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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

Well, the great nation USA is shuddering with fear of the small country Irak, as they MIGHT have weapons that they MIGHT sell to a link that US intelligence says they do NOT have...

THAT is a good enough reason for a war according to some people...

Terrorism feeds on paranoia... the US is feeding terrorism more than it can eat...

Oh, and of course, the ones who DO have real links to terrorists are the same ones that are supposed to take over, later on, you know, when the US thinks that Irak is ready for it... Until then, it will just be another state with a lot of resources...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

Your analogy is rather moronic and illogical. YOUR definition of effective is how many people are killed, that is not the goal of a terorist. Their purpose is to create fear for those that are still alive. If fear is created their actions were EFFECTIVE. "mean spirited"? The goal is widespread indiscriminate death and you politely refer to this as "mean spirited" because they might only be able to kill a few people instead of mass quantities?
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: 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.



my favorite "high-tech" delivery system for anthrax was the us postal system, what technology that required.....


Yes, and look at the huge death toll! The key word was "effective". You can certainly throw canisters of anthrax all around and kill a bunch of people, but to make it any more, or even equally effective as a hand gernade, you need to have functional methods of disbursing anthrax that is mounted on your scud. The palestinians represent much more of a threat than Iraq does.

The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE.

The PLO represent no threat to the US, they are too focused on Israel anyway. For those worldwide that claim this is being done for Israel's benefit you forget Israel has the most powerfull military in the region and can quite easily defend themselves. While Saddam may pay off families of plo and hamas suicide bombers and call for the destruction of Israel, other than tossing a few puds their way in desert storm doesn't engage with Israel directly. The call for a viable Palestinian state also makes this "theory" out of touch with reality.

Why should the US call for a vote when Saddam has already violated 17 resolutions a total of 333 times? Why should the US pay 1 billion dollars a day to keep the pressure on Saddam, the only reason he is "complying" right now? Why can't France, Germany, and Russia stand by their word when they signed 1441 and all previous resolutions? One only has to look at Vietnam to see how well the French keep their word. The simple fact is France has expressly stated they would veto any resolution that would give Saddam an ultimatum, or authorize the use of force. Their opposition to resuming the war actually dates back to 1998, apparently they always assumed they would be able to buy more time for Saddam.

France, Germany, and Russia will all admit there are WMD in Iraq, they will all agree there has not been full compliance. Unfortunately they are under the delusion this will change for some reason, perhaps France should have offered to pay for our troops while we gave Saddam the time he needed. The French are now willing to consider a 30 day timeline, if Saddam could disarm in 30 days or less why has it taken 12 years?

For those that ask will there be a turn in support once WMD are used, who says they will be used in conflict? I have a feeling they might be, Saddam understands his number is up, he has nothing to lose. The important thing is the US will be shown to be correct on this issue as well though. The level of naivety is somewhat shocking honestly. WMD will be found in Iraq, the US will see to that, whether we find them or PLANT them, they will be found...

There are clear links to Saddam and terrorism, how about the attempt of President Bush the first? What about giving comfort and aid to families of suicide bombers? What about the Al-queda living in the Kurdish regions ( getting more support from Iran right now but still in Iraq), what about the Al-queda member telephoning his family from a military hospital in Baghdad?

Saudi Arabia will begin the creation of a democratically elected leaderdship, voted on by it's citizens. The ruling royal family will eventually turn over ful control to this body.The US has already committed to removing our troops in light of this. Don't think there wasn't tremendous pressure from Bush for this development. They understand he will remove regimes that have been shown to aid and support terrorists as they clearly have. Once Saudi is democratic along with Iraq, the pressure on Iran will be unbearable, they already have a large segemnt of the population, mostly younger student dissidents, calling for democratic reform. Hopefully they will take care of themselves before we do, don't think we will let the protectors of Hezbellah and Hamas and Al-queda obtain nuclear weapons and remain in power...

CIA says there ARE NO LINKS... how come you know more than they do? lemme guess, you watched cnn too much?

SA supports terrorism, ther is NO question about that, so does Pakistan ans syria... that is KNOWN... but what to do? ehhhh... nada, they are "US friendly"

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

You mean effective delivery like in the WTC disaster? So what to do? no country except the US can have planes, and they can only fly out of the US?

