That's it.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]...What do you thin the Allies were doing before the US joined in? Don't insult the memory of those that died in WWII ... whatever their nationality.[/b][/quote]This is not a joke or an insult, just fact; They were [i]losing[/i]. Admit it or not, it was American involvement and some stupid moves on Hitler's part that kept most or all of Europe from speaking German as the official langauge. Do you really think England could've held on had the Germans continued making U-boats, other naval vessels, rockets and jet aircraft capable of completely cutting off Great Britain from supply lines. Not to mention German scientists were working on atomic chain reactions.[/b][/quote]It's a crass analogy but if a substitute comes on at half time and scores the winning goal, has that substitute won the game all on his own? The efforts of the Allies before the US got involved were beyond heroic and I'm not just talking about Britian's invlovement, I mean ALL of the Allies. Some American seem to believe that the US won the war all by itself and everybody else should be damn grateful that they stepped in. I AM grateful, but not to the detriment of everybody else on the planet who fought, including both my grandparents. There's been some terrible re-writing of history on this subject.

[Jode]

It'll all be okay, Rog. When you see that this war will be short, decisive and relatively bloodless; when you see Iraqi citizens greeting US soldiers with open arms and weeping, when you see how much conflict is avoided by mass Iraqi surrender; when you see that we're not going over there to bomb houses and tents but military targets; when you see the amazingly low levels of casualties, civilian or otherwise; when you see tons and tons of ghastly weaponized diseases and chemicals along with plans to disperse them at, perhaps, a World Cup game; when you see the wild leftist speculation that you've swallowed for what it is; and finally, when you see that if we wanted the damn oil, we'd have taken it in 1991, and we DON'T appropriate the Iraqi oil fields, maybe you'll feel better. But I doubt it.

[Easter]

[quote]but I did meet him here in Philadelphia during his presidential campaign. He walked up to me, shook my hand, looked me in the eyes, and we traded some brief small talk. [/quote]...and that was enough to form an opinion??? :eek: :eek: :eek: So if you didn't spot vimpire's fangs, evil red eyes and clwas..then he must be good :freak: :freak: :freak:

[Mats Olsson.]

Guys, can we please keep a respectful tone towards each other? There's no reason to insult or belitlle (sp?)another person. Even if hi/she annoys you, please keep it civil or don't post here. Now, having said that, I would really like comments on what I posted early this morning: -------------------------- What I don't get and that perhaps some of you folks can explain is this: In the speech GWB just held, tried to give the impression that the attack is only against Saddam & co and not the nation of Iraq. To justify the attack, he is refering to the combined effect of UN security counsil resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. But from what I recall, those resolutions give no mandate to overthrow any political leadership in Iraq, they only adress the inspections & disarmaments issues (and trade sanctions). And another thing, how can one ignore UN's decisions and at the same time justify those actions by refering to UN decisions? It just doesn't make sense. The speech was very well orchestrated, but what the man really said doesn't match up very well. History will prove him wrong. -------- Thanks! /Mats

[BP3]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]Well, the UN is on life-support right now if not actually dead. Bush was seen nearby holding a smoking gun. [/b][/quote]The French, by stating they would veto a resolution they had not even read (it was still being written), have shown their disregard for the UN. How can you claim that the UN is a useful org when a member votes against another, without knowing what has been proposed. The best way to deal with Saddam would have been a united front (just as in 1441). That united front would have been much more effective than the way the French turned their backs on their allies and 1441, which they supported. Once Saddam saw that there was no unity in the UN anymore, he saw that as an opportunity to keep playing games with the UN. That is what nakes the UN ineffective (in other words - if you vote for a resolution, back it up with your actions).

