Iraq

[osszie]

Yes your quote was of your opinion..............but we were talking about public opinion (american) surely

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, Iraq sank a couple of US ships before the gulf war... but claimed that they thought they were Iranian ships. The US brought it. Yep, he's a wiley bastard.

yup'am - he sure es.

Iraq poses a potential threat to the US but so do alot of other countries. Come to think of it, so does New Zealand for that matter, ya know, since we're anti-nuclear.

Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you.

Several, actually. Only now have you changed your tune and changed it to "I feel" statements as opposed to "Saddam will" statements. What about these claims of Saddam smuggling weapons out the back door while the inspections were going on? Burying them? These were backed up how? At what point did you state that these were opinions rather than facts?

Oh I'm sorry I didn't say they were my feelings. I thought it would be understood since weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for 4 years and I have never been there. The only REASON weapon inspectors are supposed to go now is because of the threat of military action.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yes your quote was of your opinion..............but we were talking about public opinion (american) surely

I had not responded to this...

I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

It does. But people APPROVE of how he is going about it. And the majority of Americans currently support war with Iraq.

I am ASSUMING that you were questioning the fact that had left that part in when I quoted you - but then responded to the "Marshall Plan: section. If I'm wrong please correct me. Because currently - you're not making any sense.

[osszie]

Surely it was America that first gave Saddam Nuclear power, which the Isreali' army soon destroyed

And did not America spent almost 8yrs giving Saddam "dual use" chemicals...............fertilisers that when mixed could be made into poisonous gases..........or in other words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

the americans supplied this stuff...........are you not surprised that the world is worried that WMD may be soon a possibility in Iraq?........but they are not there................Saddam would have used them

"Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you."


How typically American ........... no wonder Cirdan stated the obvious

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I am ASSUMING that you were questioning the fact that had left that part in when I quoted you - but then responded to the "Marshall Plan: section. If I'm wrong please correct me. Because currently - you're not making any sense.

I was reffering to your earlier posts in this thread.

You said that you feel that America should be repaid by Europe for the expenditure of the Marshall Plan (post WW2) then later you said that a "new Marshall Plan should be implemented for the middle east..........do you feel that a Marshall Plan following any conflict in the middle east should also leave the middle east indebted to you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Surely it was America that first gave Saddam Nuclear power, which the Isreali' army soon destroyed

And did not America spent almost 8yrs giving Saddam "dual use" chemicals...............fertilisers that when mixed could be made into poisonous gases..........or in other words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

the americans supplied this stuff...........are you not surprised that the world is worried that WMD may be soon a possibility in Iraq?........but they are not there................Saddam would have used them

I thought earlier it was said that he wouldn't use them? And just because he hasn't used them yet - doesn't mean that they're not there.

"Honestly - the US can careless that you're anti-nuclear. I didn't even know they were anti-nuclear until I started talking to you."


How typically American ........... no wonder Cirdan stated the obvious

Why would we worry that New Zealand is anti-nuclear? It's their business. They have a right to choose not to be nuclear. They also have 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey or even New York City. They can afford to have other sources of non-polluting energy.

And the kind of things that are said about America and Americans (you weren't here for the anti-American thread) - what I just said to BoP was minor.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I was reffering to your earlier posts in this thread.

You said that you feel that America should be repaid by Europe for the expenditure of the Marshall Plan (post WW2) then later you said that a "new Marshall Plan should be implemented for the middle east..........do you feel that a Marshall Plan following any conflict in the middle east should also leave the middle east indebted to you?

Okay I will quote what I said earlier and try making it a little clearer.

One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see any of it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.

We are a world player and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's not so they can be indepted to us. But if we're going to go into Iraq or any other country - in the name of making the world a safer place - we need to do more to build the infastructure of these countries. The world community - including - Europe should be doing a better job. We're currently doing a lot of that in Afganistan and if we do go into Iraq we WILL NEED to do it there too. The US should NOT be the only one that shoulders the responsibilty of rebuilding these countries.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I thought earlier it was said that he wouldn't use them? And just because he hasn't used them yet - doesn't mean that they're not there.
Why would we worry that New Zealand is anti-nuclear? It's their business. They have a right to choose not to be nuclear. They also have 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey or even New York City.
And the kind of things that are said about America and Americans (you weren't here for the anti-American thread) - what I just said to BoP was minor.

