Good for him. He has no power in the democratic party, he won't make it past the primary.

Biden is actually pretty pro war with Iraq. I've heard a lot from him living near Delaware, but I think he's slowly moving down the party line.

As for a pre-emtive nuclear strike, well thats just silly. America does not want to open that Pandora's Box again like they did in WW2 that led to a 50 year cold war.

I am all for overthrowing Saddam, and we should soon. The fact that the world seems to trust Iraq over the US absolutely boggles my mind. Saddam is evil, and I do not use that term lightly. There is often a philisophical debate over wheher or not you would kill Hitler before he became a world threat. Well, now we have that chance, and the fact that much of the rest of the world can't see that is astounding.

The Strangler and Gekko, the 2 mega pro-americans of the boards. Geez guys you seem to know so much about everything, let me ask you, do you guys work for the FBI, CIA or at the white house or something? :rolleyes:

No, I actually pay attention to history and try to learn from past mistakes. Its a good idea and I think you should look into it.

But then again you also believe we should keep a maniac in power of a country who beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. I don't even have to go into it anymore its been said so often on this forum.

Ranzid, could you please give me one reason that Saddam should be allowed to keep his office? I mean, God knows all the diplomatic solutions have been working so well...:rolleyes:

Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.

Re: Re: Re: Saddam bodyguard fled. Good man!
 

Mind pointing out where? I still haven't seen it on CNN or FoxNews, and this seems like it would be huge news.

Ranzid, I'm not pro-mega-american, but even I can see the sense in getting rid of this lunatic (Saddam). Do you really think that this nut building up deadly weapons is a safe thing for the world? If Saddam had nukes at his disposal, I truly believe he would not hesitate to use them on the US or any other of his percieved enemies. What makes you think he wouldn't? Wouldn't you call that a direct threat? The oil thing has been blown out of proportion, I think. Iraq is involved in only 5% of the worlds oil exports, nothing that impressive, and we are not on terms with then now. It seems you are more angry that there might be SOMETHING beneficial in it for the US. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual :cool:

No, Department of Homeland Security ;) :usa:

Now, time for my speech:

We're all communicating through the internet, at one point referred to as the Information Superhighway. Everything you want to know is right at your fingertips, and searchable. You can quickly and easily find information on any topic. If you don't know about a subject, research it. It's that simple.

As for me, I watch a lot of news channels, which cover the current events every day. For the bigger issues, multiple shows usually bring on people and address the issues from multiple sides. As for Iraq, the Discovery Channel had a 3 hour special on it the other day. If you watch stuff like this, you tend to learn something. After months and years of watching news, you tend to be a little more informed than someone like, well... Ranzid.

It's just so impossible for someone to do a good thing, isn't it? God forbid we learned a lesson from WWII and September 11th, and want to stop this threat now, before he attacks.

Your problem is that you hate Bush, and you're spewing your propaganda hoping that other people side with you. The thing is, you have no way to back up your claims, because you can't. You're completely uninformed on the subject, and it shows. You also hate Bush, and likely America, and that shows. You can be mega anti-American, but you just come off as a fool.

It appeared in the Herald Sun, Aussie's best-selling newspaper. I doubt this author would risk his career by making up something like this. But feel free to doubt it, just wait and see if it plays out.

Ranzid:

Let's set aside for the moment the fact that you don't really know why the Bush administration wants to go to war so much. Maybe it's the oil. Maybe it's because Bush wants to finish his daddy's job. Maybe he really does believe that this would be better for the world. The point is you aren't Bush. You're not even Condoleeza Rice. There's no way you can say with any kind of certainty that Bush is in it for the oil.

Of course, this also applies to the theory about Bush entering the war to do some good for the world. We don't know that's the real reason although I suspect that The Strangler, with all his Discovery Channel watching, might be able to put together a reasonable argument.

That's all beside the point. We don't know why the Bush administration wants to go to war. So what? Why should we care anyway? Maybe we should be worrying more about what going to war will do. If the world ends up being a better place once the war is over, does it really matter why Bush went to war with Iraq?

