Why is the world so ainti-bomb iraq?

Zmoney · Post by **Zmoney** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:24 pm

I dont believe in just walkin in blowin the country up, then spending billions rebuilding it. But why does the world have so much opposition to the U.S goin in, as well as people @ home?

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:42 pm

Originally posted by Paft
Because the United States is wrong - in this case - to attack. Plain and simple, as much as 90% of the people here don't want to admit it.

Here we go again.

EvilAjax · Post by **EvilAjax** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:46 pm

How is the US wrong?
They're probably fighting for the wrong reasons, but Sadamme is a dangerous a-hole.. lemme not even start an argument...

Let's bomb everyone, shall we? Even ourselves

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:51 pm

Paft,

Remember when the world was thought to be flat?

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:54 pm

Originally posted by UOD
Paft,

Remember when the world was thought to be flat?

I think France still thinks it is ...lol

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:13 pm

IMO it's going to happen whether you approve of it or not.
You don't move that many troops and hardware just for an exercise in logistics.
There was always going to be a war with Iraq if for no other reason than to finish the first one by marching into Bagdad.

What's wrong with it all is the UN approval. If that happens with the new resolution then we've got a war. If it doesn't then the so called "Coalition of the Willing" should step back and let the UN do it's work. There should never be a time limit on peaceful negotiation and settlement.
The demonstrations held here attempted to send that message to our government but they are publicly deaf.
I really believe we will all rue the day this conflict started.

Croc.

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:21 pm

I think I'm, like many Americans, confused as to why we're about to attack Iraq now.

Bin Laden is still alive and the Taliban is functioning...yet we want to attack Iraq. NK has nuclear missles that could reach the Western US...yet we want to attack Iraq. I fail to see what they've done to warrant a trillion dollar war and occupation. The Bush administration claims they're aiding the Taliban, which is utter nonsense, considering Bin Laden hates Saddam and anyone who's not as extreme as himself.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:23 pm

Originally posted by Croc
There should never be a time limit on peaceful negotiation and settlement.

Would you demand the same from Iraq?

While we continue to pursue peaceful negotiation...Iraq ia actively engaged in obstruction and the purszuit of WOMD. You say this yet Iraq continues to fire on our planes which are simply patrolling the no-fly zone....a UN supported resolution.

Would you demand the same from Iraq?

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:46 pm

paft is one of those "I think im an American" people who are gonna take this country to disaster. Listen up paft, before I smack you, This country was attacked by Al-Quaeda, and Iraq supports them....

Let me put it to you simple, if we dont take out Sadam..he's gonna send some of his minions over here with a nuclear, and biological weapon, and kill hundred of thousands of people.

This is the funny part, if we DONT attack them and Saddam attacks us in the future, itll still be blamed on bush... gotta love the useless leftists in this country.

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:48 pm

The no fly zones are not UN supported. Before you reply, check it out.

The no fly corridors were set up by the U.S. and are controlled by the U.S.
Another folly IMO when all oil and other UN sanctioned goods are stopped from entering or leaving Iraq's port by the Australian led Naval Task Force yet 20 miles from the airbase that the U.S. flies the no fly zones from in Turkey is a marshalling yard for road tankers that travel into Turkey carrying crude. That yard has 2,000+ vehicles in it at any given time and a queue of hundreds of kilometres waiting to get in. How can this be happening in clear breach of UN sanctions when the U.S. says we must stop Iraqi oil in the gulf?

Croc.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:55 pm

i too dislike war, in fact i had a bad dream about it last night

but the bad people need to go bye bye

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:58 pm

Originally posted by Croc
The no fly zones are not UN supported. Before you reply, check it out.
The no fly corridors were set up by the U.S. and are controlled by the U.S.
Another folly IMO when all oil and other UN sanctioned goods are stopped from entering or leaving Iraq's port by the Australian led Naval Task Force yet 20 miles from the airbase that the U.S. flies the no fly zones from in Turkey is a marshalling yard for road tankers that travel into Turkey carrying crude. That yard has 2,000+ vehicles in it at any given time and a queue of hundreds of kilometres waiting to get in. How can this be happening in clear breach of UN sanctions when the U.S. says we must stop Iraqi oil in the gulf?

Croc.

No-Fly Zones are not UN approved? Do you have anything on this?

ZMoney, the main reason is because, as my sister says..."Too many people will be killed!!"