So by that reckoning because Al Qaeda does not have nuclear weapons they are not a threat?............sure they use semtex and CF4..........to kill people........yet america has made it clear that they would wage war on Iraq.........who have used mustard gas admittedly ................. but not against the western world. Incidently it has been said that "he has not used them". he would not use them anyway..........just like the nuclear powers we know of, nuclear weapons are a better prevention of war than a cause of war.........would america dare invade if Saddam were known to have nuclear missiles?............only if they wanted to destroy the world would they invade, a 200 megaton bomb that landed ANYWHERE on solid ground would create an ice age(from destroyed topsoil) that would last for hundreds of years!!

JD I have always tried to be courteous to you...........but if you are going to be a part of this discussion pls try and answer my questions............

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We are a world player and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's not so they can be indepted to us. But if we're going to go into Iraq or any other country - in the name of making the world a safer place - we need to do more to build the infastructure of these countries. The world community - including - Europe should be doing a better job. We're currently doing a lot of that in Afganistan and if we do go into Iraq we WILL NEED to do it there too. The US should NOT be the only one that shoulders the responsibilty of rebuilding these countries.

Very true.......so why the say that Europe should repay America for the Marshal Plan (post WW2 ) earlier

Big shock time .............America does NOT shoulder the responsibility for rebuilding Afaghanistan............it is the UN's responsibilty...........if you feel that America is burdened with more of it's fair share then you should address that problem yourself (POF there are currently 34,000 UN troops in Afganistan)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So by that reckoning because Al Qaeda does not have nuclear weapons they are not a threat?............sure they use semtex and CF4..........to kill people........yet america has made it clear that they would wage war on Iraq.........who have used mustard gas admittedly ................. but not against the western world. Incidently it has been said that "he has not used them". he would not use them anyway..........just like the nuclear powers we know of, nuclear weapons are a better prevention of war than a cause of war.........would america dare invade if Saddam were known to have nuclear missiles?............only if they wanted to destroy the world would they invade, a 200 megaton bomb that landed ANYWHERE on solid ground would create an ice age(from destroyed topsoil) that would last for hundreds of years!!

I was taking BoP's comments about being anti-nuclear and being a threat to America as meaning that they demonstrate constantly against the US and users of nuclear energy and countries that have nuclear weapons. There was an incidence a couple of months ago when Japan was transporting nuclear waste and was going around New Zealand. I can't remember if they had actually entered New Zealand waters or not.

Al Qaeda being a threat has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear weapons.

JD I have always tried to be courteous to you...........but if you are going to be a part of this discussion pls try and answer my questions............

I have tried answering your questions. It has partially been difficult because I'm having to respond to five people. Also - the answers I give aren't the answers you want. I have answered all three questions posed in the beginning of the thread you asked me to answer. If you didn't like my answers there is nothing I can do.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Very true.......so why the say that Europe should repay America for the Marshal Plan (post WW2 ) earlier

Because you were actually supposed to pay us back.

Big shock time .............America does NOT shoulder the responsibility for rebuilding Afaghanistan............it is the UN's responsibilty...........if you feel that America is burdened with more of it's fair share then you should address that problem yourself (POF there are currently 34,000 UN troops in Afganistan)

I know there are UN troops in Afganistan. But the US does more than it's share of support around the world. It is time other countries do more.

As I had said in a previous thread - The US went in to protect UN aid to Somalians from the warlords - our marines were killed and dragged through the street naked. We got out of there. No one else sent troops into Somalia to protect the aid workers - so the UN had to leave.

When the massacre in Rwanda occurred - Americans didn't want to go in because of what had occurred in Somalia. Why didn't any other country go in and help them? Why does every one say "Why didn't America go in there and protect them?" Why was it our responsibility to begin with?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is time other countries do more.

They do. Through this thing called the UN. You might have heard of it? Just because the rest of the world isn't high-ho silver about war, doesn't make their contributions any less valuable.

Edit: Backpedalling here. This is hardly on topic.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Al Qaeda being a threat has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear weapons.
I have tried answering your questions. It has partially been difficult because I'm having to respond to five people. Also - the answers I give aren't the answers you want. I have answered all three questions posed in the beginning of the thread you asked me to answer. If you didn't like my answers there is nothing I can do.

So by Saddam NOT using WMD and NOT using terrorist action against the west then it is STILL justified that America is willing to go to war with Iraq???

JD you have not only not answered my questions but you have chosen extracts from my posts to answer that, in your opinion, give evidence why America is in the right...........BoP was correct someday you will make a brilliant politician you have constantly stated why America is right and the rest of the world is wrong without backing ANY of your statments with evidence (aside from some very sketchy historical evidence)..............Patriotism is one thing but Patriotism based on blind propaganda is quite another .......your feelings and personal beliefs are your own...............so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
They do. Through this thing called the UN. You might have heard of it? Just because the rest of the world isn't high-ho silver about war, doesn't make their contributions any less valuable.

Edit: Backpedalling here. This is hardly on topic.

You must be up for the new Admin position.

Yes I have heard of the UN and as you know I support the US leaving the UN and closing down it's headquarters in NY. And America is not high-ho silver on war.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You must be up for the new Admin position.

Well, you know how I feel about power.


I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a senstive enough topic without generating antipathy towards each other whilst going off on a tangent about who is more great, and who contributes more. We ALL contribute.

Now, back to Iraq:

We are still waiting for you to answer the questions JD. You've evaded for long enough.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So by Saddam NOT using WMD and NOT using terrorist action against the west then it is STILL justified that America is willing to go to war with Iraq???

JD you have not only not answered my questions but you have chosen extracts from my posts to answer that, in your opinion, give evidence why America is in the right...........BoP was correct someday you will make a brilliant politician you have constantly stated why America is right and the rest of the world is wrong without backing ANY of your statments with evidence (aside from some very sketchy historical evidence)..............

Just a second - let me take a flight to Iraq and get some evidence for you. As I have stated - weapon inspectors have not been in Iraq for 4 years, I have never been to iraq. How am I supposed to give you evidence - other than historical past behavior of Hussein. We do have satelite photos that have indicated possible weapons manufacturing. As I said - we will find out once the weapons inspectors get into Iraq - if they are even allowed to perform their job.

Patriotism is one thing but Patriotism based on blind propaganda is quite another .......your feelings and personal beliefs are your own...............so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???

What do you mean by - "your feelings and personal beliefs are your own.... so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???"? I do not have blind propaganda - I am making educated decisions - based on the way Hussein has acted in the past and the way he has recently acted about allowing weapons inspectors in. I watch the news - i search for news items. You have not supported your arguments enough for me to say that if Hussein does not allow unfettered access to the weapons inspectors that military action is not justified. He knows the consequences of not abiding by the UN resolutions. Which are the same consequences as four and five years ago.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Now, back to Iraq:

We are still waiting for you to answer the questions JD. You've evaded for long enough.

What the f*** question do you want me to answer?

I've answered the questions. Military action IS justified if Hussein either has WMD or prevents weapon inspectors from doing their job.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've answered the questions. Military action IS justified if Hussein either has WMD or prevents weapon inspectors from doing their job.

What about the other countries with WMD? Do they warrant an invasion too? Just a thought.

These are both very weak excuses for war. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are greater threats.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just a second - let me take a flight to Iraq and get some evidence for you. As I have stated - weapon inspectors have not been in Iraq for 4 years, I have never been to iraq. How am I supposed to give you evidence - other than historical past behavior of Hussein. We do have satelite photos that have indicated possible weapons manufacturing. As I said - we will find out once the weapons inspectors get into Iraq - if they are even allowed to perform their job.


What do you mean by - "your feelings and personal beliefs are your own.... so why do you counteract them with the beliefs of your country???"? I do not have blind propaganda - I am making educated decisions - based on the way Hussein has acted in the past and the way he has recently acted about allowing weapons inspectors in. I watch the news - i search for news items. You have not supported your arguments enough for me to say that if Hussein does not allow unfettered access to the weapons inspectors that military action is not justified. He knows the consequences of not abiding by the UN resolutions. Which was the same consequences as four and five years ago.

If you have no evidence then why are you trying to justify an attack on Iraq?

You have said yourself on several occasions in this thread that you see no reason why America should not threaten Iraq with all-out war, yet you have also said yourself that you do not support all-out war...............yet over the last two days you have said that you feel that the UN inspectors should be allowed to do their job first, and again you contradict yourself by repeatedly saying that America should seperate itself from the UN ........ you are making no sense JD

[Khamûl]

Time for my two cents worth...

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What about the other countries with WMD? Do they warrant an invasion too? Just a thought.

What other countries? Are these countries run by a tyranical dictator? Will these countries sell WMD to terrorists?

These are both very weak excuses for war. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are greater threats.

What kind of threats?