The United States of America has gone mad

gandalf

Originally posted by Meh
I have yet to see any evidence apart from speculation that there are weapons on those planes. And since it is impossible for me to prove a negative, the burden of proof falls upon you.

There is no reason why the US would not change their "standard military procedure" procedure when passing through a friendly country whose laws prohibit it. After all, it's unlikely that the troops are going to come under attack from Saddam in Shannon...

Meh I would love to be able to search those planes unfortunately I don't have that authorisation.

However I disagree with you I do not believe the US would change their standard (and standard military operating procedure) in transporting the weapons for Ireland, it would be a logistical nightmare (from a practical point of view).

It is up to the Government to carry out inspections on our behalf to make sure our laws are adhered to. Unfortunately as usual the "FF/PD 51st state alliance" are failing us with this regard as well.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf:
And rightly so they are violating Irish Law. Cork you strike me as a law abiding person do you intentionally violate other countries law when you visit them. The US are doing that here in Shannon.

For someone who demands proof of everything Cork says, you're awfully fond of making unsubstantiated allegations yourself. If you're going to pass off speculation as fact, may I suggest trying here instead?

it would be a logistical nightmare (from a practical point of view).

So the US military can ship entire armies consisting of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft all the way across the world, but it's beyond their capabilities to transport a few thousand rifles separately from their owners?

gandalf

Originally posted by Meh
For someone who demands proof of everything Cork says, you're awfully fond of making unsubstantiated allegations yourself. If you're going to pass off speculation as fact, may I suggest trying here instead?

No if you read carefully you will see in one of my previous posts a link to video clips from RTE. Here a former British Army Officer now the head of Janes Defense Weekly and a serving US Officer both state that it is standard military operating procedure to ship personal weapons with troops on civilian carriers and it would be their belief that those weapons are on the planes going through Shannon. I am taking on board there authoritive views in forming my opinion. Not concrete proof but stronger than the soundbites that Cork keeps firing out. (Do you have a problem with this ?)

So the US military can ship entire armies consisting of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft all the way across the world, but it's beyond their capabilities to transport a few thousand rifles separately from their owners?

I am saying that it would be impractical for them to do it and it makes sense that they do ship them with their troops.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
I am saying that it would be impractical for them to do it and it makes sense that they do ship them with their troops.

Then why don't they simply ask the Minister for a permit? I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem issuing it, given the government's positive attitude towards the US military. Why would they break Irish law and risk being denied the use of Shannon when they could do things legally just by getting a permit? It just doesn't make sense...

Originally posted by gandalf

We all know that but who gave him the capacity to produce these weapons, the USA & Europe. Who provided him with further aid after he deployed the weapons the US. Double standards

just in relation to the U.S and Rumsfeld and all the support the U.S gave Iraq and Sadam.
I'm tending towards a different view on that.
If we step back in time, to when the Shah was overthrown, and Ayatolah Kameni took over Iran,the U.S must have freaked!
This was a hugely anti American regime, who happened to be propegating, fundamentalist anti american, anti Western policy, right in the heart of the Worlds biggest oil producing area.
Russia had huge oil reserves of course, but was in the throws of being the U.S.S.R and also anti U.S at the time.

The Iranian regime had one enemy who was fighting with it like mad, at the time, and that was Iraq and Sadam Hussein.
It would seem to me perfectly natural, that the U.S would want to aid an enemy of Iran at the time and deal with the consequences later.
Their fundamentalism at the time was fueling huge unrest in the Lebanon on Israels doorstep and what if it spread to Saudi?
The west was at risk of being at the mercy of fundamentalists for a large proportion of it's oil supply.

Of course with hindsight,the consequences of that period are bearing their bad fruit now and ironically, it's Sadam, that the U.S are worried about, and the instability, the technology they gave him initially, might breed in the region, in his despotic hands.

