Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
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

Why is it so confusing? What I want and what the current situation is are two different things.

You want to know what I really want? I want the Al Qaeda to come around and say we give up our terrorist attacks and say "We need to work together on making the middle east a more peaceful place instead of putting all this money into terrorist camps." I want Israeli and Palestinians to meet and shake hands and share the land peacefully. I want Saddam Husein to say - "here - here are all my weapons. let's work together to make the Iraqi people happy and not feel like they're living in fear." I want North and South Korea to be able to join back together. And the skies parted and a huge rainbow appeared and there was a peace for ever more. The thing is - we don't live in that world. That isn't going to happen.

So even though - I feel we should leave the UN - it is a fact that we are a member of the UN. Therefore we must work under the current circumstances.

In regards to all out war - I would prefer that it doesn't come to that. As I have said over and over again. And I do feel we should be threatening Iraq with the consequences of not allowing UN Inspectors in - which would be an all out war.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

[osszie]

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

Aum Shinrikyo

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group, IG)

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM)

Hizballah (Party of God)

Japanese Red Army (JRA)

al-Jihad

Kach

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction

Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

al-Qa'ida

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)

Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front

Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)

Well acording to the UN website, that's the top ten (although it does change at a moments notice according to the site)

In the UK the IRA is the biggest threat quickly followed by the ALF (animal liberation front)

[osszie]

Originally posted by osszie
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

It's not hard to understand JD..............but please try to answer my questions!!.............honestly............. why do you always avoid them

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by osszie
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

Aum Shinrikyo

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group, IG)

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM)

Hizballah (Party of God)

Japanese Red Army (JRA)

al-Jihad

Kach

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction

Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

al-Qa'ida

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)

Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front

Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)

Well acording to the UN website, that's the top ten (although it does change at a moments notice according to the site)

In the UK the IRA is the biggest threat quickly followed by the ALF (animal liberation front)

So would an attack on any of groups be justified? What if one of these groups happened to be in Iraq? Would war be justified?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
It's not hard to understand JD..............but please try to answer my questions!!.............honestly............. why do you always avoid them

I've lost track of what your question is because all you keep saying is to answer your question and I have answered your questions.

in terms of all those threats you posted - they all fall under the war against terrorism.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
So would an attack on any of groups be justified? What if one of these groups happened to be in Iraq? Would war be justified?

Of course not anti-terrorism action would be justified.............effective measures to eliminate the terrorist threat............only an invasion or an attack of a country justifies war

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've lost track of what your question is because all you keep saying is to answer your question and I have answered your questions.

in terms of all those threats you posted - they all fall under the war against terrorism.

Goodnight JD ......... if you feel that you have answered my questions then fine

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Goodnight JD ......... if you feel that you have answered my questions then fine

I'm willing to answer yout questions - just ask me again instead of just saying "can you answer my question."

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by osszie
Of course not anti-terrorism action would be justified.............effective measures to eliminate the terrorist threat............only an invasion of a country justifies war

Even if a country is harboring terrorists and is paying money to suicide bombers? At what point do you consider the actual government of that country terrorists? Wouldn't an invasion be anti-terrorism action?

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Even if a country is harboring terrorists and is paying money to suicide bombers? At what point do you consider the actual government of that country terrorists? Wouldn't an invasion be anti-terrorism action?

I'm sorry this is a thread devoted for the discussion of Iraq, and in the case of Iraq there is NO PROOF (how many time to say this?) of WMD or harboring terrorists

the number of times this thread has weaved off topic

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm willing to answer yout questions - just ask me again instead of just saying "can you answer my question."

They are on the thread JD ...........

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I'm sorry this is a thread devoted for the discussion of Iraq, and in the case of Iraq there is NO PROOF (how many time to say this?) of WMD or harboring terrorists

the number of times this thread has weaved off topic

And as I've said repeatedy - weapon inspectors have been kept out for 4 years. If you think that he just gave up his weapons on his own then you must have your head stuck in the sand.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And as I've said repeatedy - weapon inspectors have been kept out for 4 years. If you think that he just gave up his weapons on his own then you must have your head stuck in the sand.

This is sheer conjecture. Not enough evidence there to warrant an expensive (in terms of both money AND lives) war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
They are on the thread JD ...........

because I answered as many of the questions as the five of you were throwing at me. I also answered the main question that you wanted answered. You just don't like my answers.

[osszie]

No JD, you did not give any answers except "perhaps, maybe, probably etc etc etc..........

Sween was right.............propaganda.............popularis t theory

IMO You slate other countries constantly (esp. European countries) yet your own arguments are full of contradictions and shifts

I used to think that you were intelligent, now IMO you will change your argument simply to prove what you percieve as being right.

(I'm very aware that I may be banned for this opinion, but after many changes in this discussion thread I feel I need to have said this).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This is sheer conjecture. Not enough evidence there to warrant an expensive (in terms of both money AND lives) war.

I guess the war won't be expensive after he uses the weapons then.

You can't honestly believe that the probability of him having them is less than him not having them.

[Khamûl]

Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No JD, you did not give any answers except "perhaps, maybe, probably etc etc etc..........

Sween was right.............propaganda.............popularis t theory

IMO You slate other countries constantly (esp. European countries) yet your own arguments are full of contradictions and shifts

I used to think that you were intelligent, now IMO you will change your argument simply to prove what you percieve as being right.

(I'm very aware that I may be banned for this opinion, but after many changes in this discussion thread I feel I need to have said this).

Why would you be banned? And you weren't around for the many many "let's bash America" threads.

I don't change my opinions. It's just that you are unable to discern from what I would like and what is. I haven't chnaged my arguments either - i have expanded on them. There are many reasons why i support taking out hussein and many ways of going about it.

I have not changed my opinion on war with Iraq at all. I will state what I said in the very beginning. I wouldf prefer not to have an all out war. I would prefer to have Hussein taken out in the cover of dark. Do I think that an all out war is likely - yes I do. WHY? Because most likely he will either hinder the weapons inspectors from doing their job or he will have weapons of mass destruction.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Ok, why would Saddam get rid of the weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why is he so reluctant to let them back in?

hmm maybe because the former Yugoslavian states (any war like states) that had conflict with the UN did not have 30% of the worlds oil resources and subsuquentially did not have any sanctions forced upon them..........and no other country in the world has ever had to trade "oil for food"....................gods we give any country aid, willingly, but with Iraq it has to be traded for oil if we can put food drops on a starving country then why can we not have food and medicine for Iraq?.........probably because most of the cancer suffer's in Iraq are suffering because of "depleted uranium" missiles which were used during the Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox...........and the western world cannot give aid to the suffering we caused............can we

[jerseydevil]

By the way Osszie - you try debating with 5 people - all of which disagree with you and are practically grilling you. maybe that is also the reason i had a hard time remembering what questions you asked me. There was only so much time to respond to you guys without coming back after finally replying and finding out I had 5 more posts I needed to reply to.