usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

I fround out it I make than post too long for some reason my computer start
to act up. Also I was answer afew posts from different people.

I donot think Bush is going to have his war as the Demoncrat arenot going to allow him to use than war to get reelectic. I just love reading about that woman who claim to be Iraq leader mistress was talk to the press about him
delvop weapon of mass deutt. first this realy hear say evidence not allow or very rarely allow in than court of law. How do we know that woman isnot than
CIA plant or Israel Intellent plant. Than biggest prolblem is I donot believe that he would tell any woman mistress or not state sectect . The only expection to the hear say rule is the child witness all testom of childern is condire hear say by than court of law, it the child was than viction of than crime they like to hear from it anyway so her testom is allow, mental refuse person with child like mind testorm is condire hear say also. The third except to the hear say rule is in certain bussien contact law case testmen on verd agreement that than other person witness is allow.

 

Jarinor all I can say is that it, is very easy to say someone is screwed up without giving points and just making a blanket statement . So therefore ONCE AGAIN I will not get into the cat calling and simply go with history and then you can get upset and say that I am wrong again and I can then honestly say I could care less cause your ass is crazy:

(1) 11 years ago the UN told Saddam to disarm, (ok Jarinor I know you have an old ass pic 0 but I want you to hear this and then tell me that I am wrong or that I am lieing. :roll: ) 11 years ago the UN told Saddam that he had to disarm and PROVE that he had disarmed .

(2) 11 years ago Saddam told the UN that they needed to remove their inspectors because he was not going to put up with them any longer.

(3) 11 YEARS AGO we said OK we are leaving but there will be sanctions against your country and eventually there will be a price to pay for breaking International LAW.

(4) For the past 11 YEARS my country and England have been footing the bill to keep Kuwait safe and for keeping the Kurds safe from harm. (at a cost that would bankrupt smaller countries)

(5) For 11 YEARS NO ONE (except for the US and the UK) in the UN has given a rats ass about what Saddam has been doing with money that is supposed to go for HUMANITARIAN AID.

(6) Last year my country lost close to 3000 people and a crazy amount of property due to a terrorist attack that we should have seen coming. I feel because for the LAST 11 YEARS we have let a mad man tell US what is the rule of law.

(7) excuse me for #6 because I am really trying to give you NO room to argue here but I can foresee your picking at that one point cause I put my opinion in it.


Now to get away from insanity and get back to reality:

Yes a country has Sovriegn rights and I believe that this is a valid point but that countries rights begin and end at it's boarders For the 4th time on this post I will again state historical facts......

Iraq Invaded Iran breaking the first rule of international law. Then Iraq Invaded Kuwait AGAIN breaking the law.

Now for all of you that want to talk about what we have done in the past: The one thing that we have NOT done is brake international Law. Please FIND ONE ruling made by the UN against the US for breaking international law and please provide a link and I will drop every point I have made.

Yes we are a world power and we have done some very nasty things to get there, Please provide evidence of ONE world power in ALL THE HISTORY of mankind that has not done this (again please provide a link) and again I will drop this whole thing.

The difference between US and THEM is that we are trying to get some stability here. The man that you are trying to defend is doing his level best to END stability.

Egypt did not stop expanding until they were stopped. Rome did not stop expanding until they were stopped. England did not stop expanding until it was no longer economically logical to continue (that and a little diddy call WWI) Germany would not have stopped and Russia would have continued except economics broke their backs also.

We have made history by not doing what History says that we should be doing. Iraq has proven that it is more then willing to do as history says it should do (expand and occupy) we are trying to stop that and at the same time protect ourselves and yet I am to believe that my country is evil and a bully for trying to keep life (my life anyway) stable and sane.

Sorry attack my points all you want but I am not buying what you are trying to sell. If you find ONE point above to be historically inaccuract then please provide the links and I will very quickly say that I am sorry.


I am not a hater I don't live for war. I served my country and I thank God that I do not have to take part in this mess. For this reason and because I am not for killing victims I will say that I have my doubts about invading Iraq. I don't want to see people die, but not because of the madness that you offer as a reason. I simply do not want to see people killed. But I also feel that it is reasoning like that which will be the death of me and my fellow citizens because when it comes down to it I know in my heart that Saddam would kill me and ALL my kind in a second if he could. Why do I believe this? Because HISTORY has proven that he would.


