I found out the real reason why the US is at war in the Middle east !!!!!!!!!!!!

[JOHN MATRIX]

Are you serious...So now you are saying it was a defense and not to "liberate them". I just want to know why we just upped and chose iraq to bring democracy to.

im still wondering why we havent launched operation north korean freedom yet, those are the most oppressed people around probably! and what about the africans? the vast oilfields in iraq must have just been a coincidence.

[JOHN MATRIX]

because they were fucking shooting at our planes and ignoring UN sanctions to allow sites to be searched for WMD.  Read the paper son, watch the news, be informed instead of flapping your silly lips around topics u don't know shit about.  talk about pee wee herman, you know, something you have knowledge about.  oh yeah!  Dig it!

they were shooting at our planes like u say because we were flying around their country playing policeman. its a totally different thing than if they were shooting our planes sitting at LAX or something.

[Old_Rooster]

they were shooting at our planes like u say because we were flying around their country playing policeman. its a totally different thing than if they were shooting our planes sitting at LAX or something.

um playing policeman dumbass because we just drove them out from invading another country.  jesus, move to iraq and do your bitching, strap a bomb to your chest and go blow yourself up and the local vegetable market.  Please!!!!!

[Option D]

because they were fucking shooting at our planes and ignoring UN sanctions to allow sites to be searched for WMD.  Read the paper son, watch the news, be informed instead of flapping your silly lips around topics u don't know shit about.  talk about pee wee herman, you know, something you have knowledge about.  oh yeah!  Dig it!

Funny...this guy cant complete a statement without some half ass untimley insult...and youre 50.

anyway...So if they were over our airspace would we shoot them...If iraq said "hey we think the US has WMD's so we are just about to go over ther polking around their country" ...(later to find nothing at all) then say "well since we are here we will bomb the shit out of you...oh and not military positions...peoples houses...."
You think thats whats up?...You must be a tard...yo take this one matrix im done ...

[youandme]

Are you one of those 'idiot Americans' I've been reading about?

If by 'idiot Americans' you mean hillbilly, red state. Then yes

[240 is Back]

1) If Mexico was regularly flying spy planes over the US, do ya think we'd be shooting at them?  Hell yes we would.

[Option D]

1) If Mexico was regularly flying spy planes over the US, do ya think we'd be shooting at them?  Hell yes we would.

Exactly.......crickets.. ...

On another note...240 do you like RATM...you strike me as someone that would

[240 is Back]

bet they wish they could go back to the old days when thousands a day were gassed for kicks by good old saddamy

then just admit - they went from one shitty situation to another shitty situation.

attacking the old system doesn't justify the clusterfck that is the new system.

I always hear that (yeah, there are raming death squads and 300 wounded/100+ killed a day... but at least it's not sadaam).


Well, I could saw your hand off.  When you whined, I would say "Hey, at least I didn't chop your whole arm off".

See the flaw in your logic?

[240 is Back]

  all n. korea wants is to open trade up with the west, they can actually be dealt with diplomatically.

Old ROoster, you are defending the enemy here. 

They have set off nukes and fired missiles at us.

You defend this behavior?

You sound like an enemy sympathizer to me, Terry.  N Korea has vowed to destroy us, and you're defending them here.  What kind of American are you?

[Hedgehog]

When Saddam was re-elected he ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE VOTES....are you going to tell me that people wern't afraid if they voted against him??

Then after his Government was overthrown and he was taken out of power, then caught, then prosicuted (by his own people) then convicted (by his own people) people lining up left and right to be Saddams executioner.

Yes, then I must be delutional !!

Here's the deal...

Not even Bush believes that you can invade sovereign nations, at least if you consider yourself a democracy.

You can't interfer in internal affairs, that's an old US policy. USA doesn't want anyone commenting or trying to work influence on their internal politics, and no country really does.

Why, then, did USA invade Iraq?

The question should perhaps be, HOW could they found a reason to invade Iraq?

The Bush Administration claimed they had a reason, they found a loophole.

They claimed that Saddam Hussein broke the conditions that UN had set up, and also that there were hidden war missiles.

The conditions that Hussein supposedly broke, was flights in the non-flight zone.


It was just a bunch of hogwash of course. USA had no legit reason to start a war with Iraq.

Not according to the principles that all modern states are based on, the sovereignity.


You keep things apart in this matter. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and had to go.

But USA had no business moving in with an army in Iraq.

IAEA was well underway with disarming Iraq when USA invaded Iraq, and UN could very well have moved in organised forces.



Not even the Bush administration will argue that they invaded Iraq because they wanted to liberate the Iraqi people.

They will give WMD explanations, refer to reports from CIA that had Hussein linked to Al-Qaida... And the usual bullshit.

But if they claim that they invaded Iraq simply to free the Iraqi people, Intensone... Boy, then Bush and his Puppeteers will have the media hounds of hell unleashed on them.

That would mean that every countries like China, Belarus, North Korea Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, and at least 50 other countries, would be legit, and expected targets for US warfare.

There would be an obligation to go there and "free" these countries.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

Here's the deal...

Not even Bush believes that you can invade sovereign nations, at least if you consider yourself a democracy.

You can't interfer in internal affairs, that's an old US policy. USA doesn't want anyone commenting or trying to work influence on their internal politics, and no country really does.

Why, then, did USA invade Iraq?

The question should perhaps be, HOW could they found a reason to invade Iraq?

The Bush Administration claimed they had a reason, they found a loophole.

They claimed that Saddam Hussein broke the conditions that UN had set up, and also that there were hidden war missiles.

The conditions that Hussein supposedly broke, was flights in the non-flight zone.


It was just a bunch of hogwash of course. USA had no legit reason to start a war with Iraq.

Not according to the principles that all modern states are based on, the sovereignity.


You keep things apart in this matter. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and had to go.

But USA had no business moving in with an army in Iraq.

IAEA was well underway with disarming Iraq when USA invaded Iraq, and UN could very well have moved in organised forces.



Not even the Bush administration will argue that they invaded Iraq because they wanted to liberate the Iraqi people.

They will give WMD explanations, refer to reports from CIA that had Hussein linked to Al-Qaida... And the usual bullshit.

But if they claim that they invaded Iraq simply to free the Iraqi people, Intensone... Boy, then Bush and his Puppeteers will have the media hounds of hell unleashed on them.

That would mean that every countries like China, Belarus, North Korea Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, and at least 50 other countries, would be legit, and expected targets for US warfare.

There would be an obligation to go there and "free" these countries.

-Hedge

First you attack America for liberating countries, then you suggest they should liberate more.  You also indicate that the US entered Iraq on 'bullshit' from the CIA - but can you direct me to a respected intelligence agency from any nation that indicated otherwise regarding WMD (i.e. China, Russia, Germany, France)?  The UN clearly thought he was harboring weapons, thus his continued resistance to inspect his facilities.  Do you believe strong suspicion of Saddam holding WMD was not a good enough reason to attack and remove this despot?  Would you feel different if you lived in, lets say, Israel?

[Hedgehog]

First you attack America for liberating countries,

USA, not the two continents.

And no, I don't attack USA for liberating countries. Sorry for being unclear then. My whole reply was about that the Bush Administration never went into Iraq to liberate, because, according to the international laws that USA along with other civilized nations follows, all nations are sovereign.

then you suggest they should liberate more.

No, I don't. Read my post again.

What I wrote was that if anyone from the Bush Administration would claim that "liberation" was the primary motive, then every other nation with a less than stellar government is a target.

  You also indicate that the US entered Iraq on 'bullshit' from the CIA - but can you direct me to a respected intelligence agency from any nation that indicated otherwise regarding WMD (i.e. China, Russia, Germany, France)? 

Since there haven't been any missiles seen...Then the burden of proof is on those who claim Iraq had weapons. Not those who claimed he didn't. Only a few rusty shitty missiles, leftovers that USA and George Bush Sr had sold to him in the 80's.

The UN clearly thought he was harboring weapons, thus his continued resistance to inspect his facilities.

The leader of the inspections, Hans Blix, repeatedly urged for more time to search for missiles before USA started its attack. He claimed he would be able to seek out all the offensive power of the Iraqi's.

Do you believe strong suspicion of Saddam holding WMD was not a good enough reason to attack and remove this despot?  Would you feel different if you lived in, lets say, Israel?

Hans Blix was on location, and worked the grounds. He is probably more fit to make a judgement.

He believes he would've been able to locate all the missiles, all the threats to neighbouring countries.

And the argument that Bush used for going in would have been gone.


Was Saddam Hussein a dictator? Definitely. A horrible man.

