The war is about to start

[beatz]

Originally posted by TopNames.com
Beatz...WTF is your problem?

Dude,

first of all don't tell me i hate Americans, you don't know anything about me and in fact i don't hate Americans - except Bush and Rumsfeld that is.

Then, the "anti-american" thing is a joke anyway - it seems to be okay to bash the french here on this board but if someone states his opinion and delivers some facts you start to whine like a baby and accuse people of being anti-american? So to be anti-french is ok but to be anti-american (which,again,i'm not) is not?

Double standards i say.

As far as Anthrax - *you* better get your facts straight.I said Anthrax doesn't grow on trees, i did not say i doesn't occur in nature.
By invention i meant preparing/manipulating this organism so it can be used as a weapon.

And as far as Saddam getting rid of mass destruction:

I didn't say Saddam never had any, i said the US has them as well and who is to decide who has a right to have them and who not.

Btw - you seem to confuse the missiles they destroyed in the last weeks ( which they only had to do cuz the missiles are 30 miles above allowed flight distance length ) with the chemical stuff they apparently have desroyed ages ago - again, weapons that Rumsfeld sold them.

And as far as "WTF" my problem is - why don't you ask the zillions of people that demonstrate against the war what their problem is - we all share the same problem:

We're against a war that is in no way legitimated or justified whatsoever, a war that will start WW3, a war that the US *starts* for no other reasons than oil, religion and to rule the world.

To make that clear:

It's not in any way about being pro Saddam - but it's about the US motives in this case going to war.

We just don't want *any* country to rule the world - even not the US.

 

[TopNames.com]

Look at your post...filled with venom and hatred. Don't worry, if you wanted me to loose complete respect for you...it worked. I look at both sides of an argument and make my own decisions based on *FACTS*...I don't always agree with Bush...you however are off on a tangent. The fact that you don't see ANY truth in the US position proves your opinion is worthless. I would love to avoid a war...the last thing I want is for people to die...however, the UN (not the US) ordered Iraq to disarm...they did not. Why don't you address that?

:sleepw:

PS - you did think anthrax was an invention

 

[beatz]

Hatred?

You said "WTF", not me.Wasn't me to start an insult.

And all *i* am saying is based on facts; whereas your only reasoning seems to be if i said Anthrax occurs in nature or not.
Geez..

 

[TopNames.com]

WTF is not an insult ...and I see you did not address the fact the UN ordered Iraq disarm...why not?

 

[beatz]

The UN ordered to disarm in a *peaceful* way.

Anyway, why do you ignore the fact that the US is willing to violate international law which they do if they start a war without an UN legitimation?
I mean, if the leader of the world's biggest military power says "We go to war anyway no matter what law is" - how bigger can a threat be?

 

[TopNames.com]

Beatz,

I happen to disagree with the US taking action against Iraq without the UN approval. However, since France stated they would veto *ANY* resolution that included force...what other choice did the US have? Do you think France should have eliminated *any* resolution that includes force?

 

[beatz]

Yes.
Because in this case the motives of the US are so obvious.
Only exeption would be if the Iraq would have started an attack on the US because then it would have been about US selfdefence which would be a different story.
But unfortunately it's the other way around:
The US wants to *start* a war, and without any justification whatsoever.

Anyway, no reason really to discuss this further with 180 of 190 UN member nations being *against* a war and with the *whole* world's population being against a war ( with the exception of i dunno how many Americans) - note that also Spain's and UK's *population* is against the war...their leaders just don't listen to their people which in Blair's case has caused already 30000 labour party members leaving the party.I doubt Blair will ever see the light of political sun again.

It's so obvious this war is wrong that in my book no further discussion is neccessary really.

Especially no personal fights between members needed.

 

[TopNames.com]

I don't mind people who disagree with US policy...I even disagree with US policy from time to time...I just can't sit back and let someone bad mouth the United States of America...that's why I jumped into this thread.

Anyway...I wish you the best Beatz and I hope you can try to see *both* sides of an arguement.

 

[Ed30]

For the people who are under the mistaken impression that the war is all about oil, the allies have already, repeatedly, stated that any oil revenues will be held in trust for the Iraqi people until the country is stabilised and democratised.

 

[Luc]

I agree with beatz, and NO I am NOT Anti-American so please
don't even start.

This war is a joke. The cause, "Terrorists with weapons of
mass destruction" is total BS. There are a few things we're
after and finding and disarming terrorists is NOT one
of them.

I seriously hope this war will be over fast or we're going
to be in big trouble. We've made a lot of enemies lately,
and they're all just itching to go to war.

Bush is not a very intelligent man and it's a shame that his
idiotic decisions (which are opposed by almost the entire
world) will put all Americans in danger, for a long time.

 

[TopNames.com]

This war is a joke. The cause, "Terrorists with weapons of
mass destruction" is total BS. There are a few things we're
after and finding and disarming terrorists is NOT one
of them.

Let me ask you this...what happens if Iraq was allowed to develop nukes? Do you honestly think they would not use them? Don't get me wrong, I wish we could do this without a war...but Iraq with nukes is a threat to the entire world.

 

[beatz]

Sorry to answer again ,

but the US with nukes is a threat to the entire world as well.
Not saying this because of "Anti-Americanism" but it never has been so obvious as it's now when the american president openly is willing to violate international law.
That's the leader of the world's biggest superpower, equipped with nukes saying "We do what we wanna".
And Saddam doesn't even have nukes up to now.

If we follow that "preventive strike" logic, wouldn't it be logical if another country would want to disarm the US for preventional reasons?
What about that?

 

[StockDoctor]

Well, here I go. Most of the educated mature members here would advise me to keep quiet about politics and religion, and I would have to admit it's good advice. But, the fact is that I'm an educated American Biker, and therefore find it almost impossible to keep my big mouth shut on some issues. So, I'll put it simply, as is the Biker way.

Some facts that I feel are indisputable:

Bush is an idiot and a cold uncaring sob.
Saddam has to go. He'd rather stay and sacrifice his people.
France is a wuss with financial interests in Iraq (Oil/Weapons)
Terrorists are accumulating weapons and need to be stopped.
More countries are acquiring nuclear weapons and need to stop.
Religious beliefs are behind most of the worlds conflicts.
France etc. depend on the U.S. defense budget to protect them.
The Vietnam and Korean conflicts could have been stopped.
The U.S. is the BIG dog.

I hate war. I'm a liberal capitalist (maybe the only one) with a Native American heritage. I love children and have NO animosity towards any race, religion or culture. But someone has to stand up and put an end to world war and the risk of it for the future generations children. Not with a bunch of stupid bombs, tanks and lives of soldiers and civilians fed into a meat grinder like Vietnam, Korea or the Gulf war. (I was special forces in 1970) The BIG dog on the street (the only one who can do it) needs to put an end to war and terrorism by simply making a statement (standing as judge and jury if you will) that it is NO longer tolerated. NO more nuclear weapons. NO more terrorist acts. That's it. The punishment will be the deterrent. Countries or terrorist groups that do not adhere should NO be faced with a few stupid bombs or a few stupid ongoing battles and the ever increasing loss of lives. They have NO fear of that and that is war already. It's already here. It needs to be stopped by the only force that can do it. That my friends is the U.S., the BIG dog. (I'd rather have France do it, but they are wusses, remember) That's why the U.S. is called (appreciatively by some and angrily by others) the worlds police. They are also called the worlds breadbasket. I don't like nuclear weapons, but I firmly believe that it is the only threat big enough to possibly STOP war. It stopped ww2, it stopped ww3 (for those of us old enough to remember Cuba first hand) and it could have stopped the Korean and Vietnam conflicts instead of sending more men into the meat grinder. The U.S. wavered during those conflicts due to political pressure, and now we have to face bigger threats by the same clowns in North Korea armed with bigger weapons. We should not waver again.

It all STOPS now. Give up your nuclear weapons or face annihilation. The next country that starts a conflict, will have a city evaporate. The next group of terrorists that strikes will have a city in their homeland dissappear.

No, I don't want it to happen either. But I think it's the ONLY way to stop the larger and ongoing future risks and lives. It happens once I believe and all the wars never start again. Twice, and I'd assure you that it wouldn't happen a third time.

 

[Luc]

but Iraq with nukes is a threat to the entire world.

So is North Korea.

To make matters worse, Korea openly admitted that they
HAVE AND WILL USE their nukes if we stick our nose
in the wrong place.

We've been providing Korea with food and energy for the
past ten years, so if we stop now they may get angry. Isn't
this blackmail? Sure is.

The Korea threat wasn't addressed because we have
"more important" business to take care of.

 

[beatz]

Stocdoctor - who is to decide who is a terrorist and who is not?

At the moment it looks like the nation that has nukes and wants to attack another country for no other reason than oil is the US.
Also, people like Sharon overtook the term "terrorist" and abuse them in their own interest in connection with the palestinian.

So who is the terrorist and who is not?

At the moment it's the US threatening the world and ignoring law.

And to say that nukes are in any way ok is just amazing - i'd like to hear your opinion again if nukes were to be dropped on NYC.

 

[TopNames.com]

I agree...North Korea is a problem for the world as well.

That's my exact point...don't you see how dangerous it is to allow Iraq to develop nukes?

Beatz...the difference is the US will not attack with nukes and we're not threatening people with nukes...don't you see that? This could be a one day war if we launched nukes. That's where your arguement is flawed and your opinion is one sided. You call America terrorists, but we're not threatening others with nukes.

North Korea has already threatened a nuke strike and if Iraq develops nukes, they would use them...make no mistake about that.

 

[beatz]

Uh Bush already reserved the "right" to use "small" nukes in this war - so what are you trying to say?

 

[TopNames.com]

no he has not....it's a bomb that has a force of a small nuke...like a Daisy Cutter

 

[beatz]

Yes he has - he and/or Rumsfeld said so like a month ago..and it wasn't about a bomb that has a force of a small nuke...they said "small nukes".
Anyway, if the result is the same, no sense in arguing.

 

[windows22]

Bruce spoke before "Born in the U.S.A.," "I hope there's a peaceful solution to the situation in Iraq...get our troops home safely...I don't want to have to write this song again."

"Born in the U.S.A.," is an anti Vietnam war song.

also see:
www.war.info since this is a dnforum

Bush is talking about democracy in Iraq, and acts like a dictator in the UN. Ironic.

just my 2c