Use Posted January 24, 2003 Wobbo said:Thje US is the biggest fucking threat. It ALREADY HAS AND HAS USED the BIGGEST SUPPLY of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION in the entire world, and gives them out to insane dictators everywhere. Now everyone knows only the US is big and bad enough to have these weapons. No one else can. America just loves telling other nations what to do after all. According to TIME chemical warheads have been found in Iraq, in the Al-Aukhaider weapons dump. they've never been filled and they're several years old I guess. But it does nothing but prove this war on terrorism is nothing but a scheme cooked up to get back at Saddam for making Bush Sr. look like more of an ass back in '91. Like the fact that we KNOW, that North Korea has been producing weapons grade plutonium, has the ability to deploy nukes, but we're more interested in poor Iraq, which so far has revealed nothing more than Gulf War relics. 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted January 24, 2003 _____________________________________ Use3D said: "...we're more interested in poor Iraq, which so far has revealed nothing more than Gulf War relics." _____________________________________ Well, a news anchor on the Daily Show said it best..."North Korea is the US' biggest threat right now, but there's no incentive to stop them. After all, Iraq has oil, and what does North Korea have? Cabbage. Nobody wants cabbage. No one. No, sir." 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted January 24, 2003 Heh...that show manages to tell more truth than any other news show somehow. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 25, 2003 Well, good news for the north koreans, then. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted January 25, 2003 Wobbo said:American Spies (or "weapons inspectors" to use 1991 newspeak).This idea falls flat due to the fact that the weapon inspectors work for the UN, not America. 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted January 25, 2003 NiGHTMARE said:This idea falls flat due to the fact that the weapon inspectors work for the UN, not America. Yes but everybody knows that UN is the legitimized extension of American imperialism to the global stage and that anybody who works for the UN is automatically in the employ of an American conspiracy to rule all life on earth from behind the stage curtain. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted January 25, 2003 Then why, when Bush and co. were all in favour of an assault on Iraq without even bothering with weapons inspections, didn't the UN go along with it? 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted January 25, 2003 NiGHTMARE said:Then why, when Bush and co. were all in favour of an assault on Iraq without even bothering with weapons inspections, didn't the UN go along with it? The sarcasm obviously escaped you. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted January 25, 2003 It escaped me because a lot of people *do* think that. 0 Share this post Link to post
Joe Doom Posted January 25, 2003 Well, I would like for Saddam to be wiped off the chart, but I'm sure many very bad things would soon follow. I don't know who Iraq's allies are but I don't think they would hesitate nuking the shit out of the US. It's just kinda interesting that a lot of this is just for oil. Countries are willing to kill in the millions just for gas. Fucking stupid, I say. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted January 25, 2003 When oil, gas and coal run out around the middle of the century, the world will definitely be a much better place for it, although only as long as we've actually got adequate alternative (preferrably renewable and non-nuclear) energy sources in place by then. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted January 25, 2003 NiGHTMARE said:This idea falls flat due to the fact that the weapon inspectors work for the UN, not America. That so? So why, when Iraq produced it's documents, was AMERICA allowed to hijack them, take them from NY to Washington, remove 3,000 pages? 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted January 25, 2003 Who did it give the documents to though? 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 25, 2003 NiGHTMARE said:This idea falls flat due to the fact that the weapon inspectors work for the UN, not America. Aren't spies supposed to work undercover? 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted January 25, 2003 I think when the mid-east's fossil fuels run out, they'll be in deep shit economically. They've grown so reliant to use that as leverage for power and have focused on it accordingly. They'll likely become even more the bitch-slapped nations when that does happen. I've always thought that the world would've been better if we tried to make alternative fuel sources mainstream. And here's your proof. If Iraq was without oil, we'd be able to put an objective scope on all this potential war. 0 Share this post Link to post
