Iraq

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only reason I brought up the Falklands is because you said that you manage your military and only fight in self defense. But I could have just as easily have brought up Ireland.

You really can't take the moral high ground in this. No European country can.

Oh - i guess now we're supposed to revolve the management of our government around Iraq.

WTF?? The Falkland islands are part of the UK!! The Argentinians invaded our soil!! Inhabited by UK citizens!! It was self defence, buy an atlas JD.

Your country's government is relvolving around Iraq IMO.........the more it can do to antagonise it, the more it will do

Do you really think that today was the best day for those papers to be signed......................?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
So? I'll say it again. Saddam doesn't appear to have moved against the US since the gulf war. Heck, he's been isolated in Iraq!

You have yet to prove that he's moved against the US. You have yet to answer why this war is justified. All you have provided is speculation. Not good enough. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I'm not here to show you the money and you'll have until hell freezes over for me to do that or until the weapon inpsectors prove it (which ever comes first). I have said that of course there is NO proof that he has WMD at this time (at least any that has been brought to the surface o released to the general public) he hasn't let weapons inspectors since he managed to kick them out. . I have said that the PROBABILITY of him having them is greater than not having them. If you would read my posts you may finally get that through your head!!!

I had missed this - so I had to add it in

WTF?? The Falkland islands are part of the UK!! The Argentinians invaded our soil!! Inhabited by UK citizens!! It was self defence, buy an atlas JD.

I know where the Faklklands are and know they are British TERRITORY. I should have just stuck with Ireland which was my first choice. AND I DO HAVE AN ATLAS, which is right here next to me.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, I get what you are saying JD.

What I would like you to prove is the probability of him having them being greater than him not having them? What is this speculation based on? Are you privy to something that we are not?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, I get what you are saying JD.

What I would like you to prove is the probability of him having them being greater than him not having them? What is this speculation based on? Are you privy to something that we are not?

It's based on his past action and lies. If a person continously acts one way - do you expect them to just wake up one day and just change over night? Answer this - why would he stop manufacturing once he got what he wanted - which was the inspectors out of the country. You can't deny the fact that they did find weapons and that he was and is in the pursuit of nuclear. I'm sure even you can realise that.

I was trying to refrain from the personal attacks, like the many that you guys have been throwing my way - but I guess I failed.

[BeardofPants]

IIRC, even the fact that he was supposedly producing biological weapons was dubious.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
IIRC, even the fact that he was supposedly producing biological weapons was dubious.

The only way you would be satisified with proof of him having these weapons is if you were dragged to Iraq and had your nose shoved into them.

Everything that anyone reports that says that he has these weapons is dubious to you. So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only way you would be satisified with proof of him having these weapons is if you were dragged to Iraq and had your nose shoved into them.

Everything that anyone reports that says that he has these weapons is dubious to you. So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

Probably.

I'm sorry, but at the time all the media reports were American.... now, if you can't see the bias there, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So in other words - the only time YOU will believe it is if you PERSONALLY see it for yourself.

Or to put it another way, WHEN THERE IS PROOF

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Probably.

I'm sorry, but at the time all the media reports were American.... now, if you can't see the bias there, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

The UN Inspectors were made up of people from various countries. Not only the American inspectors said that they found weapons. Not only the American inspectors said they were hindered at every turn.

I guess New Zealand media is superior and completely unbiased right? Or is it only the editorials and opinions that you agree with that are unbiased?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess New Zealand media is superior and completely unbiased right? Or is only the editorials and opinions that you agree with that are unbiased?

New Zealand media isn't any better.

Put it this way: I don't trust journos.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Or to put it another way, WHEN THERE IS PROOF

Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind made up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
New Zealand media isn't any better.

Put it this way: I don't trust journos.

So who do you trust and what sources do you use to get your news? I guess you only trust the people that already support your view.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

JD. Please. Don't presume to know my thoughts and intentions. I've said it before, I'll say it again, in caps, so you'll understand. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I have said time and again: I don't support a war based on unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the proof and then I'll revise my opinions. For me proof does not involve a highly biased media. Got it?!

Now, I will trust the SOURCE of the information, not the F***ing media. How hard it is to get your head around that???