The U.S are reaping what they sowed really, it's such a pity, that the whole mess will probably cost a lot of innocent lives to put right.
But then, it needn't if Sadam complies with all U.N resolutions fully and hands over every weapon he is hiding ( and he did have a lot of time to hide stuff, t'would take years to find whats hidden...he hardly had it destroyed as a gesture of good will to himself...he's no fool )
and of course, if he resigned and called, an open free election in the morning, with observers to see it's free and fair.
The U.S couldn't attack then... and the only cost to pay, would not be innocent lives but actually , the huge cost to the U.S tax payer for the Gulf holiday that their troops have just been on:p

But wait...thats something we might expect to happen, in the West, not Iraq...yet it would be so much easier and up to Sadam and his ilk really to do it.
mm

Hobart

BattleBoar TBH I was more interested in the use of the quote

'built on remittances from the US and the UK'

than I was in justification for investment in Ireland. As Far As I Am Concerened nobody does nothing 4 nothing. That mayB cynical but it's normally correct.

You also say that the relationship is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. So What? We Gain. They Gain. This is not a thread on economics. And then the Gem!! and I QUOTE

What should matter is the end result, which is that US investment has undoubtedly improved Ireland's economic situation a great deal. If the perceived intentions do not affect the outcome, what place have they in the debate?

Yes US investment has improved the Irish economy. So what? Irish workers have helped profits of US companies! It's hardly a scoop.

Cork I will refer to my previous reply which you have obviously yet to read.


Gandalf. Bang ON. You hit the nail on the head.

MEH.

I have yet to see any evidence apart from speculation that there are weapons on those planes

I see where you are coming from but there has been F**k all done by the Irish Gov. to ensure that this is not the case. I heard on the radio yesterday that it was against US army regs. for a marine to travel without his side-arm. There is an Irish law that prohibits any individual from landing on Irish soil dressed in a uniform of a foreign nation without prior permission from the Irl. Gov. It also goes on to say that nobody should be allowed to land in this country with Arms (and I mean rifles, guns etc..) without prior permission from the Irl. Gov. But there are NO inspections carried out on the US troop planes that land in Shannon. WHY? 'Because we have received an assurance from the US Gov.' (This was a Quote from a Dept. of Def. Minister on the Right Hook show on NewsTalk106 On Thurs.) D'Yah know what! I don't believe them. I would be astounded if we were not been taken for 'Thick Paddys' and that arms we been beared by US soldiers because 'They don't check you at Shannon' and US military orders state that US marines must always carry sidearms when on foreign duty.

Back to one of my original questions. What threat does Iraq pose to the US and UK?

halkar

Saddam is evil and US is just has evil as Saddam and maybe more!! Saddam had and have and used chemical weapons against his people and we all know where they got the technology from bla bla bla!! The question is, this was over a decade ago and why are they trying to use it as an excuse to overthrow Saddam? Why haven't they done this when Saddam was using the chemical weapons against Kurds? They were already in the region and they could have taken Saddam out and avoid all this mess now :rolleyes: So they left him there and after over a decade using it has an excuse to attack Iraq?? And all those sanctions against Iraq probably killed more people there then the people killed by chemical weapons and Saddam. Who is responsible? As Hobart says "US of F**KIN A."

I don't know why all this wheel turned around and came back to Saddam after the 9/11 ? Who supports Al'Queda is questionable but it could as well be Kaddafi too as he is probably one of the biggest US haters and is known of supporting terrorist acts against US in the past. He is no Saint either so why not him but Saddam? Ok, Saddam has to be punished but I believe that should be done under UN control instead of USA's bully tactics which will probably backfire on them in the near future after creating more enemies for themselves in the region!!

I think all this Saddam issue to be left to UN to deal with and US just pack their bags and leave the region and worry about their own problems within their borders instead of creating stupid reasons to play their war games.:rolleyes:

My 2 cents open to bashing!!

Well,Halkar, your school of thought is popular in some quarters these days.

The U.S.A has made many mistakes,when furthering it's interests on the international stage, as much as it has done the right thing.

What exactly was the reason,for instance at the end of the last Gulf war for the U.S and it's allies not marching on Bagdad then and deposing Sadam?? Was it a slavish adherence to U.N resolutions?? A give in to world opinion, perhaps that, kicking them out of Kuwait was enough?

Because if it was, then the U.N must share responsibility, for Sadams actions also, after all it wasn't encouraging it's most pro active members ie the U.S and the U.K to act or finish the job.
mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
.......
The U.S.A has made many mistakes,when furthering it's interests ....

Yep furthering IT'S interests, not Iraqis is it?

What exactly was the reason,for instance at the end of the last Gulf war for the U.S and it's allies not marching on Bagdad then and deposing Sadam?? Was it a slavish adherence to U.N resolutions?? A give in to world opinion, perhaps that, kicking them out of Kuwait was enough?

Because if it was, then the U.N must share responsibility, for Sadams actions also, after all it wasn't encouraging it's most pro active members ie the U.S and the U.K to act or finish the job.
mm

What exactly was the reason for US and the UK not to pressure UN for another attack on Iraq after Saddam using the chemical weapons on people after the Gulf war? After giving Kurds some hopes in the region for their support in Gulf War only to turn their backs and leave them with Saddam. They obviously knew what was coming at the time. As it was in Afghanistan when they supported the regime against Russia and when the war over they turned their backs.
Do you think they care about human lives there? And now they are screaming for war against Saddam with the cost of thousands of civilian lives. Reason, Saddam has chemical weapons and threat to US :rolleyes: So who is next? North Korea? Because they have nuclear weapons and they are a threat too?? If US thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons or any weapons for their defence why shouldn't other countries do so too?

Originally posted by halkar
and leave them with Saddam. They obviously knew what was coming at the time. As it was in Afghanistan when they supported the regime against Russia and when the war over they turned their backs.

And leave them with Sadam!
Yes, thats the telling part of what you said, because it was Sadam who used those weapons against his citizens not the U.S.A
Something tells me, that there would be uproar, in the same quarters, if , the U.S and the U.K moved into Iraq after the Gulf war, because that invasion would also, have cost human lives.

So we are back to the damned if they do and damned if they don't again.

Yep furthering IT'S interests, not Iraqis is it?

Well,if the ordinary Iraqui's keep away from where , in the event of war, the U.S/UK or whoever are likely to be bombing, then when it's all over and Sadam is gone, they might have a better life there assuming a western style democracy is set up.
But something tells me Sadam will ensure that as many of his citizens(and westerners) are used as human shields again:rolleyes: and those will be his evil actions not the U.S.A
Of course the simple clever peacefull way out of this is for Sadam to come clean, deliver up, what weapons he has, and declare, free , fair and observed elections.
but then , his egotistical despotism and that of his followers, would prefer the armageddon approach, seemingly.
mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
And leave them with Sadam!
Yes, thats the telling part of what you said, because it was Sadam who used those weapons against his citizens not the U.S.A
.....

And it was USA and other western countries that gave the technology for these weapons to Iraq while they were in war with Iran. Also American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States' president had himself called.

Well,if the ordinary Iraqui's keep away from where , in the event of war, the U.S/UK or whoever are likely to be bombing, then when it's all over and Sadam is gone, they might have a better life there assuming a western style democracy is set up.
But something tells me Sadam will ensure that as many of his citizens(and westerners) are used as human shields again:rolleyes: and those will be his evil actions not the U.S.A
Of course the simple clever peacefull way out of this is for Sadam to come clean, deliver up, what weapons he has, and declare, free , fair and observed elections.
but then , his egotistical despotism and that of his followers, would prefer the armageddon approach, seemingly.
mm
[/B]

Are you for real? This will not be like bombing or attacking defensless Taliban regime :rolleyes: This is about declaring a war to a nation that has army power, maybe not for winning but to use it by all means. And what makes you to think they want a western style democracy? Who has that in Middle East? Here are few reasons why war against Saddam is not a good idea.

And it was USA and other western countries that gave the technology for these weapons to Iraq while they were in war with Iran.

Quite frankly, thats old news, it was sadam, who did the dirty with the weapons, not the U.S

There are plenty of countries, being supplied weapons from various sources and they do not do what Sadam does with them.

