The one & only War On Terror thread

[Guest danielisthor]

Fair enough...I just found it a little sycophantic.

not at all, i just find myself, my thoughts and beliefs on many subjects to be on par with hers.

[Guest EricMM]

were there not other conditions that Bush laid down, such as releasing the people held by the Iraqi govt.?

 

I'll have to look them up, but I don't think the weapons inspectors were the be all end all solution.

 

And I think they're a joke.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

were there not other conditions that Bush laid down, such as releasing the people held by the Iraqi govt.?

 

I'll have to look them up, but I don't think the weapons inspectors were the be all end all solution.

 

And I think they're a joke.

Yes. There was still a U.S. pilot who is MIA. Iraq I believe also has to repay Kuwait. There's other sanctions but that's I could think off the top of my head.

[Guest EricMM]

And apparently they meant unconditionally... as long as you're in a military base.

 

stay away from mosques, hospitals, homes, etc.

 

*sigh*

 

Silly Iraqis, tricks are for kids.

 

And we're not kidding...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

That's why Iraq will place all its weapons of mass destruction in Mosques, Schools, and Hospitals.

Why anyone believes Saddam Hussein is on the up and up, is beyond me.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

i'm not 100% certain, but i don't think a new resolution has actually been drawn up yet. saddam just offered the inspectors back in to catch the u.n. on the backfoot. the u.s. & u.k. are pressuring to have one drawn up clearly stating terms & conditions of the deal, one that assures the legality of military action if and when iraq renege on their promises.

 

apart from little tony though, the international pendulum of support is well and truly swinging back towards inaction after the shift towards striking last week. most significantly, russia & china (the ones with veto power) have stated they are more than happy to let the matter rest for the time being.

 

assorted recent soundbites:

 

1----russian foreign minister igor ivanov - "we have managed to put aside the threat of a war scenario around Iraq and return the process to a political channel."

 

2----white house spokesperson - "history has shown that saddam hussein's word cannot be taken at face value. he has a history of playing rope-a-dope with the world while developing a more powerful punch."

 

3----nelson mandella - what right does he (bush) have to come and say that the offer is not genuine? we must condemn that very strongly. that is why i criticise most leaders, all over the world, for keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world."

 

from what i can make out the weapons inspectors, under hans blix, will take around two weeks to fully set themselves up in iraq, numbering around 200 from 45 separate countries. they will split up into four groups (for chemical, biological, nuclear & ballistic weapons respectively) and should expect to gain access to around 700 suspected sites.

 

bush pretty much has to sit on his hands for the time being until the inspectors start getting hassled or hindered. which is inevitable, really.

[Guest Ken]

This is a criticism of most of you. Why are you all Marney's bitches? You're like little kids who say "I'll get my big brother to beat up on you". If you have an opinion, say it. Don't just go along with whatever someone else says ALL the time. It really is quite pathetic.

 

Examples:

 

Danielisthor: "Marney is a posting Goddess" (and that is in his signature).

I have an idea, why don't you change your signature to "I'm a very simple person and I do not have the capacity to have an opinion other than one identical to a person whose comments I read on an internet message board".

Far more descriptive I think. In fact, if you are always going to agree with one person, do us all a favour and fuck off.

 

Darrylxwf: "I think Marney will probably do a better job at kicking this guy's ass than me"

 

Why go to the effort of reposting something from another thread so someone else can answer it? Surely you have something better to do.

[Guest MrRant]

I bet they are so hurt by your opinion of them. Its wrong to just say I agree with someone? Should I spend my time typing out the exact same thing someone else says only in a different sentence structure? THAT would be a waste of time.

[Guest Ken]

As for Marney, she is superb at responding to questions, without answering them. Every time someone makes an intelligent, probing question, her response is to come up with another bucketload of nationalistic, far right-wing crap, detailing how America and Israel will destroy every country in the Middle East, combined with a couple of personal insults. I don't really see much substence to her posts at all, just lots of nationalistic chest-beating.

[Guest Ken]

I bet they are so hurt by your opinion of them. Its wrong to just say I agree with someone? Should I spend my time typing out the exact same thing someone else says only in a different sentence structure? THAT would be a waste of time.

