Alright, it's perfectly understandable to protest, but against war with Iraq? Come on?!

We need to save the Iraqi people

People around here throw around the fact that this isn't about "Human rights" and that if it was, then we would be off fighting some dictator in South America. Well, did a dictator in South America ever kill 500,000 of there own people? Link here (http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php).

Now that we finally want to stop this from happening, yall are against it? Why? This is a major turn around! This shows that the President actually cares about whats happening over there. This war is about saving the Iraqi people. Is it so hard to believe that a Government official actually cares? Oh wait sorry, he's a republican. Im sure that had Clinton done all this, then yall wouldnt have complained.

Speaking of Clinton; to quote FORMER President Bill Clinton:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

Well, sorry Mr. Clinton, but you failed. Now its up to Bush to finish what you couldn't.

This war is about Oil

If this were 'all about oil,' we could just declare victory in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and go home. Who's going to stop us? Our troops are already there!

Look at what we did to the Afghans

Your right! We only turned there economy around. Click here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2374-2003Feb25.html)

We don't have any allies

Uh, your wrong. Hey, I got a whole crap load of links for ya then!

U.S. Has access to 21 Countries. (http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030131211732662)

Ten European Countries back US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2380889,00.html)

So there ya go, thats why I support this war... Oh wait, I almost forgot! The Run Around

Saddam has not complied at all. This has been going on for to long, a decade to long. Clinton delt with him (see above quote) and now Bush has to deal with him, and Bush don't put up with crap.

Banging the war drums slowly (http://www.msnbc.com/news/876640.asp?cp1=1)
A decade of defiance (A whitehouse.gov link which is not ran by the president) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html)
Anti-War protest piss off soliders (http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0302/18/a04-88305.htm)

Well, there ya go. All of my evidence to support war with Iraq.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
This war is about Oil
If this were 'all about oil,' we could just declare victory in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and go home. Who's going to stop us? Our troops are already there!

Then maybe we should try to liberate Cuba as well? They've been oppressed for so long. Oh wait, no oil.

How about China? Talk about human rights issues. Let's liberate them! Oops, no oil as well. Darn.

Hey about North Korea! Oh wait, no oil either. Funny how they are the ones that are actually capable of nuking the US.

How old are you counsler?

Then maybe we should try to liberate Cuba as well? They've been oppressed for so long. Oh wait, no oil.

How about China? Talk about human rights issues. Let's liberate them! Oops, no oil as well. Darn.

Hey about North Korea! Oh wait, no oil either. Funny how they are the ones that are actually capable of nuking the US.

You missed the point, Icestr0m. Did Castro ever kill 500,000 people?

*EDIT* About NK. As Bush has said, China, Japan, and Russia will be dealing with NK. Yall seriously complain that the US starts all these wars, so when the USA decideds that someone else can handle the problem, yall complain that the US of A should go at it.

Another *EDIT*: Icestr0m, I am so sorry for misspelling your name like that. Very sorry.

THE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT

In the early 1990s the US spent more than $100 million trying unsuccessfully to undermine the Iraqi regime. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which allocated up to $97 million for training and equipping opposition groups.

Seven groups were chosen to receive American support under the Act: the INC, INA, CMM, SCIRI, PUK, KDP and the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan. Only three of these, SCIRI, PUK and KDP, have a significant following inside Iraq.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/iraq/opposition.htm

i particularly favor this party (http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/)

Averting war and warding off the looming catastrophe is an urgent task.
We also appeal to all advocates of peace, democracy and peoples’ right to decide their destiny with their own free will, and world public opinion at large, to:
<li>Support the struggle of the Iraqi people and their democratic opposition forces to depose Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and to establish a federal, democratic Iraq for all its inhabitants.
<li>Convene an international conference on Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation of the Iraqi democratic opposition forces, to develop effective means, based in international legitimacy, for assisting the Iraqi people to depose the despotic dictatorship, establish genuine democracy and avert the dangers of war.
<li>Enforce UN Resolution 688 (April 1991) that pertains to guaranteeing human rights in Iraq, and recommendations by Mr. Van der Stoel, former UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, which were endorsed by the UN General Assembly.
<li>Press for a UN resolution to present Saddam Hussein and his close associates for trials at an international tribunal for crimes committed against the Iraqi people and humanity.
<li>Withdraw political and diplomatic recognition of the current Iraqi government, and refuse to receive members of the ruling dictatorial clique.
<li>Effectively enforce the process of UN inspections of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and international legitimacy

;)

We appeal to world public opinion to stop CounslerCoffee before he starts pounding the Drums of War. We are convinced: together we are able to fight the logic of CounslerCoffee.

For the third time in less than three decades, the people of Iraq the victims of two destructive wars, a genocidal economic sanctions régime, and over three decades of tyrannical rule by Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial government are being pushed over the precipice towards imminent catastrophe as CounslerCoffee accelerates the drumbeat of war for the purpose of reinforcing his hegemony.

We appeal to all advocates of peace, democracy, peoples’ right of self-determination and adversaries of CounslerCoffee in particular to protest outside his house with pitchforks, torches and cans of gasoline!


:D

Counsler?

Skywalker, I choose to ignore you. Your post has nothing to do with this thread and is off-topic. When Goofy gets here, or Pollux, I will have them delete it and this post as well.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Skywalker, I choose to ignore you. Your post has nothing to do with this thread and is off-topic. When Goofy gets here, or Pollux, I will have them delete it and this post as well.

Well I asked for your age. You can send me PM if you like.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Alright, it's perfectly understandable to protest, but against war with Iraq? Come on?!

[b]We need to save the Iraqi people

People around here throw around the fact that this isn't about "Human rights" and that if it was, then we would be off fighting some dictator in South America. Well, did a dictator in South America ever kill 500,000 of there own people? Link here (http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php).


This war is about Oil

If this were 'all about oil,' we could just declare victory in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and go home. Who's going to stop us? Our troops are already there!


Counsler Coffee,

True, this war is not just about oil. Its about oil and fear of Saddam having weapons we don't want him to have. CouslerCoffee, I've read other post by you and i just cannot believe an intelligent person can actually believe this war is about the Iraqi people. America has a long history of stepping into conflicts with economic releavance, then justifing their actions with moral/diplomatic reasons. You claim America has chosen not to intervene in some other conflicts because "thier dictator never killed 500,000 of their own people." What about the slaughter in Rwanda were civil war started by military extremeist resulted in the death of 300,000 civilians. The vast majority of people were fighting with machetes!! How easy would it have been for America to stop this massacre with one regimen of tanks or planes? But sorry, no reason for us to stick our neck out for people that have no ecomoic releavance for us.:mad:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee

We need to save the Iraqi people
By bombing the hell out of them! Also, if we were so interested in saving the Iraqi people, those sanctions that killed damn near 1 million iraq people would've been dropped a long time ago and had the world had it's way, they would have but the united states has block those effords at every turn

People around here throw around the fact that this isn't about "Human rights" and that if it was, then we would be off fighting some dictator in South America. Well, did a dictator in South America ever kill 500,000 of there own people? Link here (http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php).
Coffee, why do you always bring up points that you know have no bearing on this war. Let's say that Suddam did in fact kill half million people. You keep forgetting to finish the sentence. It should read as follows: Suddam has killed a half million people WITH UNITED STATES SUPPORT. Why do you always forget that part? And yes, dictators in South America have killed much more with UNITED STATES SUPPORT. If you would look at the countries who recieve the most foregin aid from the US, you will find that they have the worst records of human rights violation in history.

