Time for another good Cretein bashing!

[Tilea]

Can anyone fathom why we ever let this fool be our Prime Minister for as long as he's been around?? Now Cretein decides Canada won't help with the war in Iraq. Not like the US really needs the help of Canada's military anyways, but not assisting a country that has been one of your closest allies during war time for almost 100 years is just plain stupid. Especially when you share the worlds longest unprotected border with that country.

But cretien said no, so fair enough I guess. But the moron, the utter fool embarrases himself, his Liberal party and the whole country by letting his party run around like kids in a playground attacking and insulting the Bush administration every chance they get. I can't remember specific quotes from them... but a member of Cretien's party had to resign when people found out she called Bush a moron in a conversation she "thought was private". Lots of other childish insults have been made publically by our Canadian government. All Cretein does about it is say, "hey hey now guys, stop doing that it's bad!".

Chances are very likely that relations between our governments will be strained for a while because Canada's refusal to get involved. Chances are even more likely that Cretein has allowed far, far worse damage to be done as well, by not having the courage (Certein has always been quite the coward), to fire members of his party that can't act maturely in regards to the US.

When you refuse to help your ally, and instead sit on the sideline and hurl insults at them, what in gods name is your problem? It makes me grind my teeth to think of all the idiocy this man has accomplished in his terms as prime minister. I really hope the US finds all the weapons they claim Iraq has, just so that Cretein can go out of office at the peek of looking like the fool he is.

[Nmok Soulblighter]

You forgot the lady who said "I can't stand Americans, I hate those bastards." She apologized in a backhanded sort of way and nothing was done. Yes, relations are strained atm, especially in light of the citizens of Montreal boo'ing the US national anthem last night at a hockey game. Good show.


Nmok

[Elidroth]

Originally posted by Tilea
I really hope the US finds all the weapons they claim Iraq has, just so that Cretein can go out of office at the peek of looking like the fool he is.

There are reports that VX laden shells were found near Basrah this morning. Not confirmed yet.. but that's the initial thoughts. You remember VX.. it's the stuff that can kill you with only a single drop on your skin. But Iraq doesn't have any WMD.. just like they didn't have any SCUDs that they somehow fired at us this morning.

The world is going to get a rather large plate of crow to eat when this is over.

[Eomer]

Yes, relations are strained atm, especially in light of the citizens of Montreal boo'ing the US national anthem last night at a hockey game. Good show

You realize the same thing happened, with positions reversed, last year in the playoffs two weeks after four of our soldiers were killed in Afghanistan? Even better show. The booing of national anthems at sports games is something both sides do all the time. Personally I think it's shameful, but it's not like we have a monopoly on the act.

And Elidroth, I am not so sure the missiles were Scuds. The Pentagon was saying that of the missiles fired yesterday, they were all Al Samoud's, even though initially everyone was saying they were scuds. It's up for debate anyway.

I agree with you Tilea about the stupid comments being made by the various members of our government. It's childish and pointless, and the MP who made the bastard comment should have been forced to resign for her lack of judgement.

However, I strongly support Chretien's decision in relation to the Iraq crisis. First of all, Canada worked it's ass off at the UN to try to bridge the gap between the two sides, floating proposals for deadlines and certain disarmament goals. Unfortunately things didn't work out, but at least we tried. Chretien's, and Canada's, strong preference for conflict is that it be done through multi-lateral organizations, like the UN or NATO. Neither are involved in the conflict, so Canada has elected to stay out. Let's not forget though, for the sake of honesty, that Canada probably couldn't contribute in any meaningful way anyway. We are gearing up to take over the peacekeeping in Afghanistan, our military is in shambles atm.

Also, it's not like our government has taken an official stance of denouncement of the US, like most other countries have. We have simply said we will not participate in the war, and deeply regret that diplomacy was unable to find a solution. I think the government as a whole has actually done a pretty damn good job handling this situation, and I normally hate Chretien (although obviously, there is a handful of people who need to learn to watch their damn mouths).

[Vidmer]

Bah, I don't hate cannucks anymore now then I did a year ago. I see this more as a silly feude between brothers that will be all but forgotten in a year.