After all, Microsoft entered the videogame industry for the basest of reasons: make money and try to take over a lucrative industry. But they still got their two competitors hopping, slashing prices, putting out creative games and so on. I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch, but even I can appreciate the good things that have happened for the consumer (i.e. me) as a result.

What do you want him to do? Invade north america :rolleyes:

Lauch a nuke? He has none!

What else? Terrorism? I really don't think that attacking Iraq will diminish the threat of a terrorist attack on the US, I think it will increase it.


Oh come on! We're only discussing here. Do you really think that I want to change the world on a discussion forum :rolleyes:

I may not know as much as you but I know what an ordinary person would know, and that is enough to have an opinion. We are not all freaks like you.

Ok man, stop dissing me, we get your point.

And such important news wouldn't appear on CNN but it would over there... :rolleyes:

I think its a little out of column A and a lot out of column B. In either case, its a justifiable course of action.

So by your rationale, the US shouldn't attack Iraq if they are a threat? I think you just argued my point for me :D

And Ranzid, you drill people about not backing upo their opinions, what facts do you have to prove that Iraq DOESN'T have a Nuke. You strike me as naive in that case. Iraq ordered several tons of aluminum dust from North Korea and that has been documented. Aluminum dust is crucial in the development of Nuclear materials. Do your homework.

First off: Strangler, I respect your arguement, your tone, and your passion for this topic. You're giving the right facts and responses... If it was only you speaking for the pro-war, this thread would be over by now.



What you just claimed tries to exaggerate the American stereotype. Rather, though, your deep-seated bias has uncovered a certain Canadian stereotype. *shrugs* As much as I try to ignore the two, I can’t help but cringe when they are so blatantly displayed.

“What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.”

The old, “I’m going to be pissed at Americans because I believe they live only for themselves, while I’m over in an adjacent country that’s ABSOLUTELY PERFECT,” mindset. Of course, oil is a consideration, but by no means reason enough for war. The United States has Alaska, which remains vastly untapped. There are other various resources for oil.

And… try looking at the oil situation in relation to this… See, back when China was defeated by Japan, the country was split up into the “Spheres of Influence”. That is, China was partially under control by many other countries… similar to what might happen if Iraq where to take conquer the Middle East. After the war, the States requested that no commercial trade would be interfered with between China and other countries. Perhaps this doesn’t make much of an example, but realize that… despite the United States’ desire for maintaining economic health, its success does benefit the progress of the rest of the world. Dare you misinterpret…



“BTW I don't think they are suffering that much”

Aaagh, just because you don’t want to believe the US Government, you’ll toss all reason and empathy for other humans aside. I can’t imagine a single civilian in a Third-World Country is suffering enough under a tyrant’s sadistic iron fist to make a pure enough excuse to overthrow the corrupt dictator. Well… at least, that is… the people can’t be suffering that much!


The United States of America was under attack on September 11, 2001… as if you haven’t heard it enough. And, because this country (despite its size) could feel enough emotion for those that had lost their innocent kin, the United States retaliated against a known enemy in hopes of preventing more “hurt”. Personally, I can’t imagine another country having the boldness to actually launch an entire “War on Terrorism”. Really, large skirmishes against known terrorist cells should have started long ago.

Now, Iraq has been known to be a threat for a long time. Originally, Iraq tried invading the small Kuwait, but the States prevented that action for more reasons than just maintaining “oil trade”. It just happens to be that economic freedom of Kuwait was a large priority, and that the United States happened to benefit primarily in oil, above other products from the Mid-East. What, should we have let Kuwait to be conquered just because “oil” is not reason enough to intervene?

The United States of America is going to be doing the world a favor… again. The US of A has already given masses of aid to various country, heavily improved the world economy, and grants the ever-so-popular free commerce and civil rights that many foreigners flock to this country for.