There is no point taking up time by just quoting someone and adding "I agree" at the bottom. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate, don't say anything.

[Guest MrRant]

I agree is adding something. Its informing this board on where people are on a topic. By saying its a waste of time then that is saying that someone's opinion is worthless.

[Guest Ken]

I agree is adding something. Its informing this board on where people are on a topic. By saying its a waste of time then that is saying that someone's opinion is worthless.

What does it add? How does it stimulate debate? Someone's opinion is worthless if they don't come up with it themselves.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Every time someone makes an intelligent, probing question

Like yours? Please. Your posts were unsubstantiated, ignorant, and extremely silly.

 

As the leader in the latest Economist states:

Saddam Hussein has killed far more of his own people and his neighbours than Mr Milosevic ever did; and he has sent his armies and his rockets well beyond Iraq's borders. The Security Council, at first letting principle triumph over pusillanimity, repeatedly declared him in open breach of his disarmament obligations. What it failed to do was rectify that situation. When it came to the crunch - authorising force to back up the inspectors' right to search out and destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological stocks - first Russia and China backed off, keen to close all weapons accounts, see UN sanctions lifted and return to oil-business-as-usual. Then France did the same, leaving America and Britain to attempt to hold the line.

The result has been much worse than stalemate: as a report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies points out, Mr Hussein has hung on to his still-hidden arsenal and has had four years free of inspections to restore and conceal as much as he could... To those who, when told that Iraq is a mortal danger to the peace of the world, say "prove it," the only sane reply is: what more proof could anyone need?

...ask yourself, who is undermining the authority of the UN and the Security Council - those who seek to uphold its repeated resolutions on the nuclear, chemical, and biological frisking of Iraq, or those who stand in the way?

 

Your posts can be summarised very simply: the no-fly zone means Saddam Hussein has no power (it doesn't; Iraq still fires upon even Allied jets); there is no evidence for going to war against Iraq (the President has all the casus belli he needs in Iraq's violation of UN resolutions; the IISS report is merely icing on the cake); Iraq is suffering because of sanctions (it isn't; it's suffering because of Saddam Hussein); hearsay and circumstantial evidence can't make a casus belli (absolutely false; hearsay and circumstantial evidence are often the only components of a casus belli); Iraq does not harbour or support terrorists (false again; Iraq funds suicide bombings in Israel and there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the northwest, as well as a strong militant Islamic group in the northeast); former officials disagree (actually General Scowcroft doesn't disagree; you're misrepresenting his statements) and therefore we shouldn't invade (there is such a thing as a chain of command in this country and the President makes the decision, not ex-NSAs from previous administrations; former officials almost always lose their security clearances as we issue them on a need-to-know basis and therefore they do not have all the facts). I have already addressed each and every one of these lies in previous posts in this very thread. Substance? I've given you substance. You, on the other hand, have thrown out bullshit like this:

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was 98% destroyed in the Gulf war.

 

I still want to see you defend that idiotic statement. Once again: what does that percentage mean? Were you talking about production facilities, actual weapons, research labs, or something else? All taken together? If so, what weight did you give each factor and how did you assess it?

 

And just how have you determined that Saddam Hussein has not rebuilt and restocked whatever was destroyed?

 

You are full of shit. You've been full of shit all along. And now you're trying to divert attention from that fact by whining. Well, it's not working. Either address the issue or shut the fuck up.

 

"Intelligent and probing?" Spare me. I have more intelligent and probing experiences with my vibrator.

[Guest Ken]

Every time someone makes an intelligent, probing question

Like yours? Please. Your questions were as intelligent and probing as an enema tube, and your posts overall were unsubstantiated, ignorant, and extremely silly.

 

As the leader in the latest Economist states:

Saddam Hussein has killed far more of his own people and his neighbours than Mr Milosevic ever did; and he has sent his armies and his rockets well beyond Iraq's borders. The Security Council, at first letting principle triumph over pusillanimity, repeatedly declared him in open breach of his disarmament obligations. What it failed to do was rectify that situation. When it came to the crunch - authorising force to back up the inspectors' right to search out and destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological stocks - first Russia and China backed off, keen to close all weapons accounts, see UN sanctions lifted and return to oil-business-as-usual. Then France did the same, leaving America and Britain to attempt to hold the line.

The result has been much worse than stalemate: as a report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies points out, Mr Hussein has hung on to his still-hidden arsenal and has had four years free of inspections to restore and conceal as much as he could... To those who, when told that Iraq is a mortal danger to the peace of the world, say "prove it," the only sane reply is: what more proof could anyone need?

...ask yourself, who is undermining the authority of the UN and the Security Council - those who seek to uphold its repeated resolutions on the nuclear, chemical, and biological frisking of Iraq, or those who stand in the way?

 

Your posts can be summarised very simply: the no-fly zone means Saddam Hussein has no power (it doesn't; he still shoots even at Allied jets); there is no evidence for going to war against Iraq (the President has all the casus belli he needs in Iraq's violation of UN resolutions; the IISS report is merely icing on the cake); Iraq is suffering because of sanctions (it isn't; it's suffering because of Saddam Hussein); hearsay and circumstantial evidence can't make a casus belli (absolutely false; hearsay and circumstantial evidence are often the only components of a casus belli); Iraq does not harbour or support terrorists (false again; Iraq funds suicide bombings in Israel and there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the northwest); former officials disagree (actually General Scowcroft doesn't disagree; you're misrepresenting his statements) and therefore we shouldn't invade (there is such a thing as a chain of command in this country and the President makes the decision, not ex-NSAs from previous administrations; former officials almost always lose their security clearances as we issue them on a need-to-know basis and therefore they do not have all the facts). I have already addressed each and every one of these lies in previous posts in this very thread. Substance? I've given you substance. You, on the other hand, have thrown out bullshit like this:

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was 98% destroyed in the Gulf war.

 

I still want to see you defend that idiotic statement. Once again: what does that percentage mean? Were you talking about production facilities, actual weapons, research labs, or something else? All taken together? If so, what weight did you give each factor and how did you assess it?

 

And just how have you determined that Saddam Hussein has not rebuilt and restocked whatever was destroyed?

 

You are full of shit. You've been full of shit all along. And now you're trying to divert attention from that fact by whining. Well, it's not working. Either address the issue or shut the fuck up.

1. The no-fly zone means he cannot operate effectively in northern Iraq. You have given various examples of people controlling this area, but not one of them is Saddam.

 

2. If U.N resolutions have been broken, surely it is the U.N not the U.S who will decide when and where to make war.

 

3. Of course Saddam is bad for Iraq. No one disagrees with you there. You cannot possibly say that the sanctions on Iraq are possibly helping the Iraqi people, and obviously if they were lifted, the people of Iraq would be better off. It is common sense.

 

4. Scott Ritter: "We had monitoring inspection teams in every major Iraqi industrial facility for over four years. Never once could we state that we had evidence or proof that Iraq was in possession of prohibited weapons."

 

5. Iraq funds suicide bombings in Israel. And Saudi, Iran, damnit every Middle Eastern country supports suicide bombings in one way or another.

 

6. Human rights? Don't make me laugh. Where was the U.S in 1988 (I believe) when Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

 

As for the 98% thing, that was given to me by someone, but as I don't have anything to back that up, I will drop it.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

This just in from Reuters: 98% of Scott Keith's Biggest Fan's food mobiles have been destroyed by Iraqi action....

 

Yeah, that's right. I have nothing to add here.

[Guest Ken]

This article was published on July 31, but is still quite relevant.

 

 

As Senate hearings get under way, Americans are beginning to work through their doubts about the prospect of war with Iraq.

Commentators from right to left, as well as senior US military officials, have expressed concerns: the risks of extended combat and significant loss of American soldiers; the possibility of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction; the costs of a large-scale campaign.

 

A possible "Baghdad first" attack strategy, as reported Monday in the New York Times, seems designed to minimize concerns about scale, but says little about the deeper political questions over war with Iraq.