Did the Bush Administration fcuk up? No question about it?

What are the consequenses? Fcuked up foreign relations with too many countries.

Will it get better with the next president? Definitely. McCain will be the Rep alternative, everything else would be idiotic. Foreign policy is a strong suit for him.

The Democrats... They will not be worse than Bush. I doubt that is possible.

Whether a Rep or a Dem in the White House, it will be a new era.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

Way to split hairs on the 'America' quote, notice I didn't actually say 'Americas' - as is the noun given for North, Central and South.  You'll, of course, realise the difference.

You also failed to inform me of any nation that believed Saddam didn't have WMD.  We know he did at one point - as he turned them on his own citizens, and he definitely wanted us to believe he still had that capacity.  Your attempts to dismiss Saddam as harmless are refuted by the hundreds killed in Kuwait and Iran by his forces.

With that in mind, and our inability to enter his county with a unilateral presence to inspect his operations, why would you have any reason not to enter and incapacitate?  If I barricade myself in my house, kill family members, threaten and kill my neighbours, and then tell the police I have further weapons to inflict wide-spread harm on others, is it any surprise my house is entered?

The UN spent over a decade sending Saddam rude letters, it didn't work.  So tell me, would your opinion hold if you lived in Israel?

[Camel Jockey]

Bruce, why aren't we liberating the Sudanese? 

Why aren't we doing anything about North Korea?

How would you feel living in Japan and South Korea?

[BRUCE]

Bruce, why aren't we liberating the Sudanese? 

Why aren't we doing anything about North Korea?

How would you feel living in Japan and South Korea?

Another confused soul, you criticise for liberating Iraq, and then for not liberating others.  Which is it?  You can't hold both sides of the argument, make your mind up.

And just so you're aware, the US is doing more about North Korea than any of your friends in say Germany or France or even China.  I'm 100% for a disarming of them, give it time my impatient, perplexed Athiest friend.

[Hedgehog]

Way to split hairs on the 'America' quote, notice I didn't actually say 'Americas' - as is the noun given for North, Central and South.  You'll, of course, realise the difference.

You also failed to inform me of any nation that believed Saddam didn't have WMD.  We know he did at one point - as he turned them on his own citizens, and he definitely wanted us to believe he still had that capacity.  Your attempts to dismiss Saddam as harmless are refuted by the hundreds killed in Kuwait and Iran by his forces.

With that in mind, and our inability to enter his county with a unilateral presence to inspect his operations, why would you have any reason not to enter and incapacitate?

UN inspected thousands of sites

If I barricade myself in my house, kill family members, threaten and kill my neighbours, and then tell the police I have further weapons to inflict wide-spread harm on others, is it any surprise my house is entered?

The UN spent over a decade sending Saddam rude letters, it didn't work.  So tell me, would your opinion hold if you lived in Israel?

It doesn't matter what I think.

The war on Iraq was illegal. The ceasefire back in 1991 was certified by the Security Council and its members, not USA.

This means that when the Iraqi's violated any rules, it would have been up to the Security Council to dish out any retributions.

China, USA, France, Russia, et al. They all control the rules of the ceasefire.

And thus, united they have to act if a violation is made.

Back in 1991, there was never any resolution made that said that war actions could be taken, in case Iraq broke the rules.

Thus, it was an illegal and unjust war.

Whether we like it or not.



USA breached that ceasefire.

[BRUCE]

UN inspected thousands of sites

If I barricade myself in my house, kill family members, threaten and kill my neighbours, and then tell the police I have further weapons to inflict wide-spread harm on others, is it any surprise my house is entered?

The UN spent over a decade sending Saddam rude letters, it didn't work.  So tell me, would your opinion hold if you lived in Israel?



It doesn't matter what I think.

The war on Iraq was illegal. The ceasefire back in 1991 was certified by the Security Council and its members, not USA.

This means that when the Iraqi's violated any rules, it would have been up to the Security Council to dish out any retributions.

China, USA, France, Russia, et al. They all control the rules of the ceasefire.

And thus, united they have to act if a violation is made.

Back in 1991, there was never any resolution made that said that war actions could be taken, in case Iraq broke the rules.

Thus, it was an illegal and unjust war.

Whether we like it or not.



USA breached that ceasefire.