You say the U.S stood idly by...Well, in point of fact, either, they went in after the weapons were used against the Kurds ( which would have been too late to save them) or they could have went onto Bagdad itself when you say they should have, at the time of the Gulf War, without a UN mandate and face a barrage of critisism like they are now.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

How exactly have the U.N saved the Kurds from Sadam, tell me??
Their weapons inspectors were turfed out! allowing a few good years for the Sadamites to hide their chemicals in what is a huge land mass.
It took the threats of unilateral action by the U.S in the first place, to give the U.N the kick up in the backside it needed to , send the inspectors back , but this time with some teeth, ie non compliance meaning a multi national force would head for Bagdad.

I am for real, and If they do not want a western style democracy in Iraq, fair enough, but that should be the peoples choice there, a choice they are not allowed to have at the moment.

I suggested that as , if they did have a fair system in place, they could sell their oil, on the open market and develop western style living standards in their country, without comprimising Islam.

Now those decisions could be taken in the morning, to comply fully with Un demands, and avoid war but the Sadamites are too selfish-they do not care.
And as regards the Iraqi Army...well again it's the sadamites decisions that will bring them to war,surely despite it's possible terrible consequences for them, they do not think they can win ,so the best options are for the sadamites to comply really, the onus is on them.
mm

mm

Cork

American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States' president had himself called.

So- is it not about time the US acted to rid Iraq of Saddam.

he used chemical weapons on his own people. Are the Iraqis to wait until he steps down. Will this be in twenty years?

And what makes you to think they want a western style democracy?

Well - the one thing they don't want is to live in fear.

It is so easy for those who are anti-war to peach aganist the US. We live in a Western society with freedom. We don't live under a dictator who has used weapons on his countrymen.

halkar

Man, first click on the links and do some reading Saddams chemical attack was few years before the Gulf war. The incident of 1991 was the uprising of Kurdish which supposed to be backed by US for their support in Gulf war. Result: Thousands died and many hundreds of thousands have been fled to Iran and Turkey.

US itself refused the on-site inspection of it's own biological weapons capabilities in Biological Weapons Convention (you can google that yourself) so it is fine for them to develop and and sell as they please but if someone else does it it becomes threat to US and they think that can give them a reason to attack them? Even if the UN inspectors finds the chemical weapons US still have no right to attack Iraq.

There are no Western style democracies in the region so how will Iraq be any different? And who knows if the next leader for Iraq be any better than Saddam? All the ethnic groups in Iraq does not want US to enter Iraq, they can take Saddam out themselves with US backing but of course US doesn't want that. If US troops enters Iraq with their allies it will be an invasion and it will be people's war not Saddam's. You are rightfully protecting your country against an attacking force, whatever their reason is. And I strongly believe people there would rather be under Saddam's rule then US rule and support for Saddam is much higher now than it was in Gulf War.

As for people choices. What choices they have ? There is hated Saddam on my right and much more hated Bush with uncertain future on my left. Now you make your choice. And don't forget many of these people over there are not educated to your standards to know what democracy means either. They never had it never lived it so your democracy offering to them means nothing as far as they concern you are going there to invade their land kill their families (as a consequences of war) and drink their oil so as you said they do not think they can win but they will not make it easy for US to win either even after US succeeds to bring Saddam down.

Originally posted by Cork
....
Well - the one thing they don't want is to live in fear.

It is so easy for those who are anti-war to peach against the US. We live in a Western society with freedom. We don't live under a dictator who has used weapons on his countrymen.

They are different society then your average Jo is in your so called Western freedom and they have been living like that for many years. You have to respect their living and government style after all if Saddam is dictator then every other leader in the region is dictator as most of them are monarch and goes from father to son. And don't forget as a result of this we can have more terrorist attacks against your Western freedom and then you will be the one living in fear :rolleyes:

****************************************************
One day, they will make cars running on your ESB bill . That day all our big bully boys leave the middle east and everyone will live happily ever after

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Hobart
BattleBoar TBH I was more interested in the use of the quote than I was in justification for investment in Ireland. As Far As I Am Concerened nobody does nothing 4 nothing. That mayB cynical but it's normally correct.

You also say that the relationship is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. So What? We Gain. They Gain. This is not a thread on economics. And then the Gem!! and I QUOTE Yes US investment has improved the Irish economy. So what? Irish workers have helped profits of US companies! It's hardly a scoop.

Umm...that's my whole point. If both parties benefit from this then why do you appear resentful? Perhaps I am mistaken in the interpretation...

Originally posted by halkar
Man, first click on the links and do some reading

how do you know whether I read your links or not? Chemical attacks on the Kurds is old news as I said and that was all I said on the matter apart from, The U.S are damned, by the same people,then as they are now regardless of whether they go in or not.
I said:

You say the U.S stood idly by...Well, in point of fact, either, they went in after the weapons were used against the Kurds ( which would have been too late to save them) or they could have went onto Bagdad itself when you say they should have, at the time of the Gulf War, without a UN mandate and face a barrage of critisism like they are now.

Theres no statement there regarding the timing of attacks on the Kurds.
just, a simple statement, implying that those who are against the U.S involvement here, would be anyway.

My point, regarding western style democracies, is simple also,did you read it at all, it's a valid enough point I think:D

If the Sadamites, complied fully, with UN resolutions, and gave their people democracy,then there would be no war.
It's a simple step...but then Sadam is a despot who uses Chemical weapons.

The U.S may have them as well as a nuclear arsenal but they aren't using them, they are safely stored away.
Clearly the U.N are more worried about Sadams chemicals than those held by the U.S

Whats wrong with Democracy anyway, and why shouldn't we peacefully promote it as a form of governance...It's a tad better than, terrorists and despots, violently promoting fundamentalist ideoligies.

mm

halkar

Originally posted by Man
.....
Whats wrong with Democracy anyway, and why shouldn't we peacefully promote it as a form of governance...It's a tad better than, terrorists and despots, violently promoting fundamentalist ideoligies.

mm

Yep, that is exactly what US wants to do, peacefully promote democracy. And while doing this, it is creating more haters in the region and fundamentalists. Most Muslims in the region hate US over their backing of Israel and this will just give them another reason to hate and attack on US. Do you really think US cares if they have democracy or not in IRAQ? :rolleyes:

As for US nuclear and chemical capabilities, I think they are just as dangerous in their hands as they are in other countries. If US thinks it is right to produce them for their defence, other countries in the world and Saddam can just say the same thing and use US and Israel as a threat. Because just has US doesn't trust them, they don't trust US either. As for UN, their future will be questionable as if they break their own rules and attack Saddam even if they find chemical weapons in Iraq as this is not a reason for attacking a nation.

I want Saddam gone just as much as anyone do but I don't believe the war is the answer to this.

Originally posted by halkar
Yep, that is exactly what US wants to do, peacefully promote democracy.

And, the sadamites, Al'Quaeda, hizbolla, and their ilk want to peacefully promote it also....
I don't want a war there either, the only groupings wanting war in the middle east are the sadamites by their intransigence.

As for US nuclear and chemical capabilities, I think they are just as dangerous in their hands as they are in other countries. If US thinks it is right to produce them for their defence, other countries in the world and Saddam can just say the same thing and use US and Israel as a threat. Because just has US doesn't trust them, they don't trust US either.

You are very naive if you think nuclear weapons are more dangerous, in U.S hands than in the hands of the Sadamites:rolleyes:
They are a deterent in the hands of the U.S - pure and simple.
But if the sadamites get them , prepare yourself for the bunker, bring loads of fresh water, close the doors and bring lots of Joe Jacob's tablets:D
mm

Cork

I really think much sentiment seems to to very anti american. Saddam is a brutal dictator. Yet - while we enjoy freedom - we expect others to live under this dictator.

halkar

Yep Saddam is brutal but there are many brutal leaders in the world and Africa is full of them. I think all publicity for US to go for war to overthrow Saddam has just damaged their reputation for them. Unlike the operations in Afghanistan which was backed by many nations not many nations wants US to attack Saddam. Unless Saddam attacks one of their neighbours or threaten them UN and US has no reason to attack there even if they prove that they have chemical and nuclear weapons and Bush in all people knows that more than you and I do and if it is all for democracy and freedom then lets attack Israel too. As far as I am concerned they are breaking more UN regulations and human rights then Saddam in front of the world's eyes.

Me goes and start making list for my bunker
1-Guinness
2-Guinness
3-Guinness
4-peanuts
....
....

My heads too sore to start talking about Israel this morning:D
Suffice to say, mad and all as we Irish are, I'm glad to be living here and not in the middle East, we have worked hard, and used Our brains to create the way of life, we have here

and to a large extent, our democracy has survived thanks to the presence and actions of larger countries.

Kegs of Guinness, in your bunker then:p just stay away from the B52's ( the drink now:D ) they are lethal, after about ten or so ...but very tasty:p :eek:
mm

Cork

Unless Saddam attacks one of their neighbours or threaten them UN and US has no reason to attack there even if they prove that they have chemical and nuclear weapons and Bush in all people knows that more than you and I do and if it is all for democracy and freedom then lets attack Israel too. As far as I am concerned they are breaking more UN regulations and human rights then Saddam in front of the world's eyes.

Do we really have to await Saddam to attack some neighbouring country before anything can be done to get rid of him?

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
Unless Saddam attacks one of their neighbours or threaten them UN and US has no reason to attack there even if they prove that they have chemical and nuclear weapons

Saddam did attack one of his neighbours -- Kuwait. And as part of the peace treaty that ended that conflict, he agreed 1) to destroy all his WMDs and 2) to let UN inspectors in to verify this. He now wants to renege on this agreement. He has ignored international condemnation. Sanctions haven't had any effect -- Saddam doesn't care about the hardships of ordinary Iraqis. Neither have limited air strikes. Only the threat of imminent war forced him to readmit the UN inspectors.

Given the failure of peaceful and not-so-peaceful means alike, what is your proposal for making Saddam keep the treaty he signed back in 1991?

halkar

Originally posted by Meh
Saddam did attack one of his neighbours -- Kuwait. And as part of the peace treaty that ended that conflict, he agreed 1) to destroy all his WMDs and 2) to let UN inspectors in to verify this. He now wants to renege on this agreement. He has ignored international condemnation. Sanctions haven't had any effect -- Saddam doesn't care about the hardships of ordinary Iraqis. Neither have limited air strikes. Only the threat of imminent war forced him to readmit the UN inspectors.

Given the failure of peaceful and not-so-peaceful means alike, what is your proposal for making Saddam keep the treaty he signed back in 1991?

So I guess North Korea is next in the line after Saddam, as they are just doing the same thing by breaking the treaties they signed?. I am afraid you are wrong, that still doesn't give US and UN the right to attack Iraq and doing so will be breaking their own rules and obviously that will put the UN credibility in question if they can break their own rules by other nations (US in this case) pressures. After all UN resolution 687 after Gulf war with Iraq does not give any right to UN to attack Saddam even if they refuse the inspectors. And UN Security Council Resolution 1154 leaves authority of enforcement of UN Res. 687 in the hands of the UN, not the U.S. . I didn't make the rules they did :rolleyes:

My proposal is not war but maybe send Arnie or Sly to assassin him or just take Bush and Saddam out and give a gun to their hands, count till three and boom who shoots first wins . There you are problem solved, lives saved and now I am awake d@mn :mad:

Cork

Saddam did attack one of his neighbours -- Kuwait

Yes he did.

He also used chemical weapons on his own people.

He has also treated his own people pretty terribely over his reign.

Yet - How long is it justifitifable that he remains in power.

This Anti- American thing is crazy. Since. G.W Bush became president of the US - has he done anything half decent.

Anti Americanism is the new socialisim. I think that socialist partys need to look upon themselves and see where this is coming from.

It really is pretty ugly. The deployment of US soldiers in the Middle East is breaking no UN resolution.

Yet - Anti American Coverage seems to be broadcast on our TV screens. I surpose even on 9/11 - we even got pictures of some in the middle east celebrating.

The United States of America has gone mad - No

I think - they are pretty sane.

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
So I guess North Korea is next in the line after Saddam, as they are just doing the same thing by breaking the treaties they signed?.

There's a lot of things to try yet (tighten sanctions, more UN resolutions, limited airstrikes...) in the case of North Korea, before it even comes near a fullscale war. War should be a last resort when everything else has failed.

I am afraid you are wrong, that still doesn't give US and UN the right to attack Iraq and doing so will be breaking their own rules

Read the United Nations charter. The UN Security Council can authorize the use of such force "as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security". It's under this article that military action in Iraq would take place, as Saddam's defiance of the 1991 peace terms is a clear threat to international peace and security. So it would all be completely legal under international law. (The Security Council has invoked this article before in the Korean War, so there's a clear precedent for this.) Of course, if the US were to go it alone and attack Iraq without a UN mandate, I wouldn't approve of that.

My proposal is not war but maybe send Arnie or Sly to assassin him or just take Bush and Saddam out and give a gun to their hands, count till three and boom who shoots first wins .

:rolleyes:

shotamoose

Originally posted by Cork
Yes he did.

He also used chemical weapons on his own people.

He has also treated his own people pretty terribely over his reign.

Yet - How long is it justifitifable that he remains in power.

This Anti- American thing is crazy. Since. G.W Bush became president of the US - has he done anything half decent.

Anti Americanism is the new socialisim. I think that socialist partys need to look upon themselves and see where this is coming from.

It really is pretty ugly. The deployment of US soldiers in the Middle East is breaking no UN resolution.

Yet - Anti American Coverage seems to be broadcast on our TV screens. I surpose even on 9/11 - we even got pictures of some in the middle east celebrating.

The United States of America has gone mad - No

I think - they are pretty sane.

I think – you are right – that Saddam is a bad man.

But nobody, is disagreeing, with that.

So keep making unconnected statements.

Like this one. The UN is powerless.

So what can we do.

Except keep posing pointless questions.

With no – question marks.

I suppose some of us – Anti-Americans? - might seem to think that’s enough.

Or something.

I make sense. No.

---

Ehhhh sorry I dunno what happened there. What I was trying to say was that it’s just lazy to accuse people of American just because America seems intent on pursuing a full-scale war in the Middle-East regardless of what actually happens. It is NOT anti-American to point out when the American administration is acting stupidly or unjustly and when it is not. But it is dangerous and completely reckless to assume that America is doing the right thing. As the most powerful country in the world and one which regularly declares that it puts its own interests first, America needs more than most to be constantly reminded of the interests and opinions of the rest of the world before it acts. That’s not Anti-Americanism, it’s common sense.

halkar

Originally posted by Cork
.......
Yet - Anti American Coverage seems to be broadcast on our TV screens. I surpose even on 9/11 - we even got pictures of some in the middle east celebrating....

Exactly!! Then you have seen the hate people has for America in the region and US led attack on Iraq probably provoke more hate in the region and more terorism against America and it's allies and will be more and more difficult to control. After all US might have the muscles against anything but it is very vulnerable inside. Saddam is not the only problem in the region and for them opening an eye for one problem and closing to another just making themselves to create more enemies in the region.

Next week UN will give their report on Iraq.
May the PEACE be with us!!

Cork

I agree. Every wants Peace.

But - I think Saddam has got to come clean.

Notes on Nuclear Weapons is a disturbing fact. The Gardai in this country spent years looking for IRA arms & probably only found a small fraction.

Saddam has got to come clean.

gandalf

Originally posted by Cork
I agree. Every wants Peace.

Nope the US administration want OIL.

But - I think Saddam has got to come clean.

We all agree on that at least!!!

Notes on Nuclear Weapons is a disturbing fact. The Gardai in this country spent years looking for IRA arms & probably only found a small fraction.

Hmmm I downloaded the Anarchists Cookbook and information on Nuclear weapons when I first got on the net in 1995, does that mean I am 1 a Terrorist or 2 I'm building a Nuke.??? (the answer is no btw nice CIA people monitoring the boards !!!)

I doubt the Gardai ever had Spy Satillite Images etc to aid their searches. Although in Donegal they came up with the great idea of hiding the weapons first and then finding them, lol

Maybe the yanks should try this method to ignite the flames of war (or maybe they will!!).

Saddam has got to come clean. [/B]

Please say something new your one line soundbites are getting very very tired Cork :rolleyes:

Gandalf.