WMD's not the only reason for war
-Mario- @ Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:07 pm
$1:
Get back to me when he actually does find evidence that the U.S. dropped nukes! (Like him...) Quit generalizing. Man, where were you when Sadaam gased the Kurds? Did you ever think that the people could have been exposed before the first Gulf War? Or has he done a complete study that far back yet? Keep studying the article.
You might want to redo that post.... its full of holes...
Did you read the articles...
They are gonna eat you alive on this one...
Rev_Blair @ Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:05 pm
$1:
Man, where were you when Sadaam gased the Kurds?
I was screaming about Droolin' Ronnie Rayguns covering the whole thing up to further his belief in greed as a way of life. What were you up to, BigDub?
Want some logical thinking about nuclear "bunker busters" being used in Afghanistan? We know the US military has been working to develop these because they have said so. We know that George Bush has a fetish for nuclear devices, even if he's too stupid to pronounce "nuclear", because he's been busy cancelling treaties so he can use them. We know that several "bunker busters" were dropped in Afghanistan, but had presumed them to be non-nuclear because their use would still have been illegal under those conditions. We have ever-increasing evidence in Afghanistan, Iraq. and all over the world that Georgie and his well-dressed thugs have no respect for laws, domestic or international. There are now people in the area where those bombs were used that have non-DU uranium in their systems.
Don't try to claim logic, my jingoistic friend. Common sense and logic tell us that there needs to be a serious investigation into this that is run WITHOUT US interference but with FULL US cooperation. If your country is implicated in even more war crimes, then you need to turn those responsible over to the Hague for trial.
BigDubUSA @ Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:11 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
Man, where were you when Sadaam gased the Kurds?
I was screaming about Droolin' Ronnie Rayguns covering the whole thing up to further his belief in greed as a way of life. What were you up to, BigDub?
Want some logical thinking about nuclear "bunker busters" being used in Afghanistan? We know the US military has been working to develop these because they have said so. We know that George Bush has a fetish for nuclear devices, even if he's too stupid to pronounce "nuclear", because he's been busy cancelling treaties so he can use them. We know that several "bunker busters" were dropped in Afghanistan, but had presumed them to be non-nuclear because their use would still have been illegal under those conditions. We have ever-increasing evidence in Afghanistan, Iraq. and all over the world that Georgie and his well-dressed thugs have no respect for laws, domestic or international. There are now people in the area where those bombs were used that have non-DU uranium in their systems.
Don't try to claim logic, my jingoistic friend. Common sense and logic tell us that there needs to be a serious investigation into this that is run WITHOUT US interference but with FULL US cooperation. If your country is implicated in even more war crimes, then you need to turn those responsible over to the Hague for trial.
Hey Rev,
I'm not going to argue with you man... (We've been going back & forth all month) I'm not trying to justify the military or George W. but I'm not accusing either. Especially when there is ALL theory and no proof! Let me ask you this, since you brought up the Hague... Why don't you want a trial for Bill Clinton? He & Gen. Wesley Clark used NATO to bomb the shit out of the Serbs in Bosnia. A lot of innocent people died. Maybe we're just trying to pin it all on Milosovich! Just admit that you hate George Bush! At least be honest. And if you generalize and say, "You just hate America in general." Tell me how America has harmed you personally. If you hate Bush I & Bush II... Why? And how have they affected you personally? I don't want to hear about NAFTA, Capitalism, wars, etc...Just personally. I like to ask this question to the Hard Left and Anarchists who constantly complain about the govt. but have never been affected personally.
Robair @ Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 am
BigDubUSA BigDubUSA:
If you hate Bush I & Bush II... Why? And how have they affected you personally? I don't want to hear about NAFTA, Capitalism, wars, etc...Just personally. I like to ask this question to the Hard Left and Anarchists who constantly complain about the govt. but have never been affected personally.
This may shock the everliving shit out of you, but some people actually have concern for the well being of others. Have I suffered radiation poisoning? No. Well, I don't think so. Does the use of nuclear weapons piss me off? Yes. Very much.
The evidence is there. At this point, you should probably stop questioning me and start questioning your government. It is, after all, your vote that counts.
BigDubUSA @ Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:43 am
Robair Robair:
BigDubUSA BigDubUSA:
If you hate Bush I & Bush II... Why? And how have they affected you personally? I don't want to hear about NAFTA, Capitalism, wars, etc...Just personally. I like to ask this question to the Hard Left and Anarchists who constantly complain about the govt. but have never been affected personally.
This may shock the everliving shit out of you, but some people actually have concern for the well being of others. Have I suffered radiation poisoning? No. Well, I don't think so. Does the use of nuclear weapons piss me off? Yes. Very much.The evidence is there. At this point, you should probably stop questioning me and start questioning your government. It is, after all, your vote that counts.
Then make you angst "Worldwide" not just with America! Everything you have listed as examples of the "Bad America" the rest of the world is just as guilty! Try leading by example Canada!
Robair @ Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:05 am
BigDubUSA BigDubUSA:
Try leading by example Canada!
We do. Matter of fact, here's a thread on that very subject.
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... highlight=
BigDubUSA @ Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:42 am
Was that article in "your words"? or was that the actual text from the source? I admit (like most countries) you've got a good history. Most of the article was pretty old and outdated, but it seems to me that your country is hell bent on uniting the world for humanitarian reasons. A lot of countries (Not just the U.S.) want to keep their soveirgnty. We like the fact that one must become a citizen to reap the benefits! Obviously many other countries & cultures feel the same way. They flood our boarders, wanting to be American citizens. Anyone can live and work in Canada without becoming a citizen. Doesn't it offend your taxpayers that anyone can come hide out in Canada, get on your welfare system and medical without being a citizen or even working? You feel bad for countries in poverty and want to help them, why not help them help themselves? It doesn't take Bono or billions of dollars to help the spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa. It takes common sense! Wear a condom or stop having sex! If they don't get it, that's on them not the World! The only recent thing is that Canada tried to block the U.S. from invading Iraq. Get over it! What were you trying to do the past 12 years or so, when Sadaam kept breaching resolutions and living a lavish lifestyle while his people suffered? Can't say that we did much either (We had a president who was getting BJ's while in the Oval Office.) We're not too proud of that. But talk is cheap. The only thing I read was that Canada has a lot of great ideas (In a perfect world) but could not practically apply. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. I'm tired of supporting the world, as you should be too.
Rev_Blair @ Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:44 pm
$1:
It doesn't take Bono or billions of dollars to help the spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa. It takes common sense! Wear a condom or stop having sex! If they don't get it, that's on them not the World!
Here's a couple of things. First of all your pharmaceutical companies, with the backing of your government, have worked to keep AIDS/HIV victims in Africa from receiving affordable drugs. Second of all your government has tried to tie AIDS relief in Africa to your president's bizarre religious beliefs (abstinence), in many cases even discouraging the use of condoms. Third of all your president has tied aid to Africa to acceptance of genetically modified crops and cooperation in his bizarre "war on terror".
Let me put it in more clear terms for you. George Bush doesn't give a flying fuck if people in Africa die from AIDS but he is perfectly willing to use their plight to make money for his buddies and to buy himself some votes on the lunatic right of Christianity.
It's incredibly short sighted and stupid, just like everything else that has come out of the Republican Party since 1980. What do you think the reality of 80 million orphans is going to bring us in ten years, Big Dub? Will you whine and cry when somebody blows up a pharmaceutical headquarters? Will you scream for vengeance when Monsanto and DuPont are targeted?
Those questions are rhetorical...of course you will. You'll stand there and beat your little pigeon chest and insist that Amerika is innocent. Fuck that. Amerika is as guilty as sin. The problem is that America will suffer for the sins of Amerika.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:25 am
Dear Big Dumb USA:
As I recall WMD's was the primary reason for invading a sovereign Iraq.
However, if you are using a "collective punishment" theory for invading Iraq because perhaps some of the hijackers were from the "Middle East", take a look at the number of those guys who were from Saudi Arabia. The majority of those terrorists were from there. Are the Saudi's democratic? You liberated Kuwait a few years ago? What does that mean? The same dictator gets his power back thanks to the US and your tax dollars.
Furthermore, you should take Middle East History 100; you'll find out that your own American dollars went into putting Saddam into power in the first place.
Thank you for your hypocritical, brainwashed point of view. It really makes us Canadians realize the danger of following blindly. If you want to really free a nation, free yourselves.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:37 am
BigDumbUSA BigDumbUSA:
Get over it! What were you trying to do the past 12 years or so, when Sadaam kept breaching resolutions and living a lavish lifestyle while his people suffered?
And in the meantime your government and your multinational corporations are stealing from the very people they serve, while the average folks see their schools close and jobs shipped to 3rd world countries where labour costs are cheaper.
And you defend these people? I'm afraid waving the American flag has made you blind.
BigDubUSA @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Dbrasco: Man, you must have a short attention span! I couldn't even follow what you were saying as you broke off into so many tangents! Stick to the subject, quit generalizing, and do not put words in my text.
Rev: Does Canada or any other country have a cure for AIDS? Simple YES or NO will do.... Just to follow up on your pharmaceutical crap; I'm glad Africa is not receiving affordable drugs. Until there is a cure, "STOP HAVING SEX!" If they do not get it, then they do not desrve help! (Is that arrogant enough for you?) TOUGH LOVE! Let me put in perspective for you: AMERICA DOESN"T GIVE A FLYING FUCK IF AFRICA DIES OF AIDS! Americans didn't go over there and spread the disease! (Oh, I bet you have a conspiracy theory... "America's doing population control") Here's my reasoning: most of the AIDs victims here in the U.S. are gay, bisexual or had unprotected sex. I do not feel sorry for them, nor choose to help them as they chose their lifestyle. I do feel sorry for and would help those children born with it, or infected by blood transfusion. Do you know how much it cost to treat a patient with AIDS? EXPENSIVE; thus increasing the average healthcare. If Africans know that the majority of their population is infected, and their chances of getting it are high, why the fuck would they need any kind of assistance from any other country? STOP HAVING SEX (or protect yourself) or SEPARATE THE POPULATION. Don't make it a burden on the rest of the world! Your last two paragraphs were irrelevant and had no substance at all. Quit assuming everything and just admit that you hate Republicans. You are one of those who is so extreme and far left of the political spectrum, consumed in your own self-righteousness, that even if you were wrong not man enough to admit, cannot hold your own in a forum without personal attacks. Difference between us Rev. is Americans do not accuse people or countries of wrong doing unless we have absolute proof. So far you Canuks have provided very little evidence to back up your accusations. "Bush and his fetish for nuclear devices", "...greed as way of life.", "War crimes" etc, etc... You point the finger well. It's so easy to do with only "bits & pieces."
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:53 pm
BigDubUSA BigDubUSA:
Dbrasco: Man, you must have a short attention span! I couldn't even follow what you were saying as you broke off into so many tangents! Stick to the subject, quit generalizing, and do not put words in my text.
OK - TOPIC - REASONS FOR WAR:
1) IRAQ has weapons of mass distruction:
$1:
Mr Bush's State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
It sounds to me like Dubya thinks Iraq has WMD's. This speech also makes no mention of his humanitarian need to free the Iraqi people.
WMD's were the ONLY excuse for going to war.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:08 pm
$1:
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to the press, 12 March, 2003:
The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?
And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.
He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods.
The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?
And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.
He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods.
WMD's were the ONLY reason for war.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:13 pm
$1:
Mr Blair, speaking to the House of Commons, 18 March, 2003:
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.
It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate... Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is not fully co-operating.
Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.
It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate... Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is not fully co-operating.
Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
No serious intelligence service!! HAHAHAHA!
It didn't and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why the Americans would and could make up an excuse.
I got kicked off an American based forum because I totally challanged this assertion since day #1!! I guess I'm a little smarter then the average intelligence service.
Now stuff that in your pipe and smoke it Big Dumb USA.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:16 pm
$1:
Mr Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, 18 March, 2003:
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...
Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...
Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.
What was the topic again, I don't remember...
