Iraq

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
Ild of loved to of joined in more but i have a social life and seem to be out or sleeping when most of this is going on

You just need to discover the hidden joys of insomnia Sween

Bush definitly could start WW3...............I wonder which direction he will fire in now tho'

[Sween]

i reckon the hillbilly would just spin a bottle and see which way it points.

I mean we are saying sadam could have wepons of mass destution but we know bush defitally does. Thats a sobering thought isnt it.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by Sween
Im sure the american people love it.

Some, perhaps, but not all! Remember, Dubya was NOT democratically elected --- he did NOT receive a majority vote.

I for one am ashamed and embarrassed that he is the President of the country I live in. What makes the whole event terrifying is that he has so much power. It is more than likely he will strike Iraq, and claim a moral victory. Interesting behavior from the son of one of the dirtiest CIA heads in history. How far can that apple fall from the tree? And what comes next? People keep talking about regime change, but I have yet to hear a cogent plan.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Ild of loved to of joined in more but i have a social life and seem to be out or sleeping when most of this is going on

I would watch out if i was you JD cos BoP might come to america and bitch slap you all the way to iraq if you dont start been nice .

Well this may come as a surprise to people - but BoP and I used to talk on AIM. We had actually started talking online during the last Iraq thread. And we didn't get into heated while talking online. I had offered to show her around the New Jersey/New York area because she was planning on coming out here. The offer still stands. Having different opinions about certain issues does not mean that people can't get along on personal level. I have a friend in Portland that politically we are very far apart - and we had one time gotten into a serious heated argument - but we have agreed we will not discuss politics anymore.

Seriously though i akm disguested by bush's actions of singing that resoultion before the UN has decided what to do. Its the whole 'we will do whatever the hell we like and you can just sit there and like it' attitude of the bush administration.

Im sure the american people love it. But the rest of the world see it as a slap in a face to them. His international realtions are the worst ive ever seen its a good job tony spends most of his time smoothing things over.

If someone asked me who are you most scared of sadam husain or president bush it would have to be president bush given the chance he could start world war 3.

In every relation there is the one that plays the heavy and the one that plays the conjoler. Maybe that is partially what is going on here. The world already hates us - they've hated us before the Iraq thing. 9/11 was a blip of understanding the world showed - but even then the despisement showed through. This was demonstrated by the many comments of "Well now they know how it feels." "They got what they deserved" "Maybe it'll make them get off their high horse". These comments were not only coming from the Middle East - but from Europe. I think Blair and Bush are working this out an playing their prospective roles out on the world stage. maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm not. I guess for any of us only time will tell.

The fact remains though - without Bush's tough talk of war - the UN would NOT have been talking about sending inspectors into Iraq and Iraq would not be talking about LETTING them in. We have not as of yet invaded Iraq - there is still no guarantee we will.

I think a lot of this is show to tell the world that we are serious - we want results. We don't want anymore pussy footing around from the world community on the issue. If you're going to deal with it - deal with it; if not - we will. That is basically what he told the UN - in addition to telling them that it was time for them to prove that they were not irrelavent.

[Sween]

what next after iraq i mean there plenty of evil in the world to go round i mean the percicusion of tibbetens in china is just as bad if not worse than sadam will he be picking a fight with them? god forbid.

Out with Bush

you do take things a tad too seriously JD Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
Some, perhaps, but not all! Remember, Dubya was NOT democratically elected --- he did NOT receive a majority vote.

How was he not democratically elected? Are you one of the people that doesn't understand the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that IS in our Constitution? Also - the hand count was performed in Florida - and under the way Gore wanted the ballots counted it was determined that Bush would have won. It was a close race - that is all. It's over with. If Gore had won - people would be saying the same thing. And I'd rather have the international advisors (such as Condoleeza Rice and Collin Powell) that Bush has than the one's Al Gore would have had.

I for one am ashamed and embarrassed that he is the President of the country I live in. What makes the whole event terrifying is that he has so much power. It is more than likely he will strike Iraq, and claim a moral victory. Interesting behavior from the son of one of the dirtiest CIA heads in history. How far can that apple fall from the tree? And what comes next? People keep talking about regime change, but I have yet to hear a cogent plan.

