Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 137
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by yardie
    ...and stop the garbage about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam being an evil dictator.
    While there are undoubtedly other reasons, I don't think either of these reasons even come close to being garbage.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  2. #42  
    You ever get the sense that if it were a Democrat in the White House the left would be calling this a grand humanitarian mission while the right would be calling it a useless "nation building" exercise? The more things change....
  3. #43  
    I think oil and geopolitics is the main reason behind the war push.....not concerns for the Iraqi people or non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    and that would be?...
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I think oil and geopolitics is the main reason behind the war push.....
    I'll grant you that they are reasons, but they definitely are not the main ones. The U.S. has more to lose (in terms of oil) from its allies if it goes to war with Iraq.

    not concerns for... non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction
    I'm not sure any of us can definitively say they're non-existent. Certainly, the U.N. Security Council feels there's some sort of risk over there, or else they would have never passed their resolution. We know Saddam's had and used them in the past, some even on his own people.

    For the record, I'm not advocating war... in fact, I'd like to see one averted.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well the last time I checked Saddam was not the only murderous dictator in the world.
    Well, that's an excellent argument for not doing anything, isn't it?
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    and that would be?...
    Anything that happens to fit his agenda.

    Oh, and we invaded Grenada for the nutmeg. That's why Connecticut voted against it.
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You ever get the sense that if it were a Democrat in the White House the left would be calling this a grand humanitarian mission while the right would be calling it a useless "nation building" exercise? The more things change....
    Almost certainly, yeah.
  8. #48  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I think oil and geopolitics is the main reason behind the war push.....
    If oil were an issue, we'd invade Canada and Mexico. Or better, we'd lift the sanctions and just buy the stuff.

    Geopolitics is the reason for war? Egads -- one would think that warfare was the extension of politics by other means or something. Welcome to the cutting edge political thought of the early 19th Century. Next, he'll inform us that water is wet.

    Originally posted by yardie

    not concerns for the Iraqi people or non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    http://premium.news.yahoo.com/apprem...%3dMustard+Gas

    Here's an interesting link to an AP story describing how UN inspectors found some of that non-existant mustard gas on December 4. Unfortunately, the full story costs $1.50, but if I recall correctly, the shells were previous found and identified back in the 1990s.

    The issue, by the way, is not so much compliance with the UN resolutions as it is the claim that it doesn't exist, even though the UN inspection team found it.
  9. #49  
    The bottom line is that Iraq is NOT an imminient threat to anyone..so whats the rush? Why is the U.S getting inpatient with the inspectors? It is obvious that there is a hidden agenda here. It seems that only the American people are blinded by this.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  10. #50  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The bottom line is that Iraq is NOT an imminient threat to anyone..so whats the rush?
    It's been eleven years.

    Originally posted by yardie
    Why is the U.S getting inpatient with the inspectors?
    It's been eleven years.

    Originally posted by yardie

    It is obvious that there is a hidden agenda here.
    "This should not take eleven years."

    Originally posted by yardie

    It seems that only the American people are blinded by this.
    It seems only Europeans and Canadians don't realize it's been eleven years.
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by jazzlover
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/you...manshield.html

    Looking forward to lively discussion ... .
    Great discussion. Just wonder how many that are for war in Iraq are actually likely to go there and do it? There has been much talk of who armed Saddam in the past, actions of US that predisposed terrorism anyway and such explanations. They are just that - explanations. Now that the genie is out of the bottle they cannot count in deciding what to do.
    My 2 cents is that there will be war. Reckon that the most likely scenarion is a masive and quick strike using solely US forces. Our "President" Tony Blair is just the monkey dancing on the barrel organ. British forces have been so run down that they will take ages to get ready and be too small to have any significance anyway. Main concern is reaction from within - the latter days of home demonstration to the Vietnam saga looked pretty vicious.
    John W
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by John_Wood

    Our "President" Tony Blair is just the monkey dancing on the barrel organ. British forces have been so run down that they will take ages to get ready and be too small to have any significance anyway.
    Oh, don't worry about sending troops. The UK is a wonderful wonderful country (I spent a year there) and my respect for your leadership has only grown since I left. I had thought Blair was a populist poll-chaser intent on preserving his own power, but since Sept 11th, 2001 he has shown a willingness to do what he thinks is right, his popularity be damned. By merely standing by the US, Britain is doing a phenomenal service in lending just a shred of international credibility to the Bush administration. Granted, this ain't no 100 country coalition, but there's a big difference between 2 and 1. So whether or not troops are sent is immaterial. The deed is done, as they say.
  13. #53  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I had thought Blair was a populist poll-chaser intent on preserving his own power, but since Sept 11th, 2001 he has shown a willingness to do what he thinks is right, his popularity be damned.
    He may be more cunning than you think! Open support for US will get him some bargaining power or influence from a rich country whilst he is always aware that he will not have to put up and risk the rage of his dyed in the wool socialists.
    BTW & OT - is that you in your graphic or a local hero - used to get to Houston quite often mid-70s when I worked for Occidental Oil. Great memories of Ghillies.
    John W
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by John_Wood

    BTW & OT - is that you in your graphic or a local hero - used to get to Houston quite often mid-70s when I worked for Occidental Oil. Great memories of Ghillies.
    No, that is my local hero. The New England Patriots' kicker who kicked the Superbowl winning, last-second field-goal last year. I've only been in Houston a few years (4) but I wasn't even alive back then anyway.
  15. #55  
    OK,

    It has been 11 years. Why bother send in the inspectors if you are not allowing them to do their jobs? And please remind me how is Saddam a threat to the U.S?

    Originally posted by John Nowak


    It's been eleven years.



    It's been eleven years.



    "This should not take eleven years."



    It seems only Europeans and Canadians don't realize it's been eleven years.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #56  
    The U.K government is supporting the U.S because they are trying to gain some influence in the Middle East again. Remember back in the days they "administered" much of the region.... Also, the U.K is always trying to curry favour with the U.S.

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Oh, don't worry about sending troops. The UK is a wonderful wonderful country (I spent a year there) and my respect for your leadership has only grown since I left. I had thought Blair was a populist poll-chaser intent on preserving his own power, but since Sept 11th, 2001 he has shown a willingness to do what he thinks is right, his popularity be damned. By merely standing by the US, Britain is doing a phenomenal service in lending just a shred of international credibility to the Bush administration. Granted, this ain't no 100 country coalition, but there's a big difference between 2 and 1. So whether or not troops are sent is immaterial. The deed is done, as they say.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17. #57  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Why bother send in the inspectors if you are not allowing them to do their jobs?
    Who's not letting them do their jobs?

    And please remind me how is Saddam a threat to the U.S?
    While he may not be a direct threat to the U.S., he is a major threat to the entire Middle East region. He's killed his own people and fought with his neighbors in Iran. And let's not forget what he did to Kuwait eleven years ago, when he also lobbed his Scud missles at Israel. Luckily, those missles had only conventional warheads on them. Imagine if they had chemical, biological, or, God forbid, nuclear warheads.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by yardie
    OK,

    It has been 11 years. Why bother send in the inspectors if you are not allowing them to do their jobs?
    Originally posted by yardie


    How is the US preventing them from doing their jobs?

    And please remind me how is Saddam a threat to the U.S?

    You haven't read a newspaper for months, have you?
  19. #59  
    Come on now. There are no still no tangible evidence that Saddam has anything to do with September 11th. In a court of law, the prosecutor (in this case the U.S.) would lose their case.

    Originally posted by John Nowak

    And please remind me how is Saddam a threat to the U.S?

    You haven't read a newspaper for months, have you? [/B][/QUOTE]
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  20. #60  
    MarkEagle,

    If the U.S. is such a threat to the Middle East, why aren't Iraq's neighbours welcoming the U.S with open arms? It seems the only major country that welcome the U.S's presence is Israel -- and they have enough nukes to wipe out the entire Middle East.

    North Korea is more of a threat to Asia and the world -- and they have nukes. I do not see the U.S. sending in the military. Instead, they came up with a "containment" policy. Talk about playing chicken.

    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Who's not letting them do their jobs?

    While he may not be a direct threat to the U.S., he is a major threat to the entire Middle East region. He's killed his own people and fought with his neighbors in Iran. And let's not forget what he did to Kuwait eleven years ago, when he also lobbed his Scud missles at Israel. Luckily, those missles had only conventional warheads on them. Imagine if they had chemical, biological, or, God forbid, nuclear warheads.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions