Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

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.

Well as I said - I don't see how you expect to get the kind of evidence you want since he kicked out the inspectors four years ago. But it is completely ignorant if you don't think that he has continued with his weapons production.

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.

Contrary to popular belief - the President can't do anything about abortion rights. He can state his beliefs and try getting congress to pass a bill, but it is only Congress that can change the abortion laws. The president only signs it after it has been approved by Congress. First it most go through the House of Representatives and then after it is approved there - it must be approved by the Senate - then it can go on the president's desk for his signature to become law. In addition - each state has it's own abortion laws. The Federal Government doesn't ban abortions - but neither does it prevent states from banning abortions. Again people seem to have a very simplistic view of the way our government works.

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.)

Actually - supposedly the US government has suspected that they were building or attempting to build nuclear weapons.

U.S.: North Korea admits nuke program
A CIA report in January said that during the second half of last year, North Korea "continued its attempts [to] procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program," the AP reported.

"We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons," the report said.

Another senior U.S. official told CNN that Washington received intelligence "back over the summer months" indicating that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program involving the use of highly enriched uranium.

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The official said that when Kelly confronted the top North Korean official with information about the nuclear weapons program on October 4, the North Koreans were "belligerent" but did not dispute the U.S. claim and "showed not a hint of remorse."

I guess the CIA was correct.

[jerseydevil]

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

Not if they don't take a more active role in enforcing their own resolutions. If they just talk the talk and don't follow through with any action then they have become irrelavent.

The only way that there will ever be a successful world governing agency is when earth is attacked from outerspace.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

I was 1/2 a mile from the Pentagaon and four blocks from the White House when the plane hit. I could hear it and see it burn. I think bombing a bunch of strangers will not make anyone's grief go away. Now, getting bin Ladin's head on a pike, that might help.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now, getting bin Ladin's head on a pike, that might help.

Well I've proposed that for a long time. I would like to see it at ground zero and have it stuck on one of the Twin Tower girders.

[jerseydevil]

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

Well at leats you admit it.

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

Alreadyu answered. We had been looking and we knew they had a weapons program.

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

He was putting the world on notice that no country had better be found supporting terrorists. If a country is found to be supporting terrorists or harboring terrorists - they will pay the consequence. We will go in there. I believe the international community DOES stand by America on that one.

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

I was hoping I had to work at it a little. Give me something to do in my spare time. Make me think about ways of irritating you. Now you just took the whole fun out of it.

What proof do you have that he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction? No one has concrete proof at this time either way - because no one has been allowed into Iraq.

My argument all along has been let the inspectors in and let's see what happens. I already know what will happen and that is Hussein will attempt to block the inspectors from doing their job or come up with some reason why they should be removed and replaced with new inspectors.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Contrary to popular belief - the President can't do anything about abortion rights. He can state his beliefs and try getting congress to pass a bill, but it is only Congress that can change the abortion laws.

Remind again who had it as part of his presidential election campaign?

JD:
He was putting the world on notice that no country had better be found supporting terrorists. If a country is found to be supporting terrorists or harboring terrorists - they will pay the consequence. We will go in there. I believe the international community DOES stand by America on that one.

Yes, but I don't think it was perhaps the best of ideas to publish them in something called the Axis of Evil. If that doesn't make those countries want to arm themselves to the teeth, then I don't know what will.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Remind again who had it as part of his presidential election campaign?

Yes - but the only way it really becomes an issue is when the Congress is likely to support the presidential candidate on the issue or if there are any Supreme Court vacancies that might have to be filled. If the bill doesn't go through Congress - the President can talk till he's blue in the face about being anti-abortion and it's still not going to do a damn thing to change the law.

The truly sad thing is - is that most Americans are ignorant of the way the government works. They have no understanding of the checks in balances in place. Politicians can spout off about all different kinds of things - many of which they have absolutely no control over without Congress - and people buy into it.

Yes, but I don't think it was perhaps the best of ideas to publish them in something called the Axis of Evil. If that doesn't make those countries want to arm themselves to the teeth, then I don't know what will.

Well i did think that the naming of the countries like that was wrong. But the only one I really had a problem with was Iran though - because with their moderate government in place (albeit with the hardline muslims clerics in control) Iran and US relations seem to have been improving. I would hope that they would continue to improve. I wish after their help (even if a lot of it was low key) that he had not named Iran as one of them - but had given them some sort of praise for helping instead.