If you don't like how much power he has - you should find out how your senators and representive voted and if they didn't vote the way you think they should have - then you should write to them. Congress is the one that gave him the power right now to attack Iraq, which was actually approved by a larger margin of Congress than when approval was given for the Gulf War.

The plans are still in the works. People were complaining about all this stuff two months ago. There is no plan there is no plan, he's not going to the UN, he's not talking to our allies. Well he did go to the UN, he has been talking to our allies. Plans are being worked out. I'm waiting to hear what the proposals are too - but I guess I'm a little more patient - because I don't really think that we're planning on attacking Iraq tomorrow. Even three - four months ago many of you felt that we were going to invade Iraq any day now. I said to wait then and I think we should wait now.

But as I said - if you don't like the direction - then write to your Congressmen and local politicians and write to Bush. (that of course only relates to American citizens, international mooters will just have to write to their own governments)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
what next after iraq i mean there plenty of evil in the world to go round i mean the percicusion of tibbetens in china is just as bad if not worse than sadam will he be picking a fight with them? god forbid.

Out with Bush

Well yeah - I guess all through history we should not have gotten involved in bringing down any evil. Why did we go into Bosnia? There were other evils going on in the world. Why did Europe really only want us to get involved there? Is it because it was in their backyard? Maybe a little self interest there by the European countries?

By the way - we really got tired of the blasting from the French about our culture invading theirs - so France is next on the invasion schedule. They deserve it for protesting against Euro-Disney and ransacking McDonalds (not that McDonalds doesn't do a HUGE business in France - they just won't admit it) Next would be Germany - since they bought out Chrysler. Finally England - all the other countries in Europe are small potatoes. Of course we do still need to make Canada a territory or commonwealth similar to Puerto Rico. That way they only get one non-voting representative in Congress and can't pollute the US with their socialist programs. See there are plans under the works - we just haven't relayed them to you yet.

you do take things a tad too seriously JD Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming

Oh - and you guys don't take everything so seriously.

I thought the lake region was really nice in Cumbria. At least that's what I heard and seen from pictures.

[osszie]

He's backing down

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp...5AC333F8914%7D

After all that shouting, all that threatening the Redneck is finally seeing sense

Wanted to chat more at the mo'.........too much stuff to do

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
He's backing down

http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp...5AC333F8914%7D

After all that shouting, all that threatening the Redneck is finally seeing sense

I didn't expect the UN to give a green light to military action and that's basically what isn't given. Maybe now you guys can stop whining about us not listening to the international community. However we will have to wait to see how much cooperation Iraq gives once the inspectors are in Iraq - which I feel won't be much.

Also - the compromise isn't even out there yet - so who knows what that might contain. I think it SHOULD include tough talk and mention the possibilty of military action if Iraq does not comply. Tough talk is the only thing Hussein understands, it's what's getting the weapons inspectors back in there in the first place. Maybe if he realises that WE are serious - he will let the weapons inspectors do their job (highly doubtful).

Denmark's UN ambassador, Ellen Margrethe Loj, speaking on behalf of the EU, said: "The government of Iraq should make no mistake about the fact that non-compliance with this inspection regime would have serious consequences."

That is the tone I think should be taken with Iraq - with the "possibilty of military action" added in. Of course there must be follow through with the threat as well if Saddam does not comply, otherwise why would any despotic regime listen to the UN or worry about their "consequences". And if they don't worry about UN consequences - then the UN HAS become irrelavent.

[jerseydevil]

This is sort oif interesting. ABCNews has the same exact article on their web site crediting it to the Associated Press.

U.S. Offers U.N. Resolution Deal As Pressure Mounts, U.S. Offers Compromise to Win Support for Iraq Resolution

The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS Oct. 17 — Facing strong opposition from dozens of nations, the United States has backed down from its demand that a new U.N. resolution must authorize military force if Baghdad fails to cooperate with weapons inspectors, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday......

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

U.S. offers to tone down its demands on Iraq in compromise UN resolution

Canadian Press

Thursday, October 17, 2002

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Facing strong opposition from dozens of countries, the United States has backed down from its demand that a new UN resolution must authorize military force if Baghdad fails to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.....

© Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press

To the casual observer it would look like the Canadian Press had written that story. They do include "(AP)" and they kept in the "told The Associated Press..." but since it contains their copyright notice it makes it look like it was written by them.

