<strong>War and fighting are easy when you sit in the comfort of your own homes, when it does eventually kick off I'd like to see all you 'gung ho' lot fight! But of course you wouldn't, you're all talk. You treat it as if it's a game and easy because of technology, PEOPLE DIE..... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Remember this, whilst your freaking mad president is after the folly of Iraq, Al Qaida are re-grouping and anti-west feelings have started to boil (anti-west.... i.e. europe as well as usa) Bush and Blair are about to set off a duff firework that's sure to backfire and burn all our butts!
I just thought...... my butt is huge, so I guess it's a bloody big butt burning target!!! EEK!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how many people will die when Saddam supplies a nuke to Al-Qaida? Hmmm?
And one more thing: If my government called me to serve in Iraq, I would go. That's not going to happen, but I would go without reservation. I'm a teacher and a husband and about to be first time father. I would go anyway. So don't tell me I just want to sit back and watch.....
[quote]Saddam cant be trusted. The world will be better off without him.<hr></blockquote>
Agreed. And it is an outrage that the U.S., under Reagan and (the first half of) Bush Sr.'s administrations supported this nutter for over a decade. The really horrific stuff which the media and this Admin. refers to (gassing Kurds, other human rights abuses) etc etc) happened during the US-Iraq buddybuddy period.
Even after the end of the 1991 Gulf War when a massive anti-Saddam insurrection happened with millions hitting the streets of Iraqi cities and a part of his army turning against him, the U.S military with the authorization of Bush Sr. supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with helicopter gunship and other heavy weapons which were used to squash the rebellion.
When will we stop this insane practise of throwing arms and money at non-democratic governments, brutal regimes and unstable dictators? This "enemy of our enemy is our friend" doctrine is political short-sighted naivety.
The rise of Hitler and World War 2 *should* have been an example...but no, they got their heads in the sand, as usual.
<strong> Show me how it ISN'T a violation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]
But Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said they were short-range shells imported in 1988 and mentioned in Iraq's report. He expressed "astonishment" over what he called "no more than a storm in a teacup."
Amin said the inspectors found the munitions in a sealed box that had never been opened and was covered by dust and bird droppings.
"When these boxes were opened, they found 122 mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin told reporters, adding similar ordnance was found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.
David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons."
Another former inspector said that at one time, Iraq had thousands of warheads filled with chemical agents. <hr></blockquote>
OK, now that we know that the weapons were old, expired and forgotten about which means they aren't a violation, are you ready to recant?
[quote]And how many people will die when Saddam supplies a nuke to Al-Qaida? Hmmm?<hr></blockquote>
That's preposterous. How about leaving out the Fox Channel or Limbaugh etc. excess baggage?
If Saddam had nukes....(ummm...look how the US is treating the North Korea situation)...he would have something to bargain with. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac and he craves a nuclear capability. It's his lifelong dream, and Israel's nightmare, and once he's got nukes, the VERY LAST THING he's going to do is part with them.
Saddam might be a first order jerk but he's not a total dummy. He's not going to go throwing nukes away to a bunch of al qaida fundamentalist crazies who hates the ground he walks upon. btw, Saddam Hussein loves Hollywood movies, writes western style romance novels, he drinks alcohol, he's only nominally a muslim (despite his "holy war" proclamations) and he runs a secular "government", (really a dictatorship masquerading as such). bin Laden and co view Saddam Hussein as an infidel. If al qaida were to get nukes, they are more likely to get them on the black market from extremist Muslims in a former Soviet republic than from Iraq. If Iran were to develop nukes, then they are also a more likely source of nukes for al qaida than Iraq.
SDW2001: [quote]And one more thing: If my government called me to serve in Iraq, I would go. That's not going to happen, but I would go without reservation. I'm a teacher and a husband and about to be first time father. I would go anyway. So don't tell me I just want to sit back and watch..... <hr></blockquote>
Ok... if you believe so much in the idea of this war, SIGN UP! You see you will not do this because it IS still easier to sit in your comfy armchair and watch the glamourous news coverage/propaganda issued by our governments. If you do SIGN UP, I take my hat off to you for doing so.
If Bush or Blair or anyone for that matter can prove there is a threat then I might support action, but only if there really were no diplomatic options. Iraq is far from this situation, Hussain may be a bad man but that is for its peoples to oust him and not for other countries. BTW AFAIK it was England and USA that sold to Iraq technology to make such weapons...... My country's leader and yours are two faced! Never trust a politician!!
