Why Does America Want To Attack Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@16 March 2003 - 00:25

There ain't no good guys.
There ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me
and we just dissagree.
B)

This is a test.
This is only a test.
For the next 60 seconds, this forum will be conducting a test
of the emer.....

We interupt the test to bring you this latest news update:

The U.S. has sacrificed its rook. I repeat, the U. S. has sacrificed its rook.
As it looks here, France was going to kick over the chess board otherwise.
Saddam is looking a bit sheepish. <_<
Oh...Sorry. Thats his harem. :ph34r:
Moooo.
Whoa&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:
Who let that cow in here&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:
Mr. President, This is chess. Not a rodeo. :lol:

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :D

gency broadcast stations. The broadcasters in your area...
Hey...Where&#39;d this sheep come from?&#33; :(
And whats it doing wearing a veil? :huh:

---

Now...this is funny&#33;

Quote:

---

America doesn&#39;t want to attack Iraq. Just get rid of Saddam. Don&#39;t confuse the two.

It is not all about oil. We have many resources for oil around the world.

It is about the international security of the USA.

All Saddam has to do, is confess and disarm. He has (and you can&#39;t deny this) possessed and used chemical and biological weapons. He has terroized other nations (don&#39;t forget his blatant invasion of Kuwait). Supported terrorists with money and other items. His own people live in a world of fear (remember the 100% vote in Iraq? Unbelievable). Other neighboring countries fear Iraq, for obvious reasons.

There are many horribe things Saddam has done, that other people just ignore. If nobody does nothing to stop him, they&#39;ll blame the USA (or some other country) for knowing the the truth and letting it happen. (Remember Hitler in WWII? Too many ignored the fact, and it went wild). On the other hand, somebody (the USA) is doing something about this. When it happens, the sh*t will hit the fan. Many hidden atroccities, within the Iraqian borders, will be revealed.

If Saddam was never bothered with, eventually he&#39;d have a nuclear weapon. Would you feel comfortable with that? Knowing that an unstable guy like that, is capable of using it at any time?

Do you want Saddam to have never been asked, questioned or even challenged about his way of controlling people and nations? He has violated the treaty and UN agreements&#33;&#33;&#33; This is probably good enough reason (over 12 years of violations) to attack Iraq. Not only did Iraq violate the treaty, so did France, germany and Russia.


France (since 1974) has been enjoying the billions of dollars that Iraq has been giving them annually (violates the treaty since 1991). Starting with the aid of building a nucler power plant in 1974. The greed of France is too great for them to consider anything concerning the bombing of Iraq. If Iraq goes in ashes, so does France&#39;s money, which then will cause the entire French economy to go down in a huge spiral&#33;

A fact that you should look into. A gigantic chunk of French economy is totally relying on money coming from the USA&#33; Click this link to see what americans are buying. Yoplait yogurt, Spencer Gifts, Motown records, MP3.com, BF Goodrich, and many more goods and services are French owned. Almost all Americans don&#39;t realize this, but they are supporting the French, when the french won&#39;t even bother to look at the resolutions (to prevent war) for the USA. Did you know that Iraq&#39;s machine parts, tools, some weapons and helicopters are built by the French?

---

I&#39;m NOT defending Saddam, but it was the U.S.A that "created"Saddam :o , yes, they put him there, supplyed him with weapons (including chemical), and turned a blind eye when he, with the american weapons, massacrated thouthands of his own ppl, and ppl from ajacent countries....they just interfered when he invaded Kuait(ther&#39;s oil there)....If U want proof I&#39;ll find the article where I discoverd all this (It was an american newspaper I think.. :huh: ) and post the link here ;)

edit: And there are TONS of other stuff, against the US, like that the US and UK sent a letter that incriminated iraq of buying nuclear or chemical stuff...but then they proved that the letter was forged............

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@16 March 2003 - 06:50
America doesn&#39;t want to attack Iraq. Just get rid of Saddam. Don&#39;t confuse the two.

It is not all about oil. We have many resources for oil around the world.

It is about the international security of the USA.

All Saddam has to do, is confess and disarm. He has (and you can&#39;t deny this) possessed and used chemical and biological weapons. He has terroized other nations (don&#39;t forget his blatant invasion of Kuwait). Supported terrorists with money and other items. His own people live in a world of fear (remember the 100% vote in Iraq? Unbelievable). Other neighboring countries fear Iraq, for obvious reasons.

There are many horribe things Saddam has done, that other people just ignore. If nobody does nothing to stop him, they&#39;ll blame the USA (or some other country) for knowing the the truth and letting it happen. (Remember Hitler in WWII? Too many ignored the fact, and it went wild). On the other hand, somebody (the USA) is doing something about this. When it happens, the sh*t will hit the fan. Many hidden atroccities, within the Iraqian borders, will be revealed.

If Saddam was never bothered with, eventually he&#39;d have a nuclear weapon. Would you feel comfortable with&nbsp; that? Knowing that an unstable guy like that, is capable of using it at any time?

Do you want Saddam to have never been asked, questioned or even challenged about his way of controlling people and nations? He has violated the treaty and UN agreements&#33;&#33;&#33; This is probably good enough reason (over 12 years of violations) to attack Iraq. Not only did Iraq violate the treaty, so did France, germany and Russia.


France (since 1974) has been enjoying the billions of dollars that Iraq has been giving them annually (violates the treaty since 1991). Starting with the aid of building a nucler power plant in 1974. The greed of France is too great for them to consider anything concerning the bombing of Iraq. If Iraq goes in ashes, so does France&#39;s money, which then will cause the entire French economy to go down in a huge spiral&#33;

A fact that you should look into. A gigantic chunk of French economy is totally relying on money coming from the USA&#33; Click this link to see what americans are buying. Yoplait yogurt, Spencer Gifts, Motown records, MP3.com, BF Goodrich, and many more goods and services are French owned. Almost all Americans don&#39;t realize this, but they are supporting the French, when the french won&#39;t even bother to look at the resolutions (to prevent war) for the USA. Did you know that Iraq&#39;s machine parts, tools, some weapons and helicopters are built by the French?

---

OK let&#39;s look at these points

"possessed and used chemical and biological weapons"

Yes he has. They were sold to him by the Americans and British who both continued to sell them to him even AFTER they knew that he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. So that "reason" falls apart.

American use of chemical and biological weapons: Bahamas 1940s, Korea 1952, Vietnam 1960s, Laos 1970, Panama 1989, Cuba 1956 1958 1971 1984 (attempted but failed) 1996, plus many tests in the USA and Panama with little concern for safety causing many civilian casualties

THE US has also sold such weapons and provided training in their use and encouragement to use them to many countries including Egypt, South-Africa and Iraq





"Terrorised other nations. Supported terrorists with money and other items"

I don&#39;t even know where to start. I will have to abbreviate this to just a couple of examples or I would die of old age before I finish. How about Ronald Reagan&#39;s support of the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists in their attempt to overthrow democracy in Nicaragua and establish a fascist dictatorship. The US likes to claim the moral high ground when the country they need to attack HAPPENS to be a dictatorship. The US will attack any country, overthrow any government whose economic policies do not suit America. If that means overthrowing democracy and putting in a dictator so be it (e.g. Chile 1973)

The US is to this day harbouring known terrorists who regularly bomb hotels in Cuba murdering civilians and then return to their US homes in Miami. Trying to get these people tried in Florida is like trying to get someone tried for gambling in Las Vegas.

Florida is also the retirement home of many serious human rights violators, death squad leaders and dictators from countries such as El Salvador, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Honduras, Indonesia

Thioun Prasith who was a major supporter of Pol Pot and covered up most of his crimes lives happily in New York

"Eventually he&#39;ll have a nuclear weapon"

So we should expect wars on many countries including China Pakistan India and Britain

To be honest with you I am a lot more scared of Dubya having a nuke than I am of Saddam.

You are right he has done many horrible things. So have a lot of other rulers. Ariel Sharon for instance. Torture has been positively encouraged by the US in many countries and training in torture techniques given and torture equipment supplied to regimes of Turkey, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Bolivia Uruguay, Brazil, Guatamala, El Salvador.
So why is it different when Saddam does it? I&#39;m sorry, that "reason" falls apart too.


Violating UN agreements.

Here is a quote from Ronald Reagan "One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that&#39;s come before them where we&#39;re involved and it didn&#39;t upset my breakfast at all."
Currently the US is setting about bribing and bullying countries into supporting a resolution for war on Iraq. This is akin to standing outside a polling booth on election day and saying "vote the way I want to and I&#39;ll give you money, vote the other way I&#39;ll punch you in the face". Apart from this they have already said they will go to war even if they lose the vote. They even have the cheek to say that this will prevent the UN&#39;s authority from being undermined.



By the way do you really think that French people don&#39;t buy American goods too?

AMERICA DOES NOT WANT TO ATTACK IRAQ&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:
Bush does&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
and it&#39;s because saddam won&#39;t give in to bush&#39;s sick demands like osama did<this is why he still free :P
http://www.auzzie.net/files/funny%20leaders.jpg

Quote:

---

AMERICA DOES NOT WANT TO ATTACK IRAQ&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Bush does&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

and it&#39;s because saddam won&#39;t give in to bush&#39;s sick demands like osama did<this is why he still free

---

Very funny and true, however, "america" put Bush there....or maby Bush put himself there...it&#39;s not very clear, kinda confusing :huh: :D :D

Quote:

---

OK let&#39;s look at these points

"possessed and used chemical and biological weapons"

Yes he has. They were sold to him by the Americans and British who both continued to sell them to him even AFTER they knew that he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. So that "reason" falls apart.

American use of chemical and biological weapons: Bahamas 1940s, Korea 1952, Vietnam 1960s, Laos 1970, Panama 1989, Cuba 1956 1958 1971 1984 (attempted but failed) 1996, plus many tests in the USA and Panama with little concern for safety causing many civilian casualties

THE US has also sold such weapons and provided training in their use and encouragement to use them to many countries including Egypt, South-Africa and Iraq





"Terrorised other nations. Supported terrorists with money and other items"

I don&#39;t even know where to start. I will have to abbreviate this to just a couple of examples or I would die of old age before I finish. How about Ronald Reagan&#39;s support of the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists in their attempt to overthrow democracy in Nicaragua and establish a fascist dictatorship. The US likes to claim the moral high ground when the country they need to attack HAPPENS to be a dictatorship. The US will attack any country, overthrow any government whose economic policies do not suit America. If that means overthrowing democracy and putting in a dictator so be it (e.g. Chile 1973)

The US is to this day harbouring known terrorists who regularly bomb hotels in Cuba murdering civilians and then return to their US homes in Miami. Trying to get these people tried in Florida is like trying to get someone tried for gambling in Las Vegas.

Florida is also the retirement home of many serious human rights violators, death squad leaders and dictators from countries such as El Salvador, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Honduras, Indonesia

Thioun Prasith who was a major supporter of Pol Pot and covered up most of his crimes lives happily in New York

"Eventually he&#39;ll have a nuclear weapon"

So we should expect wars on many countries including China Pakistan India and Britain

To be honest with you I am a lot more scared of Dubya having a nuke than I am of Saddam.

You are right he has done many horrible things. So have a lot of other rulers. Ariel Sharon for instance. Torture has been positively encouraged by the US in many countries and training in torture techniques given and torture equipment supplied to regimes of Turkey, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Bolivia Uruguay, Brazil, Guatamala, El Salvador.
So why is it different when Saddam does it? I&#39;m sorry, that "reason" falls apart too.


Violating UN agreements.

Here is a quote from Ronald Reagan "One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that&#39;s come before them where we&#39;re involved and it didn&#39;t upset my breakfast at all."
Currently the US is setting about bribing and bullying countries into supporting a resolution for war on Iraq. This is akin to standing outside a polling booth on election day and saying "vote the way I want to and I&#39;ll give you money, vote the other way I&#39;ll punch you in the face". Apart from this they have already said they will go to war even if they lose the vote. They even have the cheek to say that this will prevent the UN&#39;s authority from being undermined.



By the way do you really think that French people don&#39;t buy American goods too?

---

Amen

And the Brazil part is very true, as I live here, and back when it was a dictatorship, the U.S sent agents to train the dictator ppl on how to torture political enemies... :angry:

edit: and shuldan&#39;t this post be in the lounge?? :huh: Or maby not, &#39;cause the stuff Bush does is so ridiculous that it&#39;s funny, not to mention the Bush/Osama pic :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@16 March 2003 - 06:50


All Saddam has to do, is confess and disarm. He has (and you can&#39;t deny this) possessed and used chemical and biological weapons. He has terroized other nations (don&#39;t forget his blatant invasion of Kuwait). Supported terrorists with money and other items. His own people live in a world of fear (remember the 100% vote in Iraq? Unbelievable). Other neighboring countries fear Iraq, for obvious reasons.

---

Ok, this statement lost my backing of the war.
Not the statement itself but the mentality behind it.

It smacks of McCarthyism.
And by comparrison, the Salem witch trials.

Confess that you&#39;re a witch and we&#39;ll let you go.
Confess that you&#39;re a communist and we&#39;ll let you go.
Confess that you still have the chemical and biological material we showed you how to use, and the nukes that we know you must have because we gave them to you but we can&#39;t admit that because we&#39;d lose face, and we&#39;ll let you go.

Sorry...Its just a bit hipocritical.

Understand, I don&#39;t think the guy should be allowed to keep them either though.
The U. S. military presence though, is really all that we need.
There is nothing Saddam could do that would prevent Bush from trying to go to war.
Bush said, &#39;if he lets the inspectors back in, we won&#39;t go to war&#39;. <paraphrasing for Bush and Saddam statements>
Saddam said, &#39;OkeeDokee.&#39;
Bush said, &#39;ok, but now you also have to give us a full list of all your weapons&#39;.
Saddam said, &#39;OkeeDokee&#39;.
(third world country. Terible book keeping skills. things were missplaced/overlooked. you ever make a shopping list?)
Bush said to Rumsfeld,<infered from actions> &#39;Oh, looky here. He didn&#39;t claim those missiles we sold him back in the 80&#39;s and they were never used or destroyed. Damn. How do we say that without admitting we sold them to him?&#39;
Bush said, &#39;We have proof that Saddam has more than is on this list but we can&#39;t show you the proof. Its classified.&#39;
Saddam said, &#39;Yeah? Well so&#39;s your mother&#33;&#39;.
<sorry. This is suppose to be the humor forum> :-"
Saddam says, &#39;show us your proof&#39;. [basically, put up or shut up].
Bush says to the UN, &#39;If the UN does not stand behind it&#39;s 12 year old resolution, (bush is fooling around with 12 year olds?), then the UN is not worth the weight of its words&#39;. [again, put up or shut up].

And here we are today.

Will Bush declare war?
Will Saddam adhere to all UN resolutions?
Will Saddam adhere to all Bush&#39;s resolutions?
Will Saddam adhere to all New Year Resolutions?
Will anyone care 100 years from now?
Will the UN finally figure out what U. N. stands for?
Will anyone ever find out what Yoda really looks like under all that makeup?

For the answers to these and many more questions, tune in tomorrow for Episode five. The Empire falls back.

Quote:

---

Do you want Saddam to have never been asked, questioned or even challenged about his way of controlling people and nations? He has violated the treaty and UN agreements&#33;&#33;&#33; This is probably good enough reason (over 12 years of violations) to attack Iraq. Not only did Iraq violate the treaty, so did France, germany and Russia.

---

The only countries that have never traded with Iraq in the last 12 years are USA and UK.... not because he had not fulfilled the UN obligations...the Inspectors were there, right up until it was shown that a couple of US Inspectors were actually spying, and like any other country would do..THEY were ejected (NOT all the inspectors btw, just the spies)

The USA and UK however, have actively blocked Medical aid, amongst other things reaching Iraq, causing the death of thousands of innocents without affecting Mr Hussain in the slightest...

They have also carried out an illegal bombing campaign against Iraq for the last 12 years, again killing thousands of Iraqi&#39;s. In the light of this fact, I could actually see why Mr Hussain would want to hit back at USA/UK by bombing them....and im actually amazed that NO EVIDENCE at all is out there to show that he has. He supports the PLO....like most other Islamic countries, but not the other ones that USA have accused him of..... (Even the UK Government hasnt tried the line about Al Queda, as they know that they would lose what little credibilty they have left with the UK people)


Basically, what im getting at is this...........use your imagination...

IF USA was a small country, that had been bombed for 12 years by the big boy in the neighbourhood (lets say Saudi Arabia) and, despite every reason in the world to actually go there and plant your own bombs, you resisted the temptation....then a Christian Fundamentalist from Ireland had blown something up.

All of a sudden, Saudi wants to go into the USA, but the rest of the world cant see the connection (except a couple that are gonna be rewarded big time for their support)........not surprising, as this same group of Fundamentalist had also been bombing all over USA during the same period....

Hell you know they are gonna come, no matter what you do. Wouldnt you like to at least piss them off a bit first? Or are you just gonna lie down and be the carpet rug they want you to be?


The whole thing smacks of Hypocracy on such a grand scale......its laughable.

Okay, Alright. Bush is trigger happy (Maybe trying to make up for what his dad didn&#39;t do). And he&#39;s a Republican (I am Democratic). Most Americans don&#39;t wan&#39;t the stupid costly war. Saddam should be left alone. Let him lay in his own nest. Bush is dragging the rest of the US citizens with him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@16 March 2003 - 15:23
Okay, Alright. Bush is trigger happy (Maybe trying to make up for what his dad didn&#39;t do). And he&#39;s a Republican (I am Democratic). Most Americans don&#39;t wan&#39;t the stupid costly war. Saddam should be left alone. Let him lay in his own nest. Bush is dragging the rest of the US citizens with him.

---

Americans probably don’t want war but how can they speak out when bush uses McCarthyist tactics and brands the free speech of disagreement as traitorous propaganda, so much for the land of the free.

It is inevitable that America will go to war; I just hope Tony Blaire will see sense and force him to go alone.
Then he will not be able to share the condemnation with Britain and the blood will firmly on his hands
Also Bush doesn&#39;t want to make up for anything,
50+ executions has given him a bloodlust and all he&#39;s doing is fulfilling a dream

Why kill one at a time? When you can kill by the hundreds of thousands.

If you want to kiddie fiddle join the Catholics.
If you want to commit mass murder become president.