[Rhedd]

I find it kinda funny to say the UN isnt involved... It was the countless UN resolutions that were passed and not ment that, the US and its allies are now sent to clean up because the UN didn't have the balls to.

[Eomer]

http://www.canoe.ca/Slam020428/nhl_boos-cp.html

http://home.eol.ca/~dord/Hockey01.html


According to Bruce Arthur in the May 2nd National Post,
a paper I don't much like but that sometimes has interesting tidbits,
the opera student who had sung both national anthems in Toronto
for an earlier game got a surprise when he arrived in New York
for the sixth one:

"Days after being cheered as he sang the Canadian and American anthems before an NHL playoff game in Toronto, Robert Pomakov watched, horrified, as unruly New York hockey fans burned his Canadian flag in the parking lot of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
"Mr. Pomakov, an opera singer, saw both his Canadian and his Toronto Maple Leaf flags torn from his car and set on fire by a crowd chanting 'USA! USA!' in the moments before Sunday's Game 6 between the Leafs and the New York Islanders.

"'We lost four of our soldiers and they were basically defending these idiots,' an outraged Mr. Pomakov said. "If patriotism is what drives these people and their ignorance, then I am ashamed to have our soldiers defending them... There's a line that needs to be drawn, and this was just so far across."

Good show.

[Inizen]

Morons aside (people that would boo your allies anthom for menial things are most definately morons and don't represent their country as a whole, I hope) from both sides, I don't think remaining neutral is very meaningful in any way. If any country should be helping us, it's canada, as we normally bust our asses for each other, and have a mutual respect. But whatever. And I don't think its the "adding anything useful" that would matter (although I'm sure they could), just the presence of mind that our soldiers would get that "Hey here's some people we can rely on."

What really pisses me off though, is people still out protesting the war, anywhere really. We have soldiers out there fighting and dying, and these people are basically telling them that they have no respect for them. It's one thing to protest a war before it starts, and it's another to *OPENLY* not support those troops and families/friends/etc of said troops after its started. Good Show indeed.

[Tilea]

If sports fans want to boo a country their favorite team isn't a part of, there's no harm in that. Especially if it's hockey, since their favorite team is likely full of Canadians :p

But when you're part of a government, you better damned well realize that every single thing you say reflects on your entire country. You better be responsible enough to bite your tongue and not make rude remarks in regards to allied countries. The Liberal party in Canada has failed to do that, again, and again, and again. They're so used to having control of parliament that they don't remember that it comes with responsibility anymore.

[Inizen]

I've always been a huge supporter of people in general. I don't like seeing X-team-i-would-like-to-lose's star player get hurt. It's rude and breeds a lot of the hate we see in todays society. I'm not HAPPY that iraq people/soldiers are dying, but I also believe it is protecting a larger number of people from other countries (I doubt Saddam would have any qualms about nuking New York with something much larger than we would even think about hitting Bagdad with, and not have a second thought about the innocent deaths, which we tend to worry excessively about). So yea, I think it's wrong and harm comes of it. Shrug just me though.

And yes, political figures doing and saying those same things, means even more and is looked critically upon as it should be. When you represent a nation, you should act accordingly.

[Myztlee]

1) It's Chretien, not Cretein, though the similarty to 'cretin' is there.

2) Thousands of AMERICAN people are protesting the war, maybe he's not alone in thinking we should stay out.

3) If you really think Canada should be involved with the war, please enlist in the military first and request to be sent to the front.

It's very easy to be both pro- and anti- war when you're not being shot at, having bombs go off around you and watching your family get dragged off and murdered for no reason. If you think we should go to war, sign up and ship out. If you think we shouldn't, spend a year under dictatoral rule.

Nobody can win this.

[Myztlee]

Originally posted by Inizen
What really pisses me off though, is people still out protesting the war, anywhere really. We have soldiers out there fighting and dying, and these people are basically telling them that they have no respect for them. It's one thing to protest a war before it starts, and it's another to *OPENLY* not support those troops and families/friends/etc of said troops after its started. Good Show indeed.