When I first read it - I thought it was a Canadian Press article, so I went to ABCNews to see what they had on about the UN Resolution compromise and if they had anything additional to say or how they presented the story. I was surprised when I started reading it and it was the same article, but credited to the AP.

Maybe I'm wrong about the way the Associated Press works - but I would think that all news organisations that publish an AP article must keep the Associated Press copyright there. I think local newspapers print the copyright somewhere on the inside front cover and then just use the "(AP)" throughout the newspaper for articles that originate from them.

ABCNews carries a lot of news items supplied from various sources - but you always know where they come from. They keep the originator's copyright notice with the article.

By the way - the Associated Press International Headquarters is in New York. Here is there faq page - The most frequently asked questions about The Associated Press.
In it it states -

1. Who owns The Associated Press?

The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,550 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.

On the Associated Press faq page it also states - " All republished material must carry AP credit.".

On it's Fact and Figures page it contains...

Founded in 1848, The Associated Press is the oldest and largest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video for more than one billion people a day.

The AP is the backbone of the world's information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you'll have some idea of AP's reach....

The Associated Press has received 47 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization in the categories for which it can compete. It has 28 photo Pulitzers, the most of any news organization.

So if you thought you were reading a non-American news source- you were wrong.

I know - nothing to do with Iraq- but I thought it was interesting. I wonder how many people read AP articles on the web thinking they are coming from a non-American source.

[osszie]

Yeah I knew that article was from the associated press, it just happened to be the one I was reading when I realised I was being pushed for time so I slapped it in here..

There's a slightly different view on the same story if anyone is interested

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.p...ang=e&dir=news

I could post more links and articles but I'm sure everyone is capable of using their search engines and forming their own opinions

JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Yeah I knew that article was from the associated press, it just happened to be the one I was reading when I realised I was being pushed for time so I slapped it in here..

There's a slightly different view on the same story if anyone is interested

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.p...ang=e&dir=news

I could post more links and articles but I'm sure everyone is capable of using their search engines and forming their own opinions

JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks

Damn and I'm trying so hard to upset you too today.

Oh yeah - George Bush is really comparable to Adolf Hitler. I guess we were actually planning the take over of Europe. Just think - if 9/11 didn't happen and Al Qaeda just continued to be bombing American targets oversees - we wouldn't be talking about Iraq right now. Americans would not be supporting the overthrow of Iraq - or at the very least it would have taken A LOT more convincing. When terrorist fly a plane into Parliament - you let me know what kind of action you are willing to take to overthrow these type of governments.

I know - there is no proof that America has presented to the world concerning the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It doesn't mean that there isn't a link and it doesn't mean that their won't be down the road. We waited for Al Qaeda to make it's first true move against the US and they killed 3,000 people and wiped out more office space than all the city of San Diego. We won't wait for the first attack again.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sween
Oh BoP ill glady show you round the lakes 1 day but its not very fun so dont bother comming

I'm sure we can think of something to do.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The world already hates us - they've hated us before the Iraq thing.

I have to say this.

This is not true for me. I have never hated Americans, nor the country. Sure, some have managed to irritate the hell outta me.... but I'm easily irritated.

And (don't shoot me for this) but I thought Clinton did a pretty good job.

I think Bush jnr is an idiot. Quite possibly the biggest idiot out. Not quite happy with taking away the rights of women (abortion policies) he's gone a step further and actually placed himself in a rather war mongering position. What he fails to realise is that waging war is only going to stir up the ants nest more. Many of these so-called Axis of Evil (what a name!) countries are now taking more positive steps to arm themselves because of the perceived American threat.

I'll say it again: I don't hate the American people, but I intensely dislike your administration.

JD:
The fact remains though - without Bush's tough talk of war - the UN would NOT have been talking about sending inspectors into Iraq and Iraq would not be talking about LETTING them in. We have not as of yet invaded Iraq - there is still no guarantee we will.

This is true..... but since there has been no evidence amassed against Saddam, there has been a perception that sour grapes was the motivation rather than fear of threat.

JD:
We don't want anymore pussy footing around from the world community on the issue.

This is fine and dandy, but with N. Korea actually coming out and admitting that they had nuclear capabilities, it seems rather absurd that Bush is still going to go after Iraq.... although in light of the new developments, I have hope that he will choose to do the sensible thing and try and deal with why N. Korea went against the treaty ratification (Probably didn't help that they were one of the targets on the axis of evil thing - daftest thing ever, leaking that out.)

JD:
Maybe now you guys can stop whining about us not listening to the international community.

We don't WHINE!

Osszie:
JD even you cannot upset me today..........potentialy the biggest war-monger since Adolf Hitler has been stopped in his tracks.

You think it is going to end there? *sigh* I wish I could be that optimistic. Although, I guess this gives him a good excuse to go and deal with the bigger threat - N. Korea - them, and their damned tunnels! Next thing you know, they'll have tunnelled into the US!

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When terrorist fly a plane into Parliament - you let me know what kind of action you are willing to take to overthrow these type of governments.

IF it happened we would go in and bomb the **** out of them, it hasn't happened to us though.

So is America planning on dealing with the whole of the "axis of evil" the same way it had intended on dealing with Iraq? If so then PLEASE be careful, one of those countries has just announced it has nuclear capability .......... all these years america was looking in the wrong direction.......quite amazing

I sincerely hope Bush isn't on planning invading Europe (checks atlas for any "axis of evil" stamps)but he has named more countries he is willing to go to war with more countries than any other leader since 1945

JD you can upset me very easily.......offer some proof to back up your statements and I'll be devasted...........honest I will

[Cirdan]

And (don't shoot me for this) but I thought Clinton did a pretty good job.

He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.

JD, there were hundreds of Europeans in the towers so don't discount their loss.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You think it is going to end there? *sigh* I wish I could be that optimistic. Although, I guess this gives him a good excuse to go and deal with the bigger threat - N. Korea - them, and their damned tunnels! Next thing you know, they'll have tunnelled into the US!

Oh no, I have no doubt the war against terrorism will go on long after I'm dead and buried, but it will be the UN that call the shots, not America

For the record I don't hate individual Americans, wouldn't be communicating with Americans at all if I did

I'm gonna leave this thread alone for a little while, give some others a chance to whine about the situation

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
Oh no, I have no doubt the war against terrorism will go on long after I'm dead and buried, but it will be the UN that call the shots, not America

Now that's being optimistic!

Cirdan:
He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.

That's not what I heard.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
He did. Unfortunately so did Monica.

JD, there were hundreds of Europeans in the towers so don't discount their loss.

I know there were - but there were 800 New Jerseyans that were killed also. I'm not discounting other countries' victims - but they don't live 45 minutes away from where the Twin Towers stood. Most people around the world have not gone to the huge memorial that wraps it's way around St Pauls Chapel, which once stood at the base of the Twin Towers. I have 15 rolls of film of the memorial that I plan to add to my Twin Towers Memorial website. They didn't see the Twin Towers all the time and now have the empty space as a constant reminder. The people that are still suffering the most are the families that lost friends and families, and the people that live in the area of the attacks - mostly everyone else around the world has moved on. People will forget until there is another attack. I think Bali was another wake up call for everyone.

This was an interesting article on that site you supplied Osszie -

British poll: Support to war against Iraq on the increase following Bali bombing attack

A substantial increase in support among British voters for military action against Iraq was indicated in the aftermath of the Bali bomb attack, an opinion poll published on Wednesday showed.

A survey by The Guardian daily found that support for a military strike on Iraq had risen by 10 percentage points in the last week from 32 percent to 42 percent.

The survey, which was carried out on Monday, showed that opposition to an attack dropped from 41 percent to 37 percent. Forty-one percent of respondents said it was essential to fight the war on terrorism on two fronts, against Iraq and al-Qaeda.

According to the poll, 35 percent of respondents thought al-Qaeda rather than Iraq should be the focus of international attention. (Albawaba.com)

The problem with Albawaba.com is they don't give a lot of information though. There isn't a margin of error or anything listed. Most of their articles are very short and don't go into much depth.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This was an interesting article on that site you supplied Osszie -

Yeah, it was certainly not supposed to represent a definitive article.

I'm off to re-read some chapters of LotR (Iron Parrot has asked a very interesting Merry+Pippin question )

I expect nothing less than WORLD PEACE when I return