Now that we finally want to stop this from happening, yall are against it? Why? This is a major turn around! This shows that the President actually cares about whats happening over there. This war is about saving the Iraqi people. Is it so hard to believe that a Government official actually cares? Oh wait sorry, he's a republican. Im sure that had Clinton done all this, then yall wouldnt have complained.
Back to sanctions - you wanna save the Iraqi people, remove the sanctions - they have killed more iraqi people than saddam ever could. George Bush doesn't care about his own people let alone the iraqi people. Please show proof that GWB gives a damn about anybody other than the "Americans" he's always talking about and you should be aware of the fact that when he says americans he is not talking about you and me or anyone else on this site, the internet, etc. We are not the americans he so nicely refers to. Haven't you seen that yet?

I was gonna comment on the rest of your post but i'm must ask you the same question skywalker asked you - How are you?

{I wonder, are you George Bush? You two seem to have the same way of thinking}

True Mrhero. Im sure that oil does have some factor in it. What Im trying to prove is that any good, smart, peace protester should not be against this war. They should be all for this war.

The fact that Saddam has killed so many people, done so many horrible things, should make peace protesters and human rights advocates support this war. Even if they think its for oil.

I don't like having to disagree with CC now cause he likes farscape too =(

But ^_^, If this is about the Iraqi people why are the methods being employed ones that show absolutly no regard for the Iraqi people, Making the country unlivable and terrorising the populous and militarry alike with "Shock and Awe" tactics (Just call it terror tactics and stop bandying around the gw bush).

Also if it is to spread democracy why not after "liberating Iraq" and "Holding the country for the Iraqi People"...for 7 years...dont you allow them to decide who will lead them..thats democratic isn't it or are they "too inferior" to move to democracy themselves after Saddam has gone and we have to ensure the Leader is installed that is to the Liking of the USA (Yet again even with UN backing or assitance they wouldnt of had a say in the aftermath, they are just expected to rubber stamp it and clean up after America and take care of the Humanitarian side of things)
At this point i am refraining from posting something that may seem controversial until i get the links (Re the suspected composition of the party the US has in mind to replace Saddam)

(This is the part where most of you will think i'm going off on another conspiracy throw but this is what i read in the official UK Papers, ill check it is still valid)
I will also get the links but (This was in the Gaurdian UK News papers a few weeks ago i will get the back issue), several of the Troops going in are using Holgraphic visor inserts usually only allowed in training (I have a set of these myself for my Airsoft and Motorcycle visors), most of them are of Death faces and skulls.
The reason that was stated for these now being allowed are "as part of the Psychological experiments on warfare as we have no idea what kind of effects these will have on the moral of enemy fighters"...yeah or the poor civillians you've just been blowing the crap out of for 2 days and nights then even knowing they see you as an invading force you expect to go in dressed up as death and be welcomed as liberators...well played...well played...
As far as im concerned this is another blow to the "Humanitarian" image they want for their troops as they are already seen as Satan now they dress up like his minions too???

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
True Mrhero. Im sure that oil does have some factor in it. What Im trying to prove is that any good, smart, peace protester should not be against this war. They should be all for this war.

The fact that Saddam has killed so many people, done so many horrible things, should make peace protesters and human rights advocates support this war. Even if they think its for oil.

Please, for the love of Mike, stop posting. Take a nap. have some milk and cookies. Do something other than try and prove something that can't be proved.

If Iraqs only natural resource was bannanas would we be poised to invade??:D

Attacks on my age will not put you in the best of light. The fact that you have to ask that question shows that you have a weak argument, but a fun one at that!

Cannon, its perfectly okay to disagree with me. I don't hold opinions against people and ask them there age.


dkb:
By bombing the hell out of them! Also, if we were so interested in saving the Iraqi people, those sanctions that killed damn near 1 million iraq people would've been dropped a long time ago and had the world had it's way, they would have but the united states has block those effords at every turn

We will be bombing military targets, not civillian targets. Those sanctions are in place to keep saddam from getting certain things, and Bush never put those in place.

Coffee, why do you always bring up points that you know have no bearing on this war. Let's say that Suddam did in fact kill half million people. You keep forgetting to finish the sentence. It should read as follows: Suddam has killed a half million people WITH UNITED STATES SUPPORT. Why do you always forget that part? And yes, dictators in South America have killed much more with UNITED STATES SUPPORT. If you would look at the countries who recieve the most foregin aid from the US, you will find that they have the worst records of human rights violation in history.

Links, support, now. I want proof that the USA helped Saddam kill 500,000 people. Foreign aid is a different matter, we give that to almost everyone, what they do with it is up to them. If we give some country in South America Four billion dollars, and then they use it to kill 500,000 people, how is that the United States fault? We gave them money for help, we didn't give them money to kill. They used it wrongly.

See, I knew that this would happen. This place is so liberal sometimes that a conservative can't stand up and voice his opinion. If you think Im wrong, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But when yall tell me to stop posting, go sleep, and try to call me five years old, Im going to report you. That shows that you can't have an intelligent debate with someone whose opinion differs from your own.

Im trying to have a debate here, and just because my opinions conflict with yours, doesn't give you the right to insult me.

I was a fighter always looking for trouble
And my life was so empty, there was nothing left to live for
But then it happened one night as I got into a fight
I could hear someone saying as though he was praying
Ah-a-ah-a-a-a-ah-ah

Treat him well, he is your brother
You might need his help some day
We depend on one another
Love him, that's the only way
On the road (on the road) that we're going
We all need (we all need) words of comfort and compassion
Treat him well, he is your brother
Love him, that's the only way

:D

I posted a load of links to this somewhere though i was in a rush so i didnt check the validity of the sources i posed..im dreading flames when i open that post again but hey lol.

I agree giving a country aid then if they use it badly you can't be held directly responsible though id imagine you would want to give them a slap on the wrist.
But the evidence seems to point to now only America giving them aid but activly turning a blind eye and even supressing news on Saddams attrocities which is just as bad as helping him do it.
*cough*Israel*cough*

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Im going to report you.

fine! i will report you to god!

:D

What i think it really comes down to is what will we do after we've won. If we remove Saddam and attempt to establish a true democracy than it is about helping the iraqui people. If i actully belived we would do that, id probaly in favor of the war. What's more likely is we put in a pro-US dictaor who will sell us chep oil and is no better than Saddam.

Just have to see how it turns out i guess.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
See, I knew that this would happen. This place is so liberal sometimes that a conservative can't stand up and voice his opinion. If you think Im wrong, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But when yall tell me to stop posting, go sleep, and try to call me five years old, Im going to report you. That shows that you can't have an intelligent debate with someone whose opinion differs from your own.

Im trying to have a debate here, and just because my opinions conflict with yours, doesn't give you the right to insult me.

Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh referring to your age and if you feel insulted by me or anyone else here, we apologize [well at least i do]. You do have the right to post whatever it is you wish and yes, this is suppose to be a debate. {please don't tell my mommy :D }

Okay, if you wanna debate, we can debate. Your point in this is that George Bush has no other motive for helping the Iraqi people than that he cares. That suddam, all by his lonesome, used USA issued gunships to kill countless Kurds. That the gas that suddam used was product, created and used, without US knowledge. That suddam is a monster who needs to be stopped before he drops a nuke in downtown Manhattan. That no other country on the planet has worst human rights violations that Iraq? That the USA is a white dove in a world of crows? That the USA is a only about to start a war because of good intentions? Is this the gist of you debate, CounslerCoffee?