Apparently, you’re not respecting the good of America enough. Because you can’t see a positive direct relation between the States and yourself, it’s easy to assume that the country isn’t performing well enough. Before you make another preemptive impression of this country’s actions… and the validity that they are not “arrogant” or “selfish”, try to imagine the world as it would be without the United States’ influence. Canada sure would be different…


And to wrap things up, it matters not the motivations of Bush, nor your feelings toward what you see as a greedy government. Rather, what matters are the outcomes of both options that America has. Act upon reasonable assumptions, or sit back and retaliate after tha damage has been done.

Perhaps, with Saddam, he'll only need one chance.

.... let me put that in a simple way

So you say, the US are right to attack Iraq because of some bad things they might have done or they will do. It's hard for me to believe what the US has to say about bad thing done by Irak, because of things like this: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil...s-iraq-lie.html

I guess this story is true and since you are so well educated, that you have all heard of it before, right? That's why I only posted the 1st link to come in my search, there is ton of other references.

And if it's right to attack for future threat, then, it's the begining of a huge war, after Iraq, who will it be? Korea? and on and on... you'll end up blowing half the planet, don't you think?

I will stand on my point that the primary interest in this war is the control of the middle east oil.

Yet again, Ranzid fails to back up any of his claims.

And your link doesn't work, not like it's a good one, but I'm interested to see what propaganda you found.

The original link

some more links

Oh, the incubator story, back from 1990.

Ok fine, I'll give you that one even though it does come from a public geocities web address (that just screams credibility). How then do you respond the Iraqi rape camps in Kuwait during the occupation, the claims by Saddam's own mistress that he gains sexual pleasure from torturing prisoners, his attempted assassination of his own son, his gassing of his own people, the "disappearances" of "retired" public officials, his threats to use terrorism on the US, the fact that the majority of Iraqi refugees living in the US WANT to depose Saddam Hussein and many have established organizations to that effect (source: 60 Minutes), the fact his own people took up arms against him after the Gulf war and took a large portion of Southern Iraq before being crushed and more resulting "dissappearances".

I have asked you to give me a good reason why Saddam should be tolerated, and you have failed to give one. Good for you.

I'm not trying to prove Irak's innocence, I'm just telling you that if the US was able to do such a thing 10 years ago, that it's hard for me to believe anything they say about Iraq now, is that so hard to understand? And if you doubt the story (with the hundreds of links I just posted) than it proves me that you only listen to what you want to listen.

Why then if all of this is true, that the US did a set up story like that?

The story you quoted was from 1990. Not now. Check the dates.

Also, check any major news site now and see how you feel about the photos of mobile chemical and biological weapons facilities and recordings of Iraqi officials talking about removing evidence of "nerve agent".

And Iraq has still refused to provide any information on any of the chemical and biological agents that are STILL unaccounted for. Do you have any geocities websites that account for these "missing" items?

While you claim that I only hear what I want to hear, I contend that you are content to ignore any actual evidence of Iraq's weapons and bring up news thats 10 years old. You are going to be against the war no matter what evidence is found, because you will simply say that it was a "lie"and any information that you quote to back up your statements will be "fact". Hans Blix has repeatedly expressed his displeasure of Iraq's cooperation with the inspections and has even said that its "Five minutes to Midnight" for Iraq and is pleading with them to cooperate.

trying to measure what it will take to convince you that military action is needed in Iraq is irrelevant, because there is no amount of evidence that will sway your opinion.

Just do one thing for me, as I have asked repeatedly, and give me one good reason why a psychotic dictator like Saddam should remain in power, when even his own people who have escaped his country are the most adamant about his removal, and who is a direct threat to the US via supplying terrorist organizations with avenues to kill thousands if not tens of thousands. Just give me ONE GOOD REASON.

IT'S NOT YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!

LOL!!!!!

Ahhhhhhh, I love it.

If your reasons for keeping Iraq in power are none of our business, then the US's reasons for removing him are none of yours.