I am not going to address the comments about someone else inventing the internet eventually because no one did. WE did and to speculate would be to do just that and would ignore the facts. Nor am I going to deny taking pride in what my country has done anymore then I would ask any of you not to take pride in what your own country has done. Nor will I pretend to ignore the very important role my country currently plays in the world economy and it's stability unless again you wish to provide me with some proof that shows me wrong.

I know that at times I sound crazy harsh in my views, but that is only because in my view my country is dealing with CRAZY SMART people that are willing to use any and everything to cloud the truth of the issue.

11 years Iraq has had to give up this Idea that it can someday be a world power if it holds out long enough. This can not be allowed to happen, Please Please think about this. It can not be allowed Not just for my countries sake but think of your own countries stability! The US is not interested in expanding nor does it seek war for the sake of war. We are TRYING to stop something here, something that was started OVER 11 years ago and if allowed to continue may well effect the the rest of your life as well as mine.


I don't want death I want PEACE but my country and England is paying a very high DAILY price for PEACE and if last year is any proof, my country at least is not getting it's money's worth! We block him in and we still get blown up, how many more cheeks do we have left to turn? No I don't want innocent Iraqi's dead and crying in the street But I sure as hell don't want anymore Americans dead either and if that makes me mad, crazy or evil well then I guess I am.

I don't want any more dead Arabians but I DO want that FOOL out of power. Why? Because FOR 11 YEARS he could have done many things to make US look stupid. He could have released the Kuwaiti POW's, He could have signed a UN agreement of non-agression against the Kurds, He could have disarmed AS HE AGREED TO DO WHEN SUING FOR PEACE 11 YEARS AGO.

He (or his country) has given the UN NOTHING and we the US his MAIN enemy is suppose to ignore this because.....

Why?????????????????????????????????

Please give me a logical reason why........... Not the emotional reasons offered by countries telling US to hold back. But a LOGICAL HISTORICAL reason why.

How did Rome benefit from allowing Khan to rise? How did Egypt benefit from allowing Rome to prosper? How did England prosper from letting Germany take Austria? How will the US prosper by allowing Iraq to devolope the Nuc?

No I don't want death but I do not want MASSIVE death either. 11 years we have waited for this man to work with US, he will not so he is against US. My God I swear by all that is holy to me I don't want any more dead Arabians (Iraqi or whatever they are all human beings to me) then are already dieing and suffering but I can not see where he is giving US one option. Either he gets his nucs or we can rot in hell, well sorry but I'll see him there first.

 

I'm not sure about most of your points, so can't say whether they are right or wrong, but there are a couple of things I think are wrong in:

(2)/(3) It was 1998 when the inspectors were ejected, not 11 years ago. At the time of the ejection, the USA and UK made a big bombing raid in retaliation, but it had no effect.

(3) Why do you insist in writing "International Law" in bold? Iraq have not attacked anyone outside their borders since we withdrew. We are trying to stop them getting weapons of mass destruction. Which international law are they breaking by trying to get such weapons, and haven't the UK and USA already broken it, since we both own weapons of mass destruction?

(4) We did not keep the Kurds safe. They were oppressed despite our efforts and UN airdrops were used to help them survive.

(5) The UN has been applying diplomatic pressure to Iraq, ineffectually. The measures by the USA and UK have been equally ineffectual. I'm not sure why this qualifies as us being the only ones giving a rats arse.

(6) This is a biggie for me - Iraq has not been implicated in the WTC attack. The only grounds for punishing them for it would be a shared race or religion with the suspected attackers, which is essentially racial/religious persecution.

Hel Khat, the crazy thing is, I don't agree with Jar, but your excesses and irrationality make me WANT to agree with him. Your posts seem inflammatory to the point where you give them impression you'd be quite happy to see the world go down in blood and fire, rather than try to discuss things rationally. You are forceful in a way that practically begs people to oppose you.

 

The evidence for Iraq being behind the 9-11 attack by some people in our government is either phony evidence or hear say evidence. Iraq isnot the major threat to America. Syria have terrorist traiming camp, give support to
terrorist orgination but not Al Qaeda, is either very near or have nuke weapon already but keep quiet about it. Iran have terrorist traiming camps,
give support to many terrorist group includion Al Qaeda they just test than 300 miles range hightly accurate missile with GPSN capicate. Their also have than missile with 2500 miles range which can be eariyies upgrade to be more
accurate with GPSN system.

I was once on a jury than I vote that jewist man was inorent of the crime he commitee as I didnot believe that the state proof their case, their evidence mount to we think he did it , but they gave no real proof that he did it. I donot realy like that many jew but I than not going to have than inorent man
execute for something he mightnot have done.

 

Charles, I really am starting to think you're anti-semetic. Your PM's to me about what you call Zionist control of the USA are disturbing and an open statement of not liking Jews in general is just racist.

Also, where do you get all this intelligence about various middle-eastern countries? Are you in the CIA or are you just quoting rumour and news reports?

 

I got the report of the Iran missile test I thank 2 days day ago on Netscapen
New . I have than general interest in Science and Enginnering . If Iran have
than 2500 miles missile for the last few years and it I was Iran senting than lots of money builting missiles with 2500 miles range I would built so I can
at least upgrade them afew time. The different Iraq and Iran is that Iraq as far as I know never built their own orginate missiles useing parts they make
thenself. Iraq basely built Soviet type Stud missile which are mostly way out
of date alway. Iran was way behind Iraq in missiles technogy when Iraq invade Iran , Iran brought the same kind of missile Iraq has from the USSR,
Iran scienist and engree took afew of the Russia missile apart to see how their work. Anything that engineers can build other engineers can figure out how to built within certain limit. The Law of science are mostly the same on matter where you are and by studying the USSR miissile they learn what the laws are than the mathermatic equateion are.
There is than orgination which does give me some infro but itnot the CIA or
any other national orgination.

 

What I don't understand is why the U.S. needs the permission of any other country or countries to protect our interest or ourselves. And as far as that lying bastard Ritter is concerned know this, he took 400,000 dollars from an Iraqi synpathizer to "make a movie" and in a shocking twist, he totally changed his story regarding his belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

BTW Sheriff, gammatical is my bait to ensure future antics. At any rate I'm not the one who claimed to be spelling overlord and I'm not the one who attacked other authors about their crappy spelling/grammer. Therefore I'm allowed to make mistakes, however, Threedogs isn't.
That's why I said the pot and kettle thing.

 

Fair enough, mine was just a joke.

Are you completely sure you don't understand why the USA might want to guage the attitude of the rest of the army-owning countries of the world before it marches across someone else's borders?

 

Dearest Sheriff, it's a great idea to guage the attitude and get the support of the rest of the world. But that's not all were doing, we are waiting for the permission of the U.N. before we act on a direct threat to the U.S. Now I don't know everything, but without the U.S. (ok, ok, I'll concede, England also) the U.N. wouldn't amount to shit. So why, with that in mind, would the rest of the U.N. not support the United States in protecting herself?
Who do they think will be next in line for domination? Oh well, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it to.

BTW might I add how refreshing it is to see a legitimate human thought on this thread, I'm so sick of authors re-typing stuff they heard on the news or even worse, history lessons from their Encyclopedia Britannica gift set.

 

This summer the United State has than wargame in which America was defeat on the first day of than preempt invarsion of Iraq. Than Retire Marine
General play the Iraq leader sunk the amerian fleet in the Persian Gulf useing
tactic and methord which we didnot think of. Then the refree allow the general playing the America side cheat by changeing the rules to favor our
side. The General playing the Iraq leader since he is retire from the Marine went to than Englandish newpapper to report this makeing the wargame fit our conception of how thing are going to go.
Can anybody help me upload the article from the Pakistian Newpapper the
Nation that carry the story from the Englandish paper.

 

Interestingly enough, many people whom you'd consider terrorists would also claim to have that mindset. Of course, they'd insert the name of their own country in place of the USA's, but you get the picture I hope.

By saying 'whom you'd consider terrorists', I'm not saying they're not. It's just they also see themselves as nationalists and patriots and freedom fighters and whatnot. It all depends on your perspective.

Who ever said foreign policy and implementing it was simple? The USA needs approval because otherwise it could find itself on the receiving ends of sanctions by the other governments of the world. Amazingly enough, you guys aren't self-sufficient, you do need the support of other countries to survive. So if you don't get their support, or at least their approval, then you could find your country being portrayed as a bit of an overzealous villain in even more countries than you currently are.