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b]Guys, can we please keep a respectful tone towards each other? There's no reason to insult or belitlle (sp?)another person. Even if hi/she annoys you, please keep it civil or don't post here. Now, having said that, I would really like comments on what I posted early this morning: -------------------------- What I don't get and that perhaps some of you folks can explain is this: In the speech GWB just held, tried to give the impression that the attack is only against Saddam & co and not the nation of Iraq. To justify the attack, he is refering to the combined effect of UN security counsil resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. But from what I recall, those resolutions give no mandate to overthrow any political leadership in Iraq, they only adress the inspections & disarmaments issues (and trade sanctions). And another thing, how can one ignore UN's decisions and at the same time justify those actions by refering to UN decisions? It just doesn't make sense. The speech was very well orchestrated, but what the man really said doesn't match up very well. History will prove him wrong. -------- Thanks! /Mats[/b][/quote]I want back and looked up the resolutions. In summary... 678 was the authorization for the use of military force at the time of the Gulf War. 687 was the agreement reached with Saddam just after the war where he and the UN agreed that Iraq would disclose and destroy its WMD's, and you know 1441 is the "last chance" Saddam had to comply with 687 or face "serious concequences. The "case" the administration makes is... Use of military force was UN authorized, (678), then, as a condition of a cease fire, Saddam agreed to disarm his WMD's, (687), but he didn't, thereby ending the cessation of military action. As a final nod to diplomacy, (1441) was agreed to by the UN and Saddam to avert military conflict. It's not really that confusing. There are of course differences of opinions about what the meaning of these resolutions. The US position is that there didn't NEED to be a second "final" resolution. It would have been politically helpful, especially for Blair, but the French made sure that it wasn't going to happen. Hmmmm. They're posted on the UN website. Check them out and see for yourself! guitplayer

[loudist]

Are we taking into account the intel that we are not privy to? I would say that we know about half of the whole story. Also, the resolutions have a 'comply or else' factor built into it. This action is the 'or else'. It IS selective to be sure, but as I said before, there is a lot of facts that we don't know, therefore the rush to judgement on many peoples parts is premature. Bush could be saving the whole world from a very bad fate. That is as valid a possibility as any other, given the lack of factual understanding we have at this time. France's position in the UN, with its 'we will veto anything' statements, undercuts the will of the rest of the UN. When it is over and Iraq is liberated, France should be cut out of any participation of business there. Germany too. Both of them had a hand in nuclearizing Iraq in the first place. The nuke power plant that Israel took out.... Germany. The present nuke equipment in Iraq.... France. These two have proven that they are not to be trusted from now on.

[PBBPaul]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b]What I don't get and that perhaps some of you folks can explain is this: In the speech GWB just held, tried to give the impression that the attack is only against Saddam & co and not the nation of Iraq. To justify the attack, he is refering to the combined effect of UN security counsil resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. But from what I recall, those resolutions give no mandate to overthrow any political leadership in Iraq, they only adress the inspections & disarmaments issues (and trade sanctions). And another thing, how can one ignore UN's decisions and at the same time justify those actions by refering to UN decisions? It just doesn't make sense. Thanks! /Mats[/b][/quote]OK, I'll bite. Here are some quotes from UN Resolution 678 (Nov. 29, 1990) http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030220UNRes678.asp : Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so; 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; 3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution; Here are some from 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002) http://mideastweb.org/1441.htm (Arab advocate website just to be fair) Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people, Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284(1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998); -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; ___________________________________________ Sorry for cutting and pasting so much but I think it's time to end the speculation of what is actually in the UN resolutions. The resolutions clearly address Iraq's (OK Sadaam's) failure to adhere to the terms of the cease-fire - not just inspections and disarmament. Unfortunately, IMO given the gravity of the situation, the resolutions are foolishly vague and allow too much room for interpretation with no time boundaries. For instance: "...resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660" can easily be construed to authorize any member state to use force and they would be within their 'rights' as 'granted' by the UN. So is the US wrong for wanting an end to all of the BS? I mean, let's face it, the UN - after 12 years and 18 resolutions - is like the inneffective parent who just keeps threatening the child but never follows through. I think GWB is a man of action and is thouroughly frustrated by the limp-dick behavior of the UN. They made tough demands on Iraq and Sadaam flipped them off. So they made more demands. And more demands. And more demends... It's time the child got a spanking. And please don't think I'm making light of this situation. War and the inevitable costs in life are truly awful. Causing pain to your child (you parents know what I'm talking about) is a difficult and painful decision to make but sometimes you have to look at the greater good. The scales here are just hugely different in both the pain and the long-term gain.

