This FUCKING BLOWS

[-Tyler-]

With the US fighting side by side with British soldiers, i doubt they would plant anything, it's a hypotethical accusation which there is no evidence to substanciate. On the other hand, Iraqi scud missiles, which also violate the terms of the agreement, are solid and conclusive evidence that this was justified. As for Saddam, he needed to be taken out. You can't defy 17 UN Resolutions for 12 years and sit there with no reprocutions being delt. All while gassing your own people no less. However, the way to go about it was to let the UN inspections complete their run, this way we would've been able to help justify the war to many of the naysayers. We would've found the weapons anyway, we didnt need to take the chance of Iraq launching missiles at us, or potentially at other countries as they are being goaded to do. This way we'd have more of the world on our side.

And Saddam wasnt trained by the US, we did provide 200 million worth of weapons. Russia on the other hand provided 40 billion's worth.

[Manga]

I don't believe in preventive war or war period and I'm sticking with that.

The US is already making out contracts with American companies to rebuild buildings and bridges that haven't even been bombed yet. Even if they call this operation Iraqi Freedom I don't think it has anything to do with that.
The ultimatim they gave Saddam before they started the war was that he would leave the country and all would be well, indicating to me that they aren't all that interested in doing anything else but get rid of him, not persuit him for what he did to 'his' people.
America has also already stated that there are some groups of people in Iraq that they are not willing to negotiate with (Sjiites: don't know how that translates) when it comes to rebuilding Iraq even if those groups consist of millions.

I'm not pro- Saddam and I'm not saying the UN did such a great job either, but the proof of the US is shabby to say the least and I think they're really underestimating how hard it will be to rebuild a country which is based on a different religion and on several different religious groups who don't get along at all. I think they could've at least waited for the UN to be done so that they would have some proof, I've seen reports online that the evidence the US has used as an excuse to attack is mostly based on information and reports from before the last Gulf War and most of what was found then was already destroyed during said war.

I don't think a couple of Scuds would've posed such a threat to the rest of the world and judging from what we've seen I highly doubt that Iraq has anything worth mentioning but soldiers.

I think Britain would be fine in going along with planting evidence, since they do need to justify their war and in my opinion, even with two shabby Scuds, they haven't yet.

[-Tyler-]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Manga:


The US is already making out contracts with American companies to rebuild buildings and bridges that haven't even been bombed yet. Even if they call this operation Iraqi Freedom I don't think it has anything to do with that.
The ultimatim they gave Saddam before they started the war was that he would leave the country and all would be well, indicating to me that they aren't all that interested in doing anything else but get rid of him, not persuit him for what he did to 'his' people. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't removing Saddam from office the first step in trying to rebuild the country? Not that I think the US is going to flawlessly execute this rebuilding operation, but to feasibly do it, some steps need to be taken, such as the removal of Saddam and his entire cabinet. It's kind of important and pretty key if you want to rebuild a nation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">America has also already stated that there are some groups of people in Iraq that they are not willing to negotiate with (Sjiites: don't know how that translates) when it comes to rebuilding Iraq even if those groups consist of millions.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that mean they should abandon all hope?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not pro- Saddam and I'm not saying the UN did such a great job either, but the proof of the US is shabby to say the least</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shabby? Scud missiles fall directly under the category of weapons Saddam is not allowed to have, regardless of their potency in causing danger to other nations around him. This is the embodiment of the proof they've been looking for.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and I think they're really underestimating how hard it will be to rebuild a country which is based on a different religion and on several different religious groups who don't get along at all.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that mean nothing should be done? You say that the UN does shitty things to them like bomb their country since '92, but when an effort is made to make retributions you site internal stryfe as a reason not to try to fix the country? Which one do you want them to maintain? The bombing? Or the attempts to fix things?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think they could've at least waited for the UN to be done so that they would have some proof, I've seen reports online that the evidence the US has used as an excuse to attack is mostly based on information and reports from before the last Gulf War and most of what was found then was already destroyed during said war. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has already been destroyed? When? Had Saddam disarmed at all, i think there would be some iota proof that he did so? Since the initial UN resolution said that he was supposed to actually destroy the weapons while in the presence of UN inspectors? I mean I agree that they shouldnt have stopped the inspections, but saying that the stuff that they found is left over from the Gulf War doesnt lend any weight to the argument. The fact that there are weapons and weapons supplies STILL left over from the Gulf War only further amplifies the reason to go in, as its PRECISELY what they've been looking for. But if they did have proof, would you be at all supportive? Or would you claim that they planted it? It seems that some people are really gung ho about the whole inspections thing, but fail to notice that once we do have the proof, we're still going to have to execute the same tactical manuvures that are transpiring right now.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think a couple of Scuds would've posed such a threat to the rest of the world and judging from what we've seen I highly doubt that Iraq has anything worth mentioning but soldiers. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesnt matter that they dont pose a threat to the rest of the world, they arent supposed to have them in accordance with UN laws. Call me crazy but if the congomerate of countries assembled to maintain order not only cant get a guy to disarm properly, but allow him to have weapons which contradict their sanctions because "Hey they arent that bad." than they arent doing their jobs efficiently. And Iraq hasnt accounted for the weapons they were supposed to destroy, which was also mandatory in the sanctions designated. This is all ample reason for alarm.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Britain would be fine in going along with planting evidence, since they do need to justify their war and in my opinion, even with two shabby Scuds, they haven't yet.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er...hypothetically. If there was any reason whatsoever to believe that anyone would be planting evidence. And regardless of the inadequacy of the missiles, they're still illegal, whether you want to admit it or not.

<font color="#99CCCC" size="1">[ March 30, 2003 05:21 PM: Message edited by: -Tyler- ]</font>

[DARKsyde]

You know what piss's me off more then anything else, is the fact that we as American's spend more god damned tax dollars on the military and war/terroism fund's at this point in time. When we have an economy that has been in the shitter for decades. Why not try to spend more of the tax dollars trying to help build the economy, By helping the people that want help trying to get job's that pay well enough to take care of a family. And the poeple that are homeless not because they chose to be, but because they are forced to be! I think before the United States worries about every body else's problem's we should focus on our own damned country!

[LORD HIGH BEAR]

Dark lord: you are way off bro.
we arn't "maintaining" or "undating" anything. we're ADDING more and more warheads every year.
i know this for a fact.

darksyde: the whole thing about the U.S. economy is all media bullshit. we still have one of the greatest economies in the world. although, i do agree that our government's priorities are way off. we should be spending money to help ourselves. not other counrties.

they're talking about cutting social security, and cutting military bonuses for soldiers. that is so much bullshit. i fucking hate our government. we don't even have good medicare here. unlike canada, U.K., and other countries. WTF is with that shit?!

when i get to president, i'm gonna put an end to all this shit. and make our country a better place......and all the handicaped spaces will be at the back of the parking lot.