Jump to content

Change Mode

Recommended Posts

What Jim put up as "call letters" was offensive to everyone....that thread has nothing to do with this one.

 

If you disagree with someone's point of view, that's fine....but you may not call that person and/or his views names in your reply to them.

 

If it is truly 'racist'...then it will be taken under advisement and either weeded out or deleted with a warning or suspension to the person who was so blatant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brandon - I'll happily debate with you once you provide a doctors certificate stating that they have either dropped or started to sprout hairs. Until then I'll refrain. :P

Want me to take a pic and show you??? :P

 

Well, you might as well start debating, because it happened years ago.... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I can point my finger. Are you seriously suggesting that because one country does something wrong then it is ok for all of them to do it? If that were true, we could all step back into the dark ages and begin electrocuting teenagers and giving lethal injections to the mentally impaired - whoopee!!!

As for your policies that result in poisoning our atmosphere more than any other, they are in fact domestic unless the UN or some other external organisation dictated the California EPA standard to you

I never said any such thing, I was pointing out that part of a deal allowing us to send trade goods to your country, the U.S. had to accept your country's garbage because your country did not want to deal with your own waste. As for air pollutants there is not much control that can be done because of wind currents. Your dark age comment is quite hilarious considering you are the one condemning my country for having factories that without them we would all be in the dark ages. These factories are what gives us the "modern" life we all have.

 

When do you intend invading Mexico? I'll wager you have more displaced immigrants from there than you do from Iraq. The world is full of crooked beurocrats sadly. Hopefully the worst one will be out of power very soon. Then I really will be sitting here 'smugly' 

For one thing the illegal and legal Mexicans are not displaced they chose to be here. They were not scared of death and wrongful prosecution. They did not live under a monsterous tyrannical regime.

 

I count on Kerry for nothing. My only hope is that he gets Bush out of office. I see him as the lesser of 2 evils, not a saviour. Kerry never set the world on a course of destruction that will continue for decades to come. Bush did. A pull out of coalition troops is not impossible. They could faesibly be replaced by more competent troops/peacekeepers supplied by a true coalition formed to help the Iraqis rather than plunder, torture and murder. I appreciate that Iraq cannot now be left as it is, but the coalition is not the only answer. In fact, the coalition is the biggest problem Iraq has.

Kerry did set us on this "course of destruction". A pull out is possible, I never denied that. I did say the rapid pull out Kerry is boasting is not possible. If you think the terror attacks that are taking place now are bad wait until Kerry (if elected) pulls the U.S. out of Iraq in six months as he stated. More competent replacements? Do you not mean more corrupt? Not one nation in the U.N. wanted to go in and do the hard fight, yet, they want to bilk the American tax payers on the rebuilding. That's right, Iraq is not paying for the reconstruction, the American tax payer is. You bet my bottom dollar when it comes to the rebuilding, I want my tax dollar going back to American companies and employees.

 

As for plundering, that has been shown to be the insurgents. One prison incident and you have the entire coalition accused and guilty of torture. Innocent people are being attacked by insurgents and unregrettably from crossfire and you callously accuse the coalition of murder. It must be easy to sit in your nice safe home and pass judgement.

 

Before it was realized the WMDs were not there, most of the world was with us though they didn't want to participate personally because of vested interest with Saddam and his regime, now, there is nothing but slander and false accusations flying around. Yes, the coalition (not just the U.S. ) jumped in with bad information. I will never deny or refute that, I will, however, challenge anyone to prove they would not have done the same with the numerous sources from which the information came.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerry did set us on this "course of destruction". A pull out is possible, I never denied that. I did say the rapid pull out Kerry is boasting is not possible. If you think the terror attacks that are taking place now are bad wait until Kerry (if elected) pulls the U.S. out of Iraq in six months as he stated.  More competent replacements? Do you not mean more corrupt? Not one nation in the U.N. wanted to go in and do the hard fight, yet, they want to bilk the American tax payers on the rebuilding. That's right, Iraq is not paying for the reconstruction, the American tax payer is. You bet my bottom dollar when it comes to the rebuilding, I want my tax dollar going back to American companies and employees.

 

 

Before it was realized the WMDs were not there, most of the world was with us though they didn't want to participate personally because of vested interest with Saddam and his regime, now, there is nothing but slander and false accusations flying around. Yes, the coalition (not just the U.S. ) jumped in with bad information. I will never deny or refute that, I will, however, challenge anyone to prove they would not have done the same with the numerous sources from which the information came.

:)

 

Something wrong here!

 

To the Victor goes the Spoils of War!

 

If your Tax Dollars have to go to rebuild Iraq? Why not ask your Government what the heck for?

 

Who destroyed it in the first place?

 

Who is sitting there, getting troops killed trying to hold onto an impossible Dream? Why?

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Edited by Drovers Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know what Iraq's debt stands at today ?

 

April 30, 2003 |  |

 

 

The Bush Administration should formally call upon the European powers (primarily Russia, Germany, and France) and Arab nations (including the Gulf states and Egypt) to forgive the huge debts owed by the Iraqi government. Forgiving these debts would constitute both an historic contribution to the economic development of post-Saddam Iraq and a major gesture of support for the Iraqi people.

Based on these figures, Iraq's financial obligations are 14 times its estimated annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $27 billion--a staggering $16,000 per person. Measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio, Iraq's financial burden is over 25 times greater than Brazil's or Argentina's, making Iraq the developing world's most indebted nation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...gnAid/em871.cfm

 

 

Consider the motivation aspect, getting the country straight and back to work so that they can start to pay back $383 billion dollars.

No, someone must have considered that. The debt's been cancelled, right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

So it seems that Billions of your Taxation Dollars are being used to fix up the Damage caused by the Invasion?

 

Meantime negiotions are continuing to get some Debt Relief for Iraq?

 

Meantime American Service People are dying!!

 

Suppose it makes sense to you? Not to me!

 

Hope GWB and Congress can sleep at night, without hearing those dead!

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link, One2. Full marks to the US and Canada for pressing for relief but the overall agreement does not look good. They're still talking about a 50% write -off. That would reduce the debt to $8,000 per Iraqi, debts incurred by Saddam. Not much incentive there to lay down one's AK47 and get into the coveralls. Rotten mismanagement.

 

The United States and Canada want industrialized countries to agree to a 90-95 percent write-off of Iraqi debts to them, a G7 source said. The United States is only the fifth-biggest creditor nation, surpassed by Japan, Russia, France and Germany.

 

France, which opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq together with Russia and Germany, is insisting that a 50 percent write-off is the most that should be offered in the first instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before it was realized the WMDs were not there, most of the world was with us though they didn't want to participate personally because of vested interest with Saddam and his regime, now, there is nothing but slander and false accusations flying around. Yes, the coalition (not just the U.S. ) jumped in with bad information. I will never deny or refute that, I will, however, challenge anyone to prove they would not have done the same with the numerous sources from which the information came.

Thats odd, I remember the majority of the world saying they did not beleive our information and that they wanted to give inspectors more time.

 

Your right I wish the Bush administration and their supporters would stop running around making false and slanderous statements.

 

I will take your challenge. As would many here, who before the war started, said it was a mistake, the wrong war and an unjust war.

 

Afghanistan, Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia should have been then, and should continue to be the focus of our attention.

 

Remember Bin Laden? Afghanstan? The bulk of the money they recieved was from Saudi Arabian's. Not Iraq, not Saddam Hussien.

 

As far as vested interests go, need I remind you that the chemical attacks that Rumsfield denounced and used as part of their war reasoning (15 to 20 years ago) that happened in the 80' were the very same period when the US and Rumsfeild personally were friends with Iraq and did absolutelty nothing to stop it, and in fact did not stop chemical companies from giving them the weapons, as a matter of fact during that very period there are widely available clips of Rumsfeild shaking hands and chumming it up with Saddam.

 

Apparantly he didn't think the use of chemical weapons were so terrible when we had a "vested interest" in Iraq.

 

By the way where is that bin hootin guy, ahhh it's been so long since Bushies mentioned him I can't remember his name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wtg CPU, not a single word filter in that one :lol:

 

:beer:

Y'all been warned on that many times,,don't want to see it again.

 

Its very offensive to some folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why my post congratulating a member for not cussing was singled out, but I'll happily apologise to anyone it offended.

 

 

 

 

Jacee, I obviously had no idea of your personal situation re: Romania. I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavours. Those folks that are willing to adopt children are a rare blessing in this increasingly inhumane world of ours. :beer:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why my post congratulating a member for not cussing was singled out, but I'll happily apologise to anyone it offended.

 

 

 

 

 

I edited gurus post by removing 3 letters from one word,,what was said would not offend any of you godless folks but it certainly would most folks.

 

Sometime's I wish I wasn't an admin/mod on these forums,,so I could just cut loose on some things.

 

lucky for you I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime's I wish I wasn't an admin/mod on these forums,,so I could just cut loose on some things.

 

lucky for you I am.

Would you like my new email addy? I'd like to see if that threat can be backed up. Would be interesting to know your heartfelt views on some of these topics V.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Volt, cutting loose just might get ya banned :mrgreen: it's a good thing you're an admin :blink:

Admins or mods can be banned,,I'll stick to the high road tho. like the place too much.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like my new email addy? I'd like to see if that threat can be backed up. Would be interesting to know your heartfelt views on some of these topics V.

Nah,,if I got something to say to ya,, I damn sure will SirT,,and it will be on the open forum,,don't need an email addy for that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats odd, I remember the majority of the world saying they did not beleive our information and that they wanted to give inspectors more time.

 

Your right I wish the Bush administration and their supporters would stop running around making false and slanderous statements.

 

I will take your challenge. As would many here, who before the war started, said it was a mistake, the wrong war and an unjust war.

 

 

This is where you are wrong. The U.N. did not want us going in because they wanted to give Saddam more time to start following the resolutions he had been ignoring for ten years. They also did not want to lose the money they were making on the oil for food scam. That is why they demanded we wait. At the time even the U.N. did not doubt the information.

 

Out of curiosity what false and slanderous statements have the Bushco pukes made? I am no supporter of Bush and never will be, as I have been an independent since I was old enough to vote.

 

When the war first started the only thing that was keeping those U.N. countries from going in was their own corruption and greed from the money made in the oil for food. When they had their vested interest being threatened by a free Iraqi people did they accuse the coalition of being unjust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

So more and more people die, and we just procrastinate about it?

 

Yeah, that would be right!

 

It reminds me of when I was a little fellow! "Weren't me, it was him!!"

 

I truely wished some people could realise that people are dying in Iraq! Simply because the Coalition made a terrible Mistake!!

 

I honestly think it will go down in History as the Biggest Muck UP EVER!

 

JMHO!

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where you are wrong. The U.N. did not want us going in because they wanted to give Saddam more time to start following the resolutions he had been ignoring for ten years. They also did not want to lose the money they were making on the oil for food scam. That is why they demanded we wait. At the time even the U.N. did not doubt the information.

 

Out of curiosity what false and slanderous statements have the Bushco pukes made? I am no supporter of Bush and never will be, as I have been an independent since I was old enough to vote.

 

When the war first started the only thing that was keeping those U.N. countries from going in was their own corruption and greed from the money made in the oil for food. When they had their vested interest being threatened by a free Iraqi people did they accuse the coalition of being unjust.

Here's a rebuttal to many of their claims and so-called justifications...

The Independent on Sunday - 9th March 2003

 

The die is cast. President Bush says he will go to war with or without the backing of the UN. Tony Blair indicates he will support him. The senior UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, asks to be given more time – a few more months at most. His request is brushed aside by the US and the UK governments.

 

There is only one way out of this nightmare: Tony Blair could be genuinely bold. This is his last chance to use his unique position close to the shoulder of President Bush to urge restraint, calm and reason – a cautionary voice that will be even more necessary if there is no second UN resolution authorising military action.

 

It is a sad reflection on Mr Blair's position, locked in an alliance with President Bush, that we hold out no hope that he will use his influence to avert a rush to war. Yet before he leads this country into a conflict it does not want, with consequences too ghastly to contemplate, we urge Mr Blair to reflect again on the motives and justification for a pre-emptive strike unparalleled in modern times. None of the shifting causes for war have been convincing, and are even weaker now, on the eve of a military campaign:

 

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"

 

Iraq is by no means the only country violating UN resolutions by possessing weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Iraq, the weapons inspectors are making significant progress. Hans Blix reports that the destruction of Iraq's al-Samoud missiles constitutes a "substantial measure of disarmament ... Lethal weapons are being destroyed." There is no evidence that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons, or has the means to do so. At such a point, when Mr Blix is explicitly calling for a few more months to complete his work, it is an act of wilful folly to set a deadline of a few more days.

 

"Iraq has links with al-Qa'ida"

 

The connection is floated desperately by the US and UK governments at varying points when they are losing other arguments. There is no evidence of any connection. More widely, there is no evidence that so-called "rogue states" will be ready to hand over their weapons to terrorists. It is just as likely that the states would be fearful of terrorists using the weapons against them. Much more likely, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would fuel international terrorism, with the US and its slavishly loyal partner, the UK, being the prime targets. Terrorists around the world must be raising a collective cheer about the war against Iraq.

 

"Iraq poses a threat to the region"

 

After the failed invasion of Kuwait, there is no evidence that President Saddam, much weaker now than in 1991, is embarking on another suicidal attack. With the destruction of some of his weapons over the past few weeks he is weaker still. A war against Iraq is a much surer way of destabilising the region. Arab states opposed to President Saddam are also against the war. With good cause they resent US double standards, tolerating a bloody stand-off between Israel and Palestine, while attacking Iraq. As Clare Short – still a member of the Cabinet – has observed, there is also a risk of a humanitarian catastrophe. War, rather than President Saddam, poses a threat to the region.

 

"There needs to be regime change"

 

There is no consistency in the war aims. Is the objective to remove the weapons of mass destruction or to remove Saddam? Yesterday Saddam accused Bush and Blair of being "liars". The old tyrant is wrong. They are confused and incoherent, rather than mendacious. There is a strong case for regime change in North Korea, several Arab states, Israel, Pakistan and China. What if another country decides there is a case for regime change in the UK? The arguments for regime change in Iraq, while superficially compelling, are a recipe for international anarchy.

 

"War is lawful without a second UN resolution"

 

President Bush has said he will go to war without a second UN resolution. Mr Blair has said he will ignore an "unreasonable" veto. These statements mean that the current frenzied diplomacy at the UN is meaningless. The US and UK will go to war whatever happens. The UN is being asked by the US and UK to endorse war or jeopardise its authority as an international body. But if it succumbs to such unsubtle pressure the UN undermines itself. More specifically the 1441 resolution does not authorise war. The resolution would never have been passed had it done so.

 

We fear that whatever the UN decides over the next few days the US and UK governments will declare that Saddam's actions do not constitute full co-operation. Mr Blair could show genuine courage and accept that some progress is being made without war, without the slaughter of innocent Iraqis. There is no boldness in standing shoulder to shoulder with the world's only superpower as it heads for war without a single credible cause.

If only he had the will it is Mr Blair, not Saddam, who could stop the rush to war.

 

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

You can read the official views of the UN members here....need to scroll down quite a bit to find them though. http://www.eurolegal.org/mideast/iraqwar.htm

 

Although clearly biased against the war, this site still offers some useful info on the subject an is worth a scan ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

So more and more people die, and we just procrastinate about it?

 

Yeah, that would be right!

 

It reminds me of when I was a little fellow! "Weren't me, it was him!!"

 

I truely wished some people could realise that people are dying in Iraq! Simply because the Coalition made a terrible Mistake!!

 

I honestly think it will go down in History as the Biggest Muck UP EVER!

 

JMHO!

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Procrastination is what caused the Iraqis to live in fear and terror for over 20 years. They were dying since Saddam was in power. I suppose this was all right with you?

 

There are terrorists attacking the coalition, Iraqi citizens, and the rebuilders. While there are some unfortunate deaths, as there are in every war, it is folly and highly erroneous to put all the blame on the coalition when the terrorists are killing more citizens than the coalition.

 

Since you are showing so much compassion for the Iraqi people I ask you this. Where was your compassion when they were being tortured by Saddam's regime? Where was your compassion when they were being murdered by Saddam's regime? Where was your compassion when millions fled their beloved homeland because of the terror they lived every day?

 

Are innocent people dying in Iraq? Yes. Will it stop if the coalition is rapidly pulled out? No. If you believe it will, you are only fulling yourself. The terrorists have a long history of continuously attacking countries that are prone to catering to them. So, to believe all will be well when the coalition is no longer in the region, is not only wrong but it is also dangerous as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about the 'Oil for food scandal' in terms of convictions. I can't find anything which states that anybody has been found guilty of anything. Link appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about the 'Oil for food scandal' in terms of convictions. I can't find anything which states that anybody has been found guilty of anything. Link appreciated.

You might wanna take a seat, it'll be along wait Posted Image
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a rebuttal to many of their claims and so-called justifications...

 

 

You can read the official views of the UN members here....need to scroll down quite a bit to find them though. http://www.eurolegal.org/mideast/iraqwar.htm

 

Although clearly biased against the war, this site still offers some useful info on the subject an is worth a scan ;)

That hardly supports your rebuttal. It admits that some of Saddam's weapons have been verified as destroyed. The comment about the 1441 resolution is false, the resolution made it clear that force would be used if Saddam did not comply.

 

We sat back and catered to the U.N. for 12 years, while they ran their little oil for food scam. They were not interested in the disarmament of Saddam or they would never have put up with 12 years of Saddam stone-walling the inspectors. Even after the announcement, which should not come as a surprise since, Saddam was given a month prior notice, Saddam was still refusing the inspectors access to sites that were meant to have been inspected years ago.

 

Sadly, the U.N. has become nothing but a corrupt, toothless entity. Following such an organization is a danger to the world as a whole.

 

Did Saddam financially back terrorists? No proof has been provided one way or another on that aspect. Did Saddam help them in other ways? Absolutely, he allowed them to not only train there but has had top officers meeting with them quite regularly. So, while the exact extent of the ties are unknown, there were ties with them. However, I digress as this is taking us off topic.

 

The fact is resolutions were in place and the U.N.'s very own corruption was the only thing that was keeping a true coalition from helping in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...