From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]
The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58] <hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
The truth about this soon to be war (it's gonna happen even if the majority of Americans and Europeans don't agree with it), is that it is all about profit under the disguise of national security.
Go on give me a hug! I love you all, every single one of you!
Go America! God, the WWII us-against-them mentality is ridiculous. This country is far too agressive and afraid--unfortunately, this country also has some marketing wizards and a war-mongerer selling this garbage to the masses.
Big country rises to power, abuses power, kills everyone, eventually falls. it's a big historical cycle, yet people don't seem to see it. Kill saddam and osama, bomb someone, that will solve the problem. I can't believe people actually believe this. America does a wonderful job of promoting FUD, and that helps.
<strong>Go America! God, the WWII us-against-them mentality is ridiculous. This country is far too agressive and afraid--unfortunately, this country also has some marketing wizards and a war-mongerer selling this garbage to the masses.
Big country rises to power, abuses power, kills everyone, eventually falls. it's a big historical cycle, yet people don't seem to see it. Kill saddam and osama, bomb someone, that will solve the problem. I can't believe people actually believe this. America does a wonderful job of promoting FUD, and that helps.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kept the Roman Empire in power for half a millenium. So we should have at least 300 more years.
<strong>That's a common misconception. We do not cause anti-Americanism. The Left wants you to think that. We are hated for what we have. We are hated for our power. There has never been a more benevolent power in the history of this earth. Yet all the Left talks about how we abuse power and bully everyone. It's just more of the criminal liberal media's BS.
Less involved in international affairs? Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, you never really gave a clear reason why I am wrong and why you are right. Look at most of Europe. They're rich too... perhaps not as rich as us, but certainly the envy of poorer nations. So why isn't there such a strong anti-European sentiment? I'm sure there is some anti-European sentiments, especially among religious fundamentalists like Al Qaeda, but it's not as widespread as anti-Americanism. How often do you see a burning Italian flag, or a burning German flag, in some poor middle eastern country? I suppose the media does portray anti-American sentiments more often than anti-European sentiments, but I still think there's some truth to it. I mean, Al Qaeda did attack New York, not Paris or Berlin or Milan.
So if we're rich like Europe, but poor countries hate us more than Europe, that means they hate us for the way we act, not for what we have. The United States is an overly aggressive nation that has historically made self-serving moves to further their power while causing others to suffer needlessly. Look at Chile, or Guatemala, or El Salvador, where the CIA assisted in the massacre of millions of innocent women and children. Look at the embargoes on Cuba and Iraq, which only hurt the innocent civilians but do nothing to hurt the leaders. Bush's aggressive moves toward Iraq are just a way to distract the public from what is going on right here inside our borders - economic failure and tax cuts for the people who need them least. Bush knows that he will be in power for a limited amount of time, so he's trying to get as amass as much wealth as possible for himself and for his cronies as long as he's in the big chair.
I seriously cannot believe the thinking here. I really can't . Some of you honestly think your own country is a big, immoral bully. Some of you honestly don't get why Iraq is a threat. Some of you honestly believe that the recent weapons found were "just rockets". You actually believe Bush does not care about the men and women in the military. You argue that Saddam isn't hurting anyone right now. You argue we once supported him, so we don't have the right to take him out now. You argue war is a racket, or it is all about oil, or revenge, or just about anything else other than stopping Saddam Hussein from persuing WOMD in this post 9/11 era.
These arguments are, in a word, ludicrous. It amazes me that after 9/11 there are still people left in country as naive as you. It amazes me that you don't see a problem with Saddam violating every security council resolution thrown at him. You profess your undying sympathy for third world populations, saying the US doesn't give enough aid, loans and food, then turn around and ignore millions living in total opression in Iraq. You ignore Saddam's past pursuit of WOMD. You ignore the topic of the post, falsely saying that the warheads found were "just some old rockets". They were empty chemical warheads and IRAQ DID NOT ACOUNT FOR THEM IN THEIR MOST RECENT DECLARATION. You fool yourselves into a sense of security, thinking Iraq will not associate with organizations who are out to destroy us and WILL do so if they acquire the tools. This is the kind of idiotic peacenick liberal thinking that caused 9/11. You can think that it was our involvement in world affairs if you want to, but you'll be wrong. Those advocating inaction have absolutely no idea of the world we actually live in.
What do you care for some government orchestrated demonstration in Beirut, Gaza, Cairo, or Baghdad? Really?
As for anti-American sentiments in Europe, just look at who attends these rallies. It?s Mostly Arabs and Muslim immigrants. You also get some leftist nut cases who always like to put on a show and get their pics on the Tele, and if it?s not the environment or the other cause d'jour, it?s now America. Who the hell cares? Do you really care if someone like Harald on our boards goes out and demonstrates against everything he takes for granted? The guy calls himself Jewish, but rejects everything that would make someone Jewish. I say, just ship them idiots to paki land and let them to their Mohammedans.
If you wanted to convince me of something, I think you'd get farther if you actually provided reasons, instead of just insulting me and saying that I'm naïve.
I do believe that my country is a big, immoral bully. That's not just an idle thought, it's backed up by our history. See the examples I listed in my last post.
I agree that Iraq could be a threat. I don't see any evidence that they've done more in the past year or two than they have previously that would justify the course of action that George Bush is taking. I mean, Saddam Hussein is pretty horrible guy and he certainly deserves to be wiped out. I wouldn't trust him with big weapons any more than you. But I don't think it's worth going to these great lengths to put him out of power. I wouldn't put it past him to attack the US without provocation, but provoking him the way we are is just asking for a war.
I don't think we should not attack him just because we supported him earlier. That's crap. We supported the Taliban, and then we attacked them. We've supported a lot of people we shouldn't have.
Maybe Iraq didn't account for the spent warheads because they felt they weren't important? I mean, they were empty after all, so technically they were no longer WOMD even if they once were. I suppose it just depends on how you look at it.
Why do you think "idiotic peacenick liberal thinking" caused 9/11? I think it had more to do with the Taliban striking at a country awash in pride and wealth. If you think the Taliban attacked the United States because of people thinking that it would be a good idea not to start wars, I don't know what else could be going on in your head.
<strong>As for anti-American sentiments in Europe...
(snip)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never mentioned anti-American sentiments in Europe. I specifically mentioned anti-European sentiments, though. Maybe you got confused, or you misread my post in your fit of anger?
Let me quote part of that statement again from the link you supplied : "not a smoking gun" that might indicate Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions. "
This time try to read it slow so you understand.
" Some of you honestly think your own country is a big, immoral bully. "
Look we've been down this road before. Our history has some really dark passages. If we were to attack Iraq without a CLEAR provocation we'd be doing it again. Our values have to be worth something more than the paper that they are printed on.
I'm sure Iraq has violated their agreement many times over the years. It's their nature. Why are we making a big deal about it just now? And please don't give me that Al Queda song and dance that's not connected and is getting old.
[QB]You fool yourselves into a sense of security.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You seem to be afraid. You're afraid of the "real threat" propaganda that has been forced on all Americans. But why are you so afraid? Is your way of life being destroyed? Not really. Are you afraid Iraq is going to come and take over America? That is just illogical and senseless. 9/11 was a terrorist act and we are responding exactly how Al Qaeda expected us to--we are probably the most predictable countries in the world. Should we go out an just blow everything up? You can't blow up terrorism. But I guess we can blow up Iraq, and they are sort of evil, so why not? Everyone knows a pre-emptive strike solves all problems.
If you were an Iraqi, I guarantee that you, without a doubt would feel Bush was a hitler evil-man and believe that American represented all that is evil and sinful, just as you believe Iraq and Saddam do. The root cause is of course the bizarre sense of nationalism, us-against-them mentality that seems to be part of being a human and something that has been going on for thousands of years.
Hmmm..... Blinded by propaganda! You see words like yours can be thrown back at ya.... I cannot understand your blind belief in what your president has said (he is still struggling to find evidence).
If you are so worried about WOMD why not attack India, Pakistan & N Korea or maybe Israel? eh? This'll not happen because they really can fight back and hurt the US and Europe.
The USA & UK will be the aggressors in any war that may happen against Iraq.
I am just sad that I voted for Blair! War mongering MUPPET!
I never mentioned anti-American sentiments in Europe. I specifically mentioned anti-European sentiments, though. Maybe you got confused, or you misread my post in your fit of anger?
Fit of anger? Not at all. I might come off as a little aggressive in my posts, but never a fit of anger. Trust me on this. I just like punching the punching bags.
Anyway,
It seems like you're sorely lacking in the big picture. You really need to educate yourself on the spread of Islam. Your Liberal media doesn?t want to report on this and tell you the truth. But have a look at what goes on in Africa, Asia, India, Pacific Asia, in Russia, and very soon Europe and the US. I think you'll find some disturbing finds.
Comments
<strong>War and fighting are easy when you sit in the comfort of your own homes, when it does eventually kick off I'd like to see all you 'gung ho' lot fight! But of course you wouldn't, you're all talk. You treat it as if it's a game and easy because of technology, PEOPLE DIE..... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Remember this, whilst your freaking mad president is after the folly of Iraq, Al Qaida are re-grouping and anti-west feelings have started to boil (anti-west.... i.e. europe as well as usa) Bush and Blair are about to set off a duff firework that's sure to backfire and burn all our butts!
I just thought...... my butt is huge, so I guess it's a bloody big butt burning target!!! EEK!!
And how many people will die when Saddam supplies a nuke to Al-Qaida? Hmmm?
And one more thing: If my government called me to serve in Iraq, I would go. That's not going to happen, but I would go without reservation. I'm a teacher and a husband and about to be first time father. I would go anyway. So don't tell me I just want to sit back and watch.....
Agreed. And it is an outrage that the U.S., under Reagan and (the first half of) Bush Sr.'s administrations supported this nutter for over a decade. The really horrific stuff which the media and this Admin. refers to (gassing Kurds, other human rights abuses) etc etc) happened during the US-Iraq buddybuddy period.
Even after the end of the 1991 Gulf War when a massive anti-Saddam insurrection happened with millions hitting the streets of Iraqi cities and a part of his army turning against him, the U.S military with the authorization of Bush Sr. supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with helicopter gunship and other heavy weapons which were used to squash the rebellion.
When will we stop this insane practise of throwing arms and money at non-democratic governments, brutal regimes and unstable dictators? This "enemy of our enemy is our friend" doctrine is political short-sighted naivety.
The rise of Hitler and World War 2 *should* have been an example...but no, they got their heads in the sand, as usual.
<strong> Show me how it ISN'T a violation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]
But Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said they were short-range shells imported in 1988 and mentioned in Iraq's report. He expressed "astonishment" over what he called "no more than a storm in a teacup."
Amin said the inspectors found the munitions in a sealed box that had never been opened and was covered by dust and bird droppings.
"When these boxes were opened, they found 122 mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin told reporters, adding similar ordnance was found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.
David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons."
Another former inspector said that at one time, Iraq had thousands of warheads filled with chemical agents. <hr></blockquote>
OK, now that we know that the weapons were old, expired and forgotten about which means they aren't a violation, are you ready to recant?
That's preposterous. How about leaving out the Fox Channel or Limbaugh etc. excess baggage?
If Saddam had nukes....(ummm...look how the US is treating the North Korea situation)...he would have something to bargain with. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac and he craves a nuclear capability. It's his lifelong dream, and Israel's nightmare, and once he's got nukes, the VERY LAST THING he's going to do is part with them.
Saddam might be a first order jerk but he's not a total dummy. He's not going to go throwing nukes away to a bunch of al qaida fundamentalist crazies who hates the ground he walks upon. btw, Saddam Hussein loves Hollywood movies, writes western style romance novels, he drinks alcohol, he's only nominally a muslim (despite his "holy war" proclamations) and he runs a secular "government", (really a dictatorship masquerading as such). bin Laden and co view Saddam Hussein as an infidel. If al qaida were to get nukes, they are more likely to get them on the black market from extremist Muslims in a former Soviet republic than from Iraq. If Iran were to develop nukes, then they are also a more likely source of nukes for al qaida than Iraq.
Ok... if you believe so much in the idea of this war, SIGN UP! You see you will not do this because it IS still easier to sit in your comfy armchair and watch the glamourous news coverage/propaganda issued by our governments. If you do SIGN UP, I take my hat off to you for doing so.
If Bush or Blair or anyone for that matter can prove there is a threat then I might support action, but only if there really were no diplomatic options. Iraq is far from this situation, Hussain may be a bad man but that is for its peoples to oust him and not for other countries. BTW AFAIK it was England and USA that sold to Iraq technology to make such weapons...... My country's leader and yours are two faced! Never trust a politician!!
Give me a hug! I love ya all!
Make love not war!
Interesting: [quote] 1990
From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]
The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58] <hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
The truth about this soon to be war (it's gonna happen even if the majority of Americans and Europeans don't agree with it), is that it is all about profit under the disguise of national security.
Go on give me a hug!
Big country rises to power, abuses power, kills everyone, eventually falls. it's a big historical cycle, yet people don't seem to see it. Kill saddam and osama, bomb someone, that will solve the problem. I can't believe people actually believe this. America does a wonderful job of promoting FUD, and that helps.
<strong>Go America! God, the WWII us-against-them mentality is ridiculous. This country is far too agressive and afraid--unfortunately, this country also has some marketing wizards and a war-mongerer selling this garbage to the masses.
Big country rises to power, abuses power, kills everyone, eventually falls. it's a big historical cycle, yet people don't seem to see it. Kill saddam and osama, bomb someone, that will solve the problem. I can't believe people actually believe this. America does a wonderful job of promoting FUD, and that helps.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kept the Roman Empire in power for half a millenium. So we should have at least 300 more years.
<strong>
Kept the Roman Empire in power for half a millenium. So we should have at least 300 more years.
Yes, it's quite sad
Some beautiful Flash games to cheer us up --> <a href="http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/"; target="_blank">Shiny Happy People!
<strong>That's a common misconception. We do not cause anti-Americanism. The Left wants you to think that. We are hated for what we have. We are hated for our power. There has never been a more benevolent power in the history of this earth. Yet all the Left talks about how we abuse power and bully everyone. It's just more of the criminal liberal media's BS.
Less involved in international affairs? Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, you never really gave a clear reason why I am wrong and why you are right. Look at most of Europe. They're rich too... perhaps not as rich as us, but certainly the envy of poorer nations. So why isn't there such a strong anti-European sentiment? I'm sure there is some anti-European sentiments, especially among religious fundamentalists like Al Qaeda, but it's not as widespread as anti-Americanism. How often do you see a burning Italian flag, or a burning German flag, in some poor middle eastern country? I suppose the media does portray anti-American sentiments more often than anti-European sentiments, but I still think there's some truth to it. I mean, Al Qaeda did attack New York, not Paris or Berlin or Milan.
So if we're rich like Europe, but poor countries hate us more than Europe, that means they hate us for the way we act, not for what we have. The United States is an overly aggressive nation that has historically made self-serving moves to further their power while causing others to suffer needlessly. Look at Chile, or Guatemala, or El Salvador, where the CIA assisted in the massacre of millions of innocent women and children. Look at the embargoes on Cuba and Iraq, which only hurt the innocent civilians but do nothing to hurt the leaders. Bush's aggressive moves toward Iraq are just a way to distract the public from what is going on right here inside our borders - economic failure and tax cuts for the people who need them least. Bush knows that he will be in power for a limited amount of time, so he's trying to get as amass as much wealth as possible for himself and for his cronies as long as he's in the big chair.
These arguments are, in a word, ludicrous. It amazes me that after 9/11 there are still people left in country as naive as you. It amazes me that you don't see a problem with Saddam violating every security council resolution thrown at him. You profess your undying sympathy for third world populations, saying the US doesn't give enough aid, loans and food, then turn around and ignore millions living in total opression in Iraq. You ignore Saddam's past pursuit of WOMD. You ignore the topic of the post, falsely saying that the warheads found were "just some old rockets". They were empty chemical warheads and IRAQ DID NOT ACOUNT FOR THEM IN THEIR MOST RECENT DECLARATION. You fool yourselves into a sense of security, thinking Iraq will not associate with organizations who are out to destroy us and WILL do so if they acquire the tools. This is the kind of idiotic peacenick liberal thinking that caused 9/11. You can think that it was our involvement in world affairs if you want to, but you'll be wrong. Those advocating inaction have absolutely no idea of the world we actually live in.
<strong>
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you care for some government orchestrated demonstration in Beirut, Gaza, Cairo, or Baghdad? Really?
As for anti-American sentiments in Europe, just look at who attends these rallies. It?s Mostly Arabs and Muslim immigrants. You also get some leftist nut cases who always like to put on a show and get their pics on the Tele, and if it?s not the environment or the other cause d'jour, it?s now America. Who the hell cares? Do you really care if someone like Harald on our boards goes out and demonstrates against everything he takes for granted? The guy calls himself Jewish, but rejects everything that would make someone Jewish. I say, just ship them idiots to paki land and let them to their Mohammedans.
I do believe that my country is a big, immoral bully. That's not just an idle thought, it's backed up by our history. See the examples I listed in my last post.
I agree that Iraq could be a threat. I don't see any evidence that they've done more in the past year or two than they have previously that would justify the course of action that George Bush is taking. I mean, Saddam Hussein is pretty horrible guy and he certainly deserves to be wiped out. I wouldn't trust him with big weapons any more than you. But I don't think it's worth going to these great lengths to put him out of power. I wouldn't put it past him to attack the US without provocation, but provoking him the way we are is just asking for a war.
I don't think we should not attack him just because we supported him earlier. That's crap. We supported the Taliban, and then we attacked them. We've supported a lot of people we shouldn't have.
Maybe Iraq didn't account for the spent warheads because they felt they weren't important? I mean, they were empty after all, so technically they were no longer WOMD even if they once were. I suppose it just depends on how you look at it.
Why do you think "idiotic peacenick liberal thinking" caused 9/11? I think it had more to do with the Taliban striking at a country awash in pride and wealth. If you think the Taliban attacked the United States because of people thinking that it would be a good idea not to start wars, I don't know what else could be going on in your head.
<strong>As for anti-American sentiments in Europe...
(snip)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never mentioned anti-American sentiments in Europe. I specifically mentioned anti-European sentiments, though. Maybe you got confused, or you misread my post in your fit of anger?
EDIT: I am not familiar with Harold...
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
" I seriously cannot believe the thinking here. "
Gosh that makes two of us!
You just don't get it do you?
" Show me how it ISN'T a violation. "
Let me quote part of that statement again from the link you supplied : "not a smoking gun" that might indicate Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions. "
This time try to read it slow so you understand.
" Some of you honestly think your own country is a big, immoral bully. "
Look we've been down this road before. Our history has some really dark passages. If we were to attack Iraq without a CLEAR provocation we'd be doing it again. Our values have to be worth something more than the paper that they are printed on.
I'm sure Iraq has violated their agreement many times over the years. It's their nature. Why are we making a big deal about it just now? And please don't give me that Al Queda song and dance that's not connected and is getting old.
As you would put it ........ Two words :
Another Agenda.
[QB]You fool yourselves into a sense of security.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You seem to be afraid. You're afraid of the "real threat" propaganda that has been forced on all Americans. But why are you so afraid? Is your way of life being destroyed? Not really. Are you afraid Iraq is going to come and take over America? That is just illogical and senseless. 9/11 was a terrorist act and we are responding exactly how Al Qaeda expected us to--we are probably the most predictable countries in the world. Should we go out an just blow everything up? You can't blow up terrorism. But I guess we can blow up Iraq, and they are sort of evil, so why not? Everyone knows a pre-emptive strike solves all problems.
If you were an Iraqi, I guarantee that you, without a doubt would feel Bush was a hitler evil-man and believe that American represented all that is evil and sinful, just as you believe Iraq and Saddam do. The root cause is of course the bizarre sense of nationalism, us-against-them mentality that seems to be part of being a human and something that has been going on for thousands of years.
If you are so worried about WOMD why not attack India, Pakistan & N Korea or maybe Israel? eh? This'll not happen because they really can fight back and hurt the US and Europe.
The USA & UK will be the aggressors in any war that may happen against Iraq.
I am just sad that I voted for Blair! War mongering MUPPET!
<strong>
I never mentioned anti-American sentiments in Europe. I specifically mentioned anti-European sentiments, though. Maybe you got confused, or you misread my post in your fit of anger?
EDIT: I am not familiar with Harold...
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fit of anger? Not at all. I might come off as a little aggressive in my posts, but never a fit of anger. Trust me on this. I just like punching the punching bags.
Anyway,
It seems like you're sorely lacking in the big picture. You really need to educate yourself on the spread of Islam. Your Liberal media doesn?t want to report on this and tell you the truth. But have a look at what goes on in Africa, Asia, India, Pacific Asia, in Russia, and very soon Europe and the US. I think you'll find some disturbing finds.