[Cirdan]

Some talking head just said "Sure, N. Korea has nukes, troops on massed on the border, and their leader really is insane, but you must remember, Saddam has lots of oil".

It's going to be a tight timetable know. Maybe the next time we won't announce the list of countries to invade until we are ready (note to self).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Some talking head just said "Sure, N. Korea has nukes, troops on massed on the border, and their leader really is insane, but you must remember, Saddam has lots of oil".

Well at least they were being honest about it. Although I don't think it's all about oil. But to say that oil isn't a part of it is just as ignorant as saying that Saddam has no WMD nor is developing them because he would never use them.

It's going to be a tight timetable know. Maybe the next time we won't announce the list of countries to invade until we are ready (note to self).

Well wasn't that the reason he left Europe out of the list? I mean right now we want them on our side - but afterward.....

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well at leats you admit it.

Alreadyu answered. We had been looking and we knew they had a weapons program.

I was hoping I had to work at it a little. Give me something to do in my spare time. Make me think about ways of irritating you. Now you just took the whole fun out of it.

What proof do you have that he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction? No one has concrete proof at this time either way - because no one has been allowed into Iraq.

My argument all along has been let the inspectors in and let's see what happens. I already know what will happen and that is Hussein will attempt to block the inspectors from doing their job or come up with some reason why they should be removed and replaced with new inspectors.

Yes we readily admit that we only attack countries that openly attack us.

You KNEW for a fact that North Korea had a weapons plan yet you did NOTHING about it???..............you did not even bother to tell the rest of the world about it?

JD I have no doubt that you are getting your jollies at this little charade you are performing

Hmm the only proof I have is that I am not sitting here in a gas mask and radiation suit......................oh and the fact that he has not done as North Korea has and admitted it..........would america still attack if there was proof that he had WMD that kill hundreds of thousands .............. somehow I think not

I'm glad you know what will happen regarding the un inspectors JD............we can all sleep peacefully now .......... just where did you find this fantastic precognitive power???

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well wasn't that the reason he left Europe out of the list? I mean right now we want them on our side - but afterward.....

I miss the good ole days when we subjegated countries economically. So much less overhead.

N. Korea does seem to be mobilized to move, however. Why the use of nukes all of a sudden not the primary issue, I can only wonder. Could N.K. have connections to terorists? If we get bogged down in the M.E. then our hands will be tied for any other problems.

I would be happy if they would catch this damn sniper. It was an adventure getting gas today. I may get really wild and go to Home Depot later.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
Hmm the only proof I have is that I am not sitting here in a gas mask and radiation suit......................oh and the fact that he has not done as North Korea has and admitted it..........would america still attack if there was proof that he had WMD that kill hundreds of thousands .............. somehow I think not

I don't know. If we are afraid to attack because of that reason - then he knows he holds the world in his grasp. He will then push the limits and try figuring out how far he can go before the west will fight him and risk nuclear attacks. Unlike you - I don';t think he will just happily sit on his arsenal of weapons. Nor will he stop making them - so the longer the wait - the stronger he would become.

I'm glad you know what will happen regarding the un inspectors JD............we can all sleep peacefully now .......... just where did you find this fantastic precognitive power???

yea you can sleep now. We'd rather attack you guys when your asleep anyway - less of a resistance.

[Sween]

This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever

oh im so proud.

And JD i finally got that argueement that i wanted so dearly with you.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't know. If we are afraid to attack because of that reason - then he knows he holds the world in his grasp. He will then push the limits and try figuring out how far he can go before the west will fight him and risk nuclear attacks. Unlike you - I don';t think he will just happily sit on his arsenal of weapons. Nor will he stop making them - so the longer the wait - the stronger he would become.

yea you can sleep now. We'd rather attack you guys when your asleep anyway - less of a resistance.

No I believe he would quite happily sit on his arsenal of weapons, controlling 30% of the worlds oil happily, looking to the west to start the nuclear holocaust..........if he did have nuclear weapons I think he would call our bluff without a seconds notice

I ask again...........would you agree to a direct attack on Iraq if there were proof that he had WMD and hundreds of thousands of people would die as a result of Saddam's retaliatory attack?

I'm glad I can sleep easy now.............at least this time you would make a descion and not watch while your so-called allies were crippled as in WW2

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever

oh im so proud.

Sween, you **** stirrer!

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever

It must be .................. I wonder what my typing speed is now

Sween yer a genius

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
This has to be one of the fastest growing thread ever

oh im so proud.

I was going to say that the What would you do? heh heh heh . . .thread was, but I'm not sure.

And JD i finally got that argueement that i wanted so dearly with you.

I figured you were going through withdrawal.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I ask again...........would you agree to a direct attack on Iraq if there were proof that he had WMD and hundreds of thousands of people would die as a result of Saddam's retaliatory attack?

I'm not sure. I would have to see what the situation is when we get there - if we get there.

I think it would be a mistake to just let someone like Hussein have nuclear weapons though.

I'm glad I can sleep easy now.............at least this time you would make a descion and not watch while your so-called allies were crippled as in WW2

Why would you be crippled? Do you have such little faith in your military? And we're still allies - for you guys it just seems to be more out of necessity than actually liking it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not sure. I would have to see what the situation is when we get there - if we get there.

Why would you be crippled? Do you have such little faith in your military? And we're still allies - for you guys it just seems to be more out of necessity than actually liking it.

So you agree with threatening Iraq with invasion under the suspiscion that they have WMD.........yet you are not sure that you would support your country invading Iraq if they definintly did have WMD? ..............so if America does attack Iraq and they do not have WMD it is unjustified and if they attack Iraq and they (Iraq) cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through the use of WMD you would be against it? IMO your just contradicting yourself JD

I was reffering to the way America stood back and watched Europe become crippled during WW2..............if the USA attacked Europe in this day and age, we would be crippled, as would you, and the nuclear holocaust and following ice age would effectively wipe out life on the planet.................I cannot beleive that you joke about such a subject

JD am I wrong or do you constantly contradict yourself...........you say that you support America taking an offencesive, threatening, stance against Iraq and then you say that you are not sure and that we should wait for a UN inspection.............are you pro-war with Iraq or against it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So you agree with threatening Iraq with invasion under the suspiscion that they have WMD.........yet you are not sure that you would support your country invading Iraq if they definintly did have WMD? ..............so if America does attack Iraq and they do not have WMD it is unjustified and if they attack Iraq and they (Iraq) cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through the use of WMD you would be against it? IMO your just contradicting yourself JD

No I'm not. I said it would be based on the circumstances. And I never said that I was for attacking Iraq if they didn't have WMD. I said if Saddam refuses to let inspectors in or do their job then I support it. I do support the removal of Hussein in either case though.

See it might be hard to understand - but each senario you throw out - HAS to be thought of in a different context. For instance - if he has no way of deploying his weapons at this point and refuses to dismantle - then I say go in there. If he is capable of blowing up London or something - then I would say we'd have to reevaluate the situation.

I was reffering to the way America stood back and watched Europe become crippled during WW2..............if the USA attacked Europe in this day and age, we would be crippled, as would you, and the nuclear holocaust and following ice age would effectively wipe out life on the planet.................I cannot beleive that you joke about such a subject

We did not watch you as you were crippled. We were supplying you with weapons and everything else. The American people felt it was your war to fight. Like I said - you had gotten America involved in the war which was ironically called the "War to End All Wars". We didn't expect you to get us in the middle of an even bigger war less than 20 years later.

I was teasing you regarding the ally bit - it is partially true though I think. But of course we need you guys also. The fact that our economies are so tied together dictates that we stay allies. Plus we share a common history with Europe.

JD am I wrong or do you constantly contradict yourself...........you say that you support America taking an offencesive, threatening, stance against Iraq and then you say that you are not sure and that we should wait for a UN inspection.............are you pro-war with Iraq or against it?

No - it's you that can't remember what I say and only hear what you want to hear. Just like asking me 50,000 times for proof when I repeatedly say that there is no hard evidence proof because Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors - so at this time we have no idea what he has. We only have intelligence information and satellite images. I do think we should take a hard line attitude with Iraq though - that does not necessarily mean that it RESULTS in war. But as I said before tough talk is all the he understands. It is also what got the UN off their a$$es to do something about the situation finally.

Also, I think I had already said several times on this thread including in my first post that I was not necessarily for or against war with Iraq.

Currently I don't support or condemn a war with Iraq.

page 2