Do you think the US involvement in VietNam should have gone unprotested, or would you have fully supported that had you been there at the time?

[Zeol]

Most Americans are ignorant, and most of the protesters are college students who are some of the most ignorant and suggestable to liberal ideas.

Bush tried diplomacy, he got UN resolutions. This was MONTHS ago. How long we going to wait til Saddam hides the evidence fully.

We already found shells and casings for missiles.

He still has long range missiles he's not supposed to have.

He broke the rules - we set a deadline and the spit in our face.

Now we're going to destory the missiles the old fashioned way - other missiles.

[Tilea]

"It's very easy to be both pro- and anti- war when you're not being shot at, having bombs go off around you and watching your family get dragged off and murdered for no reason. If you think we should go to war, sign up and ship out. If you think we shouldn't, spend a year under dictatoral rule."

Yeah well it's a lot easier to be too afraid to even have an opinion either way, isn't it? The good old, "I'm neutral, therefor more justifiable than anyone else!" Stance? What are you even talking about anyways? Reread the actual post, I said I'm sick of Cretein (I feel no need to care to spell his name properly) taking ZERO responsibility for the crap he spews out of his mouth, and allows his party members to spew.

[Elidroth]

Originally posted by Myztlee
Do you think the US involvement in VietNam should have gone unprotested, or would you have fully supported that had you been there at the time?

The treatment the troops got returning from Vietnam is perhaps one of the most shameful events in American history. Being spit on in airports, called baby-killers, and so forth.

I fully support the right of the people to dissent against the actions of their government. Protest the war all you want. Protest the decisions behind the war all you want. But don't for one minute ever disrespect the people who carry out the orders of their superiors and fight for your right to protest government actions without getting abused, imprisoned, or killed.

The attitudes displayed by some other country's governments is deplorable and downright pathetic. France's actions are a joke, and are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to keep the economic channels open with Saddam should we pull out without him being gone (which won't happen). They're simply trying to cover their ass and in the end are going to look REALLY stupid in world opinion.

And don't ever use sports fans as a watermark for a people. Hell.. we have sports fans that burn down their city in celebration when they win! Sports fans en masse are generally have a low-IQ mob mentality.

[Myztlee]

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

-- Ronald Reagan

[Vidmer]

If you think we should go to war, sign up and ship out.

Thats actually a really bad idea. The military requires a healthy civilian infrastrucutre. If everyone that was pro-war joined the military the quality of it would degrade so very quickly. Just by paying your taxes you support the war effort enough.

[Eomer]

I agree with what Elidroth had to say. It's one thing to protest the war (which I am okay with doing, but don't personally) but not coo to disrespect the soldiers. Unfortunately though, a lot of people seem to think they are both the same thing.

[Exitilus]

From:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,916361,00.html

"We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories. "


There is hardly a question as to whether or not he has weapons of "mass" destruction, the question is, rather, whether or not he has the means to deploy them. (as far as I've heard, he can hardly hit iran, let alone isreal or the United States)

I'm a Canadian, and I support the idea of a war against Iraq's government .. *however* .. I am completely certain Bush isn't being honest about his motives for moving forward on the present timeline.



-Exit

[Torrid]

namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets.

Yeah, suicidal youths with backpacks are sooo hard to find for them

[Exitilus]

Yeah, suicidal youths with backpacks are sooo hard to find for them

Well, in that case, they'd better start hitting up highschools and waging a campaign against the american teenage population!

Seriously though - a person with an exploding backpack isn't exactly listed under "weapons of mass destruction".



-Exit

[Darkstar]

w0w0w0w0w

[Myztlee]

Originally posted by Exitilus
Seriously though - a person with an exploding backpack isn't exactly listed under "weapons of mass destruction".

It is when there are 10,000 of them.

[Exitilus]

Slippery slope?

We must destroy them - they're just all around mean, and the next thing you know, they'll be sending tens of thousands of people strapped with bombs to cause havoc in the streets of america!


-Exit

[Exitilus]

It is when there are 10,000 of them.

Weapons of math destruction!

The following are, of course, estimations:

Gun X 10 = Guy_Strapped_To_Bomb

Guy_Strapped_To_Bomb X 10,000 = Weapon_Of_mAss_Destruction

...

So, by this completely faulty logic, nearly all countries in the world have Weapons of Mass Destruction (excluding maybe Vatican city)....

You can't just arithmetically add weapons together and claim things like that.


-Exit

[Quote]

War protesting has gone on for ages. Its nothing new. There will always be protests against war. For instance, there was a huge disaproval of WW2. Our country did not want to get involved in an "Europe" war. FDR gained most his votes because he promised the American peopel that he would NOT join the war. Of course this is before all the media about the true horrors of war were released (veit nam era+).


So to have an overwhelming number of people anti-war, when there was genocide going on and countries being destroyed, tells me that ~40% of the anti-war protesters in american today, are just doing their social job.

[Exitilus]

I'm not against war. (on most levels, I approve of the attack on iraq - and I'm sure Bush is relieved to hear that, hah *cough*)

I'm against political deception.


-Exit

[Eomer]

I think one of the main problems with this whole thing is that people like to see it in black and white. Good/Evil. Right/Wrong. War/Peace.

Problem is, nothing is that simple, including people's views on the war. Just because someone (okay me) does not support the war in the way it came about, does not mean they are anti-war. I think that the UK/US and France/Germany/Russia all handled the situation poorly. Personally I would have liked to see a united effort in Iraq, but contrary to what the US is saying, that's not what ended up happening unfortunately.

Whatever though, the war seems to be going incredibly well so far. The estimates of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties are looking pretty far out to lunch so far, which is a huge victory. Hopefully military casualties on the US/UK side will stay low as well.

Bad day today though: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/23/usprisoners_030323

[Torrid]

Don't be an idiot. My comment was refering to a delivery method, not the weapon itself. Backpack nukes anyone? Still 50 missing from Russia if I recall.

Iraq was months away from an online reactor capable of 1 nuke a year before Israel bombed it over 20 years ago. Yet somehow its so hard to believe they could have any weapons of mass destruction now.

Well, it no longer matters what anyone thinks. We'll all find out in mere days.

[Tilea]

Iraq has weapons calable of delivering chemical weapons. The inspectors found a long range, remotely controllable plane with canisters attached, designed -specifically- for the spraying of chemicals. Of course the UN downplayed the entire thing and pretended it wasn't a big deal. And that's only what 100 inspectors were able to find in a large country with every means available to hide a lot of things from them.

I have a feeling the coalition forces will uncover a lot of stuff in Iraq that will make the entire UN look very bad, and rather useless really. So either the US will be right, and the whole world will question whether or not the UN even functions anymore, or the US will be wrong and people will wonder the exact same thing, since the UN isn't capable if influencing the US anyways. No win situtation but chances are, the US and Britain will not be the ones ending up to be made the fools.

[Elidroth]

Originally posted by Exitilus
From:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,916361,00.html
There is hardly a question as to whether or not he has weapons of "mass" destruction, the question is, rather, whether or not he has the means to deploy them. (as far as I've heard, he can hardly hit iran, let alone isreal or the United States)

I'm a Canadian, and I support the idea of a war against Iraq's government .. *however* .. I am completely certain Bush isn't being honest about his motives for moving forward on the present timeline.
-Exit

Not being honest about his motives? For me.. the fact that Saddam is such a murderous, oppressive asshole is reason enough. If Bush has other motives of his own, they really don't take away from the facts about Saddam one bit.

People also need to remember that he operates on information that much of us don't ever see or hear about. Classified intel is often the primary reason of things we do in foreign policy, but to come right out and say "this is X and Y and Z" would not only reveal the source of said intel (like the information source that placed Saddam and Co in the bunker we hit Wed night), but can ultimately deny that source for continued intel in the future.

I can't stress this enough.. just because someone doesn't come right out and say specific detailed reason, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for delivery of WMD's.. backpack/suitcase low yield (1 kiloton) nukes are still missing from the breakup of the USSR. Chem weapons can be delivered by missile, artillery shell, agricultural spraying equipment, etc.. and even something as simple as a person walking into a crowded room and opening a canister and shaking it up.. Delivery systems are NOT a limiting factor.

I think a lot of very frightening information is going to come out of this newly found facility. This installation had electrified fencing, HEAVY camouflage, was guarded by a unit of the Republican Guard, was commanded by an Iraqi RG General and was never inspected by either inspectors in 1991 or present day.

[Eomer]

Delivery systems are NOT a limiting factor

I think the point he was trying to make was that depending on the delivery system, a chem weapon might be incredibly dangerous to thousands of people, or just a threat to people within the very near vicinity of the release. Is a chemical weapon that can only harm people within 100 feet a weapon of mass destruction still? A decent bomb is more dangerous right? The fact of the matter is, as of right now, Saddam isn't much of a threat to anyone but his own people. I am not saying that's a reason to not invade or whatever, just making a statement that is more or less true. He does have missiles he can launch at Kuwait (and has so far), but they are incredibly inaccurate.


inspectors found a long range, remotely controllable plane with canisters attached, designed -specifically- for the spraying of chemicals. Of course the UN downplayed the entire thing and pretended it wasn't a big deal

First off, you sound like you think the UN is in cahoots with Iraq or something. What would they have to gain from downplaying a credible and real threat? Nothing. So why would Hans Blix risk his credibility? It doesn't make any sense.

Several reporters were allowed to take pictures of this supposed "unmanned" drone capable of delivering chemical weapons. It was laughable. As in, fucking hilarious. As in, duct tape and balsa wood. Elidroth over a weekend could build something infinitely better and more suited to the task. Not to mention, it isn't BVR capable, since it's radio controlled. The range is no more than 8-10km from the operator, if that. Not to mention that at the time, there were no tanks attached to it, nor was there any evidence that was what it was designed for. That was just an assumption made.

That whole drone thing was pretty amusing really. Iraq even declared they had it in their original declaration, but there was an error. It's actually smaller than what they said it was.

Take what you read with a grain of salt Tilea, not everything is as simple as the media likes to make it out to be.

[Quote]

Just a fun fact of the day! The nuclear reactor that Iraq was building ~20 years ago was given to them by.......... FRANCE. yes folks, france was setting the plant up.

Anyone else wonder why France is so agaisnt our war?

[Tilea]

Eomer, do you believe that Saddam's government is no longer a threat to anyone, and never would have been again? That's funny as hell, cause everyone assumed the same thing about North Korea after that war. And heavens knows, the North Koreans have proven that a hostile government forced into war for their actions would never, EVER do anything wrong again. Oh, well except for that little detail about them having built nuclear weapons and currently being capable of killing untold thousands with them.

Let's just keep making those assumptions and leaving people like Saddam alone to play nicely with their neighbours. Oh except he never has played nicely, has he? Invasions of bordering countries, chemical attacks killing thousands of kurds who oppose him. Yeah it's a much better option to allow him to become another North Korea. We'd be much better off assuming he doesn't have the ability to hide things from, and dodge weapons inspectors indefinitely.

What do you need to happen? How long would you be willing to wait before you realize that someone needs to remove Saddam from power? You tell me to take what I read with a grain of salt yet you're willing to believe statements made by the most notoriously underhanded, two faced, outright lying regime in the entire world? Ahh huh.

Only mistake the US made was not getting rid of him the first time.

[Quote]

Originally posted by Tilea

Only mistake the US made was not getting rid of him the first time. [/B]


ARG.. it was the US that didnt get rid of him it was the U"N" that didnt. I think you had a typo! :). The major critizism i have of bush sr. i sthe fact that he let the UN dictate his decisions TOO much. We should have gone into baghdad the first time and gotten rid of sadam, but the UN decided not too. Im kinda glad to see that Bush jr. is acting in our best interest even if the world doesnt 100% agree.

[Eomer]

Tilea, please read my posts more carefully before you jump on me. Let me quote myself to answer your questions.


The fact of the matter is, as of right now, Saddam isn't much of a threat to anyone but his own people.

