Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: Bush's speech - 10/7

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    32
    Well, I do not know exactly why Russia is against a war but I am pretty sure that Germany has other reasons. On the 22nd of September there were elections and Mr. Schröder was pretty much concerned about his victory so he made the promise not to go to war against Iraq. Under no circumstances. I think that this promise made him win the elections and now, he can not go back without losing his face. In Europe, everybody thinks it was just because of the elections (as far as I know). I am anxious to the further development of the relations between Germany and the States on one side and Germany and the EU on the other.

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    7
    creating, training and financing terrorisem....

    "patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword..." but when friend of yours die from bomb made with the help of Iraq its not patriotism any more...

    again this is certainly not the place for politics...

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    No need to worry about whether or not this is the place for politics...we're in Cosmos now

    Between 1991 and 1998, UN weapon inspectors did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament: every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of weapons and agents produced by Iraq were destroyed.

    Now, let's see... Say Iraq still has some chemical agents produced prior to 1990. By now, all of these products would have degraded (with the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agents degrade within five years).

    Biological agents are neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. The 1994-1998 UN monitoring inspections never found any evidence of reconstituting the capability of manufacturing biological agents.

    To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

    And that's what it's all about... First off, let's not forget that it were the United States who ordered the weapons inspectors out back in 1998 (48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox). Operation Desert Fox did not have the support of the UN security Council btw.

    Then, the real question: did Iraq start producing mass-destruction weapons since December 1998?
    I still have to see the evidence for that.

    Iraq doesn't have the tens of millions of dollars required to rebuild the infrastructure. It didn't have them in 1998, it doesn't have them now. The economic sanctions against Iraq prevent that. The Gulf War has bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age.

    Some American officials brought up the case of the Al Samoud-missiles Iraq is developing. First off, that is not illegal. Iraq is allowed to do that. Al Samoud is not a mass-destruction missile, it's a low-range (max. 150km) tactical battlefield missile. They are allowed to develop that. Secondly, they never succeeded to get the missile to actually fly. They simply don't have the means necessary to develop a low-range missile, let alone a long-range one...

    There's only one reasonable decision: lift the economical sanctions against the PEOPLE of IRaq. That involves taking the risk that Iraq might start developing mass-destruction weapons with the money. Therefore, weapons inspectors must get full access to all facilities.

    But wait... isn't that the UN's proposal? Isn't that what Hussein is prepared to do?

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    7
    i wish that uright....
    but non-conventional weapons r not his only way of going mad...
    lets just say no to war and yes to...
    [gloworange]The sun is shining the weather is sweet
    Make you wanna move those dancing feet
    When the morning, your another rainbow,
    Want you to know I\'am a rainbow to.[/gloworange]

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    310
    If the problem was Saddam himself, it would be sufficient to kill him. But you do not have to start a war just to kill one person. I do not believe that 3/4 of the population of the Iraq would remove Saddam as it was stated by gghornet. Otherwise it would be easy to reform that country.
    Unfortunately it's not so easy to send a sniper or two into a hostile country,pop off a guy with body doubles and bunkers that go as far underground as most skyscrapers go above ground.And just because the Iraqi people are opposed to Saddams regime doesn't make it easy to reform the country.Iraq,along with most Arabs doesn't like the US,therefore the resistance factions are not likely to cooperate.Even if they did they wouldn't be trustworthy,which we learned the hard way in Afghanistan,when we trusted some warlords to help us contain Bin Laden and they let him through for a bribe.

    I'm not doubting the credibility of Mr. Bush (I haven't had reason to yet), but I wish that he would offer up a show of the intelligence he is using to base his decisions.
    The problem with this is,when you reveal the intelligence under review,you are narrowing the field for Iraq to figure out who the informants/spys are.If you have closeup pictures of a particular weapons facility then it's logical to deduce the person that took those pictures was in that area during a given period of time,therefore that person likely had permission to be in that area.Eventually given enough data they're going to be able to pin the leak on somebody,and then we have a bigger problem then not releasing the intel to the citizens of the US/Britain,because there won't be any more intel to release when all sources in Iraq are executed.