What if someone were to carry a bomb in a suitcase, outlaw suitcases?

You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

You mean effective delivery like in the WTC disaster? So what to do? no country except the US can have planes, and they can only fly out of the US?

What if someone were to carry a bomb in a suitcase, outlaw suitcases?

You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that...

"You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that..."

Explain that last statement please.....



 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

because they are within Kurdish terratory, where Saddam has no control.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?

At least get the facts straight before you try to warp them please. The Al-queda are living in the KURDISH regions, not with the Kurds we support. They are within a mile of the Iran border, but close enough that they have engaged in conflict already. The kurds will be facing death squads from Saddam when the war starts and possible attacks from their new neighbors as well. Funny how quickly you dismiss the idea that Saddam should have control in a particular part of his country, he should control all of entirely. Not so hard to understand the resistance to his "benevolent" rule though...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

You mean effective delivery like in the WTC disaster? So what to do? no country except the US can have planes, and they can only fly out of the US?

What if someone were to carry a bomb in a suitcase, outlaw suitcases?

You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that...

"You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that..."

Explain that last statement please.....

The first part is the people who will be pissed off by the US involvment, the last part is the means of delivery, the suitcase, the plane, whatever...

The US involvment in the middle east created Al Quida, and it has also created the view of the US as the great satan, who is against muslims and a supporter of Israel...

This isn't all that strange as the US involvment in the middle east has been there, so has the support for Israel... this war will create more of the "first part" while destroying some of the "last part" of the chain, but suitcases can be replaced...

You cannot stop a killer by taking away his gun, he will use a knife, and instead of hurting you, he will kill you because he will be more pissed about you taking away his gun...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?

At least get the facts straight before you try to warp them please. The Al-queda are living in the KURDISH regions, not with the Kurds we support. They are within a mile of the Iran border, but close enough that they have engaged in conflict already. The kurds will be facing death squads from Saddam when the war starts and possible attacks from their new neighbors as well. Funny how quickly you dismiss the idea that Saddam should have control in a particular part of his country, he should control all of entirely. Not so hard to understand the resistance to his "benevolent" rule though...

Nope, the Al-Quaida members are living with the north-eastern Kurds, which are supported by the US...

Anyone who has ever visited Irak knows that Saddam does not control all of the landmass, it might be called irak, but it's more like a small kurdistan...

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The point of a terrorist is to create FEAR, if they achieve this it is considered EFFECTIVE

Ergo: any country with particularly sharp cutlery that can kill a half dozen americans is candidate for invasion?

No. We were talking about "mass destruction" here. Effective delivery is what seperates mean spirited from credible threat.

You mean effective delivery like in the WTC disaster? So what to do? no country except the US can have planes, and they can only fly out of the US?

What if someone were to carry a bomb in a suitcase, outlaw suitcases?

You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that...

"You are trying to get rid of the last part while feeding the first, the result will be counterproductive, anyone with more than one braincell can see that..."

Explain that last statement please.....

The first part is the people who will be pissed off by the US involvment, the last part is the means of delivery, the suitcase, the plane, whatever...

The US involvment in the middle east created Al Quida, and it has also created the view of the US as the great satan, who is against muslims and a supporter of Israel...

This isn't all that strange as the US involvment in the middle east has been there, so has the support for Israel... this war will create more of the "first part" while destroying some of the "last part" of the chain, but suitcases can be replaced...

You cannot stop a killer by taking away his gun, he will use a knife, and instead of hurting you, he will kill you because he will be more pissed about you taking away his gun...


Once again your lack of knowledge of history leaves you looking the fool. The US enjoyed fantastic relations with Iran until FUNDAMENTALISTS took the country over. I will agree our unavowed support of Israel has created anti-US sentiment, however that hardly justifies terrorism. The HISTORIC call for a viable Palestinian state by a President of the US as well as recent rebukes against Israeli insurgent raids are part of a blanced approach at changing middle eastern perspectives. In 5 years when the people of Iraq are living in a vibrant society, with basic human rights including the right to self determination and an optimistic future forthemselves and their children you will see even more of a shift in the way we are viewed. If Iraq AND Saudi both go democratic even better, soon enough the whole region will go that way, can you suggest a better goal to works toward? Remove the poverty, the oppression, and the fanatics will fade...

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?

At least get the facts straight before you try to warp them please. The Al-queda are living in the KURDISH regions, not with the Kurds we support. They are within a mile of the Iran border, but close enough that they have engaged in conflict already. The kurds will be facing death squads from Saddam when the war starts and possible attacks from their new neighbors as well. Funny how quickly you dismiss the idea that Saddam should have control in a particular part of his country, he should control all of entirely. Not so hard to understand the resistance to his "benevolent" rule though...

Nope, the Al-Quaida members are living with the north-eastern Kurds, which are supported by the US...

Anyone who has ever visited Irak knows that Saddam does not control all of the landmass, it might be called irak, but it's more like a small kurdistan...



Oh I'm sorry, you must be right, I only took my word from the reporter that conducted the interviews IN IRAQ......LOL, your opinion will not change the facts, if you think the US is actively and knowingly supprting Al-queda then your a fool...
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
In answer to all of the above (including the "moronic" analysis of effective):

My point was that we can't "justify" a war based on paranoia, otherwise we will have to invade all countries with sharp cutlery or airplanes.

In the absense of evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or these kinds of terrorist tactics, we can not assume that he is engaged in this kind of behavior otherwise see above.

Therefore conventional, effective delivery IS relevant. It may sound cold, but you simply can not call these weapons, WMD if they are unable to wreak mass destruction (in a conventional sense)... otherwise see point 1 (all countries have WMD in such a case).

Finally, even if you are going to engage in preventative warfare to prevent the possibility of saddam selling weapons he may possibly develop in the future to terrorists, we would do well to address states that pose the same kinds of risks in a much more immedate way (read: DPRK).

 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Your analogy is rather moronic and illogical. YOUR definition of effective is how many people are killed, that is not the goal of a terorist. Their purpose is to create fear for those that are still alive. If fear is created their actions were EFFECTIVE. "mean spirited"? The goal is widespread indiscriminate death and you politely refer to this as "mean spirited" because they might only be able to kill a few people instead of mass quantities?

See above post. Unless Saddam is clearly linked to al-quaida or this type of terrorist delivery method, we can't justify invasion based on paranoia.

Secondly, that is exactly what I mean when I say mean spirited. I'm sure the middle east is filled with hundreds of thousands of people who would love to nuke the US... but their inability to do so makes them mean-spirited, and not a credible threat.

In the short term, it is wise to prevent these mean spirited people from aquiring the ability to be effective. In the long term (as snap suggests) it is important to address why these guys are so mean spirited.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
In answer to all of the above (including the "moronic" analysis of effective):

My point was that we can't "justify" a war based on paranoia, otherwise we will have to invade all countries with sharp cutlery or airplanes.

In the absense of evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or these kinds of terrorist tactics, we can not assume that he is engaged in this kind of behavior otherwise see above.

Therefore conventional, effective delivery IS relevant. It may sound cold, but you simply can not call these weapons, WMD if they are unable to wreak mass destruction (in a conventional sense)... otherwise see point 1 (all countries have WMD in such a case).

Finally, even if you are going to engage in preventative warfare to prevent the possibility of saddam selling weapons he may possibly develop in the future to terrorists, we would do well to address states that pose the same kinds of risks in a much more immedate way (read: DPRK).


or the former states of the soviet union? With military officers going unpaid and selling weapons and base equipment to feed their families, or just abandoning post? What about the suitcase nukes not accountd for? I saw an earlier post that claimed Saddam would need 6 years to produce a nuke, I was under the impression the program had a very high chance of being succesfull within one year or less, anyone know for sure?

Finally this war is not based on "paranoia" ,it is based on the history of his atrocious actions against his own people and his neighboors which culminated in a war to disarm his regime. This war was stopped CONDITIONALLY, meaning there were conditions that both agreed upon that must be met, otherwise a return to war would ensue. The condtions were laid out, and were agreed upon by all parties. These condtions, 17 total, were violated a total of 333 times ( to the BEST of our knowledge, I'm sure we missed many more). Not one member of the UN security council will concede full compliance or even cooperation has been met, indeed almost every condition of 1441 has been systematically ignored or thwarted. Every member of the council will admit Iraq is in "full material breach", therefore making them subject (FINALLY) to serious consequences. If you would like to know what those consequences are going to be...watch cnn, they will have plenty of footage. Will Saddam be disarmed? Yes, of course, and removed from power. I can't see the reason to give him 30 more days, if it can be done that quickly we should have resumed 31 days after we stopped, not 12 years.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I also strongly disagree that

"Finally, even if you are going to engage in preventative warfare to prevent the possibility of saddam selling weapons he may possibly develop in the future to terrorists, we would do well to address states that pose the same kinds of risks in a much more immedate way (read: DPRK)."

