U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq?

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 13, 2003, 08:54 PM

Check this out this site has a listing of ever time the U.S, Has bombed Iraq

Yes, it i know from a ati war activists website

... but it's still interseting
http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm

They focus on questions like Why is America bombing? Not why is Iraq fireing on U.S. Aircarft partoling the no fly zone and couseing a responce acording to the rules of engagement...

This is the kind of ani-war site people go an see and belive that everyones agenst the war. What the deal with this? Of couse no where do the mention the Pro-War activists Nor any of the Pro-war marches that have taken place. what do you guys think of this.......

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 09:02 PM

Dunno, the US and UK have been bombing Iraq continuously for more or less 12 years. Nothing new. Mind you if you want someone to condemn the site for its stance, let me kick the party off for the American republicans here. "Those people are a frikin discrace. They are a bunch of anti-American SOB's. They should all be put up against a wall and shot." Yada, Yada, Yada....

Hows that? Good enough?

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 13, 2003, 09:06 PM

There are equilly good points for both stances ....

I just find it disturbing that everyone is focusing on the ati-war crowd and the pro war barely gets a mention..... in any media

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 09:13 PM

Oh I dunno, their sure loud enough to make your head hurt if you come on places like this. Besides I think a bunch of war crazed middle American Christian far right marchers might be a bit of a dangerous prospect don't you? How long do you think that could go on for without somebody getting hurt?

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 13, 2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Oh I dunno, their sure loud enough to make your head hurt if you come on places like this. Besides I think a bunch of war crazed middle American Christian far right marchers might be a bit of a dangerous prospect don't you? How long do you think that could go on for without somebody getting hurt?

Q

your Funny.... there was one recenly that was all middles easterners as well as previous residents of Iraq... you could not find a single Christian among them

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 09:49 PM

No but that is probably the one element that was missing...

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 13, 2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
There are equilly good points for both stances ....

I just find it disturbing that everyone is focusing on the ati-war crowd and the pro war barely gets a mention..... in any media

Probably has to do with tha fact that a majority is against a non UN led attack on iraq.

Bluelight

JavaFox · Mar 13, 2003, 10:08 PM

Not true, at least not in the USA, bluelight. Most Americans are fed up with the UN, and rightly so.

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 10:23 PM

Maybe rightly so from your perspective. From other people's perspectives it seems like this administration has set out to undermine the authority of the UN from the beginning of this process. You say the French are guilty of this, but the French no doubt recognised that the US was not serious about the process and therefore saw no reason to play ball. Continual statements emanating from Washington clearly stating that the US would go to war at all costs, even if disarmament without war became possible, clearly demonstrated this lack of regard for international institutions and conventions and has done little to persuade the French, or anyone else, to support this US government's current position.

You want to blame someone for screwing up the UN? Well there is more than enough blame to go around. But as usual I guess you will want to blame everyone else for this.

Q

FuNsTeR · Mar 13, 2003, 11:22 PM

hey Neon i see you have a fixation with the word ati ... take it your a Nvida type guy having sleepness nights about Ati kicking Nvida's ass

Falstaff · Mar 14, 2003, 01:29 AM

the only thing we might go after now is all the communication stuff underground, I am sure it is easier to go after repeater sites now, all microwave stuff, all towers, short wave coms....etc....the excrement will hit the fan soon...

Smoothdrive · Mar 14, 2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Not true, at least not in the USA, bluelight. Most Americans are fed up with the UN, and rightly so.

It's not rightly so..the UN is not just France & friends..there's enough European countries being just as fed up with the way things are going in the UN at the moment...too bad the US media does not pay attention to that.

This worries me more than the entire Iraq question..US is getting fed up with the UN just because a few countries are against an attack..what will happen to the UN if the US leaves the UN ? Will the UK also leave ?

IMO the entire power of the UN is build upon US & UK military force..who's gonna take over that role ? the Russians ? China ? someone has to or the UN looses all it's power.

What will be next ? Nato ?

Will there be a new allience besides the UN ? Will it be every country for itself ? Will it be US, UK & friends against Russia, China, France & Friends ? sounds like a new kind of cold war to me..