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.  You might miss the old Iraq, but I sure as hell don't.  That's the only reason I can think of that would lead you to believe this war is 'unjust'.  I also love your propensity to point the finger at the US for breaches of UN rules and regulations, and yet I fail to see the same standard applied to Iraq. 

[Hedgehog]

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.  You might miss the old Iraq, but I sure as hell don't.  That's the only reason I can think of that would lead you to believe this war is 'unjust'.  I also love your propensity to point the finger at the US for breaches of UN rules and regulations, and yet I fail to see the same standard applied to Iraq. 

I don't miss the old Iraq. Of course not.

Lets get to the point however:

You need to have a formal reason to wage war on a country, like it or not.

There wasn't one in this case.


The Bush Administration have desperately tried, with WMD's, then Bin Laden, then... I dunno what else have they tried to attach to Saddam Hussein? Problem is, they weren't able to do it. Iraq wasn't a powerhouse in the region, wasn't associated with Al-Qaida, and didn't have much weapon. What to do?

Better invade before the weapon inspectors found all the weapons, and were able to write off the Iraqis, or possibly even worse, bring in a UN joint op.

-Hedge

[Camel Jockey]

Another confused soul, you criticise for liberating Iraq, and then for not liberating others.  Which is it?  You can't hold both sides of the argument, make your mind up.

And just so you're aware, the US is doing more about North Korea than any of your friends in say Germany or France or even China.  I'm 100% for a disarming of them, give it time my impatient, perplexed Athiest friend.

I just happen to think it hypocrital to bragg about liberating Iraq, when that wasn't the objective at all. The situation in Sudan is far worse. I guess because Sudan doesn't have oil, and occupying them wouldn't give us striking positions on Iran. My arguement is pretty simple, bro. The Iraq war was and still is unjust, we lied to invade and we lied when saying we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people. Pretty hypocrital to say we're such humanitarians when there's people dying in the Sudan and we're not rushing to invade there.

What exactly is the US doing about North Korea? Sanctions? haha Iraq didn't have jack and we invaded them. N. Korea implodes a bomb and we don't do anything at all. Hasn't N. Korea violated UN laws by going nuclear? Why aren't we doing anything? If we can invade Iraq over faulty intelligence(lies), then surely we can strike N. Korea for actually having nuclear weapons and missiles to launch them.

[JOHN MATRIX]

BRUCE, one day you will understand, hopefully.

[BRUCE]

I just happen to think it hypocrital to bragg about liberating Iraq, when that wasn't the objective at all. The situation in Sudan is far worse. I guess because Sudan doesn't have oil, and occupying them wouldn't give us striking positions on Iran. My arguement is pretty simple, bro. The Iraq war was and still is unjust, we lied to invade and we lied when saying we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people. Pretty hypocrital to say we're such humanitarians when there's people dying in the Sudan and we're not rushing to invade there.

What exactly is the US doing about North Korea? Sanctions? haha Iraq didn't have jack and we invaded them. N. Korea implodes a bomb and we don't do anything at all. Hasn't N. Korea violated UN laws by going nuclear? Why aren't we doing anything? If we can invade Iraq over faulty intelligence(lies), then surely we can strike N. Korea for actually having nuclear weapons and missiles to launch them.

You're wrong about Sudan:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070118/3/2vz8i.html

Saddam was selling his country's oil, 'bro'.  We could have bought it far cheaper than this was has cost us, and no Americans would have died.  Even Iran has more oil, we haven't been there, so can we finally put the 'war for oil' business to rest?

We didn't lie to go to Iraq, either. Can you please explain how having incorrect intelligence, and then acting upon it, is a lie?  Can you also name me another intelligence agency that didn't believe Saddam had WMD?  If not, you will surely stop accusing people of lies (I doubt it).

Like I said, I agree with your outrage at North Korea, be patient.  

[BRUCE]

BRUCE, one day you will understand, hopefully.

Powerful command of reasoning and logic you have there  You will, of course, be able to prove my posts inaccurate or even false, thus exposing my lack of understanding.  No? Then don't expect to be taken seriously anymore. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

Powerful command of reasoning and logic you have there  You will, of course, be able to prove my posts inaccurate or even false, thus exposing my lack of understanding.  No? Then don't expect to be taken seriously anymore. 

i dont have to, everyone else already has, mr steven hawkings

[BRUCE]

i dont have to, everyone else already has, mr steven hawkings

I'll just assume you meant Prof. Stephen Hawking here, alright?