She happened to look over my shoulder when someone had posted pics from the first war where a convoy leaving Kuwait was attacked. Her reactions were "Why did they attack them? they were leaving for Christ sakes!" The ill-informed like to cause trouble regardless of past actions

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:58 pm

Originally posted by Brent
i too dislike war, in fact i had a bad dream about it last night

but the bad people need to go bye bye

lol brent..u have a way of putting things.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:03 pm

Originally posted by Docsta
paft is one of those "I think im an American" people who are gonna take this country to disaster. Listen up paft, before I smack you, This country was attacked by Al-Quaeda, and Iraq supports them....

Let me put it to you simple, if we dont take out Sadam..he's gonna send some of his minions over here with a nuclear, and biological weapon, and kill hundred of thousands of people.

This is the funny part, if we DONT attack them and Saddam attacks us in the future, itll still be blamed on bush... gotta love the useless leftists in this country.

To anwser the parts of your post which are not ad hominim attacks against my person, I have to ask you this.

Where are you getting your data that Iraq supports the Al-Quida? What hard evidence do you have that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden could even co-exist in the same country, let alone work together? Saddam is very secular, and I doubt that he would ever work together with a Muslim Fundimentalist.

Secondly, you are assuming that America is going to be attacked. Why in the world would Iraq attack us before now? We're not funding people that are directly trying to kill Saddam.. or we weren't.. and he does have an interest to stay alive. I don't think that he's stupid enough to attack us, not looking at his history.

Third.. if Saddam attacks us and the attacks succeed, then *I* would blame it on nobody except Saddam. Why blame Bush for something that he more than likely could never have stopped from happening?

The United States army was designed to be reactionary, not a pre-emptive army. But that's what it is becoming now.. and Bush is acting like a spoiled child who hits someone else because he "thought he was gonna hurt me so I hurt him first".

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:06 pm

Originally posted by Paft
To anwser the parts of your post which are not ad hominim attacks against my person, I have to ask you this.

Where are you getting your data that Iraq supports the Al-Quida? What hard evidence do you have that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden could even co-exist in the same country, let alone work together? Saddam is very secular, and I doubt that he would ever work together with a Muslim Fundimentalist.

Secondly, you are assuming that America is going to be attacked. Why in the world would Iraq attack us before now? We're not funding people that are directly trying to kill Saddam.. or we weren't.. and he does have an interest to stay alive. I don't think that he's stupid enough to attack us, not looking at his history.

Third.. if Saddam attacks us and the attacks succeed, then *I* would blame it on nobody except Saddam. Why blame Bush for something that he more than likely could never have stopped from happening?

The United States army was designed to be reactionary, not a pre-emptive army. But that's what it is becoming now.. and Bush is acting like a spoiled child who hits someone else because he "thought he was gonna hurt me so I hurt him first".

LOL! Paft, I dont know whether to laugh or puke. Theres just some people in this world (like you) who dont realize the reality of it all.

and if you have to ask me where I get my data from you truely are clueless...its called Logic paft.

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:10 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
No-Fly Zones are not UN approved? Do you have anything on this?

ZMoney, the main reason is because, as my sister says..."Too many people will be killed!!"

She happened to look over my shoulder when someone had posted pics from the first war where a convoy leaving Kuwait was attacked. Her reactions were "Why did they attack them? they were leaving for Christ sakes!" The ill-informed like to cause trouble regardless of past actions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 175950.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill1204.html

and this from the bottom of the linked page below.

Following the Gulf War, no-fly zones were set up north of the 36th parallel to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority and, later, south of the 32nd parallel to protect the country's Shiite Muslims. They were implemented by the United States (under President George H. W. Bush), Great Britain, and France. As justification, the trio of nations cited U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted in 1991 to condemn Iraq's brutal repression of the Kurds and Shiites. The resolution demanded that Iraq cease its "repression of the Iraqi civilian population."

However, the New York Times editorialized at the time that Resolution 688 provided a "dubious justification" for setting up the no-fly zones because it did not authorize the use of force to stop Iraqi abuses. And in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

France later backed away from its involvement in the no-fly zones, leaving the United States and Britain to enforce them. Other U.N. Security Council nations have never accepted their legitimacy. So the dispute over whether Iraq's firing at planes over the no-fly zones constitutes a "material breach" actually exposes a long-standing divide at the United Nations. No wonder the administration has been hesitant to cite Iraq's recent anti-aircraft fire as cause to demand further military action from the Security Council.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/

Croc.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:11 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
No-Fly Zones are not UN approved?

At the end of the war, uprisings against the regime by Kurds in northern Iraq and Shia Muslims in the south were brutally suppressed by the Iraqi military.

The Gulf War coalition did little to stop this, but the US, Britain and France created a northern 'safe haven' and a so-called 'no fly zone' under the auspices of Resolution 688.

A similar no-fly zone was set up in southern Iraq in 1992, and extended in 1996.

U.N. Resolutions

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:15 pm

Originally posted by Docsta
LOL! Paft, I dont know whether to laugh or puke. Theres just some people in this world (like you) who dont realize the reality of it all.

Would you prefer that I had your reality where everything was "We're good, you're evil" and you had no compromise? Maybe you'd like it if I suddenly started saying that yes, we should:

Originally posted by Docsta
obliterate Iraq off the face of this planet

Or maybe we should do this:

Originally posted by Docsta
get about 3,000 huge azz bombs, and on each bomb write the name of each person who died on that day because of the attacks on america. and on the last bomb we should write "Revenge is a bitch aint it Hussein"

Or maybe even this:

Originally posted by Docsta
take that ship over to iraq and ASHghanistan and bomb the hell out of all of them....

You talk about me not seeing the reality of things, and yet you are so deluded in your own world where everyone must die that you refuse to see that we could very well be wrong, or that just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you should go attack / kill them.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:16 pm

Thank you guys, I am now more informed

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:24 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
Thank you guys, I am now more informed

All part of the service. I too thought they were UN sanctioned until recently. Google told me otherwise.

Croc.

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:27 pm

we could very well be wrong... LOLOL...

"Would you prefer that I had your reality where everything was "We're good, you're evil""

sure i would pafty poo..b/c thats the truth so you wouldnt be lying.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:37 pm

Please. The denials and lies are getting way too old.

Those who oppose going into Iraq have virtually no argument unless they're simply pro-Saddam and willing to admit it -- because that IS your de facto position if you're against this. Saying you are in favor of "peace" is meaningless. What sane person is not? The question is, peace on whose, and what terms? If it is peace on the terms of brutal dictators, secured by allowing them to build arsenals of nuclear weapons, then that is not peace. It's suicide.

And for those in the streets protesting --- dammit, for once be honest about your motives. Tell us just why you'd rather support the continued rule of one of the most vile dictators on the planet, the continued abuse, torture and murder of thousands of Iraqis, the continued buildup of stockpiles of chemical weapons that already have been used on Iraqis and may soon be used on YOU by your local Al Qaeda rep, the continued development of nuclear weapons that will likely smuggled by cargo ship and be used to obliterate a city like New York or London and plunge the entire world into a chaos like you've never imagined. WHY WHY WHY would you support that? Knowing the result of that course, what would cause a sane person to pursue it?

I think I have some answers:
1) YOU won't be held responsible when it happens (though you should). Instead, you'll sit back whining and complaining that someone should have DONE something.
2) You have built up political and cultural resentments. That is, you either hate Bush and his political ideologies (as do I at times for other reasons) or you resent American power and influence and are using this as a cheap chance to oppose it by siding with the Devil over your imperfect friend.
3) You're either naive as hell, or just a contrarian who wants to feel good by advocating some vague and hazy consequenceless notion of "peace."

Many of you have had the case for action in Iraq explained for you in great detail many times, and the response is usually to back down and get quiet because you really have no way to refute it - the counter arguments are extremely and pathetically weak. Then a week or so later, you're back with the same old complaints, pretending that nothing had ever been said. It's like the naivete of a 4-year-old kid who says he wants to climb up to the roof and fly off the top of the house. A parent explains why that's not possible, but a week later he's asking again because..... because he WANTS to. Get over it people. Take some intellectual responsibility and stop living in a fantasy world where you get to take warm and fuzzy positions without acknowledging the consequences that will follow.

Docsta · Post by **Docsta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:47 pm

Originally posted by torsten
Please. The denials and lies are getting way too old.

Those who oppose going into Iraq have virtually no argument unless they're simply pro-Saddam and willing to admit it -- because that IS your de facto position if you're against this. Saying you are in favor of "peace" is meaningless. What sane person is not? The question is, peace on whose, and what terms? If it is peace on the terms of brutal dictators, secured by allowing them to build arsenals of nuclear weapons, then that is not peace. It's suicide.

And for those in the streets protesting --- dammit, for once be honest about your motives. Tell us just why you'd rather support the continued rule of one of the most vile dictators on the planet, the continued abuse, torture and murder of thousands of Iraqis, the continued buildup of stockpiles of chemical weapons that already have been used on Iraqis and may soon be used on YOU by your local Al Qaeda rep, the continued development of nuclear weapons that will likely smuggled by cargo ship and be used to obliterate a city like New York or London and plunge the entire world into a chaos like you've never imagined. WHY WHY WHY would you support that? Knowing the result of that course, what would cause a sane person to pursue it?

I think I have some answers:
1) YOU won't be held responsible when it happens (though you should). Instead, you'll sit back whining and complaining that someone should have DONE something.
2) You have built up political and cultural resentments. That is, you either hate Bush and his political ideologies (as do I at times for other reasons) or you resent American power and influence and are using this as a cheap chance to oppose it by siding with the Devil over your imperfect friend.
3) You're either naive as hell, or just a contrarian who wants to feel good by advocating some vague and hazy consequenceless notion of "peace."

Many of you have had the case for action in Iraq explained for you in great detail many times, and the response is usually to back down and get quiet because you really have no way to refute it - the counter arguments are extremely and pathetically weak. Then a week or so later, you're back with the same old complaints, pretending that nothing had ever been said. It's like the naivete of a 4-year-old kid who says he wants to climb up to the roof and fly off the top of the house. A parent explains why that's not possible, but a week later he's asking again because..... because he WANTS to. Get over it people. Take some intellectual responsibility and stop living in a fantasy world where you get to take warm and fuzzy positions without acknowledging the consequences that will follow.

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN!

Annalysa · Post by **Annalysa** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:51 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
I think I'm, like many Americans, confused as to why we're about to attack Iraq now.

Bin Laden is still alive and the Taliban is functioning...yet we want to attack Iraq. NK has nuclear missles that could reach the Western US...yet we want to attack Iraq. I fail to see what they've done to warrant a trillion dollar war and occupation. The Bush administration claims they're aiding the Taliban, which is utter nonsense, considering Bin Laden hates Saddam and anyone who's not as extreme as himself.

I totally agree and I think we should focus on THOSE we know can cause harm to ppl all over the world

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:13 pm

In a recent CNN poll, when asked which nation was most dangerous to world stability, Iraq scored 7%, NK 8% and the U.S. 85%. Hardly scientific, I'll admit, but the numbers are so overwhelming.

Iraq's military is within their borders...NK's military is within their borders...our military has a presence in over 100 countries. I shouldn't have to explain what type of impact this has when it comes to perception.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:19 pm

Originally posted by Croc
The no fly zones are not UN supported. Before you reply, check it out.
The no fly corridors were set up by the U.S. and are controlled by the U.S.
Another folly IMO when all oil and other UN sanctioned goods are stopped from entering or leaving Iraq's port by the Australian led Naval Task Force yet 20 miles from the airbase that the U.S. flies the no fly zones from in Turkey is a marshalling yard for road tankers that travel into Turkey carrying crude. That yard has 2,000+ vehicles in it at any given time and a queue of hundreds of kilometres waiting to get in. How can this be happening in clear breach of UN sanctions when the U.S. says we must stop Iraqi oil in the gulf?

Croc.

So now that you have been shown that the No Fly Zones are in fact part of the UN resolutions, do you care to answer my question?

Will you demand that Iraq do the same?

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:22 pm

It doesn't matter what the UN agreed on. What if in 50 years, China imposes a no-fly-zone over Alaska, Hawaii and 60% of the Continental U.S.? Does that mean we'd have to abide by it?

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:29 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
In a recent CNN poll, when asked which nation was most dangerous to world stability, Iraq scored 7%, NK 8% and the U.S. 85%. Hardly scientific, I'll admit, but the numbers are so overwhelming.

Iraq's military is within their borders...NK's military is within their borders...our military has a presence in over 100 countries. I shouldn't have to explain what type of impact this has when it comes to perception.

I don't trust CNN as far as I can throw them. As for your other garbage. When was the last time the US invaded another country with the intent to subjucate and/or obliterate it's population? The US has bases in countries that choose to have them their. When asked to leave the US has done so.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:30 pm

Original question "Why is the world so ainti-bomb iraq?"

Because the rest of the world isn't quite as gullible as the majority of U.S. citizens are. The rest of the world uses their brains to absorb the truth, whereas the majority of U.S. citizens absorb the lies and disinformation puked at us by the U.S. administration.

Funny how complete idiots think they are so damn smart

64bit · Post by **64bit** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
It doesn't matter what the UN agreed on. What if in 50 years, China imposes a no-fly-zone over Alaska, Hawaii and 60% of the Continental U.S.? Does that mean we'd have to abide by it?

I guess it only matters what the UN says when it supports your position then huh? If in 50yrs we decided to attack and take over Canada for all its maple syrup reserves and the world calls on china to put that down and the UN decides that we cant make fly-overs in Alaska and Hawaii then yes we should abide if that's what we agreed too

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:32 pm

We said the same for the dictators in this list. They were vile, dangerous people also and Saddam really does not come close to being classified as the most brutal. Maybe the one with the most potential to be dangerous is a better description.

I really don't care about what countries get their collective testicles in a tangle and threaten to wage war.
We used to play the same games as children in the playgrounds of schools and in back yards with our mates. When I see grown men stand up and talk the tough talk, I am reminded of those happy times.

As far as I am aware, the demonstrators were sending a message to the John Howards', Tony Blairs' and George Bushs' of this world to allow the opportunity for peace.
Hans Blix in his report also requested there be more time to do the inspections and give Iraq more time to come up with the goods. I think you will find that it's UN approval that these people want to see, not "The Willing" going against the UN and invading.

I for one do not wish to see the continued reign of Saddam Hussein. I could care less if he died tomorrow. Look at how you felt after 9/11 then apply those same feelings to Iraqi civilians, innocent and maimed in Gulf War 1 and about to go through it all again. People that have been dragged into this by another's ego.

Think about the radioactive Iraqi military hardware from Gulf War 1. Radioactive because of the enriched weapons used to knock them out. Think about the totally unnecessary loss of life.

Croc.

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:34 pm

When was the last time the US invaded another country with the intent to subjucate and/or obliterate it's population?

You mean, aside from the upcoming war, where we plan to occupy Iraq and tap their oil supply to help fund it?

And if you don't think the poll holds any weight, former U.S. presidents have spoken out against a war with Iraq.

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:37 pm

I guess it only matters what the UN says when it supports your position then huh?

I could say the same of you.

But since you care so much about the UN, why not listen to them when they say war is a bad idea?

64bit · Post by **64bit** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:38 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
I could say the same of you.

But since you care so much about the UN, why not listen to them when they say war is a bad idea?

I dont think they've said that......

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:41 pm

Originally posted by UOD
So now that you have been shown that the No Fly Zones are in fact part of the UN resolutions, do you care to answer my question?

Will you demand that Iraq do the same?

UOD, there are no UN approvals for the no fly zone. You just have to go to the post with the links or easier, copy/paste the following into Google:

"no fly zone"

It's there for the reading.

Croc.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:53 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
You mean, aside from the upcoming war, where we plan to occupy Iraq and tap their oil supply to help fund it?

And if you don't think the poll holds any weight, former U.S. presidents have spoken out against a war with Iraq.

You quote my question yet you fail to answer it

As far as the plans for a post war Iraq. I don't know where you get your info, but from what I have heard/read. The oil is to be given to the Iraqi people. As for the expresidents they are just that expresidents, they speak out when it suits their own or their parties adgenda.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:57 pm

Originally posted by agentbeast
The oil is to be given to the Iraqi people.

Who will in turn sell it to me for cheap to fill up my wife's gas guzzlin v8 explorer

woot

Monoceros · Post by **Monoceros** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:57 pm

The oil is to be given to the Iraqi people.

Right...

Are you a betting man?

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:58 pm

Originally posted by UOD
Would you demand the same from Iraq?

While we continue to pursue peaceful negotiation...Iraq ia actively engaged in obstruction and the purszuit of WOMD. You say this yet Iraq continues to fire on our planes which are simply patrolling the no-fly zone....a UN supported resolution.

Would you demand the same from Iraq?

If it were UN supported ... yes.

...........................................................................................................
Iraq continues to fire on our planes which are simply patrolling the no-fly zone
...........................................................................................................

and with instruction to engage if any plane strays into the zone.

Croc.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 4:05 pm

Originally posted by Monoceros
Right...

Are you a betting man?

No.

Are you?