US just canceled UN vote, Bush to address nation at 8PM tonight

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NightTrain


If only there were more like him, eh?

"By any standard, this Iraq war is of no benefit to the United States of America, nor is it of any benefit to the commercial oil industry. So, for whose benefit does America wage this war? The answer is Israel, Israel, Israel! Radical Jewish supremacists in Israel launched this drive for war. Their agents all over the world, both in government and media, have been the real power behind this war."

Another Perspective: No War for Israel! by David Duke

Scary!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: cmdavid
this one?

no, not that one
or.. maybe, it was at least not on znet and it could very much have been 600 something instead of 1300 something

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,913590,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,915579,00.html
two other related articles

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: cmdavid
please.. "france was possibly accepting another 30 days.." thats bs and you know it.. they approved the resolution back in november basically backing military action in 45 days or whatever and then turn around and threaten to veto.. Bush is a smart man for not putting up with this crap from the UN any longer..
I don't care what the world thinks about this war with Iraq, Bush has to look out for what is best for his country and his people...

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: NFS4
Hopefully, the American people will remember this when it comes election time.

I know I will. Which is why I will vote for W again.

me too... he stuck to his word.. didnt let politics interfere with what he thinks is the best interest for his country....

Best interests for his country? What the F*&K is Saddam gonna do to us half way across the globe and with short range missles? Saddam may be an evil bastard, but he ain't no Bin Laden.

Don't be so naive. You think Bin Laden has more resources than Saddam? You think Saddam wouldn't use Bin Laden for their same common goal? COME ON! :frown:

I don't think he would before now. Saddam had no reason to f*&k with us for the past 12 years. Now we go f**king around with him.

I look at Saddam as being a bee hive. Deadly, but self contained in his own space. As soon as you start poking at him, that's when all hell breaks loose and you get stung.

Listen to this guy, he's from Iraq.
Iraqi civilians are suffering and dying!

To appease Saddam is to ignore history... to handle Saddam with diplomacy is to ignore reality... to protest war with Iraq is noble but completely ignorant.
Would you be as opposed if 95% Iraqi's asked us to liberate them?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: NFS4
Hopefully, the American people will remember this when it comes election time.

Be careful what you wish for.

Too bad, one of the very few honest people in DC.

Honesty is good, Integrity is better. I don't think Trent Lott had a right to say what he said, and neither did this guy.

 

[bauerbrazil]

Oh great, WWIII...:|

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bauerbrazil
Oh great, WWIII...:|

i think no.

 

[notfred]

This "it's been 12 years - far too long" stuff is a bunch of BS. The reason we wanted him to disarm in the first place was so that he wouldn't be able to launch another attack on someplace like Kuwait. Here it is 12 years later, and he hasn't attacked anybody. It makes the issue of whether he has weapons or not moot, since he's obviously not using them.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee

Originally posted by: ThePresence
The UN chose it's own demise when they renedered themsleves useless. If they won't back up their own words, then they are indeed an inept organization.

well said.

Yep, indeed well said. They are useless.....except I guess they are good for Humanitarian food drops now.
Passing a resolution and then everyone going back on their word...sheesh. 12 years of "do it or else" and when it comes down to the "else" they chicken out.

Let's Roll.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Aceshigh
I don't believe the president will be announcing the beginning of a war tonight. I do think he will give Saddam a few days to step down, or else.

Then if Saddam doesn't comply we could see the hostilities begin later this week.

Colin Powell was just on TV. He said that there is nothing that Saddam can do now. Game over. All diplomatic options have been exhausted according to Powell

Saddam = owned.

 

[Pliablemoose]

So, I'm guessing we don't have the surprise factor anymore?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: notfred
This "it's been 12 years - far too long" stuff is a bunch of BS. The reason we wanted him to disarm in the first place was so that he wouldn't be able to launch another attack on someplace like Kuwait. Here it is 12 years later, and he hasn't attacked anybody. It makes the issue of whether he has weapons or not moot, since he's obviously not using them.