Don't see it happening that fast..but it's not unthinkable either

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 14, 2003, 07:49 AM

Well you can say anything you wish a bout the UN.

The truth is that the majority of the worlds population outside the the US and including your closest allie Great Britain does not support a non UN attack.

That clearly shows support for UN.

Bluelight

Vampyromaniac · Mar 14, 2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Not true, at least not in the USA, bluelight. Most Americans are fed up with the UN, and rightly so.

I'm not sure about that . . . saw on TV yesterday that 140 or so US cities have passed anti-war resolutions, most recently New York City.

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
I'm not sure about that . . . saw on TV yesterday that 140 or so US cities have passed anti-war resolutions, most recently New York City.

The New York Times recently reported that 55% of Americans back a US-led war on Iraq without an additional UN resolution. The same poll concluded that 58% of Americans think that the UN is doing a poor job of managing the situation in Iraq.

Yes, you're right, many cities have passed anti-war resolutions. But Americans are getting tired of this feet-dragging. 9-11 taught us that terror abroad can come home to sting us; most Americans want this situation over so we can move onto bigger goals, like supporting peace in the Middle East.

Smoothdrive · Mar 14, 2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Well you can say anything you wish a bout the UN.

The truth is that the majority of the worlds population outside the the US and including your closest allie Great Britain does not support a non UN attack.

I higly doubt weither the majority of the world think so..and even tough UK would prefer going through UN i do not believe they will pull out if US goes in without UN support.

My personal motivation starts with the people of Iraq..they should be liberated with or without the political support of the UN..UN is all about money and power at the moment..no one seems to care about "the right thing"

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 08:57 AM

Smoothdrive, your motivation is noble, and it happens to be something I share in. It's interesting to note that many anti-war fanatics will argue at great length that liberation never was the goal of the US, UK, or its good friends. They will point to history (as if nothing has changed), and will make wild leaps in logic and "prove" that oil, not alturism, is behind all this.

Therefore what? Even if the opinions of the anti-war movement were true, would not the removal of Saddam Hussein liberate the people of Iraq? In other words, even if the motive was wrong, wouldn't the end result be something positive in spite of misguided rationalizations?

Smoothdrive · Mar 14, 2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The New York Times recently reported that 55% of Americans back a US-led war on Iraq without an additional UN resolution. The same poll concluded that 58% of Americans think that the UN is doing a poor job of managing the situation in Iraq.

Yes, you're right, many cities have passed anti-war resolutions. But Americans are getting tired of this feet-dragging. 9-11 taught us that terror abroad can come home to sting us; most Americans want this situation over so we can move onto bigger goals, like supporting peace in the Middle East.

9-11 indeed was important to the US..it was not untill than that they realised what terrorism was..seeing it on tv is quite different from having it in your own country...Of Course US overreacted a bit in European eyes..why would 9-11 be worse than all the terror we've seen in Israel & around the globe. than again also the Europeans are not that familiar with terrorists in their own country (except IRA,ETA & lokcerby of course)

Still i do not see how terrorism would relate to Iraq..it's to different things imo..Afghanistan was supposed to be the resolution to the Bin-Laden situation, it did not help at all against terrorism, but did good for the people in Afghanistan so i'm glad they did it.

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 09:40 AM

Part of fighting terrorism --and this is not the only reason the US is going to war against Iraq-- is fighting people that aid and support terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a prime example.

Smoothdrive · Mar 14, 2003, 10:03 AM

He could be considered that way yes..beware tough..if you look from Saddam's point of view the terrorists are allies and you can't blaim the man for helping it's allies...which imo basically is the problem in the middle east, Terrorists are considered allies by all anti-American/anti-Israel regimes. It is a bit twisted to us to think of it this way, but i feel this is the way they feel about it. "Iraq helping terrorists is like US helping Israel".

Personally i would mind the terrorists less if they were to attack only military targets..the fact that they attack civilians is what makes me 100% against them.

Falstaff · Mar 14, 2003, 10:21 AM

I believe I recall that terrorists that offered an opinion worth expressing on Al Jazerra T.V. , felt that Hussien was as evil as any western power, and his BATHEST party should be replaced with a fundamentalists government.
I understood it that Hussien courted favor with some terrorist leaders to ease the Muslim fundamentalist opinion against him in his own country as well. He built fantastic mosgues of his own design all over IRAQ by most muslims feel he is a fake. I am sure his wealth has bankrolled some support for terrorists in the past, but publically it has been denyed by even Palestinians...
I wonder if the overthrow of Saddam might herald in a new movement to restore IRAQ to a Khomeni like regime of religious fundamentalism and extremism..
As for bombing, well, we sure have been doing it almost every week since this whole thing began in 1990, and we have hit the same targets over and over again...
It is also interesting to note that Hussien purposely creates phony targets to occupy no fly zone patrols and he routinely fires antiquated missles and anti air artillery to keep up his own strange war of attrition.
I think he wants the whole world to see the level of western aggresiona against him to validate his own argument that the no fly zone patrols are illegal.

Smoothdrive · Mar 14, 2003, 10:32 AM

[offtopic] it's Hussein, not Hussien [/offtopic]

In this case the entire claim of attacking Iraq against terrorism is wiped off the table.

raid517 · Mar 14, 2003, 12:25 PM

Oh look Smoothdrive and JF are becomming friends... Isn't that sweet....

A particularly apt match though IMHO.

Quote:

Smoothdrive, your motivation is noble, and it happens to be something I share in. It's interesting to note that many anti-war fanatics will argue at great length that liberation never was the goal of the US, UK, or its good friends. They will point to history (as if nothing has changed), and will make wild leaps in logic and "prove" that oil, not alturism, is behind all this.

You use history as though it w2ere irrelevant. well I fail to see were the history of 5 minutes ago is irrelevant, or where the history of US support for other equally bad, if not more so existing regimes as that in Iraq can be described as 'irrelevant'. At best it can be described as convenient for you to ignore this. But 'irrelevant' hardly. In any case I would rather be called an anti-war fanatic (which I am not - and in fact you are only referring to a very small number of those who have expressed their concerns about this war) than a pro-war fanatic. A pro-war fantastic sounds like a far more dangerous and unpredictable prospect to me. It is sad that many of these pro war fanatics have simply dismissed all those who have expressed concern as peaceniks and tree huggers, when the majority are simply concerned with the international rule of law and the legality of our actions. Most, indeed almost all could be persuaded of the case for war providing they could be convinced first of the proper legal basis for any action. So far very little effort has gone into ensuring people's concerns in this respect are properly addressed.

Quote:

Therefore what? Even if the opinions of the anti-war movement were true, would not the removal of Saddam Hussein liberate the people of Iraq? In other words, even if the motive was wrong, wouldn't the end result be something positive in spite of misguided rationalizations?

Yep and this is what I have said. I have stated clearly my severe doubts concerning the motivations behind this war.; I doubt Conservatism and altruism are altogether compatible ideas (what happened to personal responsibility and 'sort out your own mess'?)
I can't see where the desperate and direct threat that Iraq poses to American interests emerges and I can't see why for the life of me America is so interested in such a small backwater tin pot dictatorship when there are many other much more prescient threats in the world that could be confronted.

Further there is a growing stink in the US senate among the senate appropriations committee responsible for overseeing US intervention in Iraq, where a number of influential Senators have expressed concern that no requests have been made for any extra budgeting beyond the funding that will be required to prosecute the war in Iraq. This has led some Senators to doubt the validity of America's long term commitment to Iraq and they have expressed fears that it is the US' intention to go in after the war do some cosmetic touching up of Iraq for the first year or two, award whatever contracts might exist to her friends and then pretty much abandon the infrastructure of Iraq to its own devices.

Given this and all of the inconsistencies we have discussed in these threads, if push came to shove and it meant choosing to leave Saddam in power or not, I for one would still say no. I am simply not going to be brainwashed by all the junk inconsistencies emanating from the buttholes of our current political elite over this matter. I think they are lying, have lied and will continue to lie - and only at some point in the far future will we ever really know the truth. Nonetheless I would still say it would probably be best if the Iraqis were poor and free, rather than poor and living under Saddam Hussein. (Though it's debateable about how much freedom poor people have anyway).