 

War supporters respond to doubters with a seemingly irresistible argument: What is the alternative? Do you really want Mr. Hussein to get weapons of mass destruction and give them to terrorists or threaten his neighbors? This objection is far less overwhelming than it may appear. Most commentators seem too cowed by the array of politicians and pundits favoring war to make the obvious response: Do nothing.

 

Does Iraq really pose such an urgent threat? Its neighbors – Turkey, Jordan, even Kuwait – seem unconcerned, as they publicly decline a role in the war. While they would probably go along with a US war in the end, they fervently hope it does not come to that. In their eyes, the urgency comes from Washington, not Baghdad.

 

Weapons of mass destruction? The final report of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1999 states that Iraq did try to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and worked hard to frustrate UNSCOM's disarmament mission. The report also makes clear that UNSCOM succeeded to a remarkable degree in finding and destroying Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons programs. The one area of doubt is biological weapons. Perhaps Iraq has reconstituted its weapons programs, as the war partisans claim. But if the Bush administration had any evidence, beyond the shadowy defectors desperate to be useful to the US, it would have been leaked by now.

 

Is the war on terrorism a good reason to take on Iraq? The Bush administration has failed to find evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaeda. Recent efforts to make the link, such as a PBS documentary, offered remarkably little evidence.

 

But, war partisans respond, the US has a mission, to rid the world of evil threats. If the US backs down, they argue, Hussein wins. Set aside the point that it is war proponents' rhetoric that has placed the US in such an unenviable position, where Hussein only has to survive to win.

 

Will the world lose respect for America if it does not fight this war? No. Most of the world desperately hopes the US comes to its senses. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly declared in recent days that no decision for war has yet been made. Rather than talk ourselves into an unnecessary war, why not take the path of leadership?

 

Say what most of the world thinks: Iraq is beneath us. Ignore it. UN sanctions will keep Iraq from acquiring military items, and if implemented sincerely might ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. Such a gesture would remove one of the greatest complaints of the Arab and Islamic world, and would make the campaign against terrorism more winnable.

 

And Hussein? He knows perfectly well that one false move would be his last.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The no-fly zone means he cannot operate effectively in northern Iraq. You have given various examples of people controlling this area, but not one of them is Saddam.

Not good enough. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to operate effectively or ineffectively anywhere.

 

If U.N resolutions have been broken, surely it is the U.N not the U.S who will decide when and where to make war.

And since the UN has repeatedly proven it lacks the balls to do so, it is the United States as usual which must act.

 

Of course Saddam is bad for Iraq. No one disagrees with you there. You cannot possibly say that the sanctions on Iraq are possibly helping the Iraqi people, and obviously if they were lifted, the people of Iraq would be better off.

Yes. And to end the threat Saddam Hussein poses, we must go to war as soon as we lift the sanctions.

 

Scott Ritter: "We had monitoring inspection teams in every major Iraqi industrial facility for over four years. Never once could we state that we had evidence or proof that Iraq was in possession of prohibited weapons."

Scott Ritter is a jackass and a media whore. Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that it produced ~20,000 litres of concentrated botulism, ~9,000 litters of anthrax and ~2,000 litres of concentrated aflatoxin. If Captain Ritter couldn't find the evidence, it was because he wasn't looking. At best, he's a willing dupe; at worst, he's a liar and a traitor.

 

Iraq funds suicide bombings in Israel. And Saudi, Iran, damnit every Middle Eastern country supports suicide bombings in one way or another.

Correct. They are the next step.

 

Human rights? Don't make me laugh. Where was the U.S in 1988 (I believe) when Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

So, because we didn't act then, we shouldn't act now? Absolutely and totally wrong. This is a disgusting argument used far too often by liberals. It makes no sense.

 

As for the 98% thing, that was given to me by someone, but as I don't have anything to back that up, I will drop it.

About fucking time. It was so completely senseless it wasn't even wrong. Just a number attached to a string of words, postulated as an argument but without any meaning or significance at all.

 

Re: July 31st article

Ironic that you were criticising others for not making their own case a few posts ago, isn't it? Hypocrite.

[Guest Ken]

The no-fly zone means he cannot operate effectively in northern Iraq. You have given various examples of people controlling this area, but not one of them is Saddam.

