watching Bush on TV this evening I couldn't help but wonder...
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Then there was that 9/11 thing that happened. Now we are in self-defense mode and we will remove anyone that supports terror from power A terror attack by some radical Muslims caused the US to turn to self-defense" mode. Why does self-defense justify an attack on Iraq whithout knowing whether there's any relation to Quaeda? You can't attack any country that could possibly have any connection to terrorists without any evidence. Hope this attitude won't last for long.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. They have supported Hamas openly, and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq. The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. Therefore he must go by whatever means.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Chris Losinger wrote: and, if GWB is willing to invade Iraq without UN approval, how can he claim to do it in the name of a UN resolution (either 1441 or those from the first gulf war)? if you don't follow the rules and decisions of the UN except when they agree with you, how can you claim to be acting on their behalf? A: you can't. We are still a soveriegn nation and if we deem it necessary to attack in self-defense then the UN be damned.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: then the UN be damned. no. read the fucking paragraph. GWB is telling the world that Saddam agreed to disarm, as the result of a UN action. GWB is telling the world that Saddam is not living up to the terms of a UN resolution. GWB is telling the world that the UN needs to enforce what it says. then GWB says (and his starry-eyed followers parrot), that, in effect, the UN is irrelevant. but, if the UN is irrelevant, you can't use it as a reason to invade a country. if you're going to do what you want regardless of what the UN says, then all of the UN resolutions must be irrelevant, too. GWB can't logically use 1441 as a rationale for invading Iraq unilaterally. so, that leaves the "threat to the US" argument, which, even tho GWB was careful to repeat a hundred times, is simply nonsense. there are a dozen other countries who are much more of a threat to the US than Iraq is. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: So if there is a war, who is really responsible? Bush, period. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Would you rather it didn't? i would prefer that it only changed things that are actually relevant. Iraq is not relevant. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So blame me also then i expect you will take the blame for each and every iraqi civillian killed by stray US bombs. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. They have supported Hamas openly, and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq. The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. Therefore he must go by whatever means.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. Only that an attack will affect hundred thousands of people, who have to suffer under the consequences of a war. Jason Henderson wrote: and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq Didn't hear anything similar. Are you sure about that? Because if this was proved there were no discussions about the connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq any more, but still they go on. Still nobody has a proof. Jason Henderson wrote: The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. If he does, why hasn't he been removed 10 years ago? And why did the US support him over years, even delivering chemical weapons?
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So blame me also then i expect you will take the blame for each and every iraqi civillian killed by stray US bombs. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. Only that an attack will affect hundred thousands of people, who have to suffer under the consequences of a war. Jason Henderson wrote: and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq Didn't hear anything similar. Are you sure about that? Because if this was proved there were no discussions about the connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq any more, but still they go on. Still nobody has a proof. Jason Henderson wrote: The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. If he does, why hasn't he been removed 10 years ago? And why did the US support him over years, even delivering chemical weapons?
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: suffer under the consequences of a war. No worse than suffering gas attacks by their own leader. Schlaubi wrote: Are you sure about that? Yes, I think I posted a link to the article here in the soapbox just a few days ago. A member of the terror group in the Phillipines came right out and said they received money from Iraq. What kind of proof do you need if you won't believe the proof before your eyes?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Jason Henderson wrote: Sure, blame me for any accidents that happen too you got it. if you're driving your car in a hurry to get somewhere and you kill a kid on a bike, you're still responsible for killing him, even if you think you have a valid reason for driving fast. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Schlaubi wrote: The Iraqi disarmament is still a controversional topic - nobody could show evidences for or against it. Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. Schlaubi wrote: However, the weapon inspectors seem to have failed in their plans to completely disarm Iraq. It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Schlaubi wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". Schlaubi wrote: I fear there're countries more dangerous for the world, Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Schlaubi wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. But it's not proved that he still owns them. One can only surmise it, even if it's very likely to be true. Mike Gaskey wrote: It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Does that mean that if the inspectors had the chance to help to disarm Iraq, in case Iraq hasn't done it yet, wouln'd count? Would there still be a reason for an attack. And in fact Blix has never mentioned that Iraq has really outraged Resolution 1441. Thus no reason for war in the eyes of the UN. Mike Gaskey wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Mike Gaskey wrote: Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Surely not - but what can they do when everyone focuses only on Iraq, and when Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
What do you think a God of peace, love and justice would do with someone who rejects all of those things? Have the supreme court appoint him president of the United States? Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. But it's not proved that he still owns them. One can only surmise it, even if it's very likely to be true. Mike Gaskey wrote: It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Does that mean that if the inspectors had the chance to help to disarm Iraq, in case Iraq hasn't done it yet, wouln'd count? Would there still be a reason for an attack. And in fact Blix has never mentioned that Iraq has really outraged Resolution 1441. Thus no reason for war in the eyes of the UN. Mike Gaskey wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Mike Gaskey wrote: Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Surely not - but what can they do when everyone focuses only on Iraq, and when Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things. Do you mean there's no intelligence elsewhere? Schlaubi wrote: Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Nor do I. A complete waste of time and money. It irritates me that President Bush has taken the time to interact with this collection of fools. Schlaubi wrote: It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Wrong. There was no question of inforcing the disarmement terms until President Bush pushed the issue. He simply is forcing the UN to live up to it's responsibilities. Mike
-
What do you think a God of peace, love and justice would do with someone who rejects all of those things? Have the supreme court appoint him president of the United States? Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
Schlaubi wrote: suffer under the consequences of a war. No worse than suffering gas attacks by their own leader. Schlaubi wrote: Are you sure about that? Yes, I think I posted a link to the article here in the soapbox just a few days ago. A member of the terror group in the Phillipines came right out and said they received money from Iraq. What kind of proof do you need if you won't believe the proof before your eyes?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: No worse than suffering gas attacks by their own leader. Did I mention that originally the US supported Iraq, even military ( don't forget the gas)? So they have the choice between gas provided by America ( it's questionable whether Saddam would use it in the nearer future) and American bombs. Jason Henderson wrote: Yes, I think I posted a link to the article here in the soapbox just a few days ago. A member of the terror group in the Phillipines came right out and said they received money from Iraq. What kind of proof do you need if you won't believe the proof before your eyes? As I already mentioned I did not hear about that. But for sure I would accept that as a proof for relations between Iraq and terrorists.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. bullshit. Cathy wrote: why aren't we trying to have him impeached. because the democrats can't do anything other than whine. Cathy wrote: I see a lot more grounds for it. name one legal reason. Cathy wrote: Who cares who the man's sleeping with? I do. he's sleeping with his wife. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? Mike
Who cares who the man's sleeping with? Mike Gaskey wrote: I do. he's sleeping with his wife. You don't know that. He's a "recovered" alcoholic and one symptom of alcoholism is an inability to perform sexually. As far as we know, they've only had sex one time and from that one time they produced a set of twins. There are no other children despite many years of marriage. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
Schlaubi wrote: I fear that he personally really wants the war, whatever the reason may be. Here's an analogy for you: Say you have this neighbor dog that keeps growling and barking at your kids. One day the dog bites one of your kids. You go to the local pound and demand that the dog be taken away. Months pass and nothing is done, the dog is still there threatening your kids. What do you do? Well, you decide, reluctantly, that the dog has to go. You're not a killer and you really like dogs but this one is a real menace. So you call the pound again and they still do nothing. The next morning you take matters into your own hands and you shoot the dog, thus removing the neighborhood menace. Now your neighbor hates you, but at least your kids are safe. IMO, Bush doesn't want war, he just wants to remove the threat facing us and our allies.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiTaking care for anybody means also being a positive example for others. And vigilante justice for sure doesn't support that. What if others take that as an example and do what they regard to be right, don't careing about laws? And I don't mean dogs, I mean the war. If Bush really cares for the population, why doesn't he concentrate more on economy or nature conservancy? This would also help to pave the way for the offspring. But corresponding treaties don't seem to be relevant for him.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Taking care for anybody means also being a positive example for others. And vigilante justice for sure doesn't support that. What if others take that as an example and do what they regard to be right, don't careing about laws? And I don't mean dogs, I mean the war. If Bush really cares for the population, why doesn't he concentrate more on economy or nature conservancy? This would also help to pave the way for the offspring. But corresponding treaties don't seem to be relevant for him.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: What if others take that as an example and do what they regard to be right, don't careing about laws? What good are laws of the law givers (the UN) do not uphold them? Do we not have the right to protect ourselves and our property? Schlaubi wrote: If Bush really cares for the population, why doesn't he concentrate more on economy or nature conservancy? You don't think that protection is of primary importance? Without protection, laws are irrelevant, the economy is irrelevant.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Who cares who the man's sleeping with? Mike Gaskey wrote: I do. he's sleeping with his wife. You don't know that. He's a "recovered" alcoholic and one symptom of alcoholism is an inability to perform sexually. As far as we know, they've only had sex one time and from that one time they produced a set of twins. There are no other children despite many years of marriage. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
Schlaubi wrote: No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things. Do you mean there's no intelligence elsewhere? Schlaubi wrote: Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Nor do I. A complete waste of time and money. It irritates me that President Bush has taken the time to interact with this collection of fools. Schlaubi wrote: It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Wrong. There was no question of inforcing the disarmement terms until President Bush pushed the issue. He simply is forcing the UN to live up to it's responsibilities. Mike
In case all accusations are right, I'd say thx to Bush for forced the UN to act. But now he should go on cooperating with the UN. Going to war without the UN's support would mean undermining it's authoroties, and this could be a bad example for further incidents. I think this wouln't help anybody.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Jason Henderson wrote: No worse than suffering gas attacks by their own leader. Did I mention that originally the US supported Iraq, even military ( don't forget the gas)? So they have the choice between gas provided by America ( it's questionable whether Saddam would use it in the nearer future) and American bombs. Jason Henderson wrote: Yes, I think I posted a link to the article here in the soapbox just a few days ago. A member of the terror group in the Phillipines came right out and said they received money from Iraq. What kind of proof do you need if you won't believe the proof before your eyes? As I already mentioned I did not hear about that. But for sure I would accept that as a proof for relations between Iraq and terrorists.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&searchkw=Phillipin&sd=12%2F7%2F2002&ed=3%2F7%2F2003&select=435675&df=100#xx435675xx This is the post with a link to the Phillipine Terrorist story. [EDIT]Sorry I screwed that up. Here is the link[^].[/EDIT]
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi