FatalStrike Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Originally posted by thehomicidalegg isnt it ironical that bush and cheney wants to invade iraq choosing to ignore the UN stance against it, because....wait for it.... Iraq doesnt listen to the UN? This is an excellent point, The UN makes Saddam sign a cease fire with certain conditions. Saddam breaks ALL of those conditions, and the US is seen as war crazy for wanting to punish him. Fact is no one is ever going to give a hoot what the UN wants if it is shown that you can ignore them and they are too peaceful to do anything about it. If the UN can't keep Saddam to his word how do they ever expect to stop a real global threat in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 So you want to talk about precedent? Israel has broken UN sanctions, as well; what if some other middle-eastern country decides to follow our lead and takes international law into their own hands, attacking Israel? Saddam might not be a saint (understatement, I know) but his life is not worth the lives it would take to root him out! Iraq is a sovereign nation, it's not ours to take or punish! Might does not make right! XERXES, great post, the song really fits this occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Suadi Arabia has granted US permission to use land for Air Bases. It's only a matter of time now. I have a very VERY bad feeling about this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk So you want to talk about precedent? Israel has broken UN sanctions, as well; what if some other middle-eastern country decides to follow our lead and takes international law into their own hands, attacking Israel? Two comments on this... 1- When did Isreal sign a peace agreement with the UN that was only broken on their side of the agreement? 2- Isreal is not worried about Middle Eastern countries attacking them. This already happened and Isreal only took 6 days to show the entire Middle East that it is not to be messed with. Originally posted by Jedi_Monk Saddam might not be a saint (understatement, I know) but his life is not worth the lives it would take to root him out! Iraq is a sovereign nation, it's not ours to take or punish! I disagree completely with how you define a "sovereign nation." I do not believe that I can go take a country by force and then tell the world that they can not do anything about it because it 's not their business. He is a Dictator, not an eleceted official, he does not in anyway represent the people of Iraq. Also you say his life is not worth the people whos lives it would cost to remove him, I disagree. First off if it takes the entire Iraqi Army then so be it. These people have taken up arms to keep a tyrant in power and thus have chosen to side with a monster against thier own people, that is a choice they should pay for. Also the number of innocent lives that would be lost are most likely no different then the number of lives that would be lost by allowing him to stay. He has already killed 1.5 million kurds, how many more must he be allowed to kill before we say, enough is enough. Also he has broke the conditions of a cease fire he signed with the UN, by doing nothing the UN only makes certain that future dictators ignore them as well. The UN is showing weakness to poeple that only respect power, and that is a grave mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk XERXES, great post, the song really fits this occasion. if you downloaded it somewhere and liked it, or wana hear more there is plenty more Bob Dylan songs against the Vietnam War(and war in general). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Unlike video games, people don't respawn in real life. Welcome to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Absurd I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough. I guess that into todays education system they are forgetting to teach young people the truths of dictatorships. They don't seem to have a grip on how horrible it is, and how much better off people are when they are gone. War is never good, but allowing a dictator to grow is far worse. The human race has been taught this lesson many times in history but somehow that part of history is always left out of our childrens lesson plans. Amazing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfa_vasquez Posted September 16, 2002 Author Share Posted September 16, 2002 by we i mean the USA and the UK.As we always seem to be in the wars together.Eg you guys saved us from getting our asses kicked from hitler.So maybe its time we repaid the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 I found this on Congressman Ron Paul's (R - Texas) congressional website: Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives September 10, 2002 QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war. 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses" 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 ...the number of innocent lives that would be lost are most likely no different then the number of lives that would be lost by allowing him to stay. Oh yeah, the old "Kill 'em to save 'em" argument. We go in there, kill their fathers and brothers and sons, "accidentally" kill their mothers and sisters and daughters in your bombing raids... and they'll thank us why? ...He has already killed 1.5 million kurds... Some anti-Catholic "scholars" say that 95 million people were killed in the Inquisition--but not until modern times did the population of all of Europe approach 95 million, so this statistic is obviously untrue. Most experts on the Inquisition, would say that this is an error in the area of something like 2.5 million percent. Statistics can be overblown when you're talking about someone you don't like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 I disagree completely with how you define a "sovereign nation." The dictionary describes "sovereign" as "adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state... Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power... (syn: autonomous, independent, self-governing)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk The dictionary describes "sovereign" as "adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state... Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power... (syn: autonomous, independent, self-governing)" How black and white things are to you...its incredible. Did you notice that in the qoute above it read "a state which administers its own government" which is not what is going on in Iraq. In Iraq a man has taken power over a state by force, thus he is a illegal government, since international laws outlaw dictatorships. Thus an attack on a dictatorship could be seen as the freeing of a sovereign state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk Oh yeah, the old "Kill 'em to save 'em" argument. We go in there, kill their fathers and brothers and sons, "accidentally" kill their mothers and sisters and daughters in your bombing raids... and they'll thank us why? These fathers and brothers that will be killed are acting in defense of a heartless tyrant. If you fight for Saddam then you have earned your fate. As for innocents that will die, they are a few in a effort to save many. The price of freedom is high in lives lost, but the price of standing by and allowing tyrants to thrive has historically been much higher. Originally posted by Jedi_Monk Some anti-Catholic "scholars" say that 95 million people were killed in the Inquisition--but not until modern times did the population of all of Europe approach 95 million, so this statistic is obviously untrue. Most experts on the Inquisition, would say that this is an error in the area of something like 2.5 million percent. Statistics can be overblown when you're talking about someone you don't like What is your point? That 1.5 million is an exagerated number? Fine then lets go with 1 million, or even 750,000. Is that any less horrible to you? Does less then 1.5 million mean that he is a good man that should be allowed to slaughter his people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 For you people out there that spend your days and nights pondering and fretting over how many innocent Iraqis may die in a war, I ask you this. If you were in power and felt that by allowing Iraq to thrive you endangered your own people, and put your cities and economy at risk would you sit and do nothing? If you knew that terrorists that sought the destruction of your cities and your people, were hiding in the wings of a heartless dictator would you sleep at night knwoing you did nothing? And when the terrorist attacks come and many of your people die and they turn to you and ask "why didn't you stop this from happening?" will you then tell them that you didn't wish to risk the lives of other in defense of your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 I'm curious as to what ya'll would define "war against Iraq" as. What is the goal? Total domination? Over throwing and replacing the government? Occupation? Making Iraq the 5th territory? Just saying "War" is somewhat vague. Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies. If anyone of you haven't noticed, we Americans live in America. Smack dab on the other side of the planet. So, how are the Iraqies and their supposed future allies going to pose a threat to the U.S.? That's one hell of a long swim, and I really don't think the Isrealites are going to charter flights with El Al to help them get here. I guess you could argue about nuclear attacks, or chemical and biological attacks. Sounds pretty far fectched to me. You can't buy nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart. You don't learn how to make nuclear weapons in college. Even if Iraq purchased nuclear weapons from another country, do you think they also purchased the people necessary for the maintenance of a nuclear weapon? How about buying the facilities for maintaining a nuclear weapon? Maybe they shelled out a few extra bucks and Super-Sized the deal, and also purchased the knowledge of how to maintain and use nuclear weapons. What about a delivery system? Maybe you thought they would duct-tape a nuclear device to a bottle rocket and point it west? Missile systems are a complicated matter as well, and not something that anyone can obtain. InterContinental Ballistc Missiles (ICBMs) are needed to deliver a nuclear payload from Iraq to the U.S. I reckon you believe that Iraq has a few of them laying around, right next to the big trashbag full of plutonium. The suitcase nuclear bomb is a fantasy of the media. You need to unplug, and open your eyes. If you had enough nuclear material to fit in a suitcase, how long do you think you could carry it around before your teeth started falling out, sores start popping up all over your body, and blood starts pouring out of your anus? That's called radiation poisioning, and that is what happens when you start tooling around town with a suitcase full of uranium in your hand. Unless you shield the uranium, usually with lead. In which case you no longer have a suitcase bomb, but a compact car sized bomb. Much hard to carry around. Oh, and you gotta figure out a way of attaching some sort of device to start the nuclear reaction. That's the only way to get that big crispy mushroom cloud that all the kids love. You're probaly gonna need something a little more powerful then det cord. A moving truck packed full of ANFO might be enough to bring down a government building, but it sure as **** isn't gonna start a nuclear reaction. Ok, so, now that the annoying little thing called "reality" has been hashed out, who really thinks the U.S. has anything to fear from the middle east? Christ, Isreal could probaly wipe them all out if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by Absurd I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough. that is a VERY VERY IGNORANT statement. YOU obviously dont understand the meaning of the song. We went to war against the Axis because they were threatning to take over the WORLD! And our allies were calling, begging for help. People knew what was happening in world war 2, people knew what they were fighting for, our freedom. Vietnam was VERY different than world war 2. Nobody knew what the hell vietnam was at the time. People our ages were being sent to fight an unknown enemy, in an unknown land fighting for an unknown reason to them. Or it was just a useless reason. (prevent communism from spreading) We originally had NO business in Vietnam, but no being good ol America we have to stick our noses into everything, and we wonder why there are so many anti-american groups out there. If you looked at the date on the song (1963 incase your on 56ghey and dont feel like scrolling up there) then you can understand why and what the meaning of the song is. Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfa_vasquez Posted September 16, 2002 Author Share Posted September 16, 2002 come on guys dont flame each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by munik I'm curious as to what ya'll would define "war against Iraq" as. What is the goal? Total domination? Over throwing and replacing the government? Occupation? Making Iraq the 5th territory? Just saying "War" is somewhat vague. Change in government by forcefully removing the current one. This has been in every newspaper for about two months, I just figured you knew what the US planned since everyone else in the world does. Originally posted by munik Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies. If anyone of you haven't noticed, we Americans live in America. Smack dab on the other side of the planet. So, how are the Iraqies and their supposed future allies going to pose a threat to the U.S.? That's one hell of a long swim, and I really don't think the Isrealites are going to charter flights with El Al to help them get here. Did you not hear of 9/11? Did you think that was a spontaneous action? Do you not realize that their is organization required for such activites. They need a country in which they are able to gather resources and plan such attacks. While sleeper cells can exist in any country, you can't openly fund raise for terrorism in the US as you can in Iraq. Originally posted by munik I guess you could argue about nuclear attacks, or chemical and biological attacks. Sounds pretty far fectched to me. You can't buy nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart. You don't learn how to make nuclear weapons in college. Even if Iraq purchased nuclear weapons from another country, do you think they also purchased the people necessary for the maintenance of a nuclear weapon? How about buying the facilities for maintaining a nuclear weapon? Maybe they shelled out a few extra bucks and Super-Sized the deal, and also purchased the knowledge of how to maintain and use nuclear weapons. Being that it is a UN accepted fact that Iraq has attempted to buy aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium, it is to be assumed that they currently have some place to put the rods. It would be rather pointless to buy rods you have no use for, correct? Originally posted by munik What about a delivery system? Maybe you thought they would duct-tape a nuclear device to a bottle rocket and point it west? Missile systems are a complicated matter as well, and not something that anyone can obtain. InterContinental Ballistc Missiles (ICBMs) are needed to deliver a nuclear payload from Iraq to the U.S. I reckon you believe that Iraq has a few of them laying around, right next to the big trashbag full of plutonium. No one thinks that Iraq will have ICBM's any time soon. If you want to talk missle their current missle can be modified to hit Isreal with a nuke. The main threat is not from a ICBM but from a Nuke delivered thru unconventional methods. If you saw the sum of all fear you would realize that a nukle can come in any package the human mind can think of. Considering THOUSANDS of illegal aliens get into the country DAILY, you can't tell me someone couldn't sneak a coke machine size nuke on the back of the same truck used to sneak in people. Originally posted by munik The suitcase nuclear bomb is a fantasy of the media. You need to unplug, and open your eyes. If you had enough nuclear material to fit in a suitcase, how long do you think you could carry it around before your teeth started falling out, sores start popping up all over your body, and blood starts pouring out of your anus? That's called radiation poisioning, and that is what happens when you start tooling around town with a suitcase full of uranium in your hand. Unless you shield the uranium, usually with lead. In which case you no longer have a suitcase bomb, but a compact car sized bomb. Much hard to carry around. Oh, and you gotta figure out a way of attaching some sort of device to start the nuclear reaction. That's the only way to get that big crispy mushroom cloud that all the kids love. You're probaly gonna need something a little more powerful then det cord. A moving truck packed full of ANFO might be enough to bring down a government building, but it sure as **** isn't gonna start a nuclear reaction. Regardless of what you may believe a suitcase size nuke is not only a reality but many were built by the soviet union. They do not carry enough nuclear material to vaporize a large city, but they could EASILY wipe out 20 city blocks or more. As for the sheilding - You can wear a suit that sheild you, but some how you think it is beyond reasoning that you could shield a large suitcase? Have you no idea how sheilding works? Originally posted by munik Ok, so, now that the annoying little thing called "reality" has been hashed out, who really thinks the U.S. has anything to fear from the middle east? Christ, Isreal could probaly wipe them all out if they wanted to. My reality has been hashed out? The only thing you have shown is that you lack the ability to think creatively enough to find ways to sneak in a nuke. The men who designed the plan that led to 3000 deaths on 9/11 obviously do not suffer from the same "in the box" thinking that you do. While you are right that they pose no military threat, 9/11 and everyday Isreal life have shown us that there are many ways to hurt your enemy that do not require a military. Please think before you post comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Originally posted by XERXES that is a VERY VERY IGNORANT statement. YOU obviously dont understand the meaning of the song. We went to war against the Axis because they were threatning to take over the WORLD! And our allies were calling, begging for help. People knew what was happening in world war 2, people knew what they were fighting for, our freedom. Vietnam was VERY different than world war 2. Nobody knew what the hell vietnam was at the time. People our ages were being sent to fight an unknown enemy, in an unknown land fighting for an unknown reason to them. Or it was just a useless reason. (prevent communism from spreading) We originally had NO business in Vietnam, but no being good ol America we have to stick our noses into everything, and we wonder why there are so many anti-american groups out there. If you looked at the date on the song (1963 incase your on 56ghey and dont feel like scrolling up there) then you can understand why and what the meaning of the song is. Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx I agree with the fact that Vietnam was a pointless war that we should have never been involved in. However preventing the spread of communism was not a "useless reason." Please study the Cold War in more depth then and you will realize how critical this was. That said I still believe that Vietnam was a stupid mistake made by stupid people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Originally posted by XERXES Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx The song never mentioned Vietnam so far as anyone knows he's talking about all wars in general. And doing so in a very whiney format at best. You can't interpret a writing based on a time period if the writing itself is making general attacks on an entire concept. And if you want to be picky about the song - why do the lyrics say: "A world war can be won You want me to believe" WW2 was a world war (and we did win), Vietnam was not. BTW: There was a large isolationist movement in the USA during WW2. "When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the United States of America was forced to emerge from years of isolationism and enter the worst conflict in the history of the world." http://worldwar2.military.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike I agree with the fact that Vietnam was a pointless war that we should have never been involved in. If we won, the war may have had a point. War is always historically interpreted differently by the winners and the losers. I'm sure if we lost to the Japanese or Germans, WW2 would have been seen as pointless as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Originally posted by XERXES if you downloaded it somewhere and liked it, or wana hear more there is plenty more Bob Dylan songs against the Vietnam War(and war in general). War in general? Oh you mean Dylan is against war completely - hence supporting my original statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 You're obviously getting Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein confused yet again. They're not the same guy, nor is Afghanistan the same place as Iraq. Stop making generalized statements about the middle east There's nothing, absolutely nothing that connects Hussein with September 11th... the CIA has found nothing, and you know they've been looking--the administration is grasping at anything to get at Iraq and their oil fields! And now Hussein has sent a letter to the UN, offering to let the weapons inspectors back in--unconditionally. There should be no more war planning, or threats... there should be no more talk of killing thousands of people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 I agree, if the UN is allowed to search everywhere w/o any run around like they have been getting, then we dont have reason to attack, but if saddaam slips up on his promise, then I say we should defently think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.