[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Erax]

Wardad, you must take on this role because you are ahead of the rest of us. You could have reworked the UN to act as your front, giving you legitimacy while you supplied its backbone, but your current government has removed that option. So now there is no one else to do the job.

And believe me, someone has to do it, otherwise the power of drug, terrorism, corruption and organized crime networks will continue to grow unchecked until they become our de facto world government.

Someone has to rally the world around the moral high ground, and it can't be France or any of the other former colonial powers because they have a poor track record with the rest of the world. If America won't do it, someone will, but I have no idea who that someone might be.

All I know is that it won't be France.

[Loser]

Originally posted by primitive:
The speach, Read it !!!

quote:

---

GWB in the UN Sept. 23rd 2003
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed.

Maybe it is time to come up with some proof soon ?
Flinging unsupported accusations only works so many times.

---

Well he did...

[primitive]

Originally posted by Loser:
Well he did...

Did he ?
The news over here must be heavily censored, cause I have missed any proof.
Please humour an old geezer and provide me with a link (other than his own statements)

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You have got to love the dimmly informed and utterly clueless fools that blindly follow the democratic tune. Talk about role reversals, mistruths, and utter made up crap.

Amen, brother! Thanks for taking the time and effort to rebute that load of crap.

---

I should have worded it kinder as it might have offended some people and for that I do sincerely apologize.

There is very little truth in that email, mostly mis-stated half truths and rumors created by hate mongers and trouble makers. The same people who do the same thing to every president. These people may or may not be politically affilated, but their line of crap is always the same.

Someone had to take the high ground in the fight against world terrorism. That will draw a lot of flack from those who both support terrorism, and those who want to make noise so they get their 15 minutes of fame.

Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Blair have done. The new organizations want to sell papers and air time so they hype the anti-terrorism efforts and fuel the fires. We call them Anarchists. In the end most people are glad to see the Taliban and Sadaam gone.

Our Economy was heading down hill fast in late months of 97. In October 97 the Stock Market had a baby crash and from that point on, everything was head'n south. Bush walked into a bad economy made 10x worse by the events of 9-11. No president could have forseen this and no person should hold the president responsible for this.

Bush extended unemployment benifits for americans. It was Clinton who cut them because back when he did it made sense. The econmy was doing great and unemployed people often were back to work in a month.

I do worry about the national debt, but I confedance that smart people are doing what they feel they must in order to get the job done.

Time will tell the tale of all of this and trust me in a 100 years none of it will matter for all of us who are alive now will most like be dead then. So what does it matter?

[ September 25, 2003, 01:43: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Clair have done.

I bet you meant Bush and Blair here. For some reason, when I saw "Clair", I first thought of Claire Short and did a double-take.

[Loser]

Originally posted by primitive:
It is this: “ .. built weapons of mass destruction.... and refused to account for them when confronted by the world” that needs proof. Proof of WMDs (and ties to 9.11) please.

He had WMDs, that much is clear. That's all it said, really. Implications being what they are, you could call it baiting an untruth, but as long as that past-tense is in there...

As for Bush I taking out Saddam, it wasn't possible. We did not have a strong enough presence in the region to go it alone, and no one else was going to stick it out past Kuwait. Two years later would have worked, but U.S. was a different place by then.

[primitive]

I can do this all day
“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.

[deccan]

Originally posted by primitive:

“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.

1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.

[Erax]

OK, after reading the UN speech I must say that my opinion of GWB has just become more favorable. At worst, he recognizes that he cannot ignore the UN and world opinion indefinitely. At best, he truly intends to support all the humanitarian projects he mentioned.

I am especially interested in this part :

America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections.

Let's hope it happens that way. I for one am looking forward to it.

[primitive]

Originally posted by deccan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by primitive:

“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.

1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.

---

1.
We agree on that, and I agree that Saddam was a Big Bad MF who deserved everything he got. But I do believe that the cost of this war is way larger than the benefits. And I am not talking about money; I am talking about the cost of gutting the UN, the cost of creating a new cold war (between Islam and the west this time), and the cost of increased terrorism (by hitting the wrong target).

2.
There is a big difference between “can not” and “will not” account for something. If it was “will not”, documents or witnesses should have been available to the inspectors by now (or soon). As the situation stands right now, it would appear that it was more a case of “can not”. Bomb any country half back to the Stone Age and see how much records that survive.

And yes, he did throw the UN inspectors out, but he also caved and let them back in when the US threatened to use force (which I approved off). Problem is: GWB chose to attack even after Saddam caved and agreed to the US demands, thereby ruining “threat of using force” as a diplomatic tool.