Not good enough. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to operate effectively or ineffectively anywhere.

 

If U.N resolutions have been broken, surely it is the U.N not the U.S who will decide when and where to make war.

And since the UN has repeatedly proven it lacks the balls to do so, it is the United States as usual which must act.

 

Of course Saddam is bad for Iraq. No one disagrees with you there. You cannot possibly say that the sanctions on Iraq are possibly helping the Iraqi people, and obviously if they were lifted, the people of Iraq would be better off.

Yes. And to end the threat Saddam Hussein poses, we must go to war as soon as we lift the sanctions.

 

Scott Ritter: "We had monitoring inspection teams in every major Iraqi industrial facility for over four years. Never once could we state that we had evidence or proof that Iraq was in possession of prohibited weapons."

Scott Ritter is a jackass and a media whore. Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that it produced ~20,000 litres of concentrated botulism, ~9,000 litters of anthrax and ~2,000 litres of concentrated aflatoxin. If Captain Ritter couldn't find the evidence, it was because he wasn't looking. At best, he's a willing dupe; at worst, he's a liar and a traitor.

 

Iraq funds suicide bombings in Israel. And Saudi, Iran, damnit every Middle Eastern country supports suicide bombings in one way or another.

Correct. They are the next step.

 

Human rights? Don't make me laugh. Where was the U.S in 1988 (I believe) when Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

So, because we didn't act then, we shouldn't act now? Absolutely and totally wrong. This is a disgusting argument used far too often by liberals. It makes no sense at all.

 

As for the 98% thing, that was given to me by someone, but as I don't have anything to back that up, I will drop it.

About fucking time. It was so completely senseless it wasn't even wrong. Just a number attached to a string of words, postulated as an argument but without any meaning or significance at all.

 

Re: July 31st article

Ironic that you were criticising others for not making their own case a few posts ago, isn't it? Hypocrite.

1. He isn't operating ineffectively, he's practically not operating at all.

 

2. In that case, don't use U.N resolutions as part of your case, if the U.S does not respect it as a world authority why should Iraq?

 

3. The point stands, they did not find any weapons.

 

4. It demonstrates how the U.S is simply clutching at straws to make a case against Iraq.

 

5. I was criticising others for not making intelligent contributions to the argument, and re-posting material from inside the thread. Obviously outside material is different, as it adds something to the thread, saying "I agree" does not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

He isn't operating ineffectively, he's practically not operating at all.

Yet again, a bald assertion backed up by not a single fact. Saddam Hussein has fired upon Allied warplanes. He has installed new communications centres, according to the Defense Secretary. He regularly lights up Allied sorties with radar, in violation of the cease-fire agreements.

 

In that case, don't use U.N resolutions as part of your case, if the U.S does not respect it as a world authority why should Iraq?

One more time: the US is acting to enforce UN resolutions already passed. The UN doesn't take the UN seriously, which is precisely why Iraq doesn't either.

 

The point stands, they did not find any weapons.

Your point "stands" solely on the word of a traitor to his country, who in 1998 said: "Even today Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, the clostridium perfinogens in sufficient quantity to fill several bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads." He has reversed himself completely and he has had no access to further classified information. He has also accepted tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iraq.

 

I will not accept the word of a liar and a fool who deliberately panders to the enemy.

 

It demonstrates how the U.S is simply clutching at straws to make a case against Iraq.

What does. As the President said, the case against Iraq has been made by Iraq itself.

 

I was criticising others for not making intelligent contributions to the argument, and re-posting material from inside the thread. Obviously outside material is different, as it adds something to the thread, saying "I agree" does not.

Inserting someone else's arguments and opinions in their entirety adds nothing from you either. Make your case on your own, please. Use sources for credibility because God knows you have none yourself. But don't post someone else's thoughts. I can't argue with someone who isn't here and you can't defend someone else's thought processes (or yours either, for that matter).

 

And finally, for the last fucking time, stop quoting my entire post each and every fucking time you respond. It's right above. Trust me, other people have the intelligence to scroll up if they need to.