The poster makes a valid point. Until Saddam attacked Kuwait, we had no reason to believe he had malicious intentions with regards to the use of his weapons. The UN insisted as a part of the cease-fire agreement that he disarm. He's failed to do so but this doesn't mean he's more willing to attack anyone now than before Kuwait..er...well something like that anyway.

 

[Zipp]

This "it's been 12 years - far too long" stuff is a bunch of BS. The reason we wanted him to disarm in the first place was so that he wouldn't be able to launch another attack on someplace like Kuwait. Here it is 12 years later, and he hasn't attacked anybody. It makes the issue of whether he has weapons or not moot, since he's obviously not using them.

Saddam more than likely has a chit load of pretty bad chemical and biological weapons hidden and eventually he's going to be sick of being contained. Or his son will when he takeover.

Christ,even Clinton said he could hand it off to someone though he didn't do much about it:


1998 interview w/Jim Lehrer

Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy.

Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.

Bill Clinton

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Zipp

This "it's been 12 years - far too long" stuff is a bunch of BS. The reason we wanted him to disarm in the first place was so that he wouldn't be able to launch another attack on someplace like Kuwait. Here it is 12 years later, and he hasn't attacked anybody. It makes the issue of whether he has weapons or not moot, since he's obviously not using them.

Saddam more than likely has a chit load of pretty bad chemical and biological weapons hidden and eventually he's going to be sick of being contained. Or his son will when he takeover.

Christ,even Clinton said he could hand it off to someone though he didn't do much about it:


1998 interview w/Jim Lehrer

Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy.

Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.

Bill Clinton

That's largely rhetorical (aimed at lay people). Again, you don't just slap a canister of run of the mill anthrax onto a scud and fire it. Effectively deploying biological weapons requires a lot of hightech delivery mechanisms. Again, we were actually supporting iraq and giving them chemical weapons while they were at war with Iran, and iraq was still crushed.

Nukes are another story, but again, all intelligence suggests he has no nukes, and would require at least 6 years of unencumbered development to start mfg'ing them.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: cmdavid
please.. "france was possibly accepting another 30 days.." thats bs and you know it.. they approved the resolution back in november basically backing military action in 45 days or whatever and then turn around and threaten to veto.. Bush is a smart man for not putting up with this crap from the UN any longer..
I don't care what the world thinks about this war with Iraq, Bush has to look out for what is best for his country and his people...

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: NFS4
Hopefully, the American people will remember this when it comes election time.

I know I will. Which is why I will vote for W again.

me too... he stuck to his word.. didnt let politics interfere with what he thinks is the best interest for his country....

Best interests for his country? What the F*&K is Saddam gonna do to us half way across the globe and with short range missles? Saddam may be an evil bastard, but he ain't no Bin Laden.

So we should just sit on our asses and hope that he doesnt give anyone any of the weapons he "supposedly" has, and that these people that he sells or gives them to, happens to set them off in the USA?

He isnt Bin Laden but that he doesnt mean he can't help terrorists.....



Plus, we always try to defend other countries, he may not reach us, but we always keep that in mind.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

So we should just sit on our asses and hope that he doesnt give anyone any of the weapons he "supposedly" has, and that these people that he sells or gives them to, happens to set them off in the USA?

He isnt Bin Laden but that he doesnt mean he can't help terrorists.....



Plus, we always try to defend other countries, he may not reach us, but we always keep that in mind.

Umm... the thing is countries like the DPRK not only have the weapons he probably doesn't have, but are also starving for money and therefore far more likely to sell weapons to terrorists. The surrounding countries largely view saddam as a paper tiger. We are going to war for interests, not because saddam poses a credible risk in any sense of the word.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Don't be so naive. You think Bin Laden has more resources than Saddam? You think Saddam wouldn't use Bin Laden for their same common goal? COME ON!

Bin Laden hates Saddam because he is not a fundamentalist and Saddam hates Bin Laden because he IS a fundy. It's not a secret that their ideological differences are to great. They hate each other guts.

I'm aware that they disagree pretty strongly on those issues. However, I believe that they share the same single goal (the destruction of the US, or at least to badly hurt the US), and two violent men with the same goal can definitly pool their resources. Even if they disagree.

 

[merlocka]

From MSN Newsweek.

Nice summary, for all the people who have short memories.

16 resolutions over 12 years to fess up, including one 4 months ago threatining serious consequences.

If the UN was willing to be a part of the 16 resolutions which have led up to this, they are doing a disservice to international diplomacy by not acting now.

PART I: The United States will soon be at war with Iraq. It would seem, on the face of it, a justifiable use of military force. Saddam Hussein runs one of the most tyrannical regimes in modern history.

FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded. He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja. He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a "final opportunity" to do so "fully and immediately" or face "serious consequences." But in its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone. Never will it have waged a war in such isolation. Never have so many of its allies been so firmly opposed to its policies. Never has it provoked so much public opposition, resentment and mistrust. And all this before the first shot has been fired.

 

[jahawkin]

Whatever happened to the second UN resolution?? Bush told the nation at his press conference that the US would definatly call for a second UN resolution. Last Wednesday the US said it had 8 votes in the SC. Now there will be no second resolution. Another Bush lie.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Whatever happened to the second UN resolution?? Bush told the nation at his press conference that the US would definatly call for a second UN resolution. Last Wednesday the US said it had 8 votes in the SC. Now there will be no second resolution. Another Bush lie.

After we reduce Iraq to rubble, those waffles will fall in line. They could be next.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded. He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja. He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a "final opportunity" to do so "fully and immediately" or face "serious consequences." But in its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone. Never will it have waged a war in such isolation. Never have so many of its allies been so firmly opposed to its policies. Never has it provoked so much public opposition, resentment and mistrust. And all this before the first shot has been fired. [/i]

True, but once again RHETORICAL.

One of the times he got chemical weapons was when we gave them to him... and about that "killing millions of iranians", well that's what we wanted him to do... it was a war against fundamentalists... (duh?). And yeah, about gassing his own people with the chemical weapons, that happened on our watch when we (perhaps correctly) guaged winning the war against fundamentalists was more important than being warm and fuzzy towards the people of Iraq.

This crap is irrelevant guys-

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Whatever happened to the second UN resolution?? Bush told the nation at his press conference that the US would definatly call for a second UN resolution. Last Wednesday the US said it had 8 votes in the SC. Now there will be no second resolution. Another Bush lie.

try this

That, and the fact that France/Germany/Russia have stonewalled and threatened a veto forced the hands of the U.S. and Britain.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: cmdavid
please.. "france was possibly accepting another 30 days.." thats bs and you know it.. they approved the resolution back in november basically backing military action in 45 days or whatever and then turn around and threaten to veto.. Bush is a smart man for not putting up with this crap from the UN any longer..
I don't care what the world thinks about this war with Iraq, Bush has to look out for what is best for his country and his people...

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: NFS4
Hopefully, the American people will remember this when it comes election time.

I know I will. Which is why I will vote for W again.

me too... he stuck to his word.. didnt let politics interfere with what he thinks is the best interest for his country....

the war is a smoke screen on his dismal economic leadership

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
War looks inevitable, that's for sure. I have one question though, which I'm sure has been discussed ad nauseum already, but I didn't really see anything here...

Suppose that when we go to war Saddam starts to use weapons of mass destruction that he claimed he never had. What will be the world's response then? Will they still scoff at Bush and his allies for going to war without complete international support, or will they join in the fight against Saddam because Bush was right all along?

Whatever the answer is, it doesn't matter. Link

it'll be planted

 

[Dragnov]

I don't believe Iraq is much of a danger to the U.S. at its present time. I don't believe we're going in there for altruistic reasons either. However, the world will be a better place with Saddam removed from existence. Many innocent civilians will die? Well, more would've died under Saddam and many have already.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
Finally the dilly-dallying is over. The UN Security Council has proven its uselessness for what I hope is the last time. They have been inspecting since November with little accomplished, and this hope that continued inspections will change things is ridiculous.

What will be interesting is to see what France, Russia, and Germany do in response as far as UN goes. Maybe a resolution condemning the United States?

reminds me of the imperial senate from Star Wars: Episode 1