Thread: President Evil

Originally posted by Panopticon
... this all happened abit too sudden to seem genuinely in the best interests of the country... but thats my opinion.

i think i'd have to agree, we're "fighting" the "war" on terror and all of the sudden we're in the exact same position as we were 12 years ago?? Yes, the guy is in direct violation of UN provisions. but he has been since 1997 when he kicked the inspectors out, (right?) i mean, why didnt we do anything then? im not saying i oppose the war because i dont, i think that a koo should be staged [evil grin] and he should be out, he's a bad guy, but this whole iraq thing did seem to just BAM! come outta nowhere

Saddam

What an amusing name for such a character!
Well I do agree that hes actions are wrong and he needs to be punished... but war is so steep. Cant we just Saddam-nap him?

i dont think the guy cares, he goes on the air telling his people that if we invade his army will send us home in body bags

>>but he has been since 1997 when he kicked the inspectors out, (right?)

No, it was 1998 and the UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn by Butler (thier head) because the US told them it was going to start Operation Desert Fox (coincidently on the same day Clinton was due to be impeached for 'Monica-gate'). Butler withdrew them without UN authorisation. Iraq has not been eager to allow inspectors to return, especially after it was revealed that what Iraq had long contended was true, the United States had used inspectors to spy on the Iraqi regime.

Its the media that is 'spinning' it to make Sadam look worse.


take these from CNN

This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02

damonbrinkley>> It's funny how everyone thinks the oil is the reason for the US involvement.......maybe they don't realize that Iraq is in direct violation of UN inspection committees.

You can't be in "direct violation of UN inspection committees" (and they are not anyway). You can be in violation of a security council resolution.

But EXACTLY which one is Iraq in violation of? (I suggest you look it up)

I just have two questions;

1. Why Iraq? Other countries have these WMD (weapons of mass destruction), are in violation of UN security council resolutions and are attacking smaller neighbours. (ie Israel, SCR 242 and 338 calling for withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza)?

2. If the US (and the Bush presidents) were so outraged at the use of these WMD on Kurds in 1988, why keep selling them to Iraq till 1990?

"Senator Donald Riegle, then chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs that oversees U.S. export policy said, "UN inspectors had identified many U.S. manufactured items that had been exported from the U.S. to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and (established) that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." "

If you need links to these facts please ask and I will post them.

this thread wasnt meant to end in a political-war- whatsoever-neverending-discussion
the thought of the came just came up

Learn.

All you have to do is mention the US in here, and before long, whatever you meant originally, the thread will run off into la-la land, (as this one has), with the anti's and the pro's dragging up the same old arguments.

Sad but true, there are to many hotheads around on both sides to have a reasoned debate.

Sad but true, there are to many hotheads around on both sides to have a reasoned debate.

if not then life wouldnt be fun imagine urself someone who always agrees with what u saylife with become boring

>>>
if not then life wouldnt be fun imagine urself someone who always agrees with what u saylife with become boring
<<<

You either didn't read or did not understand what I said.

Reasoned debate is not simply agreeing with someone, it is presenting a point of view and backing it up with informed data, the acceptance that other, possibly contradictory data exists and, at the end of the day, if you cannot reach agreement, agreeing to differ.

What we see so often here is the childish "my dads bigger than your dad" style of "debate".

<<my dads bigger than your dad>>

NAA that aint true my did is bigger then yourz


k thread's all oftopic now