Well look here.... NO HELP HERE (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12232430,00.html)

it seems that not enough evidence has been proved to the main security countries on the UN (is china on it?)

* What evidence WOULD be needed to support the overthrowing of Baghdad

* Do you support this war? (dont go on about OIL)
* IF war is avoided and 2 years down the line IRAQ supplies al-quedia a nuclear or chemical weapon and its used in USA what would you say/DO ?

Im stil sticking with my views, that Iraq WILL supply these weapons to terrorists and Sadam must be removed. but each to their own.

As long as we can keep Saddam busy and scared for his life, trying desperately to hide his weapons and confom to UN regulations, why should we risk it all and attack him, before the poor chap dies of old age?

I can give you a reason though:

1) Try to take Baghdad.

2) Without horrendous civilian casualties.

Mutually exclusive objectives.

To the US in general, about the Middle East in general:

GET YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF IT!

For the following reasons:

1) Generating an anti-western movement will be piece of cake whomever would care to set back the progress towards ateistic/secular societies, if the US (or any other western country) invaded.

2) The risk that chemical weapons are spread is not a cause for invasion: If it was, you would have to invade all european countries too (not to mention the US itself), because we have public schools with Chemestry classrooms. Any reasonably intelligent high school student can find the "reciept" for a deadly chemical or biological agent, break into a school lab to produce it, and spread it afterwards.

3) I know that you didn't want this to turn into an oily thread, but I have to repeat that the US could kill the entire OPEC simply by cutting down on those gas-guzzeling pick-up trucks.

I am fully against war........

Evidence? What about the thousands of lbs of Chemical Weapons that were identified just before the Inspectors were kicked out in 98? Or the thousands of ml of Biological agents unaccounted for? Check out the report from the weapons inspectors.

Again, Evidence?

When the UN Inspectors LEFT in 1998, this was in their report. Declared means Iraq Admitted these weapons exist/existed

The United Nations and United States suspect Iraq still holds dangerous amounts of chemical and biological "weapons of mass destruction." The types and amounts listed here are what Iraq says it possessed over the last seven years. Iraq insists the chemical and biological stockpiles have been destroyed; the United Nations disputes that.

Biological Weapons

ANTHRAX

Declared: 2,245 gallons, enough to kill billions. The U.N. suspects production was three to four times that.

BOTULINUM TOXIN

Declared: 5,125 gallons, enough to wipe out Earth's population several times. The U.N. suspects the number may have been twice that.

AFLATOXIN

Declared: 581 gallons.

RICIN

Declared: 2.7 gallons.


GAS GANGRENE

Declared: 90 gallons.

Chemical Weapons

VX

Declared: Four metric tons; the U.N. says the total could be as much as 200 metric tons.


SARIN

Declared: 100 to 150 metric tons; the U.N. says the total could be as much as 200 metric tons.

MUSTARD GAS

Declared: 500 to 600 metric tons.

DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Iraq claims it destroyed these, but U.N. cannot confirm:

16 Al Hussein warheads filled with botulinum toxin, five filled with anthrax and four filled with aflatoxin.

100 R-400 aerial bombs filled with botulinum toxin, 50 filled with anthrax and seven filled with aflatoxin.

The burden of proof is on Iraq, as ourlined in UN Resolution 1441, NOT the United States OR the UN.http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm)

The UN Weapons inspectors are NOT there to play hide and seek, but to verify dissarmament.

You can be against the war, that's not a problem for me, but to say no evidence?

Originally posted by Toonces
The burden of proof is on Iraq, as ourlined in UN Resolution 1441, NOT the United States OR the UN.http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm)

Then we should pull out the inspectors and proceed with the war. Because Iraq can never prove the negative. It is not possible to prove the negative. Ssso, I guess that, no matter what the resolution says, the US are gonna have to prove the positive.

Now the way I see it is this: The US lose support all over the world:

Europe: You just lost France too (big headlines today). With both Germany and France against you, you have lost the EU, no matter what the English say.

Asia: Well, you never were popular there in the first place, were you now. And neither Russia nor China want anything to do with the war, so I guess that you've lost Asia too.

South America&Africa: I don't rightly know their stand, but I think that they would hate to see foreign aid directed to war effort.

'S far as I can see the US has only one ally left: Israel. And they don't have the best of reputations, which doesn't exactly help you either... So apart from all the ethical reasons against war, I'd be a BIG, FAT, STUPID MISTAKE, from a strategic point of view.