[PBBPaul]

[quote]Originally posted by loudist: [b]Are we taking into account the intel that we are not privy to? I would say that we know about half of the whole story. Also, the resolutions have a 'comply or else' factor built into it. This action is the 'or else'. It IS selective to be sure, but as I said before, there is a lot of facts that we don't know, therefore the rush to judgement on many peoples parts is premature. Bush could be saving the whole world from a very bad fate. That is as valid a possibility as any other, given the lack of factual understanding we have at this time. France's position in the UN, with its 'we will veto anything' statements, undercuts the will of the rest of the UN. When it is over and Iraq is liberated, France should be cut out of any participation of business there. Germany too. Both of them had a hand in nuclearizing Iraq in the first place. The nuke power plant that Israel took out.... Germany. The present nuke equipment in Iraq.... France. These two have proven that they are not to be trusted from now on.[/b][/quote]I agree. That's why I have largely abstained from commenting here. There's a lot that we don't know. As it should be.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by TinderArts: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]Well, the UN is on life-support right now if not actually dead. Bush was seen nearby holding a smoking gun. [/b][/quote]The French, by stating they would veto a resolution they had not even read (it was still being written), have shown their disregard for the UN. How can you claim that the UN is a useful org when a member votes against another, without knowing what has been proposed. The best way to deal with Saddam would have been a united front (just as in 1441). That united front would have been much more effective than the way the French turned their backs on their allies and 1441, which they supported. Once Saddam saw that there was no unity in the UN anymore, he saw that as an opportunity to keep playing games with the UN. That is what nakes the UN ineffective (in other words - if you vote for a resolution, back it up with your actions).[/b][/quote]I don't get it. When th US vetos proposal after proposal re. Isreal then the UN is working perfectly. When the French use theirs, they are making a mockery of the UN? You can't have it both ways, which is it to be?

[Yuri T.]

It get's uglier here all the time. Mind you, I am a peace loving man and my parents lived through WWII and survived to make it here to the USA. I did not vote for Bush and am not happy with the way he has handled this situation. However, the threat of Iraq and it's weapons and others is real. This is a world of many shades of grey. I truly wish it was black and white. I think the Bush administration has done a piss poor job of diplomacy from the start. I also think the French, by flatly stating they would veto anything threatening force made a monumental mistake and basically killed any hope of the UN dealing with Iraq peacefully or otherwise. The new Maginot line I suppose. If this statment hadn't been made we would still be negotiating and may even have come up with a workable solution. Instead it has given Bush the green light to rush the process. I believe this is fact, without the threat of force Hussein does nothing, it is the only language he understands. Take away that threat and he will just play hide and seek forever until he gets a chance to strike. So what would any of you have decided to do? Just let him go on his merry way and hope he doesn't have any nukes or anthrax to sell or give away or use? Keep playing hide and seek while he knows there would be no real punishment? I though I saw some hope of a peaceful or at least a stronger coalition. All of these countries saw Iraq as a threat and wanted Saddam disarmed or removed.

[loudist]

Rog, If you don't get it, then you should actually read the resolutions that were proposed. Also, Israel is an friend of the US, and a vital presence in the area. Using you logic, this means Iraq is a friend to France, again a reprehensible coallition, with a reprehensible dictator. France has cut off its nose on this one...