I am not naive enough to think that given half a chance, Saddam wouldn't get back to his old tricks again. I only said, as of right now he isn't much of a threat. I even went on to say that that statement wasn't meant as a rationale for leaving him alone:


I am not saying that's a reason to not invade or whatever

You went off on a littel tirade about how leaving him alone would be a Very Bad Thing and what not, but I never advocated doing that.


you're willing to believe statements made by the most notoriously underhanded, two faced, outright lying regime in the entire world?

Here's where I get a bit pissed off :D. What did I believe from Saddam's regime? What? The thing about his drones? I read three different news stories on major websites (MSNBC and a few others I think) about them, complete with photos of these supposed weapons of terrer (when in Rome!). Like I said, it was laughable. I don't have time right now, but maybe later I will try to dig them up.

So no, I am not willing to believe what Saddam is saying. You on the other hand seem willing to swallow pretty much whatever the American administration is feeding you, which isn't much better. I can give examples from the past gulf war where people were outright lied to about incidents in Iraq to shore up public support for the war (go look up on google about the kuwaiti girl testifying infront of congress about the awful Iraqi soldiers stealing incubators from a hospital and killing 300 babies, when as it turns out she never worked at a hospital, the accident never happened, she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the us, AND she was coached by a PR firm). How about those tubes that the US is convinced are for making centrefuges, and has stated so in front of the UN, when numerous nuclear experts have all said that they were useless (and too hard to modify) for that purpose? Or the forged documents that purported to show that Iraq tried to buy uranium from an African country (Nigeria or Uganda I think, can't remember)?

Please note that I am not saying the US lies about everything for it's own gains, but there are times when things are exaggerated or spun in their favor, and most people don't recognize it. Thankfully with the advent of the internet, it's getting harder and harder to do. Also please note that I am not singling out the US either, every country does it.


Just a fun fact of the day! The nuclear reactor that Iraq was building ~20 years ago was given to them by.......... FRANCE. yes folks, france was setting the plant up.

How about another fun fact kids! At around the same time the UK was helping them build chemical weapons factories! Well, dual use chemical factories anyways. Joy! And let's not forget the US giving them antrax and botulism! Wheeee!

[Quote]

We made a mistake... we are fixing it now instead of hiding (french) and hoping it will blow over. I also thought the nuclear reactor incident was recnet. And the antrax incident probalby happened 30 years ago. Edited.. found the correct date. I beleive "we" attacked the nuclear plant in 1993. Thats 9 years ago. SO now its a ~20 year differnece.

[Elidroth]

Well guess what kiddies..

Saddam has now authorized the use of the very chemical weapons he so long denied ever having.

Good news: We were right all along.

Bad news: We were right all along, and now we're going to get to see it in a very bad way.

I can only hope our own military leaders don't let their anger get the best of them and do something equally reprehensible.

[Tarissa]

Originally posted by Quote
ARG.. it was the US that didnt get rid of him it was the U"N" that didnt. I think you had a typo! :). The major critizism i have of bush sr. i sthe fact that he let the UN dictate his decisions TOO much. We should have gone into baghdad the first time and gotten rid of sadam, but the UN decided not too. Im kinda glad to see that Bush jr. is acting in our best interest even if the world doesnt 100% agree.

I'm not so sure about this. After that massacre of vehicles on that one road (forget the name), the president received tremendous political pressure to pull out of the war. That is the way I understand it.

[Tarissa]

Please note that I am not saying the US lies about everything for it's own gains, but there are times when things are exaggerated or spun in their favor, and most people don't recognize it.

Well, welcome to politics. Show me one country/state that doesn't do this.

[Eomer]

Hi!


Also please note that I am not singling out the US either, every country does it.

[Tarissa]

Dude I was skimming :D

[Maegwin]

*One* of the reasons the US didn't remove Sadaam from power in '91 is, we had no plans ready for a 'post-sadaam' Iraq. It was not acceptable to remove Sadaam, only to have his more ruthless and unstable sons assume control of the country.

The road you are referring to Tari is the "Highway of Death".

[Tilea]

"Here's where I get a bit pissed off . What did I believe from Saddam's regime?"