I took this out of the link that you provided:

and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process

Without reading the whole thing (yeah, I'm lazy), I'd like to point out that this does not seem to me to force the burden of proof on Iraq: If the inspectors find nothing, then it would, IMO, be proof that Iraq hasn't got anything. That's how it works in the rest of the civilized world, 's far as I know.

And let me repeat: Ditch the pick-up trucks and you could ruin OPEC.

Firstly, I must say that if US don't care anything about all their allies' opinions, then they have no allies.

Now, about Iraq and evidence: The UN inspectors have yet not found anything that in any way proves that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Also, understand this: If US goes to war even though the UN inspectors asks for more time, then UN will not approve an attack.

One more thing. This is quite off-topic, but anyway: I somehow managed to get the writing on LF and other internet sides to be much smaller (didn't mean to). How do you get it normal again?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
One more thing. This is quite off-topic, but anyway: I somehow managed to get the writing on LF and other internet sides to be much smaller (didn't mean to). How do you get it normal again?

Hold control and move the mouse wheel down at the same time.

Happened to me, too.

Originally posted by Cjais
Hold control and move the mouse wheel down at the same time.

Happened to me, too.

Tnx, it's normal again now.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Now the way I see it is this: The US lose support all over the world:

Europe: You just lost France too (big headlines today). With both Germany and France against you, you have lost the EU, no matter what the English say.

Any we don't really care, Germany and France can go jump in a lake. Both the Germans and the French have had, and continue to have Business dealings with Iraq that violates UN Sanctions, there for are looking out for themselfs only. For all we have done for them since WWII they should feel obligated to back us up instead of demonizing us with every chance they get. I really hope we begin to pull our troops out of Germany since we're obviously not wanted or needed there anymore

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
'S far as I can see the US has only one ally left: Israel. And they don't have the best of reputations, which doesn't exactly help you either... So apart from all the ethical reasons against war, I'd be a BIG, FAT, STUPID MISTAKE, from a strategic point of view.

Well, it seems like you are missinformed. Regardless what you say about Britan, they are coming with us. The British press may condem and demonize us all they like, but Tony Blair is on board, and is moving his troops into the Gulf. His word is final. We also have the public support of Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Qutar, Kuwait, Israel, and numerous others. As soon as the war starts more will fall in line, and will be begging to be part of the rebuilding process. Doesn't look like no support to me.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

I took this out of the link that you provided:
Without reading the whole thing (yeah, I'm lazy), I'd like to point out that this does not seem to me to force the burden of proof on Iraq: If the inspectors find nothing, then it would, IMO, be proof that Iraq hasn't got anything. That's how it works in the rest of the civilized world, 's far as I know.

You should read the entire thing, as well as get a better understanding of the law. They are called weapon inspectors for a reason, not weapon seekers, or hunters. You can beleive whatever you like, but the burden of proof IS on Iraq, not the UN.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toonces
[B] I really hope we begin to pull our troops out of Germany since we're obviously not wanted or needed there anymore



Yea we don't need to be there at all.

Support for the Bush plan in the U.S. is closely linked to support and validation from the International community. I heard on National Public Radio today that consistently, U.S. support for its leaders is cut in half the moment they(we) realize the International community is not backing us. Since support is already extremely weak now, I can't imagine how low it will be if we go it alone. The Bush administration does not care what it's enemies, allies or citizens want, they will do anything they please and spite us all.
I read that the French and German goverments are resisting war efforts because of the pressure put on them by their people.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT!!! That's what we are supposed to have here in the U.S.

Once again, Democracy is best exemplified by someone other than the United States.

Originally posted by Toonces
Any we don't really care, Germany and France can go jump in a lake.


ANd you wonder why your "allies" don't like you anymore :rolleyes:.

Both the Germans and the French have had, and continue to have Business dealings with Iraq that violates UN Sanctions

Don't be ridiculous. No one would never have said that if they had supported you. And I would like to point out that the US itself was the country that gave weapons and equipment to Iraq.

Another thing to point out: Because a country don't want war doesn't mean it's anti-USA.

And another: If any other country had acted like US does today, then Bush would have attacked it long ago. This is a fact. After all, it has supported terror organizations such as Taliban and Bin Laden, plus helping Saddam, and now it's attacking other countries for oil.

get a grip this is nothing to do with OIL.

PERIOD.

Are you trying to tell us that for the last 10 years that IRAQ has stuck its fingers up against the UN cease fire after the Gulf war is all about OIL.

The WEST WAS BUYING OIL FROM IRAQ FOR THOSE 10 YEARS.

THEY SWAPPED FOOD AND MEDICINE FOR THAT OIL.

NOW THEY SAY, LETS HAVE A WAR. JUST TO GET OIL.


GET A LIFE MAN, THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL.

THIS WAR IS ALL ABOUT UN RESOLUTION 14141.

AND NOTHING MORE.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. STOP READING YOUR PAPER. THEY ARE FEEDING U BULL SH***

Originally posted by Anakin_Solo
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. STOP READING YOUR PAPER. THEY ARE FEEDING U BULL SH***

And why do you think the paper you read is more reliable than the paper I'm reading. Anyway, there is not really anything about war for oil in the paper I read, it's just logical sense, that's all. For instance, why are they planning to attack Iraq when North Korea is a much greater threat? And they don't really have any real reason to attack Iraq anyway. I mean, Saddam hasn't done anything special the last few years, but suddenly the US goverment starts warmongering. For what reason? Weapons of mass destruction? Well, the inspectors hasn't found anything important so far. But it is obvious that Bush and friends doesn't care if they find anything or not.

THEY SWAPPED FOOD AND MEDICINE FOR THAT OIL.

That's odd, I thought they were unable to buy a lot of the different medicine because of resolutions. I can assure you that the resolutions are a much greater pain for the civillians than for the goverment.

This has everything to do with oil. PERIOD. Gas prices in the US have been rising quite a bit over the years....and with such hostilities the odds of those prices skyrocketing are increasing. But hey, what if we had a reason to go in and install a Pro-US leader in Iraq who would sell us that oil for a LOT less......hmmmm

Now we finally have a good excuse to shove our noses into it because they may or may not have weapons of mass destruction, but the reason we care is because they have the oil that we need. North Korea has WOMD's, and their leader is as evil and ruthless as Sadam.......but they aren't the biggest threat I suppose.......:rolleyes:

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I am fully against war........ same here. technically bush should be impeached right now for criminal acts of war also known as war crimes. he is declaring war without the UN's consent and congress did not agree with war being declared. so i say impeach bush.

Not to do with Oil? Lets look at the consumption of oil-based products by the USA. I believe the last estimate/figures showed that the US use about half of all the oil produced in the world. So, if something happens with oil, then the US is heavily affected.

Iraq has been able to sell oil to the west in the last 5 or more years in return for aid for the population. I believe Iraq could sell oil to get medicine and food for their people, but wasn't meant to be making money out of it.

I also see the irony that many of the countries that the US covertly or openly armed in the 70's and 80's to fend off the Red Army are now coming back to bite them in the butt. They armed Iraq to try and beat Iran, but that was just a long bloody and ultimately useless war for such an insignificant piece of land. Armed Afghanistan against the Russians, and in the end it seemed as if this place was where the US least wanted to send CIA agents to track a known "troublemaker" when countries such as Sudan and Afghanistan had told them where Bin Laden was.

Any way I am against armed conflict unless totally necessary. I do not dismiss the need for war totally, but only as a last resort.

Ok, so Iraq has weapons.... so what?

The US has weapons.... probably 100 time sthe number Iraq has. Why should the US get them and noone else? Because the US considers themselves the only country responsible enough to have them?

Personally I wouldn't call going against the wishes of the UN and marching into Iraq 'responsible'. I'd call it downright stupid.

And now our bloody Prime Minister is sending in our troops. ITS NOT OUR WAR! America is the country who wants this to happen. If you guys want to invade, that's fine. I don't approve, but hey, at least Saddam won't come at us. But not, because we're Bush's little lap dog, along with Britain, we've been dragged into it. 2000 Australians troops heading to or already at the gulf... for no reason other than to supposedly 'scare' Saddam.

You heard what his son said.

"If America attacks, our retalliation will make Sept 11 look like a joke"

Of course they've got bloody weapons, but if we leave them alone, THEY WONT USE THEM! Honestly, Iraq's a small country. They control the oil, so if they wanted to screw the western world over, THEY COULD HAVE, but they havent. They obviously have weapons, but they're not going to use them. Iraq is hardly a world conquering force. They wouldn't be able to get very far on their own continent, let alone to other ones.


The only country capable of taking of the world at the moment is the US. It's the sad truth. They have the weapons, the air forces and the troops. China would put up a good fight, but sadly, the US could wipe out any country they desired to. Iraq does not have this capability.


I don't understand what the fuss is about. Let him run his own bloody country. Don't go charging in just because he has a few weapons. He's not using them. They're just sitting there incase he gets attacked, which is EXACTLY WHATS HAPPENING.


So I hope you Americans don't start to hate Saddam if he retalliates. What's he supposed to do? Sit there and do nothing while you blow the crap out of him? Of course he'll strike back. And if you left him alone, you wouldn't.


Bush considers himself a peacemaker, but he's not. He's a bloody warmongerer, and he should back the fk off before he gets the rest of the world involved in his silly little war games. he just wants to be a hero like his dad.



if Bush attacks, Saddam attacks. The people of America and the world deserve better than to die because of Bush's arrogance and low intelligence. You deserve a leader who won't blindly lead them into a battle that could have been totally prevented.


Honestly, all you Bush supporters need to take a step back and look what's happening.... Things would have been fine. If Saddam had done anything with the weapons, fine, THEN you can blow the s*** through him, but don't just go in because he has weapons. Just let him die an old man. Let nature kill him, otherwise we may all be dead.

here's a little tidbit from sky news...


US WAR PLANS UNVEILED


American military chiefs have drawn up their battle plan for military action against Saddam Hussein.


Up to 400 cruise missiles will be launched on the first day of war in a bid to make Iraq capitulate within eight days.

Called "shock and awe", the plans are for an attack that would be swift, massive and designed to destroy Baghdad's will to fight, according to US media reports.

The attack will begin with a huge bombing blitz.

The plan to launch 400 cruise missiles in the first 24 hours will see more fired in one day than during the entire first Gulf War.



Is there any idiot here who doesn't think this is utterly pathetic? Overkill is an understatement. This is just plan stupidity.

i totally agree with you gonk. i live in the US and im ashamed of the system.or atleast the icon of the system,George Bush. he is a warmonger.

Originally posted by Anakin_Solo
get a grip this is nothing to do with OIL.

PERIOD.


Really ? Earlier this week I saw an interview with AMERICAN officers that are planning the attack on tv and there was not a single word about weapons of mass destruction. What they said was 'when the war is over the USA will have an unlimited oil supply and Bush can destroy the OPEC'.

if america plays its cars rite we will be fine we should keep an eye on iraq , sure we should but we should take a much closer look at korea-but nope they dont have oil screw our people we can let korea kill us while our civilions die we can hide in bunkers but as long as we get our oil rite, wrong in my veiw they fight iraq for oil there wont be anybody around to use it. korea has weapons and is a threat and ieaq when proved to have weapons is somwhat of a threat also. but no korea didnt pick on bush's daddy rite? honestly war is bad duh but if there is gonna be one make it on the immediate threat, i would rathe have bush than gore but i dont want either, we need another rosavelt or somthin, we dont need big biuisness in office, if we use troops itll be another vietnam if we use bombs on iraq were gonna get bombed honestly who should we focus on a threat or an investment?

another thing people say we have few allies on this i dont think asia or afrivca will do anything but europe will first of all england is a close ally and germany and france think for a sec, if either one of them were bombed or what have you we theyk us for help in a heartbeet.

No need to double post - C'jais

US Citizen here...

I didn't vote for this idiot, and I can only remember 1 time where I agreed with any of his policies (the affirmative action one, but that's for another thread :)). Bush is an idiot surrounded by a staff full of hawkish brutes who have no idea what this country's people really want. The war with Iraq will only cement the Anti US feelings all over the world and we're going to end up in a world of fresh steamy crap.

yeah if this is over oil your correct steamy crap

I dont seem to hear anything about what grounds we're proposing to fight Iraq for.

Lets face the facts.

Clinton was all around on of the better president of our time, and yet people cannot look past his affair. But truthfully.....The Economy was booming and we didnt hate everyone and Vice Versa (they didnt hate us).

The Economy sucks during Bush's reign. He puts money in the wrong areas. Then he blocks ALL the major Economic headlines with this Iraq business. I swear no one remembers how badly the economy is doing because you will always see a "WAR IN IRAQ EMINENT" Headline.

Lets stay focused here. Why would the government take a break for Saddam and let him rest during Clinton's time in office....And then when George W. (The Cattle Rancher) comes to power BOOM Iraq is all of the sudden deadly.

Your Probably thinking wow.....this Crazy_Ivan is crazy or unpatriotic. But being an American Citizen my whole life has led me to be able to say that this country is going down the Shi*ter if it continues its "HEY THEYVE GOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION everyone Point your finger......ok fine......me and Britain can take this out........OK Be that way.....the U.S. CAN HANDLE ANYTHING (please) They even went on to say we could a 2 front war. Germany paid the price of that 2 times! It seems we will be the next.

Enough Said.

I love how everybody resorts to personal attacks rather than arguing facts, but your all free to have your opinion. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the great John F. Kenedy had an IQ under 100. I have to see if I can dig up that article somewhere.

Anyway, say what you will about President Bush's foreign policy, but lets clear some thing up.

Clinton road the Technology boom in the early 90's, which started btw after the Republicans took back congress, and the "Contract with America" was crafted. It's been widely documented that the Recession started six months Before Clinton left office. Bush "inherited" a stagnent economy.

On the Iraq issue, perhaps you forgot about the Inspectors getting thrown out in 98? And Clinton gearing up to go to war before succumbing to international pressure? If Clinton would have properly handled the situation we would not be in the position we are in today.

On your point about his "affair" For me at least it had nothing to do with his little fling with Monica, and everything to do with Lieing under oath

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan
I dont seem to hear anything about what grounds we're proposing to fight Iraq for.

'Cause there are no grounds so far. Mr. Blix says that he wants more time... I say that we give him more time...

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan
Clinton was all around on of the better president of our time, and yet people cannot look past his affair

Which looks silly to me as a European. BTW: Does the average American still remember the name Lawinsky?

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan
we didnt hate everyone and Vice Versa (they didnt hate us).

Oh, I think that the same people hated you, alright, they just hadn't showed it. After all hatred doesn't just crop up spontaneously. Even if it is nurtured it still takes time.

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan
I swear no one remembers how badly the economy is doing because you will always see a "WAR IN IRAQ EMINENT" Headline.

Hmmm. Scary... That the human memory can be that short... Then again, I see that every day in school.

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan
They even went on to say we could a 2 front war. Germany paid the price of that 2 times! It seems we will be the next.

Germany didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't believe that the US can ever truely lose a war... But they may lose their democracy (or what's left of it, if it ever was there). And there is also a looong way from not losing to actually winning.

Originally posted by Toonces
On the Iraq issue, perhaps you forgot about the Inspectors getting thrown out in 98? And Clinton gearing up to go to war before succumbing to international pressure? If Clinton would have properly handled the situation we would not be in the position we are in today.
[/B]

Sure, blame Clinton for everything :rolleyes:

Anyways, Clinton did exactly what you are supposed to do in such matters, if you want war, but all the rest of the world don't want war, then don't make war. US is losing all their allies when they do such things as this.

Foreign Policy, especially for the U.S., should never include Brinkmanship. In other words, war should not be the way to solve ways. Its not diplomatic. Besides, people threatened war to solve problems in World War I......which led to World War II.....and most of the other wars....and Brinkmanship has always been used. For the most part, I dont think it works only to piss the other countries off even more.

So in short, I believe the U.S. cant go around saying we'll war anything with nuclear weapons. Especially without giving the U.N. their time to shine. I tell you....pissing off the United Nations isnt exactly the best thing that Bush could have done when he said if they couldn't deal with Iraq, we will.

Let Hans Blix (coool name)

Actually do his work......cause this man has been sitting around getting paid for nothing since 98.

I've spoken to a couple of Iraqis and they say that noone there likes Hussain except for those high up who can profit and live the good life courtesy of Hussain.

So I think if there is war, while Iraqis dislike Hussain they will still defend their country because that is part of a citizens psyche. You don't want countries invading your territory its only natural.

Its interesting when I was talking to one of them last time and he was telling me about how one of his friends was conscripted (you are conscripted for two years after leaving school/turning 18, forget which) and he was finishing his two years and he told me how his superiors liked him and wanted him to stay on and become an officer or something. So he had a dillema because of being close to war and not having much else going for him. The guy I spoke to got out of conscription because he was studying at uni.

I must admit, its a very tough situation for the Iraqi people at the moment whom I don't think your quarrel should be with.