If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 5 FEB 2003 at 11:34pm |
GayleSchattenjger
Posts : 2544
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Listened to it.
|
| 6 FEB 2003 at 2:45am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | I just finished reading over the text of the speech. If anyone doubted Iraq had things to hide, it's pretty clear now Iraq has no intentions of complying with inspections and any related treaties beyond what it takes to keep the rest of the world off their backs. I don't want to see a war started, but Saddam Hussein needs to be dealt with one way or another.
|
| 6 FEB 2003 at 12:05pm |
HelenGuild Master
Posts : 3436
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | I hate it, but I have to agree with you Andromus. He should have been dealt with during the gulf war. I argued that point with my husband 10 years ago and
now here we are. >
|
| 7 FEB 2003 at 10:54pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Gamer (6 FEB 2003 12:04pm)
I argued that point with my husband 10 years ago and
now here we are. >
And, gamer.....Still together?
About Gulf war 2: Bush has to make up for 11 september one way or another.
If it's not Iraq then it will be Cuba or North Korea.
American people want their supriority back.
(Oops, I hope the CIA won't have my IP adress)
|
| 7 FEB 2003 at 11:30pm |
| Deleted User | I have spent most of my life as an anti war liberal but time passes and things change. And so do people. I don't want to see the US go to war but I believe that Saddam is a danger to the world and needs to be dealt with - one way or another. Saddam is like the bully on the playground and I bet we all remember what they were like. If you don't deal with him sooner rather than later the consequences will grow exponentially.
I agree with the President and the Secretary of State - the ball is in Saddam's court. This is his decision to make and he is making the wrong one. We will just have to clean up his mess. :'(
If you have any doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein
I suggest that you read The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack.
I generally decline to talk about politics or religion. They are incendiary topics but in this case I am making an exception.
Harriet@JA
|
| 7 FEB 2003 at 11:41pm |
BelindaSchattenjger
Posts : 2093
Joined: 21 OCT 2002
Status : Online | And now today......they stated that the US is on High Alert......for terrorists or anything unusual.
Think people will start building Bomb Shelters again?
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 4:45pm |
| Deleted User | Bomb shelters - I don't know about that one.
I feel fairly safe where we live but I worry A LOT about my children and grandchildren in the DC area.
The world is such a complicated place now. :'(
Harriet@JA
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 5:05pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Sir_Funkenstein (7 FEB 2003 10:54pm)
If it's not Iraq then it will be Cuba or North Korea.
I was just thinking about Korea and its nuclear power thingy.
Im worried if the war starts, there are possibilites of stocks going down and world wide inflation. >
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 5:56pm |
| Deleted User | Have you seen that movie about a family that lives in their bomb shelter for 30 years because they think a nuclear bomb was dropped and they don't get out until the 90's, with very funny consequences?
Anyway, I heard Powell now admitted that getting rid of the threat from Saddam isn't the only purpose for attacking Iraq. They want political control over the middle eastern region and Iraq is the perfect country to reshape into a powerful American-friendly nation. The next step will be to deal with the Israel-Palestine issue...
And everyone knows the oil is an important factor too. Not the most important one though I think. Still, America will need lots of oil for a long time still. What Bush said in his recent speech about hydrogen cars is bullshit. The plans are set for dates very far into the future. The goal was to have hydrogen-powered cars out on the market by 2020. It can be done MUCH earlier if they really wanted to. They are also looking into technology for nuclear- and coal-powered manufacturing of the hydrogen, which as many environmentalists has pointed out goes against the real purpose of the hydrogen car technology, namely to get rid of the environmental impact of using cars.
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 9:13pm |
JoGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 3 NOV 2002
Location: AU, Qld.
Status : Offline | They want political control over the middle eastern region and Iraq is the perfect country to reshape into a powerful American-friendly nation. The next step will be to deal with the Israel-Palestine issue...
Quite agree Peter, that is the general consensus among the majority of people here in Australia, in fact our Opposition Party (which is the Labor Party here) has actually come out in the first sitting of Parliament and very vocally criticized both Bush and our P.M. John Howard (called him Bush's lackey basically) for sending troops over there. It became rather hot and the American Ambassador complained that the Labor Leader (and some of the others) shouldn't be criticizing Bush. Needless to say he has absolutely no right whatsoever to try to censure anyone in our Parliament. We have something called "Parliamentary Privilege" and members of all Houses can say what they like either about each other or anyonelse. Even John Howard himself reiterated that the Labor Party (although they are pretty diametrically opposite in their views) can publicly express their views about the United States - hey, this is a free country and NOT a satilite state of the USA.