Neutrino, I believe that's the plan. To install a true democracy in Iraq.

And actually, its the French who are after that oil. Click here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37621-2003Feb20.html)

Neutrino, I believe that's the plan. To install a true democracy in Iraq.
And i'll believe it when it happens.

. Your point in this is that George Bush has no other motive than helping the Irqai people because he cares.

No. It's just one of the reasons that I support the war, Saddam is evil! Like how I said before, even if you think this war is abouy oil, you can still think of it as taking an evil, dangerous man out of power.

Is this the gist of you debate, CounslerCoffee?

Yes.

I don't think humanitarianism is a big issue for the US, but nor do I think oil is either. Oil is a bigger issue for France and Russia. I think Republicans felt that disarming Iraq had been pushed to a back burner during the Clinton years, as well as in the UN during that time. Bush may have even been entertaining ideas of pushing the issue of disarming Iraq back to the forefront when he came into the White House, but it was certainly galvanized by what happened on 9/11. Whether there is a real connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups I don't know, but this administration does, and I also think this administration realizes there are bigger issues out there than Iraq, so it is time to end this threat once and for all so it can focus on other things. Obviously Bush would have liked for the members of the permanent Security Council to back up the enforcement of those 17 broken resolutions, including 1441, but they obviously are more concerned with their own interests. However, the Security Council voted 15-0 for 1441, yet now certain members don't want to insist it be enforced. If France, Russia, and China would have presented a unified front with the US and Britain it might have gotten Saddam to realize his total isolation. Instead he has seen a division in the UN and has been hoping to exploit it. Nobody wants war, and it could have been avoided, but Saddam must go.

CounslerCoffee, heres something I need you to do. I understand your point of view for I too at one time in my life saw no wrong that this country did. Study how Suddam got to the place he is in now. Go back 3 years before Dessert Storm. Go back to the Iraq / Iran war. Check out the data on the Iran/Contra affair. I would provide the links myself but as my grade school teacher use to say, "I've already done my homework, time for you to do yours."

While I realize that this was not your idea of a debate, I think you need to bring a little more to the table before we can get down to it.

In reply you the Aid issue. Very true that once the US gives money, we have no say in what they do with it however, once given money and we see that they are killing and destoying and we turn around give them more, well it's kinda hard to turn a blind eye to that. The US only gives aid to countries that will follow its agenda. That will look out for US interest. Check out Coloumbia and or Turkey and or Israel.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
True Mrhero. Im sure that oil does have some factor in it. What Im trying to prove is that any good, smart, peace protester should not be against this war. They should be all for this war.

The fact that Saddam has killed so many people, done so many horrible things, should make peace protesters and human rights advocates support this war. Even if they think its for oil.

counslercoffee, I think something should be done in Iraq, I'm not sure war is the answer though. If war is the answer, I wouldn't call it just. No war is ever just. Maybe I'll call it necessary or emminent, but not just.

I think all the arabic countries share the same plight of corrupt leaderships and governments. This situation is no longer accepted by US, because these countries offer a lot and dealing with those jerk leaders is becoming difficult. On the other hand, United States is the one responsible for putting those jerks in charge. US supported the rebellious movements by those militants, Saddam, Assad, Nasr, Kazafi, Ayatullah. US allowed those guys to overthrow the existing governments and supported them in attaining power...Same thing that US is trying to do with Venzuela....screw with the existing government and put a puppet government.

US can't force democracy. Democracy is the result of election and needs a strong existing system in place to work from. I know that US will never be able to instill democracy in Iraq. I said it before, democracy takes time. It's an adjustment for the entire nation and not an act of placing puppets. I don't think that US will gain anything from invading Iraq and I'm very scared of the consequences the long term ones.

Originally posted by Coldrake
However, the Security Council voted 15-0 for 1441, yet now certain members don't want to insist it be enforced.

All the members want it enforced. I don't recall 1441 calling for war if Suddam doesn't comply. I believe the wording had to do with "Server consequences" {if i'm wrong be let me know}which can imply war but I find in these resoultions that the wording is everything it's the only way the US was able to get a 15-0 vote.

I agree that europe/asia is attempting to get on Iraqs good side just as much as we wanna make war. A strong europe/asia scares the heck outta of the US.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee


I asked the freaking simple question and you made a big deal out of it. You could have said " NO I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU". Geezzz man, I felt like I asked you a forumla to make a NUKE.

Study how Suddam got to the place he is in now. Go back 3 years before Dessert Storm. Go back to the Iraq / Iran war. Check out the data on the Iran/Contra affair. I would provide the links myself but as my grade school teacher use to say, "I've already done my homework, time for you to do yours."

I addressed this in a different thread, but I'll point it out again. Three years before the Gulf War, Saddam was a valuable ally. He was helping us, just like how Usama Bin Laden was once an ally.

Also, about the bio-weapons that were supposibly given to Saddam:

WASHINGTON - Iraq's bioweapons program that President George W. Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from the United States two decades ago, according to U.S. government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

Now, read about the transfers that happened in 1980, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. Different era, different situation. Its like giving a friend a gun right now so that he can point it at his enemy, then later after the enemy is gone he points the gun at you. He was your friend/ally, he's not anymore.

Let me quote this article again:

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

Yes, it was naive, but if they say "Hey we want to help cure disease, we need samples!" We say "Sure buddy!" And we ship it off to a UNIVERSITY. Not to a military instillation.

*EDIT* Link to article above: http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/biological_us_supplied.html

*EDIT* DKB, check out my responses in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18310&perpage=5&pagenumber=3

Originally posted by skywalker
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee


I asked the freaking simple question and you made a big deal out of it. You could have said " NO I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU". Geezzz man, I felt like I asked you a forumla to make a NUKE.

All you need to do is click on the member name and you'll see personal information that the member wishes to make known.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by heflores
All you need to do is click on the member name and you'll see personal information that the member wishes to make known.

You're welcome.

Thank you

uhhh.... am i to take it that abba lyrics do not a case make?

:(

Originally posted by spookz
uhhh.... am i to take it that abba lyrics do not a case make?

:(

Huh:bugeye:

some more info on wat CC is talking about;



http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm


Iraq's Biological Weapons Program
Return to Iraq's Biological Weapons Program.