 

It I was the Iraq leader with all the America talk of than preenpt attack on me do you think I than going to plan still an not do any think which can enable me to either destory the attacking force or inclict than lots of losts on the attacker. I would strike first at the attacker before he can attack me. Food for thought on this.

 

Your post is the question and answer both.

Why does the USA need approval? Because other countries are concerned that your leaders feel exactly as YOU do (ie. the USA is the only significant country in the world, has no conception of the value of alternate world-views and is keen on imposing its will unilaterally when and where it pleases).

BTW, while I am English (mostly), I would like to point out that our region is but one of several in the UK, the others being Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each region is equally important and each supplies troops to our armies. In the course of UN military actions, many Scots, Welsh and Irish have risked or lost their lives as part of the UK forces. This is not a criticism - I realise the distinction is blurred outside our borders, but it might help put you straight for future use.

While we're at it, though, you might want to consider all the other countries that supply UN troops (like Australia). Pretending it is only the USA and UK that matter belittles their efforts and will naturally lead to heightening of resentment.

 

One question is at the front of my mind whenever I hear this topic discussed.

Why now?

What has changed in the past 10 years or so that would prompt a military action against Iraq right now? Is there new evidence that Saddam is massing WMD? Is there intelligence of an increased threat from Iraq? That's what I don't get, and I think this is the major stumbling block when two opposing sides argue this topic.

Mostly it seems that the pro-military strike crowd doesn't address this issue, because usually they'd argue that we shouldn't even have waited this long in the first place. The sense I get from their arguments is more-or-less "it needed and still needs to be done, who cares when it happens?"

And while they may have a point, I'm still left wondering "why now?". Is there an actual good reason to escalate NOW? That this has not been answered clearly is the reason that the US public is increasingly against another war with Iraq. And to these people, as well as for me, "we should've done it a long time ago" isn't sufficient reason.

I believe that Pres. Bush is going to address the UN today, outlining our reasons for an attack on Iraq. I'll listen to what he has to say, but I'll say right now that I don't expect any bombshells to be dropped. No new piece of evidence is going to be brought to light which brings the situation to a head and forces us to move. But, we'll see.

 

That is not internatinal law. That is rules for behavior between states that most states prefer to follow, but they are not written down they do not need to be followed. A country can chose if they need to follow these rules. If there is to be a international law we need a power to decide what laws there is to be. Then we need a internatinal court to judge. Then we need a world police to see too that the law is followed. There needs to bee a superior power to make these laws, and no one wants this. As for the international court the US in particular does not wnat this

 

In the ancient world as in our world than court of law doesnot handle case
base on he broke the custusm of behaviour they handle case base on he
broke the law. It we didnot have than International law it than america man rape the Russian Embassor wife the america government will have no
legal base to charge the man with than crime or than court to handle the case. International Law allow is based upton than lots treathy many nation
agree to follow. It the above man was to flee to Canada to avoid begin arrest in America for his crime we or the Russia can ask the Canada government to hand that person over. It can take anywhere from years or
automatic right way hand over of the person. It the above crime was to occure durning the Cold War the USSR was ready to start than full scale globely nuclear war Canada would mostly likely hand him over to the America of
Russian authority right way.

Internation law also cover international trade, if I was to order than doll make in England for 200 pounds and I didnot recieve it at all I can take legal action against that company in the England court of law to either
get what I order or my money refund. International law is than useful legal
fiction which make many thing possible than a peaceful way I trade between nation.

 

Well that maybe because I am so sick of talking about this it's getting old. Threads like this were running way back after 9/11 and I was trying to debate this. And when it seems like most people in a thread wants to call you irrational just because you like your country and what it stands for and others want to tell you how evil the country you were born in is. It gets very old. No matter what for of debate I pick I get picked a part for having the guts to stand up for what I believe in.

So pick and choose over my words and call me all the names you want. I am not attacking anyone here I am defending my countries rights and points of view. (tired of people telling about how screwed my country is when everyone is trying to move to it or sneak into it.)

This is an old thread about a tired subject. Bottom line if we do attack Iraq I can understand why we do and if we don't I can understand why we don't. But either way I am 100% behind my government in it's reasons for dealing with Iraq. Anything we do or do not do to Iraq is because Iraq's leaders have done nothing to avoid any of this contrary they seem to have done all in their power to get things started.

If my having faith in my government makes me "irrational" or "inflammatory" this close to the anniversary of a national tragedy which in part has inspired this whole thread well then I guess I am. But I will not give the appearance of moderation when the stakes are this high.

I will say it again for you all to ignore:

I don't want death and if the Iraq leadership will provide proof to the UN that they have or are disarming; then I will be the first one marching in the streets for peace (I swear).

If they do not and my country says they are enough of a threat that they could have a bomb while we are waiting for them to blink then I say "Do what you have to do."

If it makes me insane or evil for not wanting to see anymore American citizens die while we are trying to deal "peacefully" with a butcher well then I guess I am......

 

I think you're misrepresenting it a bit with the stuff about calling you irrational for liking your country. When I said "excesses and irrationality," I was talking about the way you boldly shout things that are erroneous and are prone to hyperbole and rhetoric.

I also don't believe "liking" is a fair description of how you present your feelings about your country. You've always been quite clear about your strength of feelings for your country and - until your last few posts - you have also made me nervous with the way you talk about foreign countries. I believe excessive nationalism is irrational.

Having said that, I won't say I disagree entirely with your feelings about Iraq. I'm very confused, and currently undecided, although I would much rather any action taken was an international thing, and that Bush would try to push for that instead of giving everyone the bird every 5 minutes.

 

I think that you have taken a lot of what i have said and mended it with what your worst fear about Americans are. My views on other foreign countries have never been clearly stated because no one has asked and I don't feel that this is the forum for such a thing so I am not sure where you get that from.

I have been picked at and and generalized because I have very strong views about one or two countries that are in the middle east. Now if I were to extrapolate from what you have typed here that you are pro-Jewish but hope that Iraq one day does get the bomb you would be the first person to tell me how wrong I am. That is what I feel you and Jarnor do to me take a point blow it out and then try and show how sane your view is. Well I don't take your words and use them nor do I take Jarnor's.

I use my words to make MY points. I have not nor need I take your words or form of expression and apply ill conceived logic to them. I am not trying to find fault with you as you seem to be trying to do to me. The YOU in this matters not a bit to me. I am defending a point of view with what I know to be the facts.....

So please do not tell me that you have an Idea of how I feel or think about other countries because you do not. How I feel about Iraq I feel you do know because I have said it about a dozen times now in about a dozen different ways and on the 10th time that I try to again express my views my points are once again discarded and my form of expression is defamed.

I say please remove the accusations and please address my points. Maybe I am not telling you the truth the way YOU would like to hear it but that is not the topic of this conversation. The points I am trying to make are being avoided:

Since Saddam took hold of his country and invaded Iran, Has Iraq cooperated in any for with the UN? Has Iraq done one thing to make life easier for it?

Do we or do we not have a "no fly zone" over Iraq? If so where and why and WHO is paying for it?

How much longer would you like these countries to continue paying for this?

What proof do you need that Saddam is at the root of terror? Will the lose of one of my counties cities be enough?

You have said let Saddam have the Nuc. A statement that I considered Bizzar to say the least but I did not want to get into pointing fingers so I said nothing but since we now are:

Am I to take it that this means that you are for Nucular war? Or do you simply have faith in God and Saddam that is having a Nuc will never mean that he will use it and even if he did we would according to your logic have to PROVE it was his nuc and not say India's cause they have them too.....

I hate to assume all of this cause I don't know your feelings so please stop assuming and labeling me cause you think that you understand my feelings.

 

Dear Hel Khat,
There are certain very funtion christian group that have too much influence with Bush which want to start than Holy War with Islamic. Some Southern Basphat are starting to Demousise the founder of Islamic and the religion itself. Many nations of the world have went thought or fought in religion wars in the past are very relution to goes into any religion war now.

It too late to claim self-defence after 1 year time. Most court will recognite
self defense than man try to kill me in my home. If you kill him than year later an claim self defense because he try to kill me in my home ayear ago.

One we have no proof that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack at all. Plus than lots of AMERICA GENERALS DONOT WANT THAN RELIGIOUS WAR .