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]Yes, I voted for him. At the time he was by far the best man for the job, he projected an image of cleanliness after years of tory sleaze and corruption. It's not a mistake I'll be making twice.[/b][/quote]Don't be too hard on yourself, or on Tony for that matter. Aside from this glaring exception, I believe that he's done a reasonably good job as a statesman. I admire that he backed up Bush for the "war on terror." He should have jumped off the bandwagon, though, when Bush extended the war to countries and individuals that have NOT attacked us. Hindsight is 20/20.

[BP3]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b] I don't get it. When th US vetos proposal after proposal re. Isreal then the UN is working perfectly. When the French use theirs, they are making a mockery of the UN? You can't have it both ways, which is it to be?[/b][/quote]#1. When the US has vetoed, they have at least read the proposed resolution. #2. When the US has vetoed, it has not contradicted a resolution they had just supported months earlier.

[Philter]

The US continually makes contradictory actions on the world stage- for example, acting to invade Iraq, while refusing to even discuss North Korea. The whole middle east is pissed because of the double standard we have concerning Israel. There are hundreds of examples of contradictory behavior by the US. Regardless, it is not legally clear that the resolution as it stands authorizes war. It's debatable, which is why it's debated. So to refuse a resolution authorizing war is not a contradictory action.

[Botch.]

This is a bit long but worth the read, I think... An 80 year old Veteran, who was in the Korean War and World War II gave a little history lesson and his thoughts today on War. It is a different look at the War. Thoughts to think about: ........................ I'm not going to get into a history lesson. The short, short version is that the League of Nations (established after WW I to prevent wars) failed to stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering Ethiopia. It failed to stop Japan from invading and conquering Manchuria and much of China. Their committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but did absolutely nothing to stop war. At France's coaxing Britain's prime minister Nevil Chamberlain met with Adolph Hitler in Munich and surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the interest of "peace in our time." The French and British watched as Germany took Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace. World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a mutual defense treaty with Poland so they couldn't escape. They declared war on Germany. Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so Japan declared war on Britain. France wet their pants and surrendered to Germany as fast as they could and gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they really were on the side of Germany. Japan attacked the United States and, because of Japan's mutual defense treaty with Germany, Germany declared war on the United States. Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a large number of our people were wringing their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler. He is really a good guy who just needed a little more land for his expanding population. The dear man just wants peace. And World War II was in full swing leaving better than 50,000,000 people dead including about 450,000 American soldiers and sailors. Three cheers for the League of Nations! After World War II it was decided to do the whole thing all over again. This time we would call it the United Nations and we will have committee meetings and hand wringing parties and make sure peace prevails throughout the land. While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union split Germany, invaded Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000 American soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean soldiers and civilians killed and the country nearly destroyed. Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers killed in Vietnam and have fought wars in Somalia, Herzegovenia, Panama, Granada,plus the Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that evil regime then but the United Nations would have no part of that. All they would allow was for us to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail. Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United Nations resolutions while he has massed poison gas and bio weapons. He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his buddy, Kim Jong-Il of North Korea may give him a few. (It was the United Nations who prevented us from taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the means to do it.) Peace!!!!!!!! Sure. France is wetting their collective pants in fear that the United States will take Saddam out and along with him, France's 60 billion dollar contracts with Iraq. Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars that they sorely need. In answer to your question....... hell yes we should go to war with Iraq. We should have done it six months ago. We should also get out of the United Nations. Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament Committee? Can you believe they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee? All three of these countries are on the UN List of Terrorist States..........Absolutely unbelievable. Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history the only time peace has prevailed is when the good guys have militarily whipped the bad guys. Who are our best friends in the world? Japan because we whipped them. Germany because we whipped them. Italy because we whipped them. Britain because we whipped them. This is one opinion, on the War but this is the eyes, ears and heart of an American Veteran...

[Bush Brain]

I agree with your argument that the rest of the world should act now to stifle the US's march towards hegemony and world domination. Very apt point.

[Get Real]

Are you saying we are the equivilent of Nazi's? Typical sissification american liberal position, taking the point of that post and twisting it in your 'wringing hands'. Go and shield a hospital anti-aircraft installation in downtown Bagdhad, ass clown. As the previous post said, it should have been done in 91... but the UN wouldn't allow it. Now look at where we are because of their 'peace at all costs' stance... Trade towers down, and we are on alert....

[Salyphus]

You may not agree with it, but the case is made very eloquently in the article posted in [url=http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011731]this thread.[/url] Check it out.

[realtrance]

I was having a dinner conversation with friends, and we were speculating on how the Iraqis would really react to the appearance of American troops. One person said, "I mean, how would YOU feel if the Iraqis said they were coming to America in force, but their goal was JUST to take out Bush and his co-conspirators?..." Suddenly, there was a hush around the table. "hmmm..." rt

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by Bush Brain: [b]I agree with your argument that the rest of the world should act now to stifle the US's march towards hegemony and world domination. Very apt point.[/b][/quote]Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan all side with the U.S A. on how to deal with Saddam Hussein.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by steadyb: [b]Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan all side with the U.S A. on how to deal with Saddam Hussein.[/b][/quote]Yeah, exactly: they all agree the USA should do it, seeing how none of them have troops on the ground over there as far as I know... I still think that if Turkey doesn't come through at the last moment, there won't be an attack. I don't see the leaders of the military of any of the above countries advocating attacking from a single known front, much less the U.S.'s own military.

[aeon]

[quote][i]loudist said:[/i] [b]Israel is an friend of the US, and a vital presence in the area.[/b][/quote]A country that has weapons of mass destruction, does not obey 36-year-old UN resolutions, violates international law and commits acts of terror by destroying civilian homes in occupied lands, and uses bulldozers to run over and kill US citizens working for peace in the region. And we are friends with them? :rolleyes:

[Alon]

[quote]Originally posted by aeon: [b] [quote][i]loudist said:[/i] [b]Israel is an friend of the US, and a vital presence in the area.[/b][/quote]A country that has weapons of mass destruction, does not obey 36-year-old UN resolutions, violates international law and commits acts of terror by destroying civilian homes in occupied lands, and uses bulldozers to run over and kill US citizens working for peace in the region. And we are friends with them? :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Oh please, give me a break. That stupid broad who got into that mishap with the bulldozer was no peace person. For you to imply that it was an intentional act, when all evidence suggests otherwise, shows a blatant bias on your part. There are photos of her giving lessons to children on how to burn American flags. She was a contributor to all the hate that breeds down there. At best your post is full of incorrect statements, at worst it's full of lies. Israel actually did the world a favor when it took out that iraqi nuclear reactor some years back. Look into some facts next time before you post. alon

[Alon]

.

[Bush Brain]

We should cut ties with Israel [i]immediately[/i]. They need to learn how to get along in the world without holding daddy's hand.

[Alon]

Brain, are you a moron in real life ? or do you just play one on a chatboard ? Now that many countries across the world have shown their true colors, and the USA knows whom it can and cannot depend on, it would be pretty foolhardy and highly unrealistic for the USA to sever ties with their greatest ally in the middle east region. Both countries are fighting common enemies, and it is obviously in the United State's best interest to have them on our side. Of course, if you are one of those peace idiots who see the United States and Israel as the two greatest threats to world peace, then you might as well move to mecca or something, because your kind won't get too far with idiotic rhetoric. alon

[aeon]

[quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]Oh please, give me a break.[/b][/quote]Which leg? :D [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]That stupid broad...[/b][/quote]Glad to know that you have sexist views at the least, if not outright misogynist ones. [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]...who got into that mishap with the bulldozer was no peace person.[/b][/quote]Do you have evidence to support this assertion? If so, I would be more than willing to read it. [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]For you to imply that it was an intentional act, when all evidence suggests otherwise, shows a blatant bias on your part.[/b][/quote]I implied nothing. Perhaps you inferred something though. The simple fact is that a Israeli bulldozer ran over and killed a US citizen. Do you dispute this? I made no statement of intention on anyone’s part. Where did you get that? [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]There are photos of her giving lessons to children on how to burn American flags.[/b][/quote]Please provide a reference for this. I would be interested in reading and learning more. Regardless, is burning a flag such a bad thing, regardless of the nation it represents? I am not saying it has no meaning, for it does...but at the same time, it is a flag, and I would support your right to do so here in America if you chose to do so. [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]She was a contributor to all the hate that breeds down there.[/b][/quote]Do you have evidence to support this assertion? If so, I would be more than willing to read it. [quote][i]Alon said:[/i] [b]At best your post is full of incorrect statements, at worst it's full of lies.[/b][/quote]I stated that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Do you dispute this? Is this incorrect? Did I lie? I stated that Israel does not comply with a UN resolution dating from 1967. Do you dispute this? Is this incorrect? Did I lie? I stated that Israel violates international law and commits acts of terror by destroying civilian homes in occupied lands. Do you dispute this? Is this incorrect? Did I lie? I stated that Israel used a bulldozer to run over and kill a US citizen. Do you dispute this? Is this incorrect? Did I lie? Perhaps it was an accident, perhaps it was not...I was not there...but one thing is clear...she was run over by a bulldozer and died as a result. Do you dispute this? Is this incorrect? So, Alon, in the end I made four main statements regarding weapons of mass destruction, lack of UN resolution compliance, violation of international law and the killing of a US citizen with a bulldozer. You stated that my post is full of incorrect statements (at the least) and at worst it is full of lies. Please show which of my statements are incorrect at the very least, and at worst, show where I lied. If I am incorrect, I will thank you for educating me, and I will retract my statement(s). If you presume that I knew better, and lied outright so as to hide the truth, then please prove that I did so. If you cannot, then I shall consider your statement an attack on my character, and request that you apologize in full. With all due respect Alon, I wish you no ill, but you have levied a serious charge against my person, and I wish to resolve that in a fair and expeditious manner. I look forward to your response. blesséd be, aeon

[ViLo]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] .... The complete failure of the Security Council of the United Nations to put meaning behind their words will haunt them for at least the next decade. As a patriot, I'll always remember how fortunate we were that we had a president who understood the meaning of his oath of office and acted to protect the US and the world against evil and terror. guitplayer[/b][/quote]:thu:

[Alon]

Reply to aeon. Well, in my opinion your post implied it was an intentional act, or else you wouldn't have included it as one of your reasons questioning why the USA supports Israel. If I were to write a piece about American-French foreign relations, I would hardly include a bit about somebody who had an automobile accident last week. It has no relevance. If you did not imply it was intentional, as you state, then why include that useless bit of trivia in your post ? I've played the whole "provide evidence/links" game too many times before, and it's useless, becuase everybody still believes their own viewpoint at the end, regardless If you're interested, just google her name under news, and you'll find all the info i was talking about. Including the picture of her burning a flag with a sick enraged look on her face, while plenty of kids are standing around watching her. This is nothing less than incitement, in my opinion. And also, highly "unpeaceful" behavior for a "peace activist" I don't really have respect for people who call themselves for "peace activists", when in reality they provide aid and support to the enemy. Why don't they just join the ranks of the enemy and get it over it ? These people shouldn't play false games. I don't disagree with the part about the UN reolutions, though I do disagree that Israel commits acts of terror as you state. By who's definition are you calling Israel a terrorist state ? The USA 's definition ? Last I checked they weren't included on the state dept's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Your definition ? Iraq's definition ? The UN's deifinition ? I'm just curious. Otherwise, your opinion of Israel comitting terrorist acts, is merely your opinion. I don't have any beef with you, I just reacted to you using that "bulldozer" episode as part of your "Why do we support Israel" post. alon