Foreign Suppliers to Iraq's Biological Weapons Program
Obtain Microbial Seed Stock for Standard or Novel Agent
Agriculture and Water Resource Department:
On 3/21/86, the US Department of Commerce issued a license to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) to export aspergillus fungal cultures, used in the production of aflatoxin, to Iraq. ATCC officials said the cultures were not delivered.[1]
Atomic Energy Commission:
Between 1985-89, ATCC made 17 shipments of "attenuated strains of various toxins and bacteria" to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission.[2]
Basra University:
According to a 1991 US military intelligence memo, Japanese scientists had been assisting scientists from Basra University since 1984 in researching mycotoxins produced by soil fungi, including aflatoxin. The Japanese-Iraqi team used three species of aspergillus mold to produce aflatoxin.[3]
In 1985, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sent a shipment of West Nile Fever virus to an Iraqi researcher.[4]
College of Medicine (Baghdad):
On 11/30/84, the US Department of Commerce issued a license to ATCC to export aspergillus fungal cultures to Iraq for delivery to the College of Medicine in Baghdad. ATCC officials said the cultures were not delivered.[5]
State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP):
Iraq’s State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered incubators and culture media from Germany’s Water Engineering Trading (W.E.T.).[6]
Salman Pak:
In 1985, the CDC sent three shipments of West Nile Fever virus to Iraq for use in medical research.[7]
University of Baghdad:
Between 1985-1989, the ATCC supplied Iraq with several pathogens, including Clostridium botulinum, and various strains of anthrax.[8]
Unspecified Locations:
Between 1985-89, US firms exported Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatam, Brucella melitensis, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), Clostridium tetani (tentanus), Escherichia coli, and "dozens of other pathogenic biological agents," to Iraq.[9]
Between 1985-89, the US firm ATCC sent Iraq up to 70 shipments including 21 strains of anthrax, 15 Class III pathogens, E. coli, Salmonella cholerasuis, Clostridium botulinum, Brucella meliteusis, and Clostidium perfringens. [This may include shipments already listed to the Agriculture and Water Resource Department, Atomic Energy Commission, and College of Medicine].[10]
Between 1984-89, the CDC sent Iraq more than 80 agents, including botulinum toxoid, Yersinia pestis, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody. [This may include shipments already listed to Basra University, and Salman Pak.][11]
In 1988, Iraq unsuccessfully attempted to obtain biological agents from the UK military research center at Porton Down.[12]
In 2/87, Germany’s Sigma Chemie supplied seven ounces of trichothecene mycotoxin, including T-2 toxin and HT-2 toxin, to the German firm Plato Kuehn, which indicated that the material would be exported to Iraq.[13]
In 1987, Josef Kuhn of Germany delivered 100 milligrams of trichothecene mycotoxin T-2 to Iraq.[14]
According to US Senator John McCain, Iraq obtained tularemia virus from the United States. The US Department of State said it had found no evidence to support Senator McCain’s allegation.[15]
Iraq obtained "deadly pathogens" from the Pasteur Institute in Paris.[16]


Notes:
John Hanchette and Norm Brewer, "U.N., Intelligence Reports Show Iraq Could Have Spread Deadly Aflatoxin," Gannett News Service, December 7, 1996.

Eric Nadler, and Robert Windrem, "Deadly Contagion: How We Helped Iraq get Germ Weapons," The New Republic, February 4, 1991, p. 18.

John Hanchette and Norm Brewer, "U.N., Intelligence Reports Show Iraq Could Have Spread Deadly Aflatoxin," Gannett News Service, December 7, 1996.

Eric Nadler, and Robert Windrem, "Deadly Contagion: How We Helped Iraq get Germ Weapons," The New Republic, February 4, 1991, p. 18. Bill Lambrecht, "'Satan’s Bug': U.S. Readies for Possible Iraqi Use of Bacteria," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 10, 1990, p. 1A. Chuck Raasch and Robert Barton, "U.S. Firms Sold Iraq Potential Warfare Material, Hill Officials," Gannett News Service, August 23, 1998. Michael White, "207 Western Companies Sold Chemicals, technology to Iraq, Report Says," AP, October 3, 1990.

John Hanchette and Norm Brewer, "U.N., Intelligence Reports Show Iraq Could Have Spread Deadly Aflatoxin," Gannett News Service, December 7, 1996.

"We Have Surprises," Der Spiegel, October 8, 1990, p. 148-152; in FBIS-WEU-90-196, (10 October 1990).

Valerie Kuklenski, "Western Firms Supplied Iraq with Chemical Weapons," UPI, October 2, 1990.

Although the pathogens were sent to the University of Baghdad, the order was paid for by the Iraqi military. The anthrax strains originated in the UK and US military biological weapons programs. R. Jeffery Smith, "Iraq’s Drive for a Biological Arsenal; U.N. Pursuing 25 Germ Warheads It Believes Are Still Loaded with Deadly Toxin," Washington Post, November 21, 1997, p. A1. Al J. Venter, "UNSCOM Odyssey: The Search for Saddam’s Biological Arsenal," Jane's Intelligence Review, March 1998, p. 19.

William Blum, "Anthrax for Export: U.S. Companies Sold Iraq the Ingredients for a Witch’s Brew," The Progressive, 4 (April 1998), p. 18.

Michael White, "UK Anthrax Strains ‘Sold to Iraq’," The Guardian, April 3, 1998, p. 10; Martin Hickman, "Britain Exported Anthrax to Iraq Says Lib Dem," Press Association, April 2, 1998; Keith Bradsher, "Senator Says U.S. Let Iraq Get Lethal Viruses," The New York Times, February 10, 1994, p. A9; Kevin Merida and John Mintz, "Rockville Firm Shipped Germ Agents to Iraq, Riegle Says," The Washington Post, February 10, 1994, p. A8; William Blum, "Anthrax for Export: U.S. Companies Sold Iraq the Ingredients for a Witch’s Brew," The Progressive, April 1998, p. 18; Jim Abrams, "U.S. Firms Sold Possible Biological warfare Agents to Iraq," Associated Press, February 10, 1994; "Conflict Alleged for Head of Study on Gulf War Illness," The Baltimore Sun, November 29, 1996, P. 20A.

Leonard A. Cole, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare, (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1997), p. 85-86.

R. Jeffery Smith, "Iraq’s Drive for a Biological Arsenal; U.N. Pursuing 25 Germ Warheads It Believes Are Still Loaded with Deadly Toxin," Washington Post, November 21, 1997, p. A1.

"W. German Firm Says Toxic Chemicals Went to Iraq," Reuters, January 30, 1989. "Magazine: German Firms Supplied Toxic Chemicals to Iraq," UPI, January 29, 1989.

"Worse Than Plague," Der Spiegel; in "Der Spiegel on German Arms Sales to Iraq – ‘Worse Than the Plague’," Telegram from the US Embassy in Bonn to the Secretary of State, August 16, 1990 (Released December 16, 1996).

Reuters, "State Department Probes Charge of U.S. Bio Weapon Aid to Iraq," January 26, 1989. Reuter, "State Department Disputes Senator on Biological Weapon for Iraq," January 26, 1989.

R. Jeffery Smith, "Iraq’s Drive for a Biological Arsenal; U.N. Pursuing 25 Germ Warheads It Believes Are Still Loaded with Deadly Toxin," Washington Post, November 21, 1997, p. A1.

Prepared by Michael Barletta and Christina Ellington, November 1998
© Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies.

Return to the WMDME home page.








Center for Nonproliferation Studies
460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
Telephone: +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax: +1 (831) 647-3519
E-mail: cns@miis.edu; Web: http://cns.miis.edu
Copyright © 2002 Monterey Institute of International Studies. All rights reserved.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
True Mrhero. Im sure that oil does have some factor in it. What Im trying to prove is that any good, smart, peace protester should not be against this war. They should be all for this war.

The fact that Saddam has killed so many people, done so many horrible things, should make peace protesters and human rights advocates support this war. Even if they think its for oil.

Now i better understand your arguement, I can agree Saddam is a terrible person and deserves to die, horribly. I can agree as long as he's in power that there is the threat of an unwarranted attack from or instigated by him. I can not agree that America is completely in the right by pre-emptively attacking Iraq on those pretenses. Bush has handled this situation poorly by trying to convince America that we're attacking Iraq solely because of Saddam's violations and connections to Al-Queda (which are all but non-existent). He would have mustered much more support if he just said "WE need oil, your screwing it up, AND you have connections to Al-Queda, you're a terrible leader, you've violated UN treatises and tried to kill my dad."

BTW, i agree that you should be able to voice your EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE AND REPIBLICAN(eeeeiiiiiiwwww!!!)views.;)

Originally posted by dkb218
All the members want it enforced. I don't recall 1441 calling for war if Suddam doesn't comply. I believe the wording had to do with "Server consequences" {if i'm wrong be let me know}which can imply war but I find in these resoultions that the wording is everything it's the only way the US was able to get a 15-0 vote.

I think you mean 'severe' consequences, but I understand your point. Your correct, but my point is, if France, Russia, and China would have pushed harder for Iraqi compliance to 1441 then maybe Saddam would have seen a solid front against him in the UN and would have moved quicker to disarm. Perhaps not, but we will never know. But it is very possible that war could have been avoided had he shown some willingness to comply. What he is doing now is rinky dink, and even Blix says he's showing no real move to comply. Claiming that they dug a big hole in the middle of the desert and shoved the chemical weapons in it, yet kept no records of it and don't remember where they dug the hole now is absurd. He's not going to disarm and keeping inspectors in there for 4 more months I don't see will mean anything. France, Germany and Russia have pushed for more weapons inspectors and a peacekeeping force in Iraq to oversee it. OK. If I were Bush I would agree on one condition - that those 3 countries provide the troops for the peacekeeping force and pay for it out of their pockets. Let's see how resolute they really are.

I agree that europe/asia is attempting to get on Iraqs good side just as much as we wanna make war. A strong europe/asia scares the heck outta of the US.

I'm not sure what you mean. Only 3 European countries (France, Germany and Belgium) are opposing the US/British resolution. Most of Europe backs the US and Britain. China opposes war, but they have their own reasons. N. Korea is not even a member of the UN and is outside the international community. I don't see that a strong Europe or Asia would 'scare' the US that badly. If you mean economically, they would certainly be healthy competition, but militarily? No. The Euro nations are not going to start investing significantly into their militaries. They are democracies just like the US. We may disagree on issue, but none of them will lead to war among democracies. And those new democracies, those former eastern Euroepan Soviet satellites, still remember life under Soviet domination. They strongly support the US and Britain right now, much to France's and Germany's dismay.

There is no real unity in Asia. S. Korea and Japan are democracies, but they were long military rivals. No longer, but now they are fierce commercial rivals for the US market. Neither are going to become too close to China; too many past animosities, and China is seen as the behemoth in Asia. N. Korea? Who in Asia can get along with them. Even China, which is a communist nation, wouldn't turn their backs on Uncle Kim. And Australia? They're going to gravitate to the two democracies, Japan and S. Korea, but ultimately, they are much closer to the US, as far as Pacific Rim alliances go; both dominated by Caucasians and Protestants. I can't see a 'unified' Asia. JMO.

Why not pick apart the weapons used? I'd say build a bomb that has a very, very, very high concentration of THC!:) Drop that sucka over Iraq. Then the troops could just walk in and take Saddam and his cronies. How about a feed into Iraqi TV? Subliminal messages that convey to the Iraqi people that Saddam must, and shall, be killed! One of them will succeed. Just a thought.

Well, did a dictator in South America ever kill 500,000 of there own people?

Try Africa. Remember Rwanda? What did the US or the UN do? 1 million people died in that genocide.

But who cares about the number? You are not suggesting systematic human rights violations should be tolerated if they were under a certain number?

Is it so hard to believe that a Government official actually cares? Oh wait sorry, he's a republican. Im sure that had Clinton done all this, then yall wouldnt have complained.

Dude, if Clinton had done this there would of been an absolute shitstorm. Especially, since pre-911, there was absolutely no political will for this sort of thing.


Moderator edit - profanity

"... if Clinton had done this there would of been an absolute shitstorm. Especially, since pre-911, there was absolutely no political will for this sort of thing.'

That is a very cogent point. I don't think a partisan take is as important on that statement, as is recognizing the stark disconnect from reality you expose, given that 9-11 and Iraq are not connected in any causative sense. There will be hell to pay for America's misdirected and underjustified lashing out.

One completely fictional, but indisputably plausible justification would have entailed so much less long-term liability for Americans to be haunted with in years to come. What a pity all the brains in the think tanks and in the President's cabinet couldn't think of just one.

clinton at least had some balls. Bush goes to the un like oliver twist once a week it seems. Defending iraq is indefendable. If we had the military capability to beat china we would. We are forcing china to conform to capitolism. They are no longer a true communist nation but a socialist nation. They have deregulated a great deal. There is more freedom there than at the beginning of the cold war under mao. North korea is not capable of nuking our homeland yet. We again don't have the military strength to take them on and not sustain enormous causualties. Possibly even be forced from the southern part of the country like the begining of the first korean war.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shadows
We are forcing china to conform to capitolism. They are no longer a true communist nation but a socialist nation. They have deregulated a great deal. There is more freedom there than at the beginning of the cold war under mao.[\QUOTE]

I don't think we have forced China to conform. I think they saw the failures of the Soviet system on their own and made a conscious decision to move closer to an open market system.

I agree if they had the power to just wipe most players off the board like China (Which they kinda do) but without commiting suicide in the process (Which they dont - Nuclear power with the largest landmass on the planet and several Billion pissed of people hungry for your blood :eek:)

But whilst they need to learn quite a lot in the way of warfare and Leadership (Why is it almost everytime there is a major war America manage to get onto it on the wrong side of public opinion) they have unfortuantly learnt that Money is just as powerful a weapon and will quite happily use economic force to ruin a country.

I still would like to see what would happen if the Euro took off and replaced the $ as the default global Currency causing America to loose a good deal of its power in Global markets.
Man he would not be happy....

It could happen if russia and eastern europe accepted the euro as a second currency. Afterall this double dip recession is a sign of our decline.

its like talking to the wall counsler. they hate bush and it doesnt matter what he does they will try and see it as bad. bush haters are hoping that we have to pull out of iraq without getting anything accomplished. i do think some of it is about oil. like the reason turkey, france and germany are against it. also about weapon from france. we have waited long enough lets get it on.

Try Africa. Remember Rwanda? What did the US or the UN do? 1 million people died in that genocide.

But who gives a fuck about the number? You are not suggesting systematic human rights violations should be tolerated if they were under a certain number?

Voodoo, you to missed my point. If you don't support this war because you think its about oil, then the least you could do is say "Hmm. Well, we are taking down a mass murderer, I suppose that's good."

Dude, if Clinton had done this there would of been an absolute shitstorm. Especially, since pre-911, there was absolutely no political will for this sort of thing.

All Clinton did during his administration... Well, wait, we all know about that.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Voodoo, you to missed my point. If you don't support this war because you think its about oil, then the least you could do is say "Hmm. Well, we are taking down a mass murderer, I suppose that's good."




Coffee,

Your logic is severely flawed. It is an attitude like that that allows for events like 9/11. From our western perspective we can judge many leaders and countries and deem them unworthy of rule or life, but when other countries look at our pompuos, wasteful, hypocritcal, superfical, and uninformed counrty and decide to attack us....they have hell to pay. Do the japanese have cause to attack us because of Hiroshima?

Voodoo, you to missed my point. If you don't support this war because you think its about oil, then the least you could do is say "Hmm. Well, we are taking down a mass murderer, I suppose that's good."

So we should pre-emptively attack a nation that poses no real threat for selfish reasons* because a side effect of which is that a bad man will get his comeuppance. You're suggesting that any action, however rephrensible, should be undertaken if a utilitarian analysis yields a net good?

Your argument doesn't support you thesis. The war isn't just, just because it has a good side effect. The war might however be just if Iraq was been attacked <i>because of</i> its human rights violations. eg. Kosovo(Clinton wasn't it?).

All Clinton did during his administration... Well, wait, we all know about that.

