While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere...

I think your both right, SLY and Rask. My countries order to force war is wrong, both Bush and Saddam are lying about their reasons. That's politics, if I've learned anything from it. It's that politicians will only tell you what you want to hear to get your support. Bush to me is a fool, his agenda in this whole matter is more personal than diplomatic. He's a ticked off Texan who wants revenge on the guy who tried to kill his daddy. He said it himself but now he's trying to cover it up with terrorism and the fact that Saddam is a dictator. First of all, Saddam wasn't the one who bombed us. So let me ask what happened to the primarily agenda of finding Bin Laden??? We should be focusing more of our resources to that end and protecting our mainland. War is only leaving us open, if Bush had any intelligent he would know this. This leaves me to believe, he just doesn't care as long as he gets his revenge. The cost of lives is meaningless, and he’s a coward. Saddam challenged him to a debate, and Bush answered only with irrelevant jokes. I am not pro-Saddam but I will not support a meaningless war where many of my country men and country are put in greater danger because of our leaders personal differences.

Now yeah Saddam is a dictator and he has weapons of mass destruction. The US in its best interest should get rid of the weapons first, but seriously he would be a fool to use them. We have much more destructive weapons at our disposal which could turn Iraq into just a big crater. Now we don’t know where Bin Laden is, but we do know where Saddam is. So it’s much easier for us to jump on his tail. As for removing him from office, I think that's a decision for the people of that country and as far as I know that's not exactly what they want. Although I believe this support is done in fear. Plus, I think Iraq would serve better under a new leader. If we were to go into Iraq and force this, we would only be doing the same thing that Iraq did to Kuwait 10 yrs ago. As for Germany, France, and Russia, they're doing the EXACT same thing. For the profit of oil, so F*** them. Who will rule Iraq after Saddam is out?? Well of course someone picked from the Bush administration, to me it‘s called conquering. The UN is right to veto our actions because this is exactly what they stand strongly against.

This is sad to say, but I’m in much more fear of my own government than that of another or terrorism. The thing what ticks me off about the 9/11 thing is our own government knew that something was going to happen, but let our pride blind us from it. Not that we knew where, and when but in that week; they were aware of suspicious things going on. Threats for the most part, and we ignored them and look what happened. Now again we are ignoring a much greater threat by starting a war (accompanied by more threats). To me this is a battle plan, and it would work flawlessly. Force our troops and much of our defensive systems away from the mainland to fight the war with Iraq, while terrorists invade and start destroying what they can. They would have less resistance with our forces half way across the world. Again we are setting ourselves up for more disaster because of our pride and stupidity.

I know your feeling dude , as the time goes on, it shows how screwed up is he with diplomacy .

Another thing, we've decide to stack on another war on the pile. I'm talking about North Korea. A resoultion, WORLD WAR 3!!!! I am ashamed! :(

Remember, recent transcriptions of the Hoover adminstration showed that they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen and they did nothing to stop it.
Also remember, Bush dropped bombs on Iraq within 2 months of taking office.

That's our pride. Recently and of more focus now you have to look at the TWO attacks on the trade center. It was attacked previously in the early 90's, sorry I can't recall the exact year. No one was killed and the building didn't suffer too much damage. This event was also followed by threats from terrorist org. Look at the bombing of US embasses in Africa, they were also pre-warned by threats. Now were getting more threats, just recently. What's next??

But wait, lets start a war somewhere else. The pushing of this war with Iraq, in my opinion is going to cause another world war. I am not exagerating. We are apart of the UN, actually were one of the nations to create it. But you got us and the people who support our cause inside the UN, then you got those who strongly oppose, which is a greater number. Since the UN is combined of most nations, the difference in the votes is going to cause disagreement between those nations. Bush himself said he is against and will go to war with any nation that opposes. Since this is "supposively" a war on terrorism. We're looking at the beginning of World War 3. And I'm ashamed to say our nation and our president is the one forcing this seperation.

You're right , and if it doesn't start a big world war , it will just cause more rage & anger in most countries specialy in the arab world ... This would make lots of things even more complicated than they realy are now.

Exactly, and since your from Egypt you would have more of an understanding of that point of view. In all truth, almost all the people in America oppose this war. Not even the families of those who lost their lives in 9/11 want this war in the name of their loved ones. They don't want it to be in vain. Bush and his administration are the only ones pushing it, so american's are not truely free. We also suffer the consequences of our acting government. There is not much we can do about it either, except talk. WOW! :sarcasm: I think most americans are now looking forward to the elections so we can try to get him out before this goes too far. And hopefully the next guy won't enforce this issue anymore, and settle to distillment in the Arab nations and UN.

