SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 87
  1. #26
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just keep in mind that although Bush is a dumb****, he has some pretty smart advisors

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think looking stupid kinda helps Bush--everyone underestimates the guy! Personally, I think he's awfully, awfully slick.

    On the oil issue--I'm so tired of it! It's ridicules. The US simply isn't in need of Iraqi oil, and only imports a relatively small amount of oil from the mid-east in general--much less than Europe does. In fact, I'd say that since talk of action against Hussein has been going on, gas (petrol) prices have increased some 30-50% or so, and if war happens we all know it'll go up a lot more. So, rightly or wrongly, operations to oust Hussein are much more altruistic (in that it'll cost Americans a lot more than it'll gain) than it's portrayed among you guys.

    European objections could very easily be likened to a willingness to appease Hussein and not rock-the-boat than actual concern--or anything that looks like concern.

    ~~Ian

  3. #28
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Ian Glass
    On the oil issue--I'm so tired of it! It's ridicules. The US simply isn't in need of Iraqi oil, and only imports a relatively small amount of oil from the mid-east in general--much less than Europe does. In fact, I'd say that since talk of action against Hussein has been going on, gas (petrol) prices have increased some 30-50% or so, and if war happens we all know it'll go up a lot more. So, rightly or wrongly, operations to oust Hussein are much more altruistic (in that it'll cost Americans a lot more than it'll gain) than it's portrayed among you guys.

    European objections could very easily be likened to a willingness to appease Hussein and not rock-the-boat than actual concern--or anything that looks like concern.
    The oil issue, yes the US is not dependent on imported oil, nor even is it's only supporter the UK, which has north sea oil, but that really isn't the point. Two thirds of the worlds entire oil reserves are in the persian gulf, the amounts in the US, Russia, UK and everywhere else are pretty small in comparision. America guzzles more oil than anyone else, Bush and the US government know in the long term American oil reserves are going to run dry a long time before those in the gulf, he also knows when that happens the US will be in trouble, thus as usual he is putting the economic interests of the US, particularly US oil companies ahead of anything else and is trying to (and failing) to pass this off as "removing an evil dictator with weapons of mass destruction".

    Europe are wrong on a lot of things, but not on the Iraq issue and Europe are hardly in isolation on the view that Americas stance is wrong, China, Canada, Russia, most of the middle east, most of Asia, even a lot of Americans are all against the immoral policies being touted by Bush and can clearly see the real reasons behind his threats.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Like you said, "two thirds of the worlds entire oil reserves are in the Persian gulf," so why is it surprising that the two-thirds of the world that's dependent on that oil would object to anything that has the potential to destabilize their life-blood? Sound's a lot more like appeasement, and not like clearly seeing through Bush's "immoral policies."

    In the US there's growing frustration over the mid-east, and in many areas Congressmen are being hammered for their support for the UN's Oil for Food program for Iraq. People are simply tried of being dependent on foreign oil and they're tired of having to deal with and protect despots (euphuistically called "US foreign policy" among you folk, though foreign policy is actually much more complex). In the end, Americans are willing to take on the costs of war and the danger of a private sector unprepared for oil independence. There's been renewed interest in nuclear power, despite the risks, which've stayed interest in it for some 20 odd years, and high-efficiency autos have gained both popularity and prestige.

    Even among the anti-war movement, people aren't necessarily against war, but would rather things be handled differently than it is, or think there're more pressing threats out and about, now.

    ~~Ian

  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Like you said, "two thirds of the worlds entire oil reserves are in the Persian gulf," so why is it surprising that the two-thirds of the world that's dependent on that oil would object to anything that has the potential to destabilize their life-blood? Sound's a lot more like appeasement, and not like clearly seeing through Bush's "immoral policies."
    The area is already destabilized, it has been destabilized for years Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Kuwait, Israel/every other country in the area. Also why would Europe or Canada object, if for the sake of argument the US went in and after a few months occupied Iraq and secured cheap oil supplies, surely countries which are on good terms with the US would benefit, yet even though these countries would have access to cheap oil, they still object, sounds like it has a lot more to do with whats right or wrong than you seem to think.