Where is there ANY link with the DPRK and TERRORISTS against america? You cannot even admit the middle east is a far more fertile breeding ground for terrorists, or that they don't recieve the largest amount of support and aid from the region???
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Get used to this BTW, Iran is next. Worldwide, human rights and world health organizations all readily agree the clear evidence of Iran's actions point solely in the pursuit of the creation of a nuclear bomb, not energy purposes. There shouldn't be a problem linking Iran to terrorists though, and equally likely Bush will not allow them to achieve this goal.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
In answer to all of the above (including the "moronic" analysis of effective):

My point was that we can't "justify" a war based on paranoia, otherwise we will have to invade all countries with sharp cutlery or airplanes.

In the absense of evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or these kinds of terrorist tactics, we can not assume that he is engaged in this kind of behavior otherwise see above.

Therefore conventional, effective delivery IS relevant. It may sound cold, but you simply can not call these weapons, WMD if they are unable to wreak mass destruction (in a conventional sense)... otherwise see point 1 (all countries have WMD in such a case).

Finally, even if you are going to engage in preventative warfare to prevent the possibility of saddam selling weapons he may possibly develop in the future to terrorists, we would do well to address states that pose the same kinds of risks in a much more immedate way (read: DPRK).


or the former states of the soviet union? With military officers going unpaid and selling weapons and base equipment to feed their families, or just abandoning post? What about the suitcase nukes not accountd for? I saw an earlier post that claimed Saddam would need 6 years to produce a nuke, I was under the impression the program had a very high chance of being succesfull within one year or less, anyone know for sure?

Finally this war is not based on "paranoia" ,it is based on the history of his atrocious actions against his own people and his neighboors which culminated in a war to disarm his regime. This war was stopped CONDITIONALLY, meaning there were conditions that both agreed upon that must be met, otherwise a return to war would ensue. The condtions were laid out, and were agreed upon by all parties. These condtions, 17 total, were violated a total of 333 times ( to the BEST of our knowledge, I'm sure we missed many more). Not one member of the UN security council will concede full compliance or even cooperation has been met, indeed almost every condition of 1441 has been systematically ignored or thwarted. Every member of the council will admit Iraq is in "full material breach", therefore making them subject (FINALLY) to serious consequences. If you would like to know what those consequences are going to be...watch cnn, they will have plenty of footage. Will Saddam be disarmed? Yes, of course, and removed from power. I can't see the reason to give him 30 more days, if it can be done that quickly we should have resumed 31 days after we stopped, not 12 years.


First of all, I don't know where the 1 year timeline came from. Up to now, most intelligence/analysis suggests it would take anywhere from 3-6 years for him to develop nukes (even if has a secret nuclear program now, which inspectors indicate is doubtful).

And yes, we should pay more attention to the former Soviet Union. And we should certainly pay more attention to North Korea who desperately needs money, and probably has nuclear arms.

And then there's all the crimes of saddam. See above. He certainly did kill lots of iranians, but that was perhaps our goal when we gave him chemical weapons. We also passively aquiesed when he decided to gas some kurds.

Finally, the point of waiting 30 days is to either fully disarm saddam, or gain multilateral backing (which would foot much more of the bill). Gulf war 1 was almost fully subsidized by our friends. This one will cost more, and will not be subsidized. *ack*
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?

At least get the facts straight before you try to warp them please. The Al-queda are living in the KURDISH regions, not with the Kurds we support. They are within a mile of the Iran border, but close enough that they have engaged in conflict already. The kurds will be facing death squads from Saddam when the war starts and possible attacks from their new neighbors as well. Funny how quickly you dismiss the idea that Saddam should have control in a particular part of his country, he should control all of entirely. Not so hard to understand the resistance to his "benevolent" rule though...