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well when and IF the weapons inspectors are able to do their jobs - chances are there will be proof. But as BoP already admitted - that still won't be good enough proof for her. So I don't understand why she even discusses this - since she already has her mind up. There will never be enough proof to satisify her. Everyone lies and no one is to be trusted. Must be a difficult way of going through life and trying to make decisions.

When the UN inspectors have done there job there will be PROOF and if they find WMD the following actions against Iraq will be justified

personally I think the UN inspectors will find "dual use chemicals" (which includes pencils!!) and the US will use this to justify their attack

Erm just out of curiosity why are you telling us what BoP has put in her posts?.............her posts are there for everyone to read

Personally I make my decisions on FACTS..........everything else is just hearsay

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess I should go about listing all the Arab countries seperately that set up demonstrations against the west. I forgot - if I'm too general then you think I feel that everyone is like that. No I DO NOT FEEL ALL the Arab countries do that. For one thing Jordan doesn't and neither does Saudi Arabia. Iran does, the Palestinians do, Iraq absolutely does. I bet Saudia Arabia would if they didn't need the west so much because they have many problems with their own citizenry.

Yes, you should qualify your statements so they don't sound like hyperbole. Saudi Arabia is in trouble both because of their relationship with the west and the way their dictatorial monarchy treats it's people. We won't be helping the stability of either Jordan or Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq and setting up a puppet state. If the US is going to invade it should just plan to occupy all the countries that harbor terrorists or are sympathetic to the US but are threatened by internal opposition. Or is that the plan already?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD. Please. Don't presume to know my thoughts and intentions. I've said it before, I'll say it again, in caps, so you'll understand. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I have said time and again: I don't support a war based on unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the proof and then I'll revise my opinions. For me proof does not involve a highly biased media. Got it?!

Now, I will trust the SOURCE of the information, not the F***ing media. How hard it is to get your head around that???

I guess you'll go to the UN and just walk in and ask them then. Or do you have friends that are weapons inspectors that you might trust? Because I'd really like to know how YOU ARE supposed to get this information if it doesn't first go through the media. Because either the media will have to have interviews with the weapons inspectors - where there have been many - or they will have to diseminate the UN reports to the general public.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess you'll go to the UN and just walk in and ask them then. Or do you have friends that are weapons inspectors that you might trust? Because I'd really like to know how YOU ARE supposed to get this information if it doesn't first go through the media. Because either the media will have to have interviews with the weapons inspectors - where there have been many - or they will have to diseminate the UN reports to the general public.

In case you haven't noticed, the UN has a nice little website that I can go to.

I'm talking conventional media here, JD. Journos, newspapers, etc.

As Osszie has already said, why are you stating (and twisting) what I'm saying? It's there to be read by other people. They don't need you to spoon feed them your twisted version of what I'm saying. You know, a good example of the media there JD. Always go to the primary source.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
When the UN inspectors have done there job there will be PROOF and if they find WMD the following actions against Iraq will be justified

personally I think the UN inspectors will find "dual use chemicals" (which includes pencils!!) and the US will use this to justify their attack

I will determine whether the actions will be justified at that time. At this time I feel they will. My mind can chnage based on the circumstances. If weapons were found right now - I would support military action.

There was more than pencils found the last time.

Erm just out of curiosity why are you telling us what BoP has put in her posts?.............her posts are there for everyone to read

Because I just wanted her to admit that unless she was in Iraq and saw the weapons for herself that she wouldn't believe they existed. I pretty much got her to admit that.

Personally I make my decisions on FACTS..........everything else is just hearsay

Well it was a fact that weapons were found when the weapons inspectors were there. It was a fact they were hindered. It was a fact that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get nuclear weapons. And as you said it is his goal to rule the Middle East.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
In case you haven't noticed, the UN has a nice little website that I can go to.

I'm talking conventional media here, JD. Journos, newspapers, etc.

As Osszie has already said, why are you stating (and twisting) what I'm saying? It's there to be read by other people. They don't need you to spoon feed them your twisted version of what I'm saying. You know, a good example of the media there JD. Always go to the primary source.

I'm not twisting what you are saying. Or is it like the way you twist and distort the things I say?

I do go to the sources also. I'm even surprised that you trust the UN. Don't you think they only let out what they feel they want to?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I pretty much got her to admit that.

Bull****. You got me to admit a JOKE.

I WILL NOT be satisfied unless it comes directly from the UN.

There, a soundbite for you.