    If the desire for war with Iraq has nothing to do with oil, then why isn't there the same desire for war with North Korea, who also haven't let in weapon inspectors to certain areas for 10 years, who have admitted to having a nuclear program, who have clearly broken an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons they signed in 1994 and who also have a pretty poor human rights record. Let me think, oh yes, Iraq = second biggest oil reserves on the planet, north korea != second biggest oil reserves on the planet or anywhere near that.

    In the US there's growing frustration over the mid-east, and in many areas Congressmen are being hammered for their support for the UN's Oil for Food program for Iraq. People are simply tried of being dependent on foreign oil and they're tired of having to deal with and protect despots (euphuistically called "US foreign policy" among you folk, though foreign policy is actually much more complex). In the end, Americans are willing to take on the costs of war and the danger of a private sector unprepared for oil independence. There's been renewed interest in nuclear power, despite the risks, which've stayed interest in it for some 20 odd years, and high-efficiency autos have gained both popularity and prestige.
    What exactly are peoples objections to the food for oil program?

    A minute ago you said the US wasn't dependent on foriegn oil, are they or aren't they?

    America protecting despots thats very funny, given that many of these despots are helped in to power and armed by American tax payers money it's a little hypocritical to start complaining when they start doing things you don't like.

    Yes engines have become more efficient and cleaner, now all you have to do is lose the obsession with cars that are still wildly inefficient in comparision to normal cars such as SUV's.
    Last edited by neil100; Nov 3, 2002 at 04:30.

  6. #31
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and note how the US oil tycoons, sorry, congressmen, vote against any increase in funding for alternate power supplies ( cant remember link, it has happened ).
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  7. #32
    What's HTML?
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by kdb003
    Just keep in mind that although Bush is a dumb****, he has some pretty smart advisors
    Watch your language please. The word you chose is starred out for a reason...
    Ryan Kuhle - A Proud Advisor - Got Questions? Just Ask!
    Get your website started for less than $20! Click Here

  8. #33
    What's HTML?
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Ian Glass
    In the US there's growing frustration over the mid-east, and in many areas Congressmen are being hammered for their support for the UN's Oil for Food program for Iraq. People are simply tried of being dependent on foreign oil and they're tired of having to deal with and protect despots (euphuistically called "US foreign policy" among you folk, though foreign policy is actually much more complex).
    Are you sure about this? I'm not so positive that the US is dependent on foreign oil, I wish I had some numbers. It just doesn't make sense to me.

    Think about it, gas here in San Diego is under $2 per gallon, easily. I'm not sure what the gas in Europe costs these days, but I do remember it being upwards of $5 per gallon a year or two again. Now, if the US was dependent on Middle Eastern oil, that would mean millions, possibly billions, of oil would need to be transported from the Middle East to the US. A long voyage, which would pump up the prices a considerable amount. Now, Europe does rely on Middle Eastern oil quite a bit from what I understand, yet they are several thousand miles closer to the Middle East AND have higher gas prices.

    I'm sure I'm overlooking some important factor, but this is just something to think about...

    http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw194.shtml
    If I'm reading this graph correctly, it appears that the US imports about the same amount of oil that it creates. Both of which are very substantial amounts.

    And about the picture of Bush with the upside down book, let's see the original source zoo. Get real guys, its been doctored. When that picture was originally created, the creator (can't remember which site it was) forgot to flip one of the covers around.

    Anyway, back on the topic...
    Ryan Kuhle - A Proud Advisor - Got Questions? Just Ask!
    Get your website started for less than $20! Click Here

  9. #34
    chown linux:users\ /world Hartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    6,455
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, here is what I think we should do.... Not involve any other countries except ourselves. We go over there, get Saddam, make sure the weapons aren't being made, and leave. Other countries don't want to be involved? Fine. Don't be.

    We are asking for your backing, not your help.... Do you want Saddam to have weapons or not? That is the question. Not, can you send some troops to help us... That is not it.

    Give some power back to the CIA and let them do their job.

    Wow, that was kind of a rant.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hartmann
    Ok, here is what I think we should do.... Not involve any other countries except ourselves. We go over there, get Saddam, make sure the weapons aren't being made, and leave. Other countries don't want to be involved? Fine. Don't be.

    We are asking for your backing, not your help.... Do you want Saddam to have weapons or not? That is the question. Not, can you send some troops to help us... That is not it.

    Give some power back to the CIA and let them do their job.
    It's not quite that simple is it, as far as I am aware the US are not the worlds policemen or moral guardians, it's up to everyone through the UN to decide what should be done about Iraq.

    As for should Saddam Hussain having nuclear or biological weapons, firstly everyone is waiting for proof, which seems to be non-existent at present. That aside if he does have them no I don't think it's a particularly great idea for someone with his record to be in possesion of them, however at the same time I don't think it is acceptable that certain countries should be "allowed nuclear weapons" whilst others aren't, also 40 years ago it was pretty difficult to get the materials/knowledge for nuclear/biological weapons, then non-proliferation was a good policy, however it is becoming increasingly easy to obtain the materials and know-how, thus non-proliferation seems to be less effective and will become increasingly ineffective as time goes on.

    Incidently you are asking for help, Britian is letting the US station it's stealth bombers here and on an Island in the middle east so they are in effective range, the US wants Suadi Arabi to let it use airbases there, your president is also asking for help to try and force through a resolution at the UN so he can keep a large number of American voters happy who have stated in polls that they will back action, but only if it is done in co-operation with others through the UN.

  11. #36
    What's HTML?
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by neil100

    As for should Saddam Hussain having nuclear or biological weapons, firstly everyone is waiting for proof, which seems to be non-existent at present.
    How does one find proof without full access to Iraq?
    Ryan Kuhle - A Proud Advisor - Got Questions? Just Ask!
    Get your website started for less than $20! Click Here

  12. #37
    chown linux:users\ /world Hartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    6,455
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by neil100


    It's not quite that simple is it, as far as I am aware the US are not the worlds policemen or moral guardians, it's up to everyone through the UN to decide what should be done about Iraq.
    No, we are not the moral guardians. But I think that Saddam should have been taken out of power long ago. We would not be worrying about this specific problem right now if he would have been removed during the Gulf War.


    As for should Saddam Hussain having nuclear or biological weapons, firstly everyone is waiting for proof, which seems to be non-existent at present. That aside if he does have them no I don't think it's a particularly great idea for someone with his record to be in possesion of them, however at the same time I don't think it is acceptable that certain countries should be "allowed nuclear weapons" whilst others aren't, also 40 years ago it was pretty difficult to get the materials/knowledge for nuclear/biological weapons, then non-proliferation was a good policy, however it is becoming increasingly easy to obtain the materials and know-how, thus non-proliferation seems to be less effective and will become increasingly ineffective as time goes on.
    If you are talking about the U.S. and Russia, we are doing massive disarmaments of nuclear weapons. However, is Britain scared of the U.S. or Iraq.... Who would you rather have the weapons, a tyrant or a allied nation?


    Incidently you are asking for help, Britian is letting the US station it's stealth bombers here and on an Island in the middle east so they are in effective range, the US wants Suadi Arabi to let it use airbases there, your president is also asking for help to try and force through a resolution at the UN so he can keep a large number of American voters happy who have stated in polls that they will back action, but only if it is done in co-operation with others through the UN.
    If the island that you are speaking of in the Middle East is Diego Garcia, that is not just Britain's. I found this: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html To quote a small part, "Diego Garcia was developed as a joint U.S.-UK air and naval refueling and support station during the cold war. Located in the middle of the Indian Ocean and out of cyclone range, it was ideal for keeping an eye on the Soviet Union." And as far as stealth bombers on the British mainland goes, I do not think they station them there anymore. As far as I know, they still fly out of Missouri. I know some of the B-52's that took part in the Afghanistan bombings were stationed right down the street from me at the airbase here. Most of the U.S.'s NATO contingent is based in Europe.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hartmann

    If the island that you are speaking of in the Middle East is Diego Garcia, that is not just Britain's. I found this: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html To quote a small part, "Diego Garcia was developed as a joint U.S.-UK air and naval refueling and support station during the cold war. Located in the middle of the Indian Ocean and out of cyclone range, it was ideal for keeping an eye on the Soviet Union." And as far as stealth bombers on the British mainland goes, I do not think they station them there anymore. As far as I know, they still fly out of Missouri. I know some of the B-52's that took part in the Afghanistan bombings were stationed right down the street from me at the airbase here. Most of the U.S.'s NATO contingent is based in Europe.
    Firstly Diego Garcia is the island I was refering to , I forgot it's name thanks for finding it, anyway you are wrong in it being jointly us/uk it has been a British Indian Ocean Territory since 1965, yes from 1971 joint US/UK naval developments were built and that it is it's main purpose, but it is Solely British territory. You can read it's history here http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm .

    Stealth bombers are not usually stationed in Britain, but they are being stationed at RAF Fairford for a possible attack on Iraq, see http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021031/140/ddju1.html for details. Please do some research and check your facts in future, rather than incorrectly dismiss what other people have correctly stated.

    If you are talking about the U.S. and Russia, we are doing massive disarmaments of nuclear weapons. However, is Britain scared of the U.S. or Iraq.... Who would you rather have the weapons, a tyrant or a allied nation?
    Yes the US and Russia are reducing the number of nukes they have, they will only have enough left to blow up the planet several times over rather than tens of times over, how reassuring.

    I was actually refering to the whole policy of trying to limit the number of counties who have nuclear capability, it is becoming increasingly easy to produce Nuclear weapons and with that the idea of a few countries being able to control who has them becomes ridiculous. I was also pointing to the fact that just as the US, UK, France etc claim they have nukes for the defence of the country, every other country in the world can claim that and should be entitled to them, even those with nasty leaders like Iraq.

    As for who am I scared of Iraq or US, well neither, although if memory serves me correctly the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons is the US. Either way in a hypothetical situation where either Hussain or Bush were the only ones with nuclear weapons I wouldn't trust either of them.

    No, we are not the moral guardians. But I think that Saddam should have been taken out of power long ago. We would not be worrying about this specific problem right now if he would have been removed during the Gulf War.
    We would not be worrying about this specific problem now if America and to some extent Britain had kept their noses out of everyone elses business over the last 50 years. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when the US helped Saddam into power and along with Britain sold him heaps of weapons, because at that time the US didn't like Iran and neither did Saddam. As for the "problem" the percieved threat seems to be in George Bushes head, Saddam may a nasty piece of work who has an awful human rights record, but the same could be said of Syria, China, Eygpt, Israel, Uganda, DRC and many more. He is absolutely no threat to the US at all, but then he does have lots of oil.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by RKuhle

    How does one find proof without full access to Iraq?
    I accept it is difficult to get proof and think the weapons inspectors need to be allowed free access. However the way Bush and Blair speak they make statements as if there is total 100% proof of Iraq having nuclear weapons and make threats based on that, yet the whole world can see currently there is no proof.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I accept it is difficult to get proof and think the weapons inspectors need to be allowed free access. However the way Bush and Blair speak they make statements as if there is total 100% proof of Iraq having nuclear weapons and make threats based on that, yet the whole world can see currently there is no proof.
    You acknowledge that it is difficult to get proof with out the inspectors being allowed totally free access. Do you believe this will ever be happen? Personally, I don't. Even if it were given, all Saddam has to do is move the "goods" (proof) around or ship it to Iran or some other sympathetic country, then ship it back in later when the heat is off.

    It is probably a moot point,(I don't think it will happen) but what course of action do you think should be taken if 100% proof were to be given? Should the world trust this tyrant with chemical, biological, nuclear weapons knowing he has used them in the past?

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by allie
    Should the world trust this tyrant with chemical, biological, nuclear weapons knowing he has used them in the past?
    Nope, and Bush isn't trusted.


    .... now back to Saddam
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  17. #42
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by allie
    You acknowledge that it is difficult to get proof with out the inspectors being allowed totally free access. Do you believe this will ever be happen? Personally, I don't. Even if it were given, all Saddam has to do is move the "goods" (proof) around or ship it to Iran or some other sympathetic country, then ship it back in later when the heat is off.
    I am also unsure of wether inspectors would be allowed free access or not, as for moving things given the number of satellites and spy planes focused on Iraq I expect it would be very difficult to move everything, particularly if inspectors do actually get free access and can be flown anywhere at any time.