Simple... your belief that he can not pose a threat to any country other than his own. If you believe that, then you're swallowing ALL their propeganda.

[Eomer]

As of right now Tilea, they really aren't much of a threat to anyone. In the future sure, but right now? He can't do a damned thing really. Other than supply weapons to terrorists, but that's not a direct threat, which is what I am talking about.

[Lilcix]

If he can supply terrorists with weapons what makes him incapable of using them himself if infact he is still alive?

*edit* Im talking about biological and chemical weapons, not AK-47's and whatnot

[Tilea]

Originally posted by Eomer
As of right now Tilea, they really aren't much of a threat to anyone. In the future sure, but right now? He can't do a damned thing really. Other than supply weapons to terrorists, but that's not a direct threat, which is what I am talking about.

Wow, that's purely amazing. You actually do believe that? You been spending a lot of time in France lately or something? I guess all those missles being fired into Kuwait were falling out of the sky all on their own? And that's likely just the beginning.

[Quote]

What is the first thing they teach French in military training?










How to say "i surrender" in german!!! :)




--- I still believe it was the UN that decided not to take baghdad. Just as you said, the politics of the issue woudlnt allow them to.

[Karendra]

why cant you atleast bring up a NEW joke about french and not one we havent seen over all boards allready:/

[Elidroth]

Originally posted by Maegwin
*One* of the reasons the US didn't remove Sadaam from power in '91 is, we had no plans ready for a 'post-sadaam' Iraq. It was not acceptable to remove Sadaam, only to have his more ruthless and unstable sons assume control of the country.


The primary reason we didn't throw Saddam out was it was not our mandate at the time. We were removing him from Kuwait, not Iraq. This time is different.

[SillyRngr]

You said it on the nail. Iraq does not any credible and actualy useable WMD - the few things it does have, like some chemical weapons, guess who supplied them? Ronald Rumsfeld himself visited Bagdad in the 80s and met with Saddam Hussein on several occasions to give him US support for their war on Iran. Funny how Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't bring this point up to often.
The WMD chemical wpns he does have, would in no direct way would endanger anyone other then possibly Iraqs closest neighbours. Bush and his team, a former CEO of from Haliburton Oil, whose wife is the speaker and host of a right wing evangelical talk show, along with Paul Wulfowitz, deputy Sec. of Defense have had Saddam and his oil fields on their personal agenda for many years. Paul Wulfowitz was the original author of a secret memo which outlined his view on how the "situtaion" with Saddam should be dealt with just after the first war. His memo was considered so rediculous by military planners, that it was imemdiately leaked to the media. Guess who's memo is now front and center at the pentagon?

The reason people are not "with" the USA on this issue, is because it is so blatantly obvious that Bush and his right wing freaks have an alterior motive, be it personal vandetta, oil, or whatever - this is not a war about getting rid of a bad guy form the world stage. If that were the case, then the US should begin military planning to take out the leaders of the following nations: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba, etc...list goes on and on.

The worst of this is, the US had counted on the Iraqi people being "freed" and helping them overthrow Saddam and helping avoid a serious confrontaiton in Baghdad. Guess what? The iraqi's, although surely they must hate living under Saddam - hate one thing even more: being invaded.

This is a good book if you are interested:
Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq by Gwynne Dyer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0771029772/qid=1048789449/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-1863832-1199865?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Tilea]

So now the Canadian government has confirmed that a small (very small, like 31) amount of Canadian troops are in Iraq. They also say that they are not there to support the war and can only fire their weapons in self defense?? lol.. what a joke. Either you're in, or you're out...

[Eomer]

They're there on exchange with the British military. It's either they go along, or we renege on the exchange program. It's not a big deal.

[Arcius]

What's the first thing they teach in French military training? How to say "I surrender" in BEAR!

Heard that one yet? :\

[BrainlessTroll]

just use a laser guided bomb with an uranium, chemical and biologial warhead weapon terrorist proppeled on the white house!

[Buazag Bonesteel]

How thoughtful of this jackass to put this drivel in every single thread he has access to in case anyone might have missed it. If you were worth the effort I'd be offended....but you aren't