just trying to be popular with the US citizens and talking tough like they do in those films that he watches ( somebody has to explain to him whats happening though).It works yes he’s winning votes he’s gonna keep getting paid
War on terrorism right where was (US President) when IRA where continually using acts of terrorism in the British ISLES.
How come George Bush senior said he would back a Kurdish Coup after the gulf war and then backed down at the last minute?
No I am not aginst the War But I think Osama should be found first.
Then Deal with Saddam.
And speak the truth MR Bush instead of pretending you are in a film every time you make a televised speech
There is more to this than we know. I would say we don’t know the vast majority of what is going on, so we are speculating a great deal. Also, popular opinion has little to do with what will happen. I am not for or against war, but the anti-war people sound really duumb. I think we should bomb the targets with the human-shields first. We can rid our world of some stupidity in the mean time. Bush’s dumb mistake was asking for permission and trying to stroke the world’s pennis. We should have bombed them, over taken them, and then ask for forgivness for not telling the world first.
Personally I am more worried about the “war on freedom” right here at home. Now they want to implement background checks for eveybody who puchases a plane ticket. Then they will assign you a terror theat level. I am sorry, I thought this was the USA, not the Soviet Union. People like to call the trouncing of personal right’s and civil liberties as “secirity”. “If you have not done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.” is what the pro-violation-of-my-fucking rights people say. Yet, they would kick my ass if I started going through thier desk, or looking at their credit card statments. Ben Franklin said it best “Those who prefer security over freedom deserve niether” . Amen, Ben , Amen. Somebody has wiped thier ass with the Constitution, and we let it happen. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Very ashamed. We tolerate this shit and we say nothing, we actually cheer it (Well I don’t). WE want to ban things and take things from other people that annoy us, so then we have more laws, then more shit annoys us so we make even more laws, or we tax the shit out of it. Next thing you know you’ll need a permit to take a shit.I will finish with this capitazlized angry statement. THE DEPT. OF HOME LAND SECURITY CAN SUCK MY WHOLE, ENTIRE, COMPLETE, HEAD-TO-RIM, PIMPLY, UNWASHED,SMELLY DICK!
MAN! whats with this? OK Lets get this all straight. Iraq tried to steal another country over a dacade ago, a criminal act. The world community ( the U.N.) condemned this act of aggression and so we all got together and kicked their ass back to Iraq. We have a cease fire agreement to stop the war. Ok so then the U.N. Set sanctions ( laws ) that iraq has to follow. Stuff like human rights and weapons limitations. OK now we are here over a decade later and this criminal nation is still violating the U.N. sanctions. Now this is what gets me, every country voted these sanctions in an none of these spineless countries are willing to inforce it. Now finally we have a world leader that has the balls to enforce the laws and make these murdering bastards pay. Yet we have a lot of whining sniveling bastards here that just make me want to tear their heads off. I will not wait for them to get over here to kill my and your children. Remember they started this, we will finish it. I dont know about you but I don’t cry when a criminal gets punished.
Random Observation:
G-Man, you have got to be kidding me – I mean, I know everyone likes to recycle all the old arguments, regardless of applicability (see the whole blood-for-oil thing above), but you’re not really going to use the old criticism of Reagan for being an actor against George W. Bush are you? Seriously, doesn’t anyone have anything new and substantive to add? I’m getting tired of reading all the socialist critiques of the 80s regurgitated…
Hey speaking of tired of arguments, how about the vague one sayng that Iraq hasnt disarmed? The USA is making all these claims, yet hasn’t offered the tiniest shred of evidence that might prove beyone a shadow of doubt that’s the case. I thought that according to the Nuremburg judgement, an unprovoked attack on another country (a crippled 3rd-world country no less) is a supreme war crime. Furthur, Article 4 of the UN Charter says (look it up if you think I’m just being stupid): “All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Both Iraq & the USA are members, yet the USA has threated invasion, overthrow of their regime & assassination of their leader. I’m just blown away by people who think the USA has huge balls because they’re going after a country which is in no position to defend itself & doesn’t really even have the means to fly over its no-fly zones. But they have refused the US demands to privatize the oil industry. Let me guess, I’m stupid, right? But why? Could any of you even back up that claim?
Sigh…
Say, you’d say anything to be negative about this administration and its policies, wouldn’t you?
The FACTS of the situation are clear. A war was fought 12 years ago. Iraq invaded a small, defenseless country (since you like defenseless countries). Iraq was subsequently defeated in a war with conditions of the cease fire being a very specific set of rules for disarmament. Iraq has violated those rules repeatedly. Just because it’s not broadcast on CNN for you to see doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened. Your right to know doesn’t mean shit in the real world of intelligence gathering. The consequences of this violation of the cease fire treaty are obvious and inevitable.
Guess what, Say? The CIA and the government might actually know a few MORE things they aren’t telling you on CNN. Imagine that!
consider yourself owned, say. just drop it, the arguments presented against you are sound in logic and difficult, if not impossible, to argue.
How am I owned?
have you not been reading the replies?
DocT - I agree. The ELINT that the CIA and other organizations have is far more accurate and detailed than what you see on CNN. The reason you don’t see it is that they don’t want to tip their hand and let the rest of the world know exactly what our capabilities are.
Come on guys. Leave Justin alone. He’s already admitted to being French. What more can you expect from him. Here are a couple of French quips a buddy of mine sent me:
Ross Perot said, “Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion.”
Why are French streets tree-lined? So the Germans can march in the shade.
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows. It’s
never been tried.
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The army.
How many gears does a French tank have?
Five, four in reverse and one forward (in case of attack from behind).
FOR SALE: French rifles . . .never fired, only dropped once.
Dennis Miller specializes in anti-French humor. “The only way the French
are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in Iraq,” Miller says.
“The French are always reticent to surrender to the wishes of their
friends and always more than willing to surrender to the wishes of their
enemies.”
That last one is more than a joke. It’s shrewd commentary. It captures
why the French make such poor allies. When they pulled out of NATO 40
years ago and declared Americans must close down their bases in France,
Secretary of State Dean Rusk had a bitterly caustic response: “Should we
dig up the graves of American soldiers in Normandy, too, and take them
home?” - No French answer was recorded.