    Originally posted by allie

    It is probably a moot point,(I don't think it will happen) but what course of action do you think should be taken if 100% proof were to be given? Should the world trust this tyrant with chemical, biological, nuclear weapons knowing he has used them in the past?
    Yes he has used chemical weapons on the kurds, but many countries have used chemical weapons in the past, the fact he has used chemical weapons is not a reason in itself to take action, if it was the US would be taking action against itself.

    As for what should be done if 100% proof was found, well assuming it's weapon inspectors that get the proof, then the weapons should be removed / destroyed. If the proof was found some other way and he would not let inspectors in then I don't know, if Iraq is handled the same way as certain other countries that ignore what the rest of the world wish, then it looks like we do nothing, as in the case of China occupying Tibet or Israel in Palestine.

    Either way I totally disagree with the idea of a pre-emptive strike, because certain people fear he may use these weapons (and because they have an imminent election coming up, with a stuggling economy to divert attention from and a public who seem very suceptable to the patriotism button being pressed), you cannot preach democracy and freedom, then ignore it to suit your needs, that sounds awfully similar to a totalitarin state who restricts the media for "the good of the people".

  18. #43
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by allie
    Even if it were given, all Saddam has to do is move the "goods" (proof) around or ship it to Iran or some other sympathetic country, then ship it back in later when the heat is off.
    I don't think Iran would be the most sympathetic country to Iraq. They are the only outside country to have faced his chemical weapons before. The only reason they aren't siding with the US on this is the Islamic government sees them as the greater evil and has since before 1979.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  19. #44
    The Madness Out of Time Arkham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by RKuhle
    And about the picture of Bush with the upside down book, let's see the original source zoo. Get real guys, its been doctored. When that picture was originally created, the creator (can't remember which site it was) forgot to flip one of the covers around.
    That's not a news bulletin... The point is, it's funny and otherwise an accurate characterization of the guy.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Luke,

    It wouldn't be the first time that enemies have banded together to fight a common enemy.

    Actually, I was thinking about Iraq smuggling the goods into Iran or other countries, with inside help, not necessarily with that government's blessing.

  21. #46
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by W. Luke


    I don't think Iran would be the most sympathetic country to Iraq. They are the only outside country to have faced his chemical weapons before. The only reason they aren't siding with the US on this is the Islamic government sees them as the greater evil and has since before 1979.


    Or maybe it was the US saying they were part of an axis of evil.
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  22. #47
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just exactly what do we need for proof? Why is it we don't have a hard time believing Suddam won't let inspectors into Iraq but we need more proof he is capable of mass destruction?

    Suddam must be disarmed but it's not for the US to decide alone. I think its time for the people to start speaking for the decisions of their governments. I don't want to see the US or any country go to war but how do we stop a mad man without the strength of many?

  23. #48
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    George Bush wont let international weapons inspectors into the US's biological warfare labs, although they get around it being blatantly illegal by saying its for research for immunity against it/for use on its on civilians in riots.


    Whatever.
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  24. #49
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly

    I don't want to see the US or any country go to war but how do we stop a mad man without the strength of many?
    Stop him from doing what? For the last ten years he has not even had control of his own country, is not occupying any other country, he has not even made an attempt to occupy another country, nor has he used or ever shown he even posseses nuclear weapons.

    As far as I am aware the law in democracies actually requiries some evidence of it being broken before action can be taken given the only laws he is currently breaking would be ignoring UN resolutions, something many countries are guilty of, perhaps the world would be better off concentrating on regiemes that are clearly breaking more than resolutions such as Zimbabewe, Russia, Israel, Syria, China etc rather than listening to the rhetoric coming from the whitehouse.

  25. #50
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Stop him from doing what?
    What is the point of building WMD without the intent of killing? Do you think he is doing it for the world's health? Almost every country agrees Saddam is a mad man.

    He builds it, we build it, they build it. What difference does it make? ITS WRONG and talking about it isn't making it go away.

    rhetoric coming from the whitehouse.
    What rhetoric? What the media dishes out on a daily basis? Go back to the picture posted earlier. People will believe what they want to based on opinion and not facts, or what they think they see. Talk about rhetoric.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •