Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: jahawkin
OK, if we knew where the trucks were, why didn't we relay the position to UN inspectors??Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: exp
If audio intercepts, satellite imagery and eye-witness testimony no longer qualifies as evidence then the word "evidence" should be removed from the dictionary, as it clearly has lost all meaning.
With the satellite images, we saw some trucks leaving some facility, yet we have no idea where they went......Something sounds a bit fishy.
we, as the general public don't know where they went, that doesn't mean the experts don't. Why tip off the Iraqi's that we know where they moved it, so they can move it again? In the event of war, you can bet the last place that intelligence had that stuff moved to would most likely be a target. Our satellites are a lot more capable that what we are shown
well, just for pure speculation, it probably takes many days or even weeks to analyze the satellite imagery. That's why the UN wants the real-time surveillance of the U2's to assist inspectors
Where was the hue and cry from the anti-war hypocrits during the 24/7 bombing of Serbia.If there is an autrocity being committed and If the US can resonably expect to stop it, then the US should act.
Originally posted by: Bluga
Wow just because there's a truck means there must be biological weapon inside.
Very smart and logical!!
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
As for Iraq; the war isn't about oil. As much as liberals would love to make it sound like it is, it really isn't. Removing Saddam accomplishes a few key goals for the United States. (1) the chance of Al-Queda obtaining a WMD is substantially reduced. (2) Saddam is a threat to his neighbors and peace in the middle east. His removal (and a settlement in Israel) may help move the region toward stability. (3) Some feel the US has a moral obligation to liberate the people from Saddam. Don't be confused between US propeganda and facts. Saddam is a dictator. He has slaughtered many of his own people, and continues to repress them quite severly. Morally, the US is following an policy established by the Clinton administration (largly through trial and error) called the If, If, Then scenario. The tenets of the rule go like this:
If there is an autrocity being committed and If the US can resonably expect to stop it, then the US should act.
plus the satellite images were taken in the middle of last year before the UN inspections started.
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Yes, and the IAEA still contends that the tubes are not for a centrafuge. They have no evidence to conclude that it was for nuclear purposes.
Yet it was presented as if it ONLY had a nuclear purpose. This does not make for a good case.
Originally posted by: exp
I think the war is about sand. Iraq sure has a ton of sand, don't it?
Mmm...sweet, golden sand. *rubs hands together and cackles maniacally*
This so called 'strong' evidence doesn't seem enough to me as serving as the foundation for another bloody war fought by the US. I must remind you that over 100k Iraquis died in the last Gulf War and that many more have suffered (and died) due to the embargo. I know that Saddam is an SOB but if it wasn't for the 500 million dollars that the US gave him every year of the 1980's he wouldn't lasted to invade Kuwait, if it wasn't for the chemical and biological weapons that american companies provided to Saddam he wouldn't had use them against iranians and kurds (speaking about kurds what is the opinion of the ATOT crowd about the way that Turkey handles this minority?).
Originally posted by: rickn
This so called 'strong' evidence doesn't seem enough to me as serving as the foundation for another bloody war fought by the US. I must remind you that over 100k Iraquis died in the last Gulf War and that many more have suffered (and died) due to the embargo. I know that Saddam is an SOB but if it wasn't for the 500 million dollars that the US gave him every year of the 1980's he wouldn't lasted to invade Kuwait, if it wasn't for the chemical and biological weapons that american companies provided to Saddam he wouldn't had use them against iranians and kurds (speaking about kurds what is the opinion of the ATOT crowd about the way that Turkey handles this minority?).
Iraq was the aggressor and invaded another country, their casualty count is irrelevant. He invaded Kuwait to get it's oil and to wipe out the debt he owed them, or so he thought. During the Iran-Iraq war approx 500,000 Iranians died and 125-150,000 iraqi's. US companies were not the only suppliers. France, Germany, Russia, were all supporters of Saddam, so don't go laying all the blame for his evil-doings on the US.
Originally posted by: nagger
as a resident of a EU country that has a PM that signed the Letter of 8 European Leaders I have to say this:
- I've heard the entire speech by Mr. Powell today at the UN and I'm getting less and less convinced that this war on Iraq has anything to do with WMD, links to Al-Qaeda, torturing and murdering is own people by Saddam. It seems to me that this is a way the US can go to get himself rid off the dependency of Saudi oil. If you read the news of the 19 hijackers from 911 the majority were saudis. Vast sums of saudi money have been transfered from the US back to Saudi Arabia. The political parties in Saudi Arabia are getting more fundamentalists as each year passes, so the only way the US can pass without Saudi oil is to grab one of the worlds greatest oil reserves.
- This so called 'strong' evidence doesn't seem enough to me as serving as the foundation for another bloody war fought by the US. I must remind you that over 100k Iraquis died in the last Gulf War and that many more have suffered (and died) due to the embargo. I know that Saddam is an SOB but if it wasn't for the 500 million dollars that the US gave him every year of the 1980's he wouldn't lasted to invade Kuwait, if it wasn't for the chemical and biological weapons that american companies provided to Saddam he wouldn't had use them against iranians and kurds (speaking about kurds what is the opinion of the ATOT crowd about the way that Turkey handles this minority?).
I know that some of the forum members will think that I'm a troll and that I should be expelled from this planet because I don't agree with american foreign policy. I'm not one of those anti-americans that some of you guys like bash day in and day out and if I was would you think that I would spend time surfing these forums, or being a member of this forums' Distributed Computing Team, I also would not have a PC because every part inside is made by an american company.
I live in a democratic country where we have freedom of speech, and I had a teacher in high school that told me that democracy exists so one can listen even what we don't like to hear.
Of course. Why do you think I want it? First I'm going to build myself a gigantic sandcastle to live in, and then a fuel-efficient sandcar to commute to and from work, and then sandpatties to feed my family until the next unjust American war. And then finally I'm going to sell the remaining sand to glassmakers. It's all quite ingenious, I assure you.Melt the sand and you get glass.
Originally posted by: nagger
Originally posted by: rickn
This so called 'strong' evidence doesn't seem enough to me as serving as the foundation for another bloody war fought by the US. I must remind you that over 100k Iraquis died in the last Gulf War and that many more have suffered (and died) due to the embargo. I know that Saddam is an SOB but if it wasn't for the 500 million dollars that the US gave him every year of the 1980's he wouldn't lasted to invade Kuwait, if it wasn't for the chemical and biological weapons that american companies provided to Saddam he wouldn't had use them against iranians and kurds (speaking about kurds what is the opinion of the ATOT crowd about the way that Turkey handles this minority?).
Iraq was the aggressor and invaded another country, their casualty count is irrelevant. He invaded Kuwait to get it's oil and to wipe out the debt he owed them, or so he thought. During the Iran-Iraq war approx 500,000 Iranians died and 125-150,000 iraqi's. US companies were not the only suppliers. France, Germany, Russia, were all supporters of Saddam, so don't go laying all the blame for his evil-doings on the US.
rickn,
From what I've heard it isn't France, Germany or Russia that want to start a war with Iraq.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
Man I hope they blow up Portugal. If that is what it takes for you to understand...
Here it is. Your nation has absolutely NO way of knowing. Damn near all of the EU has absolutely no methods for finding these things. Guess what? We do. We show you. You, with no way of refuting, call us liars.
Originally posted by: Electrode
I still don't really get what Bush is up to. If he wants to invade Iraq and take their oil so badly, why can't he wait for the inspections to finish, so that he will have justification for war, and no one will complain? Why is he now making up sh!t that no one in their right mind will believe, thus ensuring he has no credibility?
Originally posted by: tbates757
Originally posted by: Electrode
I still don't really get what Bush is up to. If he wants to invade Iraq and take their oil so badly, why can't he wait for the inspections to finish, so that he will have justification for war, and no one will complain? Why is he now making up sh!t that no one in their right mind will believe, thus ensuring he has no credibility?
The US isn't going to "take" anybodys oil, it will belong to the post-Saddam regime. *ignoramus* *cough*
Originally posted by: nagger
as a resident of a EU country that has a PM that signed the Letter of 8 European Leaders I have to say this:
- I've heard the entire speech by Mr. Powell today at the UN and I'm getting less and less convinced that this war on Iraq has anything to do with WMD, links to Al-Qaeda, torturing and murdering is own people by Saddam. It seems to me that this is a way the US can go to get himself rid off the dependency of Saudi oil. If you read the news of the 19 hijackers from 911 the majority were saudis. Vast sums of saudi money have been transfered from the US back to Saudi Arabia. The political parties in Saudi Arabia are getting more fundamentalists as each year passes, so the only way the US can pass without Saudi oil is to grab one of the worlds greatest oil reserves.
- This so called 'strong' evidence doesn't seem enough to me as serving as the foundation for another bloody war fought by the US. I must remind you that over 100k Iraquis died in the last Gulf War and that many more have suffered (and died) due to the embargo. I know that Saddam is an SOB but if it wasn't for the 500 million dollars that the US gave him every year of the 1980's he wouldn't lasted to invade Kuwait, if it wasn't for the chemical and biological weapons that american companies provided to Saddam he wouldn't had use them against iranians and kurds (speaking about kurds what is the opinion of the ATOT crowd about the way that Turkey handles this minority?).
I know that some of the forum members will think that I'm a troll and that I should be expelled from this planet because I don't agree with american foreign policy. I'm not one of those anti-americans that some of you guys like bash day in and day out and if I was would you think that I would spend time surfing these forums, or being a member of this forums' Distributed Computing Team, I also would not have a PC because every part inside is made by an american company.
I live in a democratic country where we have freedom of speech, and I had a teacher in high school that told me that democracy exists so one can listen even what we don't like to hear.