NEXT

Look, we can argue as long as we want, we won't change our idea on the subject. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The US is going to attack we all know that, what the result will be? That's to see. But if you guys stop after Irak, I'll be right (because you will have oil control in that region) but if you continue on with all the other countries that poses a threat, than you will be right. So the countdown begins.

You really are that naive.

Once again, only about 20% of US oil comes from the Middle East. Now how much do you suppose comes from Iraq? NONE. ITS CALLED SANCTIONS. We have plenty of places to get oil, we don't need Iraq. Plus, right now the US is one of the cheaper countries to get oil. I'm in Canada now and the price of gas is outrageous, and its even worse in Europe.

So if you are going to continue arguing your points on this thread, at least try and keep them moderately researched and intelligent instead of just trying to convince everyone that the US is only in this for oil. Oil is the least of our concerns when it comes to Iraq.

And I notice you still haven't contended any of my points I illustrated earlier. What do you think about the evidence Powell displayed against Iraq? Do you think those trucks were delivering MILK?

Humm are you sure?

I researched a bit to get some information about where the US takes its oil, but I didn't find much, do you have some good link about that? I also looked for where the oil is mostly produced. I think that Iraq is 2nd behind Saudi Arabia. But I saw that on 1 site, so i'm not sure. But to say what I just quoted is a little bit exaggerated I think.

I already told you what I think of what the US has to say about Iraq. The US credebility has taken a big hit with that incubator story of the early 90's. And why, if the US are able to film those mobile laboratories, that they can't guide the UN to them? As long as the UN hasn't confirmed those, I won't believe it.

Like I said earlier, we could argue as long as we can, it won't change our position on the subject, we have to wait and see. So the countdown continues.

Hmm... have you ever taken a minute out of your anti-America BS post to think? If we wanted Iraq's oil, we would've taken it long ago.

Thank God. Can you do this for your other claims too? Oh, and avoid Geocities, its not any credible information.


No, you're trying your very hardest to find a reason why you can not believe the US so you can pretend your argument has some basis, which it doesn't. The US credability didn't fall, only in your mind. And coming from someone who believes Iraq and Geocities over the US, you're not one to talk on credability.

You want the US to try to follow a couple semitrucks all over the country which look exactly like the thousands of others traveling of the exact same roads? Please tell me you're joking.

Don't kid yourself, once they prove that you'll claim it's a lie and look for some other reason to go against the US. Hans Blix's report proved a lot of the US claims to be true, and yet you continue to say it's all a lie. Give me a break.

Hmm, ended up clicking edit on your post, instead of quote. Sorry. So it's gone, you can repost it, all your replies are quoted.

Wow, you're an idiot. Guess we forgot Iraq already got their ass kicked. We didn't touch the oil. We must really want it :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying you're an idiot and don't understand the story.

Did it look like the pictures showed the trucks on the road? Have you even seen the pictures, or did you just listen to Iraq's response?

Oh ya, I'm the one running around saying Iraq is innocent and there people are happy and free, as the US and Britain is providing EVIDENCE proving what they are doing.

The fact is that you have used one 10 year old story which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current situation to try and make people ignore the mountain of evidence against Saddam, which i will not quote as I have quoted it numerous times and you have barely acknowledged. And you still refuse to answer ANY of my questions and continually ignore points that are made against you that you can't defend like they were never stated, which I find astounding.

Its hard to see when you keep a blindfold on, bud.

Your argument is less than weak. Its pathetic.

Stop playing with my posts

Well guess what? Hussein is still there, guess you haven't quite finished the job then.

Definitively a bigot

Ok so the states took those pictures before the UN arrived on site, so the trucks are not there anymore and there is no way of knowing where they are. Well thats a bummer, looks like your spy sattelite is not that effective afterall.

Absolutly nothing to do with the current situation? Yhea and Rocky 2 has nothing to do with Rocky 1 :rolleyes: And that story is the reason why I doubt the mountain of evidence against Saddam.

Which are?

Which are??? Are you kidding me? Try reading the thread. You're hopeless.