Oh no, do continue. You might yet yield a valid point.
______________
* not that I believe oil is the prime motivating factor.

i do think some of it is about oil. like the reason turkey, france and germany are against it. also about weapon from france. we have waited long enough lets get it on.

Whether Turkey is against it is debatable: 80% of the population is against it and the govt. is dithering. The main reason for their reluctance is the Kurdish question, ie. the twenty million Kurds vs. changing the maps is a pain in the ass. France definitely has oil interests in Iraq, I'm not sure about Germany, anyone know?

Weapons from France? Eh?

Germany had recently (sometime last year) signed some big oil contracts with Iraq. So did the Russians.

Ironically most of the Iraqi oil sold Under UN sanctions in recent years has ended up in the USA.

As I said before, forsaking morale principals for money is wrong and disgusting.

(Why is it almost everytime there is a major war America manage to get onto it on the wrong side of public opinion)
The question answers itself.

i am not pro usa or am i pro war
although everyone seems to be angry with america for the war which is about to happen although a war could have been avoided if suddam was not beening such a cock! he could have complied and then america wouldnt have a leg to stand on. blame can be shared..........

I'm going to lay out what I know about why we should not go to war with Iraq.

You have to realize, first of all, that most people agree that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who would, if left to his own devices, kill as many Americans and Jews as he could. Not to mention the Kurds (they're like the oppressed arabian people, I guess you could say). True, he should not be in power. But his people never elected him to power. We, specifically, Donald Rumsfeld, placed him in charge of Iraq some time ago--possibly during its long war with Iran, and, during that period, supplied him with plenty of horrific weapons. In fact, those very weapons that we are trying to take from him were never his, they were undoubtedly manufactured in America and sold to him.

So, the deaths of his own people were actually caused by us. Had Rumsfeld not placed him in power, had Rumsfeld not given him weapons, Iraq would probably still be under an oppressive ruler (I can't think of a nation in the Middle East that isn't). BUT we would have a legitimate reason to invade Iraq.

Bush is undergoing an invasion because he knows that he will win, that the Iraqis are no match for superior American firepower. Many of them will be killed. Wars, specifically, American wars, are notorious for helping out the economy (a thing our president is all but ignoring now). Ours is currently doing badly, as compared to how it would be doing under a more liberal president, and so, unless Bush goes to war, he will almost certainly lose the next election, because he will have completely destroyed the economy as well as foreign relations, not to mention his various ludicrous policies we've all heard of and slandered as often as possible.

I don't doubt that if you google enough of the terms that I have mentioned here, you will find a slew of sites supporting my opinions.

Check out this picture of Saddam with Rumsfeld when their relationship was mutually lucrative--http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg

Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."

Article Here (http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1551023.php) Noam Chomsky is a radical, sometimes a little too liberal for my tastes, but the man knows what he's talking about.

With this quote, every positive argument a conservative could make regarding the war the Iraq is automatically moot.

Counsler, and other sciforums conservatives, I suggest you at least skim the article. It'll fill you in on what you've missed:)

pic/1000 words/blah

Pollux, I read the article. Now let me retort. :) I've posted this information before, but people just seem to skip it.

First, I would like to quote your article.

Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support) He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out. A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff).

Yes, Saddam was once an ally, Im not denying this.

Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."

How? If I give a guy $5 and he buys some bullets, and later kills his wife, did I kill his wife? It was my money that helped him. We gave him chemical weapons, to use against the enemy. What's that old saying? "The Enemy of my enemy is my friend." Or some crap like that?

Second: My evidence to support the opposite (Bio weapons, not chemical).

WASHINGTON - Iraq's bioweapons program that President George W. Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from the United States two decades ago, according to U.S. government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

Now, read about the transfers that happened in 1980, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. Different era, different situation (Anthrax samples were never given to the military). Its like giving a friend a gun right now so that he can point it at his enemy, then later after the enemy is gone he points the gun at you. He was your friend/ally, he's not anymore.

Let me quote this article again:

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

Yes, it was naive, but if they say "Hey we want to help cure disease, we need samples!" We say "Sure buddy!" And we ship it off to a UNIVERSITY. Not to a military instillation.

Link: http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/biological_us_supplied.html

Oh and this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

Third: Yes the US helped Saddam get some weapons.

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Like I said before, Hussein was once an ally. So the United States killed people indirectly with some weapons that were supplied to him? Well, sorry. If I give a gun to a guy to defend himself, and then he turns around and shoots his wife with it, then theres nothing I can do about that. I mean I did trust the guy after all.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

Well, heres some interesting links about how companies, both European and American mind you, supplied Saddam with some weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1218-06.htm
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php

Also this is of interest to:

SADDAM HAS MURDERED AND RAPED MANY PEOPLE! There, Im glad I said that.

How? If I give a guy $5 and he buys some bullets, and later kills his wife, did I kill his wife? It was my money that helped him. We gave him chemical weapons, to use against the enemy. What's that old saying? "The Enemy of my enemy is my friend." Or some crap like that?

More like you take the five dollars, buy him the knife, then tell your friend to kill his wife. That's the situation, counsler.

Now, read about the transfers that happened in 1980, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. Different era, different situation (Anthrax samples were never given to the military). Its like giving a friend a gun right now so that he can point it at his enemy, then later after the enemy is gone he points the gun at you. He was your friend/ally, he's not anymore.

We supported Iran as well as Iraq. I don't doubt that if Bush is re-elected Iran will be next up on our list of place to obliterate. Saddam was never a friend, he was a puppet. It's still our fault that we gave him the gun. He used the gun that we gave him against innocents, and for conquest, then we used that excuse for profit and for further genocide in the various conflicts that have ensued in Iraq since he was placed at its head.

Like I said before, Hussein was once an ally. So the United States killed people indirectly with some weapons that were supplied to him? Well, sorry. If I give a gun to a guy to defend himself, and then he turns around and shoots his wife with it, then theres nothing I can do about that. I mean I did trust the guy after all.

You forget, that in this metaphor, you and your allies are profiting from the death of this fellow's wife by giving him the gun. You don't trust him, you order him around, because you'll kick his ass if he doesn't do exactly as instructed.

SADDAM HAS MURDERED AND RAPED MANY PEOPLE! There, Im glad I said that.

Counsler, you don't see the connection. We didn't just give Saddam weapons and leave him with them--we told him what to do with them. He was a puppet, and no puppet that I am aware of can act autonomously.

Pollux, what it all boils down to is this: We never told Saddam to have women raped, we never told him to murder 1,000's of civillians, and we defently didn't tell him to torture people.

More like you take the five dollars, buy him the knife, then tell your friend to kill his wife. That's the situation, counsler.

Don't think I read anything about the US saying "Hey go kill these all these people." It's more like "Use this against them."


We supported Iran as well as Iraq

I would like a link on that. Haven't heard of it before.

I don't doubt that if Bush is re-elected

Oh he will get re-elected. Especially if Liberman runs.

It's still our fault that we gave him the gun.

Pollux, get off of this self American bashing! Seriously man! It's bad for your health. Like I said before, what somebody does with a gun that you gave them, is not your fault. Even though they did get the weapon from you, what they do with the gun is up to them. (This would make a good topic in Ethics)

Pollux, I'll say this again; different era, different situation. The Berlin wall hadn't even fallen before most of the gun trading happend. As I recall Saddam Hussein was brought to power with the help of the CIA because the existing dictator was pro communist.

Yes, this is part our fault. No, America is not responsible for all those deaths.

This just in: Aparently a break in at a museum in London has resulted in death. An old rifle made in the civil war era was stolen and used to kill a man. The British are outraged. To quote a witness "Why are those Americans giving weapons to museums? What the hell are those Americans thinking? They need to pay for this. Even if it was made a hundred years ago, they are still responsible."

CC im against the death penelty so does that make a war on the US to kill bush for surporting it just?

I guess we have differing opinions. We're both too stubborn, counsler. I cannot convince you of anything, nor can you me.

So were at a stalemate? Well, darn.

Asguard I didn't understand what you just said.

What gives you the thought that the US has the responsibility to poke its overlarge ass into the affairs of other countries?

And the US recently lost support from Turkey (well, sort of recently), which is a key place for beginning a military strike. Hmm, and France and Germany. It's stupidity to say F/G don't matter so don't try. The US is losing support for this war, not gaining it. Only Britain is really stuck with us right now, for Blair's political reasons.

Check out the income the prezzie and vice prezzie get from oil. I doubt if the war is entirely about oil but the connection can not be ignored unless you choose to be an idealistic moron.

What gives you the thought that the US has the responsibility to poke its overlarge ass into the affairs of other countries?

If the US didnt, this world would be crap.

And the US recently lost support from Turkey (well, sort of recently), which is a key place for beginning a military strike. Hmm, and France and Germany. It's stupidity to say F/G don't matter so don't try. The US is losing support for this war, not gaining it. Only Britain is really stuck with us right now, for Blair's political reasons.

Zero, as much as I like you, your wrong. The US has plenty of support. It's the French and Germans, that have Veto power. The US has enough votes to pass the upcoming UN resolution, but the French and Germans have veto power.


As for Turkey? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1283-2003Mar9.html

Governing party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a seat in parliament by a huge margin Sunday, a crucial victory that opens the way for him to become prime minister and strengthens his hand in uniting the government behind deployment of U.S. troops for an Iraq war.

Now, about the US not having anyone backing it. I point you to the following article: http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030131211732662

21 countries are open to the US, and Turkey soon.

Check out the income the prezzie and vice prezzie get from oil. I doubt if the war is entirely about oil but the connection can not be ignored unless you choose to be an idealistic moron.

Well, dang. You didn't have to call me stupid. Name one politician who doesnt have ties to oil, democrat and republican. I've said this before, if we wanted oil, all we have to do is take over Saudi Arabia, the troops are already there. At least you can admit that oil is one part of this, not the whole thing.

Zero
It's stupidity to say F/G don't matter so don't try.

France and Germany don't matter. They might like to think they do, but they don't.

And the US recently lost support from Turkey (well, sort of recently), which is a key place for beginning a military strike.

With the election in Turkey today that situation may change.

counselor coffee
but the French and Germans have veto power.

The French have veto power. The Germans don't. Germany is not a member of the permanent Security Council.

It's the French and Germans, that have Veto power.

No Germany does not have veto power, it is not a permanent member. Russia and China do, however. China will probably abstain. Russia have hinted at a veto.

I disagree that you have enough votes to pass a resolution:

<center><table width="40%" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"><tr><td bgcolor="#9999FF"><font size="1">Warmongers/Sellouts<br>(not that I'm biased)</font></td><td bgcolor="#9999FF"><font size="1">U6</font></td><td bgcolor="#9999FF"><font size="1">Against</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size="1">US(p)<br>Poodle(p)<br>Spain<br>Bulgaria</font></td><td><font size="1">Chile<br>Angola<br>Guinea<br>Mexico<br>Paki<br>Cameroon</font></td><td><font size="1">China(p)<br>Russia(p)<br>France(p)<br>Syria<br>Germany</font></td></tr></table></center>

Of the undecided

Angola is against:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraque/0,6119,2-10-1460_1330579,00.html

So is Cameroon:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/03/04/sprj.irq.un.cameroon.reut/

So you would be screwed. I find this quite surprising given the US money and arm twisting campaign.

Don't forget, the power in Europe is shifting to the east!! Screw a thousand years of pretext and tradition! France, Germany, bah, they haven't shaped world history that much. The France invaded Britain, gave us a lot of our current language, the Germans defeated the Romans, and they all were the major fighters in both world wars. Gee whiz, and to think, Bulgaria was in the background of it all the whole time, just waiting for 2003, when it would shine as one of the sellouts to G.W.

When do they have elections for a new p/m in Britain? Does someone have to call a vote for it to occur?

How about all nuclear countries just annihilate each other and get it over with. Then we can see who the winners will be-NONE!

sorry

the US is killing god knows how many of its own citizens using the death penelty which bush surports

so does that give any country the right to invade and "liberate" you?

Nope. They aren't strong enough. Bad luck, that.

Asguard, the United States doesnt mass murder its own citizens. It also doesnt rape and torture people. I don't think Im scared to walk down the street and state my opinion without being taken away and killed. I dont know of anyone who was arrested for selling a roll of film. The US is nothing like Iraq.

Also the sentencing varies from state to state. Most death penaltys take place in Texas.

Oh, and btw, the number is 820 since 1975. Very low considering how many are on death row.

im sorry did u just say you dont torcher people?

Yes, I did. The United States does not torture people. What, do you think that they shove bamboo chutes up peoples finger nails?

You're beating a dead horse, Counsler. These guys are more stubborn than Christian fundamentalists, and this topic is getting boring.

I'll give the protesters a few things. The United States is decadent. We're greedy, we're gluttonous, we're powerful, and we have a strong military. We don't give as much foreign aid as other countries, and our leaders aren't perfect. They make mistakes.

Here we have the chance to correct a mistake from years ago. The ten, twenty, or thirty year old mistakes don't matter, just like we don't hold Germany's *cough* mistakes against them sixty years later.

We supported the Soviet Union during World War II, against Germany. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We thought we could bargain with Saddam Hussein, we were wrong. Iran isn't a good country either, and its not like we really pushed for Iraq to fight them. Saddam Hussein was just militaristic and wanted to fight.

Using that analogy, its more like your friend comes and asks for a knife to kill his bitchy, rather dangerous wife, and then you give it to him.

The simple truth is that it will save more lives to take out Saddam then containing him. Its the only real beneficial solution. Not only that, but it will promote democracy in the Middle East. It seems like a lot of you "peace protesters" are actually selfish and not really even thinking about the Middle East. The United States is taking steps to modernize the Middle East, and it should be supported. We're going to have to change a lot in the Middle East in order to insure the safety of the world, and eventually I think the United States wants to change it all to democracies.

And... don't even start saying that the US won't build a democracy in Iraq. We haven't instated a dictator in any country that I know of, and we certainly didn't do it in Iraq many years ago.

That's it!

Bush has finally cost me too much (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/134648546_youssou10.html).

See, the thing is that I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. N'Dour's protest. But damn it, man! Bush has cost me my chance to see Peter Gabriel (with Tony Levin) and Youssou N'Dour in one year. It would have been a coup for me.

Frak!

You know, I have worried about the rest of the world up until this point, but I'm taking a few bloody f:eek:cking minutes for myself here.

You know it's been a good few months. I saw Peter Gabriel and Pearl Jam in December, and bloody hell if I didn't have the chance to see Youssou N'Dour. Would have been nice.

But now Bush has gone and pissed that away for me as well. Not only the future, but now he's pissing on my present.

Understand, there are very few things that can bring me to this point. Al_Qaeda cost me a Belle and Sebastian concert. I could have cared less if it was the Concrete Blonde show, or one of our local bands that will always get back to us shortly (Mudhoney, Wellwater Conspiracy, &c). But this ....

It would take too many words to explain, suffice to say that every music fan I hold in good esteem coincidentally (as in, independent of the standards of my esteem) knows who N'Dour is in the Peter Gabriel context at least. And that's just it. It's like Stevie Ray Vaughan with me. I somehow know N'Dour songs when I hear them without knowing what they are; that's how it was with SRV the first time I ever heard him. Seriously--I don't actually own an N'Dour album. But the night I stopped my parents' divorce ... oh, heck ... the story just gets ugly from there.

But now this damned war has cost me a nexus with an obscure but seminal influence in my life.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

They will despoil much until they are brought down :(

War with Iraq is Just

NO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Alright, it's perfectly understandable to protest, but against war with Iraq? Come on?!

[b]We need to save the Iraqi people

TAC responds: Hahahaha, P. T. Barnum was soooo right!
There "is" a sucker born every minute--and you are "it" CounselorCoffee! :p

Making the Middle East a safer place for Israeli intransigence and outright LIKUDNIK mass murder and brutality is what this "War to save the Iraqi people" is all about. :(

Like the Afghanistan war: "The war to save the Afghan women from the burka," Come on! To open up another route the AMACO pipeline for Azerbaijani oil get to the Persian gulf is closer to the truth--damned right! :eek:

Like we saw in Afghanistan, the US couldn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. With children dying like flies in Iraq from malignant ( cancer ) malenoma ( 90% of the cases---cancer rates are up 13,000% according to the UN doctors that are treating many of these kids--some as young as months old ) because of the US' use of depleted uranium munitions durng the gulf war--well, 1 + 1 still ='s 2, da? :D

TheAZCowBoy*

* "Truth, Justice and the American way! ( Foooo, please scratch, "The American Way," it doesn't fit anymore--or ever since prez DIM BULB was "slam dunked" into the Whitehouse, anyway." :eek:

The best the US will do in attacking Iraq is to delay the destruction of that 1/2 acre of ZioNazi hell by a handful of years.

Sorry, but the ORKIN MAN has gotten his orders---"parasites out!"

DEAD OR ALIVE! :(

Originally posted by Zero
What gives you the thought that the US has the responsibility to poke its overlarge ass into the affairs of other countries?

TAC responds: Lemmie see, America's manipulation and sometimes destruction of the governments of: Vietnam, Panama, Iran, Syria, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Costa Rica, Peru, Chile, Haiti, et. al. :p

Excuse me, I have to take a pee! :)

But if you need more names--just ask, da? :eek:

TheAZCowBoy, :o

War with Iraq is emminent because Bush is (SICK and TIRED):D of saying that "He is sick and tired". I seriosly think that if we don't go to Iraq, Bush will loose the next election. No war is ever just, but some are necessary. War on Iraq is neither just or necessary. I seriously don't think we need an army to get rid of one guy? You can definetly use diplomacy in the middle east and Venzuela to fix oil prices.

What upsets me is that the economy sucks, our 401K accounts and retirements are stolen, unemployment is high, and we are wealing and dealing with other countries by giving them billions just so they let us use there basis. So not only that this war is unjust. Thinking about war is in itself a disaster, it's most unjust to the Americans, takes a toll on the economy, and It's making life harder for Amercans overseas.

TAC : what is "LIKUDNIK"?
it must be in 95% of you post :)

There are a lot of young people here who don't yet have 401K's ,probably some who don't even know what they are.

I agree that the economy is our "worst enemy" at the present time, and Bush is pounding the war drums to cover it up. I haven't seen any in depth coverage on the economy in a long time. The network and cable new is dominated by talk of war.

I occasionaly see fast talking stock analysts on CNN telling us the upturn is about to take place, followed by an update saying "300,000 new unemployment claims in FEB." While everyone is busy debating the morality of war, no one is keeping an eye on the cash register.

justiceusa

yeah I'm ancient, will be 30 end of this year. Well, if the users here don't know about 401K, I'd say good for them, and never be lured by your work, tax benefits, long term prospect, ect. to start one. Those accounts are an open method of stealing your hard earned money. Pay off your debts, mortgage, ect, better than investment these days. I recommend all boys and girls alike start knitting pockets in their bra and storing their cash there.

Now, I don't know about you all, but I don't like this war a bit, and at the same time I feel that if we didn't go to war then all those protestors and people in Europe and Middle east will think they won and will never ever again take US seriously. Not going to war will hurt the US. Just for that stupid reason I think we should go to war, hopefully a little tiny one just to show US got muscels and will execute what they say.....See what stupid Bush do when he opens his big mouth.

Let's go to war, because there is protest: A bold new battle cry for America's Freedom Fighters! You should send that idea right along to the White House. No justification is too flimsy there.

Let's go to war, because we must not admit mistakes. There may be a job for you in a Washington "think"-tank, heflores!

Originally posted by hypewaders
Let's go to war, because there is protest: A bold new battle cry for America's Freedom Fighters! You should send that idea right along to the White House. No justification is too flimsy there.

Let's go to war, because we must not admit mistakes. There may be a job for you in a Washington "think"-tank, heflores!

Is that how you think of me hypewaders. :( Believe me, If I was offered a Washington job, I'd decline, but if I accept, I'd make you proud.

You have to think practical though, Image matters. America's economy is dependant on American's picture infront of the world. If I was president, I'd make sure our image is drafted very carefully. We used to be diplomats during the great Kenddy days, and we used to get whatever we wanted from the world by just suggesting and not even asking, but we have current leadership that are less than subtle and are either completely stupid or know exactly what they are doing..

Anyways, any suggestions for a speech for Bush as he declares that he is chaning his mind? Should we make this a resignation speech?

Originally posted by skywalker
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee


I asked the freaking simple question and you made a big deal out of it. You could have said " NO I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU". Geezzz man, I felt like I asked you a forumla to make a NUKE.

Well go get yourself an empty washing up bottle and some sticky back plastic and we will go through it.

Originally posted by Kunax
TAC : what is "LIKUDNIK"?
it must be in 95% of you posts :)

TAC replies: Remember, TheRacistKlansman@JessieHelms.gov, the Trent Lott@GrandDragons.com?

Well, the LIKUD thugs and mass murderers like Arik Sharon are known as LIKUDNIKS! :D

Amen! :p

TheAZCowBoy,

CC

care to read this?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/afgh-m10.shtml

Anyways, any suggestions for a speech for Bush as he declares that he is chaning his mind? Should we make this a resignation speech?

huh? since when is he changin his mind?

p.s. nice to see you again hef.. u've been gone for a while eh:rolleyes:

Originally posted by sycoindian
huh? since when is he changin his mind?

p.s. nice to see you again hef.. u've been gone for a while eh:rolleyes:

thanks syc, I"m actually leaving for a week tomorrow to Costarica and we'll be back on the 18th, hope the war does not start by then.

I don't think Bush will change his mind on the war, I hope he does, and to correct what I earlier wrote. I think it shows great strength for the US infront of the world to change it's mind on this war. I think that we would get the world respect for showing control specially that everyone knows we are capable.

I have strong feelings that Bush is the one posponing to go to war and waiting until almost the end of his term on purpose. He benefits from the UN slowdowns but can't say so with a straight face. That way he ensures that people have no choice but to elect him again to finish the job.

If they do turn around even i will be hard pressed to think it was due to pressure from the world.
They clearly couldn't give a shite about us so i would probably admit grudgingly someone in the US Administration at least has some brains and wants to save the belief people have in America as fragile and thin as it is.