gatewatcher Posted January 25, 2003 doomedout said:Lets look at it in a humanitarian outlook, have you ever been to Iraq? I have and what I saw trully moved me to tears, these people live in misery, and that is an understatement. You can put the blame on Saddam's apparent opressive regime OR the tough sanctions placed on Iraq, either way its the people in the end who are suffering. What will become of Hussein after the war, if it happens? He'd be exiled at the worst, and what will become of all the people who lost their lives in this so called "Righteous endeavour", a few apologies and all will be forgotten. Right? Fucking wrong. Its people like you who piss me off the most, sitting in an easy chair passing comments like that. You can sit there and cry, but what really amazes me is that in your post you never once offered an opinion on how any of this could be fixed, only what YOU blame for it. Iraq is sitting on a massive oil supply, one which would make it's economy and people filthy rich. So, why doesn't it do that? The reason is Sadaam. Even if he did have the ability to sell it, he wouldn't. Improving the economy of his country would just open the people’s eyes to great advantages of capatalism and also a democratic government; this would also put Sadaam's dictatorship in jeopardy. Or what if by some wonder he could retain his power while selling oil, what would he do with all that money? He wouldn't help his people out, that's for damn sure. He'd invest it in weapons of mass destruction, and building another army which he would undoubtedly use on countries like Kuwait to make more money to make more bombs to use on his own people (in a genocide-like fashion) OR sell to terrorists which would make more money for Sadaam. Would he help his people with any of that money? NO HE WOULD BUY ANOTHER PALACE. The simple fact is this, If the US and the UK topple Sadaam's regime and introduces a new stable government to Iraq, the Iraqi people would flourish. If not, their misery continues. Use3D said:Like the fact that we KNOW, that North Korea has been producing weapons grade plutonium, has the ability to deploy nukes, but we're more interested in poor Iraq, which so far has revealed nothing more than Gulf War relics. Do you think North Korea will USE them? WHY would a communist nation announce its possession of nuclear arms? It's not to warn us, it's to play us. This guy wants to trade foreign aid for nukes. It's that simple, there's no threat at this time. 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted January 25, 2003 fodders said:That so? So why, when Iraq produced it's documents, was AMERICA allowed to hijack them, take them from NY to Washington, remove 3,000 pages? Easily explained. In any weapons declaration there are often very detailed descriptions of the actual process of constructing said weapons. Formulae for chemical and biological agents, blueprints of nuclear weapons designs etc. It's a pretty good idea to remove such information before it is released for general consumption by the press and other countries. Or if you are paranoid: So they could make poor innocent Saddam Hussein look bad... 0 Share this post Link to post
Krezy Man Posted January 25, 2003 I do believe, out to sheer hypothesizing, that America as we know it is doomed. All of the signs are there. America will become another USSR, with each individual state splitting up into different countries. I have no proof, just my personal beliefs. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted January 25, 2003 stphrz said:Easily explained. In any weapons declaration there are often very detailed descriptions of the actual process of constructing said weapons. Formulae for chemical and biological agents, blueprints of nuclear weapons designs etc. It's a pretty good idea to remove such information before it is released for general consumption by the press and other countries. Or if you are paranoid: So they could make poor innocent Saddam Hussein look bad... Nope...report detailed 24 major U.S. corporations, including Hewlett Packard of Boise, Idaho and Bechtel who manages the Mixed Waste Treatment Facility at INEEL, and their support of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major U.S. corporations, as well as governmental agencies including the Department of Defence and the nation’s nuclear labs, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. U.S. Departments of Energy, Defence, Commerce, and Agriculture quietly helped arm Iraq. U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained traveling Iraqi nuclear scientists and gave non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb. Iraq provided two copies of it's full 12,000-page report, one to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva, and one to the United Nations in New York. The U.S. broke an agreement of the Security Council and blackmailed Colombia, which at the time was presiding over the Council, to take possession of the UN’s only copy. The U.S. then proceeded to make copies of the report for the other four permanent Security Council nations, Britain, France, Russia and China. Later, the remaining members of the Security Council received their copies. By then, all references to foreign companies had been removed. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fletcher` Posted January 25, 2003 Use3D said:You know we could always impeach that farce of a president if we wanted to. Remember when Americans were in charge of America? Since when? 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted January 25, 2003 I think he's talking about a coup. Either that or he's into the illusion that the congress, etc that is our safeguard to protect us from presidential incompetence, actually works and is impartial from bribes. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted January 25, 2003 Vulg@r said:I think he's talking about a coup. Either that or he's into the illusion that the congress, etc that is our safeguard to protect us from presidential incompetence, actually works and is impartial from bribes. I think he was just pointing out that that was impossible, at least these days. 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted January 25, 2003 fodders said:Blah, blah blah...Oh, and the governments and corporations from other countries on the securtiy council were not involved in supplying Iraq with materials for it's weapons of mass destruction programme? C'mon. Britain, France, Germany, and probably even Canada are culpaple in this regard. If there's a coverup of this going on, other governments are involved up to their eyeballs too. It ain't just the U.S. 0 Share this post Link to post
doomedout Posted January 25, 2003 gatewatcher said:You can sit there and cry, but what really amazes me is that in your post you never once offered an opinion on how any of this could be fixed, only what YOU blame for it. Iraq is sitting on a massive oil supply, one which would make it's economy and people filthy rich. So, why doesn't it do that? The reason is Sadaam. Even if he did have the ability to sell it, he wouldn't. Improving the economy of his country would just open the people’s eyes to great advantages of capatalism and also a democratic government; this would also put Sadaam's dictatorship in jeopardy. Or what if by some wonder he could retain his power while selling oil, what would he do with all that money? He wouldn't help his people out, that's for damn sure. He'd invest it in weapons of mass destruction, and building another army which he would undoubtedly use on countries like Kuwait to make more money to make more bombs to use on his own people (in a genocide-like fashion) OR sell to terrorists which would make more money for Sadaam. Would he help his people with any of that money? NO HE WOULD BUY ANOTHER PALACE. The simple fact is this, If the US and the UK topple Sadaam's regime and introduces a new stable government to Iraq, the Iraqi people would flourish. If not, their misery continues. What about the sanctions imposed by the UN on Iraq? Trouble with people like you are they are so brainwashed that objectivity of any kind is thrown in the garbage. Hell I don't like Saddam the least bit and I wouldn't give anything to support him, but the very reason people detest him, the US government mirrors him in those ways. So therein lies the contradiction. I hate the administraton as much as I hate Saddam's. Trouble is its been branded by the masses as "Democratic". Well that is fucking bullshit, since when did the comman man have any powers? Moreover, with such a unilateral agenda which is so heavily influenced by "back door" powers, its not even suprising to see many people speak against the government. Remove Saddam's regime may solve the problem temporarily...But what about the backlash son? Would you expect people to sit down and swallow the jizz? Go read up on Afghanistan and see what happened when foreign countries tried to intefere with "Regime Changing". Again look at the humanitarian perspective, just like the Bosnians suffered due to UN intervention, just like the Afghans did when Russians invaded them during the 80s, and now this. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 25, 2003 stphrz, good to see you're getting closer to the problem. Like Saddam Hussein is anybody and as if all this had anything to do with removing him as a threat. 0 Share this post Link to post
gatewatcher Posted January 25, 2003 doomedout said:What about the sanctions imposed by the UN on Iraq? Ass I said earlier: Even if he did have the ability to sell it... ----doomedout said:Trouble with people like you are they are so.. Blah blah blah You've complained about people like me twice in a row, and you still have yet to say anything that would possibly make me think twice about my point of view... 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted January 25, 2003 myk said:stphrz, good to see you're getting closer to the problem. Like Saddam Hussein is anybody and as if all this had anything to do with removing him as a threat. Eh? I dunno where you think I stand on this issue, but it may not be where you think. Fact: Iraq does indeed have weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) Fact: Saddam Hussein would *love* to get his paws on nuclear weapons, has sought to obtain them in the past, and is continuing to do so. Fact: Saddam Hussein is a lying sack of shit. This being the best you can say about him. Iraq is not disarming. Despite all that, it's my opinion that an all out invasion of Iraq is not warranted. Saddam knows the next time he uses weapons of mass destruction or pulls any shenanigans like invading one of his neighbors it will definately be all over. He just isn't that much of a threat. If the people of Iraq want to be free, let them do the killing and the dying. It's also my opinion that the U.S. motive for wanting to invade have little to do with oil. 0 Share this post Link to post
Silverwyvern Posted January 25, 2003 *sits quietly in Canada, hoping the US doesnt kill too many of our troops. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted January 25, 2003 stphrz said:Eh? I dunno where you think I stand on this issue, but it may not be where you think. Fact: Iraq does indeed have weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) Saddam knows the next time he uses weapons of mass destruction or pulls any shenanigans like invading one of his neighbors it will definately be all over. He just isn't that much of a threat. ... It's also my opinion that the U.S. motive for wanting to invade have little to do with oil. It has nothing to do with him having weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld was quite happy to deal with Saddam after he gassed the Kurds... As to the oil issue...strange that Oil Industry Analysists at Deutsche Bank recommend buying ExxonMobil shares despite worldwide markets uncertainty? ExxonMobil is in position to get new reserves after Saddam is toppled. their report notes "ExxonMobil's status as the largest US oil company gives it major weight with the US gov. The company will find itself in pole position in changed-regime Iraq" Executives of ExxonMobil have already had talks with US administration about how to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry as US needs to find another 80 million barrels a day to meet demands. 0 Share this post Link to post