[Guest Ken]

1. Maybe if the Allies stopped bombing radar and Anti-Aircraft sites they would not feel the need to "lock-on".

 

2. The U.S is acting without U.N consent. It is up to the U.N to decide whether U.N resolutions are acted upon, not the U.S.

 

3. The fact is, there is little proof of WMD, and what little there is doesn't justify a war with Iraq.

 

4. The fact the U.S uses an event that happened in 1988 as a reason to invade a country in 2002 proves that you are clutching at straws.

 

5. You seem to have no problem with using outside sources to back up your case, as evidenced by that piece from the Economist a few posts back. Also, you cannot argue with someone who is not here, but can tell us why that statement is incorrect.

 

Now Marney, the real reasons for war are politics and oil.

 

It would be political suicide for George W to back away from Iraq now. He has talked up this war for a long time now, and there is no way he would lose face by being "soft on Iraq".

 

And oil, which we all know about and there is need to go over it again.

[Guest DrTom]

And oil, which we all know about and there is need to go over it again.

The percentage of oil we use that comes from the Middle East is down to around 10%. We could tell every country over there to get bent and cram their oil where the sun doesn't shine, and we wouldn't miss a beat over here. Your argument was a little more compelling in 1991, and if you need a dubious reason from eleven years ago as a flimsy justification for not going to war, then you're the one with the handful of straws.

 

Oh, see how easy direct quoting is? You got better in your last post; in the interests of making threads easier to read for everyone, please keep it that way.

[Guest danielisthor]

Examples:

 

Danielisthor: "Marney is a posting Goddess" (and that is in his signature).

I have an idea, why don't you change your signature to "I'm a very simple person and I do not have the capacity to have an opinion other than one identical to a person whose comments I read on an internet message board".

Far more descriptive I think. In fact, if you are always going to agree with one person, do us all a favour and fuck off.

Obviously you only read the post or part of posts that you wish to. The fact that many of us here have the same conventional thought on many ideas and issues, does not give you the provacation to reason that we stand around and stroke each others private parts and egos. The fact that we are able to go out and get truthful information from reliable sources and are often able to use the opposite side's own words against themselves, proves that we are quite able to handle ourselves on our own without the help of each other.

 

For the most part i am a very simple person, with a very limited amount of formal education, i graduated high school in South Florida and spent one semester at a junior college. I very often look up words that are used here in these posts. Because i like to continue educating myself. The difference between myself and others of similar background is that i read books and papers, i watch the news and i come to my own conclusion on subjects and issues. i reiterate my simplicity that i have no qualms going home at night and eating a PB&J sandwich with some chips and a pickle for dinner, nor do i have any issue going to NYC and overpaying for a 10oz steak.

 

You seem to have a problem with the fact that many of us here do agree and seem to pack together and defend our thoughts, beliefs, and political views. In that sense not only have you asked me to FUCK OFF, but has told each and every one of us here to Fuck OFF as well. I can only gather that since it was I, that you referred to, i must admit that i am quite flattered that you have pinpointed me to be the focal point of your hostility, which means you either loathe me or are just flat out afraid of me, my thoughts and views. And you probably should, because right is right, and being on the left is wrong and dangerous to the rest of us.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Maybe if the Allies stopped bombing radar and Anti-Aircraft sites they would not feel the need to "lock-on".

They are not allowed to have live radar and anti-aircraft sites locked on to Allied jets. They lost the war and those were the terms of their surrender.

 

The U.S is acting without U.N consent. It is up to the U.N to decide whether U.N resolutions are acted upon, not the U.S.

The UN has repeatedly admonished Iraq for failing to comply with UN resolutions. The UN has failed to uphold its own charter. The United States created the UN not as an end in itself but to uphold principles of justice, liberty, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. If the UN is too cowardly to fulfill its obligations, by heritage and by choice, the United States shall.

 

there is little proof of WMD, and what little there is doesn't justify a war with Iraq.

Every former inspector other than the traitor Scott Ritter strongly disagrees. Read the White House report. And one more time: WMD capabilities are merely one facet of the case for war. Continued defiance of over a dozen UN resolutions, human rights violations, support for international terrorism, refusal to account for POWs, refusal to return stolen property, and smuggling are the others.