    Am also an ANTI WAR people I haven't heard about Mr. Bush speech but what im pointing is that Iraq haven't done anything yet!!!! so there no way to panic if they didn't allow the US inspector maybe becoz they must follow the rules first before permiting the uUS Inspector and just follow what UN organization say's PEACE !!!!!!!!!
    Iraq hasn't done anything yet???What?What hasn't Iraq done.Obviously going through the red tape of the UN isn't the answer,because every single time Saddam blows off their sanctions they just look the other way.It's has about as much of a point as this forum.It makes for very good conversation,but it sure as hell isn't getting anything done.What rules are you talking about that they must follow before letting inspectors in?The ones that they've had years to get accomplished and didn't?The ones that Saddam violates over and over with no consequence?

  6. #26
    You know what I think? BOMB THEM ALL!!:;@'~#{}}{

  7. #27
    I'm not for the option of war, but I'm not hostile to the idea either.

    I don't believe the president has exercised all his other options, and is rushing into war with Iraq far too quickly. This country does not have the support we need (from other countries) to go through with a full war; the president is STILL working on that. Yet he wants it all to happen now.

    That's Bush for ya

    War should be our last choice, not the first one.

    Take care

    ::Chelle::

  8. #28
    Senior Member roswell1329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    670
    The problem with this is,when you reveal the intelligence under review,you are narrowing the field for Iraq to figure out who the informants/spys are.If you have closeup pictures of a particular weapons facility then it's logical to deduce the person that took those pictures was in that area during a given period of time,therefore that person likely had permission to be in that area.Eventually given enough data they're going to be able to pin the leak on somebody,and then we have a bigger problem then not releasing the intel to the citizens of the US/Britain,because there won't be any more intel to release when all sources in Iraq are executed.
    I agree with you gghornet about the dangers of releasing sensitive information (and how it can be deadly to informants), but immediately after the speech on CNN, Connie Chung spoke with a Representative (Mike Thompson, California - District 1) who said that Congress hadn't seen this evidence either. Congress needs to know these things. Congress needs to be involved in this decision. I am sure the President can find enough ways to circumvent the current legislation concerning war, but I would be MUCH happier if both Legislative and Executive branches were gung ho on this one, and only if Congress is basing their decisions on solid factual evidence. Bush's appeal to the court of public opinion last night was tainted with images of mushroom clouds and rhetoric. We the people become outraged, and threaten our Congressmen to vote for war or get out of Congress. I want to know if the current support in Congress for the President is based on factual knowledge of Iraq's capabilities, or the word of the Chief Executive. I don't need to know what the facts are, just that there is evidence they are working from.

    I'll submit that there may be some evidence that is too sensitive to admit exists to the American people, but then why are we hearing Congressmen (Mike Thompson, House Armed Services Committee) complain that they haven't seen anything to support the current action? That's all I want to know. The main reason I'm skeptical, is that Bush has enough motive to want this war without any evidence of imminent threat: Finish what dad started, protect a region vital to the US economy for oil (this one's another thread altogether), continue "war on terrorism" campaign, etc. I would think because of this reason alone, he would be more willing to reveal the existence of evidence proving his case. I haven't seen that willingness.
    /* You are not expected to understand this. */

  9. #29
    Deceased x acidreign x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    455
    Originally posted here by er0k
    all i have to say is nuke u ler.... herm nuke u ler... herm nuke u ler.... i always thought it was nuke lee er..... illiterate scum.
    laugh laugh, i was screaming that at the TV all night.

    I'm all over the place on this one... I don't want to let him keep doing what he's doing, but war didn't do the job last time, and I doubt it would this time. I think Saddam Hussein will be the one to kill Saddam Hussein. If history has taught us nothing it has taught us that people don't let heartless dictators die of old age. His own people will be the end of him, and when that happens, guess who will be there with the money to build a functioning government?
    :q :q! :wq :w :w! :wq! :quit :quit! :help help helpquit quit quithelp :quitplease :quitnow :leave :**** ^X^C ^C ^D ^Z ^Q QUITDAMMIT ^[:wq GCS,M);d@;p;c++;l++;u ++ ;e+ ;m++(---) ;s+/+ ;n- ;h* ;f+(--) ;!g ;w+(-) ;t- ;r+(-) ;y+(**)

  10. #30
    er0k
    Guest
    erm pakistan isnt near as much a threat. not with iraq trading chemical weapons back and forth to russia. as of now there is a chemical stockpile the US knows of but cannot locate in Russia. Apprently they have seen picures, and say that the never gas contained in the small foot or so long capsules is enough to wipe out a hundred thousand ppl. this is there SMALL supply. imagine somethin as large as a car holding chemical agents, this is the power iraq has if russia continues to comply with them. russia is much more dangerous. pakistan has a hard enough time keeping a country together, much less invading someone as large as the U.S.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •