War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-01-2002, 04:20 PM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 12:29 AM
War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:

1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.

2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.

3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.

4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.

5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.

6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.

7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.

8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.

Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.

The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.

And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.

Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.

A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 04:40 PM   #2
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 07:29 PM

I don't think that usa will attack , cause europe doesn't want war continue , russia and asia have a list of their own problems . i hope there will be a deplomatic solution to this problem .
__________________

__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 04:53 PM   #3
Banned
 
Spyplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the innovative mind of Z-EDGE since april 2002, as advertised in april 2002
Posts: 256
Local Time: 06:29 PM
I am for the war against Iraq

and I am ready

bombs away
__________________
Spyplane is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 05:12 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:

1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.
It's no secret that if and when Hussein did acquire or produce weapons of mass destruction, he would not hesitate to use them or sell them to terrorists organizations that would use them. I think in the aftermath of 9/11, it is obvious that we are not immune to attack, and need to take PREVENTIVE actions to avoid further attacks. Not to mention that Iraq has shot at dozens of UN coalition aircraft over the last few years.

Quote:
2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.


I, for one, have never been impressed with the U.N.'s ability to keep the peace. The U.N. is often short sited, and in many ways oblivious to the world around them. However, you do raise a good point here that I cannot really offer any sound arguement to counter it. I can only express opinion.

Quote:
3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.


This is the case in any war, and I highly doubt that this something that the US hasn't thought of. However, sometimes you have to do what needs to be done and Saddam needs to be removed...

Quote:
4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.


You contridict yourself here, if the weapons of mass destruction are exaggerated, why should we be afraid Saddam would use them? You can't fight a war if you are afraid to take a few punches yourself. This is what the US suffered from in vietnam.


Quote:
5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.


Alright, first, the US has no official stradegy of any kind yet, I'm sure that if and when they do decide to attack, they will have considered their "exit" and a way of stabilizing the country (Iraq). Arab support of Saddam is not nearly as stong as you suggest.

Quote:
6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.


True, a war would hurt the US economy in the short run, but the US and the World will be much better off in the long run without Saddam in power. The US is already taking steps to become less dependent on the Middle East for oil, as we are working with Russia to purchase oil from them.

Quote:
7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.


and your point here?

Quote:
8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.
Public support is FOR the war. as many as 72% of american support military action in Iraq. Click below for the polls. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Quote:
Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.


Agree to disagree here. This is a matter of opinion...

Quote:
The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.


We have tried this route before, the only reason Saddam would allow inspectors is for propaganda purposes.

Quote:
And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.


The sanctions are supported by the UN, and are justified.

Quote:


Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.


While any loss of life is terrible, your wife new what she was getting into when she joined the armed forces. Ib the awful event that someting bad were to happen, I would think she would be proud to know that she died for her country. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited are anything of the like, and I certain do not wish any harm to you or her, or anyone fighting for freedom, but it is a fact of life in the military that you may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Quote:
A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.
again, I'll refer to the polls I listed above. Americans support a war on Iraq. Additionaly, war can't be fought on the grounds of public opinion. Vietnam is a perfect example. We have elected leaders that we trust to make descisions that reflect our beliefs. If we donlt agree with them, then we don't have to vote for them.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 05:30 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 05:29 PM
from journalist John Pilger's website, for your consideration: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/101687

"Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq - the threat of its "weapons of mass destruction." Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq's arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq's main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) "have been destroyed and rendered harmless."

As for Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat," the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated "efficiently and effectively". The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that "the weapons inspectors are allowed back". Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11. There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, a New York Times investigation concluded: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, "is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq." (Foreign Office minister Peter Hain). The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.

This wanton denial is rarely reported in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, have died as a consequence of an American and British riven embargo on Iraq that resembles a medieval siege. The embargo allows Iraq less than 100 with which to feed and care for one person for a whole year. This a major factor, says the United Nations' Children's Fund, in the death of more than 600,000 infants.

I have seen the appalling state of the children of Iraq. I have sat next to an Iraqi doctor in a modern hospital while she has turned away parents with children suffering from cancers that are part of what they call a "Hiroshima epidemic" - caused, according to several studies, by the depleted uranium that was used by the US and Britain in the Gulf War and is now carried in the dust of the desert. Not only is Iraq denied equipment to clean up its contaminated battlefields, but also cancer drugs and hospital equipment.

I showed a list of barred drugs given to me by Iraqi doctors to Professor Karol Sikora, who as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers (to the UN Sanctions Committee). There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons." He told me: "Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. It seems crazy they couldn't have morphine. When I was in Iraq, in one hospital they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go around 200 patients in pain." No one doubts that if the murderous Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the Secretary General himself, has said that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies.

Denis Halliday, the assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, resigned in protest at the embargo which he described as "genocidal". Halliday was responsible for the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in disgust. Last November, they wrote: "The death of 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."

Those who speak these facts are abused by Blair ministers as apologists for Saddam Hussein - so embroiled is the government with the Bush administration's exploitation of America's own tragedy on September 11. This has prevented public discussion of the crime of an embargo that has hurt only the most vulnerable Iraqis and which is to be compounded by the crime of attacking the stricken nation. Unknown to most of the British public, RAF and American aircraft have been bombing Iraq, week after week, for more than two years. The cost to the British taxpayer is 800million a year. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a Pentagon official.

IN any attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's escape route is virtually assured - just as Osama bin Laden's was. The US and Britain have no wish to free the Iraqi people from a tyranny the CIA once described as its "greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate Kurdish state and another allied to the Shi'ite majority in neighbouring Iran. They want another Saddam Hussein: one who will do as he is told.

On March 13, the Foreign Office entertained Brigadier-General Najib Salihi, a former commander of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and chief of the dreaded military intelligence who took part in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Now funded by the CIA, the general "denies any war crimes". Not that he would ever face arrest in the West. At the Foreign Office, he is known as a "rapidly rising star". He is their man, and Washington's man.

The British soldiers who take part in an invasion have every right to know the dirty secrets that will underpin their action, and extend the suffering of a people held hostage to a dictatorship and to international power games over which they have no control. Two weeks ago, the Americans made clear they were prepared to use "low yield" nuclear weapons, a threat echoed here by Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon.

When will Europe stand up? If the leaders of the European Union fall silent, too, in the face of such danger, what is Europe for? In this country, there is an honourable rallying cry: Not In Our Name. Bush and Blair must be restrained from killing large numbers of innocents in our name - a view, according to the polls, shared by a majority of the British people. An arms and military equipment embargo must be enforced throughout the region, from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Ariel Sharon's Israel. Above all, the siege of both the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples must end now."
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 06:08 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa
Arab support of Saddam is not nearly as stong as you suggest.
Maybe not, but Arab hatred against Israel is. Sharon has already expressed his will to participate in a war against Iraq and I'm not sure whether other Arab countries will tollerate that. Movements like Hezbollah are already standing on the lebanese border ready for an attack on Isreal, so there's a chance Isreal will launch a pre-emptive strike first. This could end into a full scale war throughout the entire region.

And what will happen after the war has been 'won'? Some people say that Iraq (without an army or government) will be divided amongst countries like Saudi Arabai, Kuwait and Iran. There's a chance it will simply cease to exist.

I am however confident this attack will come. Bush has already said he was gonna go for Saddam so he kinda forced himself into this position. He doesn't want to be the second Bush who's not going into Baghdad.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 06:18 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???
I don't think the US has a say in whether or not countries become members of the European Union. It has very strict criteria and the way Turkey's ideas of human rights are going, I don't think we'll be welcoming it into the EU very soon.

But let us not forget that the US has promised (provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to use Turkish soil) to oppose and obstruct the forming of an independant Kurdish state. Turkey is very happy with these terms.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 08:36 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 07:29 PM
I don't support this, and I firmly hope that the Canadian Government goes along with the wishes of most Canadians and stays the hell out of Iraq.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 09:18 PM   #9
Banned
 
LOVE MUSCLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: my lovenest / in bed with Larry, Bono, Larry, :heart: Adam, Larry, Edge, *swoon* kisses and THUD !!!
Posts: 986
Local Time: 07:29 PM





z~edge
__________________
LOVE MUSCLE is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 09:20 PM   #10
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Normal

Uh z edge.. are you getting your handles mixed up again ??
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 09:40 PM   #11
Banned
 
LOVE MUSCLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: my lovenest / in bed with Larry, Bono, Larry, :heart: Adam, Larry, Edge, *swoon* kisses and THUD !!!
Posts: 986
Local Time: 07:29 PM
read my location dear

Quote:
Originally posted by Sicy
Uh z edge.. are you getting your handles mixed up again ??
No Sicy
I am not confused
__________________
LOVE MUSCLE is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 09:58 PM   #12
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Normal We will ,we will .. rock you ...... some may ask why rock out now ...

z-edge , baby played too much with his toy-soldiers :idea:
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 10:16 PM   #13
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 04:29 PM
I'm not going to voice my opinion, just had to post this





__________________
".....People of America - SHUSH-........."

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...

^^ Life's a bitch, so i became one ^^
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 10:37 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
Sharon has already expressed his will to participate in a war against Iraq and I'm not sure whether other Arab countries will tollerate that.
As much as I am not a fan of Sharon, I must say that I can not blame Israel for wanting to get a piece of Saddam; if you recall from the 1991 war on Iraq, Saddam launched "Scud" missiles at random targets (including neighborhoods) in Tel Aviv.

And also, Saddam kills 500,000 Iraqi children everyday (or whatever the figure is) so that he can blame it on the infidels/great Satans of the West (Bush Sr -->Clinton -->Bush Jr) and garner international sympathy. Apparently, his strategy is working.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 10:43 PM   #15
Banned
 
Spyplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the innovative mind of Z-EDGE since april 2002, as advertised in april 2002
Posts: 256
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Beautiful pics Miss Mac

__________________

__________________
Spyplane is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com