Wasn't going to say any of this but each country obviously has its own views about what this war - if there is one - is about.
And everyone knows the oil is an important factor too
Agree with this one too.
Annan Warns Bush Against Unilateral Attack on Iraq
Don't know if you have seen this Reuters report that came out and hour or so ago. It goes on to say
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) warned the United States on Saturday against attacking Iraq on its own, arguing collective action under a U.N. umbrella would have greater legitimacy and better odds of success.
It would be interesting to hear from forum members from countries other than the USA to hear their views. It's a pity that forums like these can't have some influence on world peace, but obviously that's too much to hope for.
I do quite agree that Saddam needs to be stopped, and personally I believe he should be tried for "crimes against humanity". Unfortunately he's not the only one and you have to catch him first but war has to be the very last resort.
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 9:43pm |
InlandAZGuild Master
Posts : 5586
Joined: 4 MAY 2007
Status : Offline | hey, this is a free country and NOT a satilite state of the USA.
The next time a national disaster breaks out in your lovely little part of the world - Hold your hands out to Saddam and his ilk to provide the millions of dollars, food and manpower to provide relief...
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 9:47pm |
MichalNGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 7058
Joined: 14 SEP 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By InlandAZ (8 FEB 2003 9:42pm)
The next time a national disaster breaks out in your lovely little part of the world - Hold your hands out to Saddam and his ilk to provide the millions of dollars, food and manpower to provide relief...
I hope you're not serious.
I forgot my sig.
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 10:00pm |
JoGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 3 NOV 2002
Location: AU, Qld.
Status : Offline | Come on now, both Australia and N.Z. jumped in and helped USA in Vietnam - the worst thing we ever did and so far as New Zealand was concerned, the troops were ALL volunteers! My brother-in-law was professional army at the time and they were not ordered to go, but asked if they would like to volunteer - which they all did!! At that time I think the majority of New Zealanders believed that the war was right and just, we didn't have all the protesters that you had over there or even in Australia for that matter, but they ended up as cannon fodder anyway, the same as they did in the first World War when sent to Galipoli to help Great Britain.
This time New Zealand isn't having a bar of it and I don't blame them. Saddam has never been a threat to either Australia or New Zealand, but Australia will now be a target for terrorists just like the USA. I can assure you that there are more people here against sending troops than for sending them, even in the Liberal Party. There can be no justifcation for killing thousands of innocent people in this manner without the UN backing, otherwise you are simply seen as another aggressor instead of a country upholding peace and justice in the world.
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 10:13pm |
InlandAZGuild Master
Posts : 5586
Joined: 4 MAY 2007
Status : Offline | I suppose we disagree - and I'm okay with that...
Saddam has never been a threat to either Australia or New Zealand, but Australia will now be a target for terrorists just like the USA.
Welcome to the world - and, now that you are targeted, how do you propose you respond to it?
I'm gonna edit in the note here – I respectfully disagree ... I'm not flaming anyone.
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 10:40pm |
JoGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 3 NOV 2002
Location: AU, Qld.
Status : Offline | Sure Inland, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I was originally going to keep out of this. However by sending our troops over there, we not longer have defense for our own country - we are only 19million people all up. Why does Bush need us to fight his battles, the oil is not his to just take and I realise that you probably don't see it like that. It would be different altogether if Iraq had actually attacked the USA (something that I doubt would have been likely). Now if it was North Korea it would be more understandable - after all we all know they have reactivated their nuclear capabilities. Lord knows, no half-way intelligent person wants to start a 3rd world war, but Korea would be far more likely to be a threat than Iraq.
If you are talking about weapons of mass destruction, what about Pakistan and India? They also have nuclear weapons and no-one is talking about disarming them. It all seems a little inconsistent to me, if one country disarms, so should all the others.
Don't get me wrong, I loathe Saddam and think he should have been dealt with the first time around and have never understood why the USA pulled back then.
Anyway I respect you opinion too and I guess a lot of peoples' view depends on where they come from and what their background is. If I had been born in Iraq, who knows, I may have even supported Saddam (although I very much doubt it)
|
| 8 FEB 2003 at 11:32pm |
InlandAZGuild Master
Posts : 5586
Joined: 4 MAY 2007
Status : Offline | Why does Bush need us to fight his battles, the oil is not his to just take and I realise that you probably don't see it like that.
Let's agree to disagree (or as many of my friends and I do, at least have some fun with it). I don't think that Bush want's or desires you to fight the battle - only to stand united in it's cause. (and if you don't believe that Saddam doesn't support terrorism - I've got a bridge you can buy cheep...)
You asked: "Why does Bush need us to fight his battles..." and yet you never defined how you would respond yourself...
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 12:05am |
| Deleted User | We don't want Bush to make the decisions of which countries are bad and which aren't, thank you very much...
The American government acts on its own agenda, not the one of the American people. Attacking the country without obvious proofs that anyone can see is just not justified. Furthermore, the U.S. doesn't run the U.N. and they must accept the views of other U.N. countries even if they don't agree. No single state should take on the responsibility to "clean up" the rest of the world. The problem is that many Americans believes it's God's purpose with their contry to do just that.
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 12:12am |
BelindaSchattenjger
Posts : 2093
Joined: 21 OCT 2002
Status : Online | What Bush wants Saddam to do, is dis-arm the Chemical warheads.......
Has anyone here ever see what can happen when a Chemical war takes place?
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 12:20am |
MichalNGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 7058
Joined: 14 SEP 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Belinda48 (9 FEB 2003 12:12am)
What Bush wants Saddam to do, is dis-arm the Chemical warheads.......
Has anyone here ever see what can happen when a Chemical war takes place?
Does that mean the US has no chemical weapons and does no research in this field?
I forgot my sig.
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 1:33am |
InlandAZGuild Master
Posts : 5586
Joined: 4 MAY 2007
Status : Offline | Does that mean the US has no chemical weapons and does no research in this field?
The question isn't do we or don't we have it, but rather have we used it on others...
The problem is that many Americans believes it's God's purpose with their contry to do just that.
And I suppose it's yours, and your God's, to ignore it -
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 1:34am |
BelindaSchattenjger
Posts : 2093
Joined: 21 OCT 2002
Status : Online | No.......I didn't say that. Supposely all the other countries have theirs dis-armed.
Who really wants to have a Chemical war? I sure the hell don't ............
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 4:53am |
ArnirIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 53
Joined: 21 JAN 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (9 FEB 2003 12:05am)
We don't want Bush to make the decisions of which countries are bad and which aren't, thank you very much...
The American government acts on its own agenda, not the one of the American people. Attacking the country without obvious proofs that anyone can see is just not justified. Furthermore, the U.S. doesn't run the U.N. and they must accept the views of other U.N. countries even if they don't agree. No single state should take on the responsibility to "clean up" the rest of the world. The problem is that many Americans believes it's God's purpose with their contry to do just that.
Firstly, let me include my declaration that I respect everyone's opinion.
Ignoring the hyperbole of these discussions, how are you sure that the US Government isn't following the agenda of the American people? Most of the ones I know are willing to clean Iraq's clock. Many don't want to, but execept for the fringe I'm not hearing an outcry about the legitimacy of the government or its actions.
As far as proof that anyone could accept goes: lot's of people won't change their minds either way. All the proof in the world won't matter.
I think the US accepts the views of other UN nations more than you realize. But we don't give them a veto over US policy. Also, don't forget that when it comes to diplomacy, the public statements are almost always meaningless. It's what is being said behind the scenes that really matters.
As far as the US wanting to clean up the world, some Americans do, some don't. But after September 11th, many Americans stopped caring about what the rest of the world thought. Rightly or wrongly.
As I summarized in another forum, (and this is just a very simple summary of that summary ) the Middle East is now the focus of the US. That...is...not...a...good....thing. Iraq may or may not be directly involved with the terrorism, but they have been poking the enraged bear and now they are about to be eaten.
I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I have my personal beliefs. But I'm just pointing out that the US feels that they have been labelled the bad guy for so long no matter what, they don't care what the world (read: Europe) thinks anymore. I beleive that will change in time, but on this issue it's not going to happen.
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 4:56am |
ArnirIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 53
Joined: 21 JAN 2003
Status : Online | I promise that all those words were truly spelled correctly in my head.
|
| 9 FEB 2003 at 5:25am |
| Deleted User | Well said Arnir and I agree with you. I too also respect everyones own opinion. However, as an American I can not forget the horror of 9-11. Thousands of people were killed representing many nations around the world, just not the USA. I agree with Bush that terrorism has to end and if we have to do it alone, so be it. He (Bush) did say in his speech to America and the world immediately after 9-11 that we were going to go after anyone or any nation that supports terrorism. He is just fullfilling his promise to the American people and has Congressional approval to do so in this case.
|