P.S. We need Hilary Clinton as president. Screw tradition, she had a more responisible, respectable, and mature way of dealing with such things. Or at least someone like her.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-27-2003 at 10:40 AM]

Sadly enough , we're the ones who take the consequences of our governments mistakes.

I know that most americans are against war , it's very obvious cuz the anti-war protests in your country is hell more than in mine !

When Bush was asked about his feelings on the anti-war protests in Washington he stated that one of the great things about living in a free country is that you can voice your opinions openely...but, at the end of the day he still had a job to do. -LoL- This is not a president of the people!

I'm sorry that true, SLY. People should be responsible for their own actions not someone else's. It's just funny to think, America is the land of the free. Those who believe that are blind. Yeah we have certain freedoms most nations don't have, but our government still has the power to take those away without opposition. Even with our entire country is against a war, our acting power can overrule and enforce its agenda. Same with the elections process, an entire country can vote against something yet our government can force its own vote and veto the peoples. A government is a wolf in sheeps clothing, we don't shoot people in public. We have means of bankrupting them or making them disappear. There are millions of unsolved cases that directly point to government involvement. We're called free because we are lucky enough not to have a dictator like Hitler or Mussolini (sp) YET. :(

Yeah chris I saw that too. Whata douche bag!

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-27-2003 at 11:19 AM]

Originally posted by SLY
I'm not making a propaganda for any side , I'm justy posting my opinion as an outside viewer .

I naturaly lean towards peace anyway .

I was not refering to you SLY

Azrael - Oops , I mixed things up cuz you mentioned me at the beginning of your post .

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...even though the consequences for not meeting the UN obligations have ALWAYS been invasion and regime change?...

Really,Rask?
I must have missed the news.You tell me.Besides the Taliban,what other regime has the US toppled?When was this?What were the circumstances?
I really would like to know,coz I haven't heard of this before.I mean,you're using the words "...consequences...have always been invasion and regime change..."
I've never heard about that.
About what America cares(or doesn't care about):
I think you've largely missed my point.It wasn't Saddam who bombed you.According to American media report,19 of those hijackers were Saudi.Not Iraq.Your govt.(as far as I've heard)isn't even associating Saddam with 911.Osama's the culprit.So I feel telling me about the 3000 lives lost doesn't weigh in on your reasons for going after Saddam.If in fact you're going after Saddam for 911,then I think that is misdirected anger,sincee like I said you're not linking Saddam to it.
My raising the question of what America cares about rose from my observation from your arguments that Saddam's a bad regime that should be removed,on the one hand,while on the other hand showing open support(not your arguments,Bush)for a similar ruler.
And just because I've never visited America does not necessarily mean I can't develop some understanding of America.Actions often speak louder than words.If America cared about people oppressed by bad regimes,then Bush wouldn't call our former president a good and strong leader of Kenya.If I was Bush,we wouldn't even have diplomatic relations.
That was my point.
About parole,you're never sent back to jail on suspicion of having broken your parole conditions.You're sent back to jail on the strength of hard and conclusive evidence.If you ask me,frrom Blix's report,you can't use the words hard and conclusive evidence.

[Edited by kingdavid on 02-28-2003 at 05:08 AM]

Agree with "kingdavid" ... Obviously , the US is ONLY accusing non-alies nations of Human Rights abuse .
If you don't change some bad regiems cuz they're US alies , then you DON'T have the right to change non-alies bad regiems.

[Edited by SLY on 02-28-2003 at 06:39 AM]

Originally posted by kingdavid

I think you've largely missed my point.It wasn't Saddam who bombed you.According to American media report,19 of those hijackers were Saudi.Not Iraq.Your govt.(as far as I've heard)isn't even associating Saddam with 911.Osama's the culprit.So I feel telling me about the 3000 lives lost doesn't weigh in on your reasons for going after Saddam.If in fact you're going after Saddam for 911,then I think that is misdirected angersincee like I said you're not linking Saddam to it.

After we went looking from Bin Laden and tracked his AL-Quida Group, we found that many of his representatives were found in Iraq. So we naturally know Saddam was housing terrorists. Their is quite a pile of evidence that supports this, we also know the Saddam supported the actions on 9/11. That's pretty much why Saddam is associated with the 9/11 tragedy. He’s pro-terrorists, which is what Bush said he was going to take action against right after 9/11.

