It's only a violation if they knew about them, which is most likely not the case.
These rockets are designed to be fired in rapid succession, 40 to a pod. 11-12 of them in an ammo dump is not an arsenal by any means. This is not to say that there is not a stockpile of VX somewhere, but to latch on to a few forgotten, empty and essentially useless rockets is just stupid. Let the inspections take their course.
SDW, this is not only not a material breach, but you are in no position to make that judgement, esspecially since you don't even have a clear idea of what they are.
To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that if Bush have this oil, he will change dramatically his foreign politic with Saudi Arabia ?
I haven't got any precise opinons on these subject but i have doubts.
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad you'll say this because a lot of it is true. My big problem with the situation is that the U.S. can't legally (by our own or by international law) use force to gain oil. Disguising it in a war on terrorism is just dishonest and in my opinion disgusting.
In all honesty, if your assessment were more or less 100% true, I'd say Bush should be up against charges of treason. If we don't have oil in the US, we can't just use military force to coerce the world into selling it to us at the price we want. That goes against everything that our country was founded on. I'd fight to the death before I would agree to those terms, oil be damned.
[quote]The talk on Thursday, Jan. 16, was about empty, 122 mm artillery rockets -- configured to contain chemical warfare agents, but empty. Even the United States didn’t try to turn this into the now obsessive "smoking gun" that would prove that Iraq currently has chemical weapons. Baghdad had chemical weapons in the past and used them against the Kurds in northern Iraq, but Iraqi leaders claim the chemicals were destroyed -– so finding empty shells is not inconsistent with their claims. The shells were found at Ukhaider ammunition storage area, 75 miles south of Baghdad. Interestingly, the bunkers were built in the late 1990s. Iraqi officials claim they destroyed their weapon stocks before these bunkers were built. Why would anyone take the empty rockets to the new storage facility? That is curious, but in any military organization, dragging useless things around for no reason is not unheard of. <hr></blockquote>
and for you SDW:
[quote]1523 GMT - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has briefed French President Jacques Chirac on the recent discovery in Iraq of empty warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. Blix said it was too early to know if the warheads were listed in Baghdad's December weapons declaration -- as Iraqi officials have claimed -- and added that he wanted more explanations from Iraqi leaders. Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei also were due to meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Jan. 17.<hr></blockquote>
No I'm not saying they were listed. I am just pointing out how horribly far you are away from being able to even utter the words 'material breach.' Regardless, only a moron would support a massive war over a few empty rockets.
Also, and forgive my asking, but why are we looking at this from the Bush angle? For instance, if we find a stash of VX, but know that they don't have an active WMD program, why does it become cause for war? We could destroy the stash and be done. If we keep the inspections up for a few years, the Iraqis would not have room to start up an active weapons program. Problem solved. Why is war neccessary? It's obvious they have no nuclear weapons or a program to develop them. Centrifuges are too big to hide from the inspectors and none have been found. Remember that Bush tried to lie about this one, making up ficticious reports? Notice how the IAEA has said there is no indication whatsoever that Iraq has a nuclear program at all. Yet so many people on this board were utterly convinced that there was, without any proof or reason at all justifying it. What is with that? Are you all such war-mongering elitists that you support any random war to satisfy your taste for revenge over 9.11? Or are you so delusioned by fear that you don't care about reality or rational action?
Yet so many people on this board were utterly convinced that there was, without any proof or reason at all justifying it. What is with that? Are you all such war-mongering elitists that you support any random war to satisfy your taste for revenge over 9.11? Or are you so delusioned by fear that you don't care about reality or rational action?
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
No, I think the point is not these folks hereabouts are war mongers as they are ideologically tied to the need to support Bush's opinion no matter what. They are blinded by their ideology: actually, not even, they are simply blinded by the need to take the side of a particular team (that one now in office) no matter what it means . . . . no matter what kind of distortions of reality are necessary in order to continue to back the team, to root for the good old colors and the fat elephant over the donkey
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting analysis. I hadn't thought about it that way before. Not in those particular terms anyway. It's a brilliant strategy, saying to the Saudi's "look, we don;t need your oil anymore....stop terrorists within your borders, NOW."
Luca:
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
There you go. Right there. That's the problem with the Hate America First Crowd. "Let's make a list of every military action in the last 50 years so we can show what an immoral agressor we are". I'm insulting you because that kind of thinking truly IS naive. You see the nation as unfair, unjust and immoral. That's the Left's mindset for you.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
So, you "wouldn't put it past him to attack WITHOUT provocation", yet you feel we should sit back and do nothing? What? I see, it's the old "he'll probably attack us or our allies eventually so we better not piss him off too much". Hmmm, funny....I believe we tried that with CHECHS about 60 years ago. It's called APPEASEMENT and it historically doesn't work. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Are you French? (sorry Powerdoc) How many more chances will this man have? How many more times will he fire on our aircraft and those of our allies? How long will the world watch him thumb his nose at security council resolutions, passed by a body who you claim to respect? It will be interesting to see what happens if the UN approves an invasion. I suppose you and the rest of peacenicks will then say "yeah, but we forced them into voting that way because after all, we are an immoral bully".
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
No, it had to do with a failure to act. They don't just hate our wealth and power, they hate our entire way of life. They hate freedom....it's not just rhetoric, it is true. During the Clinton years, the CIA was castrated. It wasn't allowed to deal with shadowy characters as it is now. National security isn't pretty. Clinton had a plan to go into Afghanistan that he COULDN"T execute because he couldn't stomach casualties. He slashed the military budget and our active forces. He loathed the military. He didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done. Saudi Arabia actually offered us bin laden during Clinton's term. We said "no thanks".
You folks can think I'm a war monger all you want. Your arguments simply don't make any sense.
So, you "wouldn't put it past him to attack WITHOUT provocation", yet you feel we should sit back and do nothing? What? I see, it's the old "he'll probably attack us or our allies eventually so we better not piss him off too much". Hmmm, funny....I believe we tried that with CHECHS about 60 years ago. It's called APPEASEMENT and it historically doesn't work. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>You draw an interestig parallel except that you don't have the insight to see how it is actually applicable: where the situation with the "Sudatenland" and the possible war with Iraq is simlar is that we would be acting like Hitler, using absurd pretextx in order to "Liberate the german (no make that Iraqi) people in Iraq" . . . clearly it is a Just cause to liberate these people from the oppression of this dictator who goes to war with Iran and Kuwait without listening to his people .
. . um like not listening to the American or the world's opinion
and your last paragraph you become more of a silly caricature of a flag waving zealot every time you post . . .
I'm glad you'll say this because a lot of it is true. My big problem with the situation is that the U.S. can't legally (by our own or by international law) use force to gain oil. Disguising it in a war on terrorism is just dishonest and in my opinion disgusting.
In all honesty, if your assessment were more or less 100% true, I'd say Bush should be up against charges of treason. If we don't have oil in the US, we can't just use military force to coerce the world into selling it to us at the price we want. That goes against everything that our country was founded on. I'd fight to the death before I would agree to those terms, oil be damned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t follow you..
As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?
As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An attack by the US on a soverien state for self-interest is illegal for the same reason murder in business is illegal.
An attack by the US on a soverien state for self-interest is illegal for the same reason murder in business is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When is an attack on a ?sovereign state? not in self-interest? What the hell are you talking about? And what legitimacy as a ?sovereign state? does the Iraqi regime and Saddam have anyway? Care to explain that?
When is an attack on a ?sovereign state? not in self-interest? <hr></blockquote>
Which is why in this country it is not justified unless in self-defense. You will go to prison if you kill someone just because you think they will kill you. You have to directly demonstrate that you were acting in self-defence, regardless of how right you were about the other person's intent.
[quote]
And what legitimacy as a ?sovereign state? does the Iraqi regime and Saddam have anyway? Care to explain that?<hr></blockquote>
That is for the Iraqi people to decide, not you, just like it is not for Saddam to choose who runs America.
This is pretty fundamental stuff. Its actually sort of sick that you don't already know this.
Know what? Know that Iraqis have made a "choice" and that "choice" is Saddam? Know how they exercised this "choice"? Know what happenes if they don't exercise that "choice"?
Know what? Know that Iraqis have made a "choice" and that "choice" is Saddam? Know how they exercised this "choice"? Know what happenes if they don't exercise that "choice"?<hr></blockquote>
You got me there. What the hell was I thinking? Let's kill 'em all!
For all you 'Gung Ho' armchair soldiers wanting some war action, you better sign-up now because it looks like even your own troops are not so sure about this looming war: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2663191.stm"; target="_blank">BBC news article</a>
It's so easy fighting from the safety of your own homes, thousands of miles away. I keep repeating myself, but if you really believe Iraq is such a threat, get off ur butts and fight! I'm sure ur attitudes would soon change!
I think you have that backwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not backwards, if Bush take the oil of Irak, it will logically weakened the strenght of Saudi Arabia, but does it will weakened enough Saudi Arabia, to allow a dramatic change in US policy ?
In an another way, Saudi Arabia don't seem worried by this war, i haven' t eard any comment about this. In case of war, the only countries who will win money immediatly will be the members of OPEP (the prize of oil will raise immedialty). Saudi Arabia have always been scared by Irak, at least since the first war gulf. Even if they have numbers of sophistaced weapons, i doubt that they have many people ready to die for their countries ( i have this feeling during the first gulf war).
I have no great feelings for Saudi Arabia, so i won't be sad if they power where weakened, but i think the debate concerning Saudi arabia and the second gulf war is open.
Good grief. You're so muddle headed, you can't even get your right-wing propaganda straight. I suggest you do a bit more research on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
alright.... my AP history teacher said the same thing ALL LAST YEAR whenever the oppurtunity came up....
Comments
These rockets are designed to be fired in rapid succession, 40 to a pod. 11-12 of them in an ammo dump is not an arsenal by any means. This is not to say that there is not a stockpile of VX somewhere, but to latch on to a few forgotten, empty and essentially useless rockets is just stupid. Let the inspections take their course.
SDW, this is not only not a material breach, but you are in no position to make that judgement, esspecially since you don't even have a clear idea of what they are.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that if Bush have this oil, he will change dramatically his foreign politic with Saudi Arabia ?
I haven't got any precise opinons on these subject but i have doubts.
Sigh.
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad you'll say this because a lot of it is true. My big problem with the situation is that the U.S. can't legally (by our own or by international law) use force to gain oil. Disguising it in a war on terrorism is just dishonest and in my opinion disgusting.
In all honesty, if your assessment were more or less 100% true, I'd say Bush should be up against charges of treason. If we don't have oil in the US, we can't just use military force to coerce the world into selling it to us at the price we want. That goes against everything that our country was founded on. I'd fight to the death before I would agree to those terms, oil be damned.
[quote]The talk on Thursday, Jan. 16, was about empty, 122 mm artillery rockets -- configured to contain chemical warfare agents, but empty. Even the United States didn’t try to turn this into the now obsessive "smoking gun" that would prove that Iraq currently has chemical weapons. Baghdad had chemical weapons in the past and used them against the Kurds in northern Iraq, but Iraqi leaders claim the chemicals were destroyed -– so finding empty shells is not inconsistent with their claims. The shells were found at Ukhaider ammunition storage area, 75 miles south of Baghdad. Interestingly, the bunkers were built in the late 1990s. Iraqi officials claim they destroyed their weapon stocks before these bunkers were built. Why would anyone take the empty rockets to the new storage facility? That is curious, but in any military organization, dragging useless things around for no reason is not unheard of. <hr></blockquote>
and for you SDW:
[quote]1523 GMT - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has briefed French President Jacques Chirac on the recent discovery in Iraq of empty warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. Blix said it was too early to know if the warheads were listed in Baghdad's December weapons declaration -- as Iraqi officials have claimed -- and added that he wanted more explanations from Iraqi leaders. Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei also were due to meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Jan. 17.<hr></blockquote>
No I'm not saying they were listed. I am just pointing out how horribly far you are away from being able to even utter the words 'material breach.' Regardless, only a moron would support a massive war over a few empty rockets.
Also, and forgive my asking, but why are we looking at this from the Bush angle? For instance, if we find a stash of VX, but know that they don't have an active WMD program, why does it become cause for war? We could destroy the stash and be done. If we keep the inspections up for a few years, the Iraqis would not have room to start up an active weapons program. Problem solved. Why is war neccessary? It's obvious they have no nuclear weapons or a program to develop them. Centrifuges are too big to hide from the inspectors and none have been found. Remember that Bush tried to lie about this one, making up ficticious reports? Notice how the IAEA has said there is no indication whatsoever that Iraq has a nuclear program at all. Yet so many people on this board were utterly convinced that there was, without any proof or reason at all justifying it. What is with that? Are you all such war-mongering elitists that you support any random war to satisfy your taste for revenge over 9.11? Or are you so delusioned by fear that you don't care about reality or rational action?
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Yet so many people on this board were utterly convinced that there was, without any proof or reason at all justifying it. What is with that? Are you all such war-mongering elitists that you support any random war to satisfy your taste for revenge over 9.11? Or are you so delusioned by fear that you don't care about reality or rational action?
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
No, I think the point is not these folks hereabouts are war mongers as they are ideologically tied to the need to support Bush's opinion no matter what. They are blinded by their ideology: actually, not even, they are simply blinded by the need to take the side of a particular team (that one now in office) no matter what it means . . . . no matter what kind of distortions of reality are necessary in order to continue to back the team, to root for the good old colors and the fat elephant over the donkey
<strong>To say this war is not about Oil is just stupid. Of-course it?s about oil. What people just don?t realize (because of blind partisanship) is just how smart President Bush is in perusing this course of action in the fight against TERRORISM. Yes, terrorism. Iraq has the second largest reserves after the Saudis. And these are fairly easy to get at. It is also quite clear that our alliance with the Saudis is quickly running its course. But as long as we don?t have a replacement for Saudi oil, we cannot have a meaningful dialogue with Saudis regards their peculiar behavior. Iraq that is pliable to our concerns is that perfect substitute.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting analysis. I hadn't thought about it that way before. Not in those particular terms anyway. It's a brilliant strategy, saying to the Saudi's "look, we don;t need your oil anymore....stop terrorists within your borders, NOW."
Luca:
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
There you go. Right there. That's the problem with the Hate America First Crowd. "Let's make a list of every military action in the last 50 years so we can show what an immoral agressor we are". I'm insulting you because that kind of thinking truly IS naive. You see the nation as unfair, unjust and immoral. That's the Left's mindset for you.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
So, you "wouldn't put it past him to attack WITHOUT provocation", yet you feel we should sit back and do nothing? What? I see, it's the old "he'll probably attack us or our allies eventually so we better not piss him off too much". Hmmm, funny....I believe we tried that with CHECHS about 60 years ago. It's called APPEASEMENT and it historically doesn't work. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is.
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
Are you French? (sorry Powerdoc) How many more chances will this man have? How many more times will he fire on our aircraft and those of our allies? How long will the world watch him thumb his nose at security council resolutions, passed by a body who you claim to respect? It will be interesting to see what happens if the UN approves an invasion. I suppose you and the rest of peacenicks will then say "yeah, but we forced them into voting that way because after all, we are an immoral bully".
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
No, it had to do with a failure to act. They don't just hate our wealth and power, they hate our entire way of life. They hate freedom....it's not just rhetoric, it is true. During the Clinton years, the CIA was castrated. It wasn't allowed to deal with shadowy characters as it is now. National security isn't pretty. Clinton had a plan to go into Afghanistan that he COULDN"T execute because he couldn't stomach casualties. He slashed the military budget and our active forces. He loathed the military. He didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done. Saudi Arabia actually offered us bin laden during Clinton's term. We said "no thanks".
You folks can think I'm a war monger all you want. Your arguments simply don't make any sense.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Do you think that if Bush have this oil, he will change dramatically his foreign politic with Saudi Arabia ?
I haven't got any precise opinons on these subject but i have doubts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm,?
I think you have that backwards.
<strong>
So, you "wouldn't put it past him to attack WITHOUT provocation", yet you feel we should sit back and do nothing? What? I see, it's the old "he'll probably attack us or our allies eventually so we better not piss him off too much". Hmmm, funny....I believe we tried that with CHECHS about 60 years ago. It's called APPEASEMENT and it historically doesn't work. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>You draw an interestig parallel except that you don't have the insight to see how it is actually applicable: where the situation with the "Sudatenland" and the possible war with Iraq is simlar is that we would be acting like Hitler, using absurd pretextx in order to "Liberate the german (no make that Iraqi) people in Iraq" . . . clearly it is a Just cause to liberate these people from the oppression of this dictator who goes to war with Iran and Kuwait without listening to his people .
. . um like not listening to the American or the world's opinion
and your last paragraph
<strong>
I'm glad you'll say this because a lot of it is true. My big problem with the situation is that the U.S. can't legally (by our own or by international law) use force to gain oil. Disguising it in a war on terrorism is just dishonest and in my opinion disgusting.
In all honesty, if your assessment were more or less 100% true, I'd say Bush should be up against charges of treason. If we don't have oil in the US, we can't just use military force to coerce the world into selling it to us at the price we want. That goes against everything that our country was founded on. I'd fight to the death before I would agree to those terms, oil be damned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t follow you..
As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?
<strong>
I don?t follow you..
As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An attack by the US on a soverien state for self-interest is illegal for the same reason murder in business is illegal.
<strong>
An attack by the US on a soverien state for self-interest is illegal for the same reason murder in business is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When is an attack on a ?sovereign state? not in self-interest? What the hell are you talking about? And what legitimacy as a ?sovereign state? does the Iraqi regime and Saddam have anyway? Care to explain that?
When is an attack on a ?sovereign state? not in self-interest? <hr></blockquote>
Which is why in this country it is not justified unless in self-defense. You will go to prison if you kill someone just because you think they will kill you. You have to directly demonstrate that you were acting in self-defence, regardless of how right you were about the other person's intent.
[quote]
And what legitimacy as a ?sovereign state? does the Iraqi regime and Saddam have anyway? Care to explain that?<hr></blockquote>
That is for the Iraqi people to decide, not you, just like it is not for Saddam to choose who runs America.
This is pretty fundamental stuff. Its actually sort of sick that you don't already know this.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
That is for the Iraqi people to decide, not you, just like it is not for Saddam to choose who runs America.
This is pretty fundamental stuff. Its actually sort of sick that you don't already know this.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Know what? Know that Iraqis have made a "choice" and that "choice" is Saddam? Know how they exercised this "choice"? Know what happenes if they don't exercise that "choice"?
Know what? Know that Iraqis have made a "choice" and that "choice" is Saddam? Know how they exercised this "choice"? Know what happenes if they don't exercise that "choice"?<hr></blockquote>
You got me there. What the hell was I thinking? Let's kill 'em all!
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Saudi Arabia actually offered us bin laden during Clinton's term. We said "no thanks". </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's so easy fighting from the safety of your own homes, thousands of miles away. I keep repeating myself, but if you really believe Iraq is such a threat, get off ur butts and fight! I'm sure ur attitudes would soon change!
Love, Hugs & kisses
Booga
<strong>
Hmm,?
I think you have that backwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not backwards, if Bush take the oil of Irak, it will logically weakened the strenght of Saudi Arabia, but does it will weakened enough Saudi Arabia, to allow a dramatic change in US policy ?
In an another way, Saudi Arabia don't seem worried by this war, i haven' t eard any comment about this. In case of war, the only countries who will win money immediatly will be the members of OPEP (the prize of oil will raise immedialty). Saudi Arabia have always been scared by Irak, at least since the first war gulf. Even if they have numbers of sophistaced weapons, i doubt that they have many people ready to die for their countries ( i have this feeling during the first gulf war).
I have no great feelings for Saudi Arabia, so i won't be sad if they power where weakened, but i think the debate concerning Saudi arabia and the second gulf war is open.
<strong>
alright.... my AP history teacher said the same thing ALL LAST YEAR whenever the oppurtunity came up....
what's the truth?