 

The fact the U.S uses an event that happened in 1988 as a reason to invade a country in 2002 proves that you are clutching at straws.

You are now clearly lying about the President's case for serious action. Furthermore, it has not yet been determined that an invasion will take place. I think it should, but it isn't up to me.

 

You seem to have no problem with using outside sources to back up your case, as evidenced by that piece from the Economist a few posts back.

That was a small section from an extended series of articles. It didn't back up my case in any way; it merely restated it. I was getting tired of typing out the same fucking thing over and over again for your benefit.

 

the real reasons for war are politics and oil.

Prove it.

 

It would be political suicide for George W to back away from Iraq now.

An unjustified and sordid assumption. Going by the President's own words, the moral principles on which America is founded demand the disarmament of Iraq and its neutralisation as a threat to regional and world peace. Furthermore, after 9/11 we cannot tolerate the existence of any regime anywhere which funds, harbours, or otherwise supports terrorism in any form.

 

And oil, which we all know about and there is need to go over it again.

You don't get off that easily, you slimy little rat. Make your argument. We have no need for Iraq's oil. We have reduced our dependency on Middle Eastern oil dramatically over the last few decades, going from about 70% of total imports to less than 15%. There would be no 400% increase in gas prices (as there was in the 1970s) if all Middle Eastern oil were cut off tomorrow (which it won't be, because oil is the only thing that props up that pathetic mockery of a regional economy).

 

Try harder.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We could tell every country over there to get bent and cram their oil where the sun doesn't shine, and we wouldn't miss a beat over here.

We could, but it would be wrong.

 

The correct expression is "where the sun don't shine."

[Guest Ken]

Basic economics:

If Iraq is invaded, and starts pumping out oil, supply will rise.

When supply goes up, prices fall.

The point is, it doesn't matter where the oil actually comes from, the price will be the same. And 10% of oil is still a rather large amount.

And in any case, you know as well as I do that oil is a key motivation.

 

As for danielisthor, I don't have a problem with people agreeing on things, but being as blatant as to call someone a "posting goddess" is giving the proverbial blow job to someone, and makes you look like a complete idiot And the reason I pinpointed you is that you are the most blatant and obvious cocksucker.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Basic economics:

If Iraq is invaded, and starts pumping out oil, supply will rise.

When supply goes up, prices fall.

The point is, it doesn't matter where the oil actually comes from, the price will be the same.

Dead wrong. Oil supply is controlled by the OPEC cartel, of which Iraq is an original member. Eliminating the oil-for-food programme and/or invading Iraq would change absolutely nothing.

 

And in any case, you know as well as I do that oil is a key motivation.

Mindlessly repeating "You know I'm right" might have been a strong argument on the kindergarten playground, but you need something better over here.

 

[Daniel is] the most blatant and obvious cocksucker

That's quite a trick considering I don't have a cock.

[Guest Ken]

Shall we say he is most obviously giving you oral sex then, shall we?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Better. I never turn down oral sex.

[Guest danielisthor]

As for danielisthor, I don't have a problem with people agreeing on things, but being as blatant as to call someone a "posting goddess" is giving the proverbial blow job to someone, and makes you look like a complete idiot And the reason I pinpointed you is that you are the most blatant and obvious cocksucker.

My opinion is my opinion and i can pretty much write what i think and/or want, in my signature.

 

I can respect your opinion on the issues whether i agree with it or not. Thats usually something that seperates the right and left side of the spectrum.

 

Considering that i have never in any post ever said anything to the fact of "i'll let marney handle that", "i'll let marney do this", I'll let marney do that", as i am able to back up my own opinions. So as far as the whole "marny cocksucking thing goes" i find your opinion to be worth about as much as the piece of tp i used this morning to wipe my ass.

 

I also openly endorse Ken Dorsey for the Heisman, i don't have a vote for the Heisman, so in effect, what my opinion on who i think is Heisman material doesn't matter. I guess that makes me a Dorsey cock sucker too.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

i find [Ken's] opinion to be worth about as much as the piece of tp i used this morning to wipe my ass.

I cannot echo this sentiment, as I have a bidet.