Saddam is looked at a much bigger threat for 2 reason I believe, one it’s personal. Bush’s father was the president in the Gulf War. There was much unsettled business that he feels he needs to finish. Second is the fact that they have weapons of mass destruction, which they are not allowed to have. UN codes restrict him from having any type of nuclear or chemical weapons. He still has them, that’s why there’s a big deal about Saddam now. Bush’s mistake is that he’s trying to push this into war, even when he doesn’t have UN support. Your right it’s misguided anger.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-28-2003 at 10:33 AM]

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
After we went looking from Bin Laden and tracked his AL-Quida Group, we found that many of his representatives were found in Iraq. So we naturally know Saddam was housing terrorists. Their is quite a pile of evidence that supports this, we also know the Saddam supported the actions on 9/11. That's pretty much why Saddam is associated with the 9/11 tragedy. He’s pro-terrorists, which is what Bush said he was going to take action against right after 9/11.

Dude, I realy can't understand how are they trying to link Saddam to fundamentalism terrorists like Bin Laden ... It's so silly , they're both have EXTREMELY different ideology , and each has his own agenda that also EXTREMELY contradict with the other ... Saddam is somehow a communist kinda leader , Bin Laden dubbed communist leaders in his last tape (he pointed that Saddam is the most communist leader in the region) as "Non-Believers" & enemies , this realy shows that how do they relate to each other.
They just can't be alies , it's absurd to claim that.

Also finding out that some terrorists are living or escaped to Iraq doesn't necessarily mean that Saddam's regiem is involved in housing & supporting them ... Al Qaeda guys have been found in many countries like Germany,Belgium,France,Spain,Morroco,Yemen,UK,US,etc .

Also I don't recall the US asking Iraq to co-operate to find those terrorists and brig them to prosecution.

I'm not saying that Saddam is good for not being involved with Bin Laden , cuz he's already involved with many evil things other than terrorism , but I'm almost dead sure that Saddam & Bin Laden can never get together someday.

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...even though the consequences for not meeting the UN obligations have ALWAYS been invasion and regime change?...[/B]

Really,Rask?
I must have missed the news.You tell me.Besides the Taliban,what other regime has the US toppled?When was this?What were the circumstances?
I really would like to know,coz I haven't heard of this before.I mean,you're using the words "...consequences...have always been invasion and regime change..."
I've never heard about that.

Start looking up UN resolutions regarding Iraq, the stipulations ending the Gulf War are pretty clear. And what does the Taliban have to do with Iraq's weapons programs? To me that's a seperate issue.

About what America cares(or doesn't care about):
I think you've largely missed my point.It wasn't Saddam who bombed you.

I never said it was. This whole issue is (to me anyway) about following through with the terms ending the Gulf War. If the world community stands together and says "disarm or we remove you from power" to a dictator, they better follow through with it. But in the 12 years since the world community did just that, opinions have softened. 1). Allowing a deplorable human being with no business running a country to continue running a country and not only that, but continue plans to EXPAND his country via armed invaision and 2). Sending a message to other dictators in the world that the world community is and the UN has no spine and will not enforce it's resolutions.

My raising the question of what America cares about rose from my observation from your arguments that Saddam's a bad regime that should be removed,on the one hand,while on the other hand showing open support(not your arguments,Bush)for a similar ruler.

...A similar ruler who (to the best of my knowledge - I won't pretend to be an expert on Kenya) has never invaded another nation. Saddam has long established agressive plans to expand Iraq.

And just because I've never visited America does not necessarily mean I can't develop some understanding of America.Actions often speak louder than words.If America cared about people oppressed by bad regimes,then Bush wouldn't call our former president a good and strong leader of Kenya.If I was Bush,we wouldn't even have diplomatic relations.
That was my point.

You know, you're absolutely right. I should judge every nation in the world by it's most senior politicians.[/sarcasm]
If actions speak louder than words to you, how come you're ignoring that no other nation in the world gives more human, financial, and logistical support to charities that benefit nations such as Kenya than America? What nation is footing most of the bill to fight AIDS, even though it's own AIDS 'epidemic' is relatively small? Does that count for nothing to you?
My point is that you know just as much about the real America as I know about the real Kenya... which ain't much. You can only know such things by being there.

About parole,you're never sent back to jail on suspicion of having broken your parole conditions.You're sent back to jail on the strength of hard and conclusive evidence.If you ask me,frrom Blix's report,you can't use the words hard and conclusive evidence.

Iraq's statement after Colin Powel's presentation to the UN security council a few weeks ago was clear; they said they have NO prescribed weapons.
Hans Blix' has recently been very clear that the Al Samoud 2 missle violates the range restrictions placed on Iraq and therefore is a prescribed weapon (just like Colin Powel said).
Bagdahd's reaction to Blix' order to destroy the missles: It was "unjust" and "abusive," and that they will destroy them, but they don't know how to, so they're asking for a UN technical team to advise them.
Pah-lease.
Give me two rednecks, four kegs of beer ands some gasoline, an open patch of desert and I'll destroy those missles. It's not complicated.
Saddam Hussein is buying time.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-28-2003 at 06:54 PM]

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
After we went looking from Bin Laden and tracked his AL-Quida Group, we found that many of his representatives were found in Iraq. So we naturally know Saddam was housing terrorists. Their is quite a pile of evidence that supports this, we also know the Saddam supported the actions on 9/11. That's pretty much why Saddam is associated with the 9/11 tragedy. He?s pro-terrorists, which is what Bush said he was going to take action against right after 9/11.

Dude, I realy can't understand how are they trying to link Saddam to fundamentalism terrorists like Bin Laden ... It's so silly , they're both have EXTREMELY different ideology , and each has his own agenda that also EXTREMELY contradict with the other

The ideological background of the Maffia is strictly anti-drug, but the Mafia ended up pushing drugs anyway. I doubt very much that Osama bin Laden wants anything to with Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean that people on Al Quaeda's fringe wouldn't be willing to work with the Iraqis and that the Iraqis wouldn't be willing to work with them. You have to admit that the both have a few mutal enemies and a lot to offer eachother.

Also I don't recall the US asking Iraq to co-operate to find those terrorists and brig them to prosecution.

Bush asked EVERY nation in the world to do just that almost immediately after 9/11. Infact, it was the same speach in which he coined "the Axis of Evil" phraze.
I thought you were paying attention to this stuff?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The ideological background of the Maffia is strictly anti-drug, but the Mafia ended up pushing drugs anyway. I doubt very much that Osama bin Laden wants anything to with Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean that people on Al Quaeda's fringe wouldn't be willing to work with the Iraqis and that the Iraqis wouldn't be willing to work with them. You have to admit that the both have a few mutal enemies and a lot to offer eachother.

Well , I can tell you how would an Iraqi guy take words in Bin Laden's latest tape more than anybopdy else here , and I'll try to find an equivalent words for you to understand.
He dubbed Saddam as a "Non-Believer" , I know that to an american the word sounds funny , but if you want to feel it , it's like the Jaques Shirak (spell?) dubbing Bush as the "anti-christ" or may be harder too. (I hope you get it right now)
That's why it's absurd to assume that Saddam would work with Bin Laden for anything in the world ... Don't forget Saddam's ego too , which realy counts here.

Bush asked EVERY nation in the world to do just that almost immediately after 9/11. Infact, it was the same speach in which he coined "the Axis of Evil" phraze.
I thought you were paying attention to this stuff?

Yeah , but he didn't ask Iraq in particular to know what would be their reaction , on the contrary , he made the "Axis of Evil" statement , which proves that he don't know sh*t about diplomacy or how to deal with international issues.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
But in the 12 years since the world community did just that, opinions have softened. 1). Allowing a deplorable human being with no business running a country to continue running a country and not only that, but continue plans to EXPAND his country via armed invaision and 2). Sending a message to other dictators in the world that the world community is and the UN has no spine and will not enforce it's resolutions.

Expand his country ??? I realy doubt that even a stupid butthole like Saddam would repeat his mistake of a LIFETIME again.

Hans Blix' has recently been very clear that the Al Samoud 2 missle violates the range restrictions placed on Iraq and therefore is a prescribed weapon (just like Colin Powel said).
Bagdahd's reaction to Blix' order to destroy the missles: It was "unjust" and "abusive," and that they will destroy them, but they don't know how to, so they're asking for a UN technical team to advise them.
Pah-lease.
Give me two rednecks, four kegs of beer ands some gasoline, an open patch of desert and I'll destroy those missles. It's not complicated.
Saddam Hussein is buying time.

Ok , so do you think that a few km range violation is a good reason to start a WAR , regarding that they complied and agreed to destroy them as you said?
If Saddam was buying time , you surely mean time to prepare for the battle , yeah ? How does he prepare for a battle while having his strategic (Al Samoud 2) missles destroyed and WMD inspectors all over his country , even in his own palace ?

Dude, to start a war they need much more than that ... I mean like finding a nuke head or something & they refuse to destroy it.

Obviously , Bush is determined on war , even before the (new) inspections started , and he's like waiting for the smallest mistake from Iraq to launch it ... That's why , I don't trust any reasons he gives.