Nope, the Al-Quaida members are living with the north-eastern Kurds, which are supported by the US...

Anyone who has ever visited Irak knows that Saddam does not control all of the landmass, it might be called irak, but it's more like a small kurdistan...



Oh I'm sorry, you must be right, I only took my word from the reporter that conducted the interviews IN IRAQ......LOL, your opinion will not change the facts, if you think the US is actively and knowingly supprting Al-queda then your a fool...

Oh, i was not aware that one reporter had more info than CIA does... maybe you are mistaken? but no, you could never ever admit to that, could you?

I know your type, that is why i end this discussion here, you are probably very young, or very naive, at least you seem to be...

I have seen this game played out before, i have fought before, and i do know my ass from a hole in the ground, something you seem to have a problem with...
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I also strongly disagree that

"Finally, even if you are going to engage in preventative warfare to prevent the possibility of saddam selling weapons he may possibly develop in the future to terrorists, we would do well to address states that pose the same kinds of risks in a much more immedate way (read: DPRK)."

Where is there ANY link with the DPRK and TERRORISTS against america? You cannot even admit the middle east is a far more fertile breeding ground for terrorists, or that they don't recieve the largest amount of support and aid from the region???

But that's the point. There's not much of a link for the DPRK OR Iraq. In addition, the DPRK actually has these nasty weapons and has a very real need for money. It's also noteworthy that the DPRK's major export is ARMS.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The Al-queda within Iraq are currently getting arms and support from Iran, not Iraq, harboring them is still Saddam's responsibilty, they are within his country and he has taken no steps to remove them. Where is the call for Saddam to release his POW's? I can't believe we have let him slide on this issue for 12 years. That would have been a great gesture on his part within the last month or so, maybe one he would have made were he really planning on finally complying. So where are they?

Does Saddam or the Kurds have control over nothern Irak? are the Kurds supported by the US? do the Kurds harbour the terrorists?

So, in essence, the enemies of Irak harbours terrorists, so do the friends of the US... isn't that just great?

At least get the facts straight before you try to warp them please. The Al-queda are living in the KURDISH regions, not with the Kurds we support. They are within a mile of the Iran border, but close enough that they have engaged in conflict already. The kurds will be facing death squads from Saddam when the war starts and possible attacks from their new neighbors as well. Funny how quickly you dismiss the idea that Saddam should have control in a particular part of his country, he should control all of entirely. Not so hard to understand the resistance to his "benevolent" rule though...

Nope, the Al-Quaida members are living with the north-eastern Kurds, which are supported by the US...

Anyone who has ever visited Irak knows that Saddam does not control all of the landmass, it might be called irak, but it's more like a small kurdistan...



Oh I'm sorry, you must be right, I only took my word from the reporter that conducted the interviews IN IRAQ......LOL, your opinion will not change the facts, if you think the US is actively and knowingly supprting Al-queda then your a fool...

Oh, i was not aware that one reporter had more info than CIA does... maybe you are mistaken? but no, you could never ever admit to that, could you?

I know your type, that is why i end this discussion here, you are probably very young, or very naive, at least you seem to be...

I have seen this game played out before, i have fought before, and i do know my ass from a hole in the ground, something you seem to have a problem with...

Search the Iraq threads, I have the link for the article posted. Yes I would belive a published report from someone independant AT THE SCENE more so than the world of murky information/prpoganda that is the CIA. If there evidence was so superior we would not have experienced 9/11....... Not suprised you attack my intelligence when you can't refute my logic or the facts. You would be best to quit.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Get used to this BTW, Iran is next. Worldwide, human rights and world health organizations all readily agree the clear evidence of Iran's actions point solely in the pursuit of the creation of a nuclear bomb, not energy purposes. There shouldn't be a problem linking Iran to terrorists though, and equally likely Bush will not allow them to achieve this goal.

This is credible. Iran is almost certainly supporting the al-quaida sect in northern iraq (no other place to get supplies from). Although there are a lot more revolutionary rumblings in iran, they pose a much more substantial risk to our interests than iraq. On the other hand, I have doubts about us immedately following a war with iraq with a war on iran. Iran, in contrast to iraq, isn't completely in ruins. It has biological weapons, probably effective means of delivery, and has a scary ass gov't. This also means, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to take over iran than it will be to take over iraq.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |