The big problem...
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. If Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction I think the policy of the US is "Complete Retaliation". What most "Think Tank" researchers believe is that the US would not hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam uses biological warfare. Scary isn't it...but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated. :)
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
1. Iraq always tried to evade sanctions, and they didn't lynch the internaitonal salesfolks that helped them to do so. 2. "UN treaties? Yes, we've signed them. What more do you want?" 3. When the Axis of evil was proclaimed, they joined without hesitation. What more proof do you need? 4. My thought is the US want to start a "classic war" at all cost, because they know they will loose the other game.
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
-
Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. If Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction I think the policy of the US is "Complete Retaliation". What most "Think Tank" researchers believe is that the US would not hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam uses biological warfare. Scary isn't it...but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated. :)
Martin Marvinski wrote: if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated Awww comeon, another asshole will sit on the throne, caring much more about selling oil then about the liberty of Iraqui people.
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
-
Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. If Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction I think the policy of the US is "Complete Retaliation". What most "Think Tank" researchers believe is that the US would not hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam uses biological warfare. Scary isn't it...but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated. :)
Martin Marvinski wrote: but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated What is the definition of Liberation ???? To bring minority in rule !!! or something else. Atlest US did the same thing in Afghanistan. How much support of Northern Alliance is in Afghanistan who only represents 5% of total population and how much support will the future government in Iraq will obtain which is expected to be of the opposition parties having no popularity among masses. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^]
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
Londo wrote: First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. 1. Stalling the Biological weapons inspections. 2. Not obeying the no fly zone rules. 3. Breaking the weapons import sanctions. Londo wrote: Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Most of the other Arab countries will probably want to divide up any of spoils of Iraq between themselves; more then caring to defend Iraq. Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? No the US doesn't want a world war; that's why they should attack ASAP; and less lives on both sides will be lost. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated What is the definition of Liberation ???? To bring minority in rule !!! or something else. Atlest US did the same thing in Afghanistan. How much support of Northern Alliance is in Afghanistan who only represents 5% of total population and how much support will the future government in Iraq will obtain which is expected to be of the opposition parties having no popularity among masses. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^]
Imran Farooqui wrote: To bring minority in rule !!! That's what you have now!!! Saddam and his family make all the decisions for Iraq and it's people.
-
Imran Farooqui wrote: To bring minority in rule !!! That's what you have now!!! Saddam and his family make all the decisions for Iraq and it's people.
Martin Marvinski wrote: Saddam and his family make all the decisions for Iraq and it's people. Really !! But the no fly zone decision in his own territory was not taken by him or his family. Limited oil export was also not his decision due to which Iraqi people are suffering .... When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Arab countries asked for help from US and so she was justified to help them. But now which country in that region is asking to remove Saddam... Only Israel, ye... Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^]
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... He is better at that than some previous presidents though. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... He is better at that than some previous presidents though. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: He is better at that than some previous presidents though Yup and he knows when to keep his fly shut too ;-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
Trollslayer wrote: He is better at that than some previous presidents though Yup and he knows when to keep his fly shut too ;-) Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: Yup and he knows when to keep his fly shut too :laugh: :-D James
-
Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. If Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction I think the policy of the US is "Complete Retaliation". What most "Think Tank" researchers believe is that the US would not hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam uses biological warfare. Scary isn't it...but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated. :)
Martin Marvinski wrote: the Iraqi people will be liberated. Either that or ionized, which technically could be liberating... "Quand tu sèmes ta haine tu récoltes la Kalachnikov Love" -Kalachnikov Love, Alpha Blondy
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
Londo wrote: (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) Just curious what you would consider to be proof? Assuming 9/11 connection was proven I feel that the murder of thousands of civilians is enough to justify a declaration of war. (My Opinion) Londo wrote: Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack If the first is agreed to this is no longer the case. Of course the Arab nations would be the ones accepting the proof. Which in my opinion many would not, no matter what is offered. So: Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. The answer is of course not. My question is how many times does the US have to have thousands of civilians murdered before it risks this? To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: the Iraqi people will be liberated. Either that or ionized, which technically could be liberating... "Quand tu sèmes ta haine tu récoltes la Kalachnikov Love" -Kalachnikov Love, Alpha Blondy
-
Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. If Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction I think the policy of the US is "Complete Retaliation". What most "Think Tank" researchers believe is that the US would not hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam uses biological warfare. Scary isn't it...but then again, if we do beat Saddam, the Iraqi people will be liberated. :)
-
Londo wrote: First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. 1. Stalling the Biological weapons inspections. 2. Not obeying the no fly zone rules. 3. Breaking the weapons import sanctions. Londo wrote: Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Most of the other Arab countries will probably want to divide up any of spoils of Iraq between themselves; more then caring to defend Iraq. Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? No the US doesn't want a world war; that's why they should attack ASAP; and less lives on both sides will be lost. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: 1. Stalling the Biological weapons inspections. 2. Not obeying the no fly zone rules. 3. Breaking the weapons import sanctions. Do these justify an invasion? Colin^Davies wrote: Most of the other Arab countries will probably want to divide up any of spoils of Iraq between themselves; more then caring to defend Iraq. The problem with treaties is that they depend on good faith. If one member is in trouble and the others dont 'follow the rules' then the treaty is worthless to every party. No-one can trust anyone any more. For instance if Australia was attacked and the US didn't come to our aid, then none of the other signatories would trust the US to help them. They would then seek out alliances with nations they could trust, possibly to the detriment of US interests. Imagine Australia seeking an alliance with China because the US didnt come to her aid. That is the problem with breaking a treaty. Colin^Davies wrote: No the US doesn't want a world war; that's why they should attack ASAP; and less lives on both sides will be lost. Attacking ASAP, without considering all the possibilities is more likely to precipate a major conflict, rather than prevent one.
-
Londo wrote: (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) Just curious what you would consider to be proof? Assuming 9/11 connection was proven I feel that the murder of thousands of civilians is enough to justify a declaration of war. (My Opinion) Londo wrote: Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack If the first is agreed to this is no longer the case. Of course the Arab nations would be the ones accepting the proof. Which in my opinion many would not, no matter what is offered. So: Londo wrote: My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing. The answer is of course not. My question is how many times does the US have to have thousands of civilians murdered before it risks this? To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Just curious what you would consider to be proof? Not sure. I would think more than just hearsay. *And*, in the case of attacking a sovereign nation where thousands of civilians may be killed in the execution of the war, the evidence would have to satisfy the requirements of a declaration of war. But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If the first is agreed to this is no longer the case. Of course the Arab nations would be the ones accepting the proof. Which in my opinion many would not, no matter what is offered. That is possibly correct. However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The answer is of course not. My question is how many times does the US have to have thousands of civilians murdered before it risks this? What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq?
-
You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... He is better at that than some previous presidents though. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Just curious what you would consider to be proof? Not sure. I would think more than just hearsay. *And*, in the case of attacking a sovereign nation where thousands of civilians may be killed in the execution of the war, the evidence would have to satisfy the requirements of a declaration of war. But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If the first is agreed to this is no longer the case. Of course the Arab nations would be the ones accepting the proof. Which in my opinion many would not, no matter what is offered. That is possibly correct. However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The answer is of course not. My question is how many times does the US have to have thousands of civilians murdered before it risks this? What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq?
Londo wrote: I would think more than just hearsay. Agreed. But between the US and many (all?) Arab nations this would likely never be agreed to. Londo wrote: But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? And Saddam's son is a principle financier of this organization. He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. So when does that make Saddam a member? I do not have a good answer here and do not expect you to have one. Londo wrote: What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq? It is not good if we wind up having no other options but to have deaths on one side or the other (probably both.) I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Londo wrote: However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. I do not think evidence will ever exist to convince all of the Arab nations. Given this when the US is convinced and feels it has no other option other than nothing and letting US citizen die something will happen. I emphasis "feel no other option". To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Londo wrote: I would think more than just hearsay. Agreed. But between the US and many (all?) Arab nations this would likely never be agreed to. Londo wrote: But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? And Saddam's son is a principle financier of this organization. He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. So when does that make Saddam a member? I do not have a good answer here and do not expect you to have one. Londo wrote: What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq? It is not good if we wind up having no other options but to have deaths on one side or the other (probably both.) I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Londo wrote: However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. I do not think evidence will ever exist to convince all of the Arab nations. Given this when the US is convinced and feels it has no other option other than nothing and letting US citizen die something will happen. I emphasis "feel no other option". To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. Appearances can be deceiving. Though I suspect that this is correct. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Same here. :(( Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I emphasis "feel no other option". At the moment I think there are a more options available that just blowing the crap out of the bad guys. At least I think that an attack on Iraq is the last thing that should be considered, considering the ramifications.