Quote:

I believe I recall that terrorists that offered an opinion worth expressing on Al Jazerra T.V. , felt that Hussein was as evil as any western power, and his BATHEST party should be replaced with a fundamentalists government. I understood it that Hussien courted favor with some terrorist leaders to ease the Muslim fundamentalist opinion against him in his own country as well. He built fantastic mosgues of his own design all over IRAQ by most muslims feel he is a fake. I am sure his wealth has bankrolled some support for terrorists in the past, but publically it has been denyed by even Palestinians... I wonder if the overthrow of Saddam might herald in a new movement to restore IRAQ to a Khomeni like regime of religious fundamentalism and extremism.. As for bombing, well, we sure have been doing it almost every week since this whole thing began in 1990, and we have hit the same targets over and over again... It is also interesting to note that Hussien purposely creates phony targets to occupy no fly zone patrols and he routinely fires antiquated missles and anti air artillery to keep up his own strange war of attrition. I think he wants the whole world to see the level of western aggresiona against him to validate his own argument that the no fly zone patrols are illegal.

Jeff that is the fairest assessment I have read from a republican so far. There has been an on going war in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and with the Shiets in the south which Al-Quada have been very active in. Who have they been fighting all this time? Yep, you guessed it Saddam Hussein...

Quote:

In this case the entire claim of attacking Iraq against terrorism is wiped off the table.

No it doesn't vanish. But it does expose the cynical level of media manipulation that politicians are capable of. I don't think a single so called 'Republican' has come on here and mentioned Saddam Hussein without mentioning the events of September the 11th in more or less the same breath, or at least without having this firmly in mind. It seems they are virtually helpless and utterly unable to prevent themselves from making this bogus association. They do this even though it has been consistently proved many times over that no such link with Iraq and the events of September the 11th exist. Every sane and rational person accepts this. But Bush does have a habit of mentioning these two separate issues in almost every speech he makes â€“ and simply by doing this many Americans are convinced that these links are real. Now if you ask most American's why they are going to war with Iraq, they will pretty routinely list what happened on 9/11th as being at or near the top of what is undoubtedly a very short list of motivations.

No I doubt this war. I see this kind of manipulation and i become suspicious. I hear conflicting and contradictory messages emerging from Washington about whatever evidence they supposedly have and I grow concerned, I see the US leadership becoming ever bolder and more prepared to ignore international laws and conventions and I become fearful for what the future may hold in store. But despite all this, I would still say that it might be best, regardless of the seemingly brutal and knuckle brained way this whole matter has been approached, if Saddam still did go. I think there are many pertinent questions that must be asked when this is all over about why it was all necessary and why it was necessary particularly now and what America's real intentions in Iraq are, but ultimately this will not become clear until this thing is over and the American Republican party has satiated its need for war. All we can do is observe....

Q

raid517 · Mar 14, 2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

9-11 indeed was important to the US..it was not untill than that they realised what terrorism was..seeing it on tv is quite different from having it in your own country

Case and point. How many Americans here feel this is good enough motivation for war. Smoothdrive may not be an American (Lord Knows what he is, though I often feel the transormation to a right wing American republican would be an easy one for him. Pitty though that he sees 'immigration' as a problematical issue).

Almost every pro-war person I have spoken to has come out with very similar statements like this. It seems that Bush has mentioned these two different issues so many times in the same context that the link is now hard wired into their brains. I don't think it is possible for some Republicans to indulge in any form of independant thinking. Language like this purely demonstrates that they are only too happy to be told what they should and should not think. This is very, very sad..

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 14, 2003, 12:46 PM

mabe should pull away from Iraq and circle them troops around france

raid517 · Mar 14, 2003, 01:17 PM

Man some people really do have a stick in a very dark place over the French. Grow up dude. Virtually everything bad you say about the French can be said about Americans too. The truth is you should love the French to pieces. They are actually staunch Republicans. The only thing is they believe exactly the same things to be true about France as you believe to be true of America. All I can say is its a good job the world isn't full of republicans, otherwise no one would ever get along...

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 14, 2003, 01:24 PM

not tiping my hand now but I am digging for dirt on france.... exaple the billions in oil and other contants the french will loose ,,, anti-americanism,, anti alot ... just digging .... from what i have seen so far aint good

Falstaff · Mar 14, 2003, 02:54 PM

The regime in IRAQ must be replaced, this is an objective that is equally shared by everyone, even the Russians. However, it seems that it will not happen without a fight. Even the Pope offered to allow Saddam to leave, providing he turn his government over to his people,,it was respectfully declined by Saddam. His Arab nieghbors have made similiar overtures as well, and still, Saddam clings to power. I suppose there are enemies that would consume him once he steps outside his borders. I think, even the French would pursue him if he fled.

Frodo301 · Mar 14, 2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
The regime in IRAQ must be replaced, this is an objective that is equally shared by everyone, even the Russians. However, it seems that it will not happen without a fight. Even the Pope offered to allow Saddam to leave, providing he turn his government over to his people,,it was respectfully declined by Saddam. His Arab nieghbors have made similiar overtures as well, and still, Saddam clings to power. I suppose there are enemies that would consume him once he steps outside his borders. I think, even the French would pursue him if he fled.

Oh everyone *wants* to get rid of Saddam and his government. I don't know how many times I have heard from the anti war crowd that Saddam is evil. He is oppressing the people. He's starving and denying them the freedoms that we enjoy. That's the anti war crowd for god's sake. And then in the same breath they will turn around and say that they don't understand why it is so important that we go in and invade Iraq. It is usually argued that the US is invading for personal interest only, oil being the biggest argument to invade. And that we use the bogus term of fighting terrorism in an attempt to find a reason for war in Iraq. I find it strangely hypocritical that you can find his actions so terrible and still twist it around where you find invasion unnecesary and not in anyone's best interest. How can anyone sit there and say, hey he's an evil man, but lets leave him in power and let him continue to commit these atrocities to his people?

leon_cs · Mar 14, 2003, 04:31 PM

May be you Americans dont know the the fact, or try to hide it just like that evil Bush does, but you supported that tyrant Saddam against my country Iran to make a mess there all the weapons and money was provided to Saddam for the sole reason to cause terror there during the war in 80s. And now the same friend of yours is the worst/evil and the amalgam of all the sh*t that happens. Same is true for Bin laden. Your Gov is the biggest supporter of tyrants and terroristd in the world and later brands them terrorists and fundamentalists. The world knows whos the real terror, its just that it cannot say no to the bully.

Mar 13, 2003, 08:54 PM	#1
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq? Check this out this site has a listing of ever time the U.S, Has bombed Iraq Yes, it i know from a ati war activists website ... but it's still interseting http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm They focus on questions like Why is America bombing? Not why is Iraq fireing on U.S. Aircarft partoling the no fly zone and couseing a responce acording to the rules of engagement... This is the kind of ani-war site people go an see and belive that everyones agenst the war. What the deal with this? Of couse no where do the mention the Pro-War activists Nor any of the Pro-war marches that have taken place. what do you guys think of this....... __________________ Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; Mar 13, 2003 at 08:59 PM.

Mar 13, 2003, 09:06 PM	Thread Starter #3
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	There are equilly good points for both stances .... I just find it disturbing that everyone is focusing on the ati-war crowd and the pro war barely gets a mention..... in any media __________________

Mar 13, 2003, 11:22 PM	#10
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	hey Neon i see you have a fixation with the word ati ... take it your a Nvida type guy having sleepness nights about Ati kicking Nvida's ass __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Mar 14, 2003, 01:29 AM	#11
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	This is no fly zone stuff the only thing we might go after now is all the communication stuff underground, I am sure it is easier to go after repeater sites now, all microwave stuff, all towers, short wave coms....etc....the excrement will hit the fan soon... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 14, 2003, 10:03 AM	#20
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	He could be considered that way yes..beware tough..if you look from Saddam's point of view the terrorists are allies and you can't blaim the man for helping it's allies...which imo basically is the problem in the middle east, Terrorists are considered allies by all anti-American/anti-Israel regimes. It is a bit twisted to us to think of it this way, but i feel this is the way they feel about it. "Iraq helping terrorists is like US helping Israel". Personally i would mind the terrorists less if they were to attack only military targets..the fact that they attack civilians is what makes me 100% against them. __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 13, 2003, 09:02 PM	#2
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Dunno, the US and UK have been bombing Iraq continuously for more or less 12 years. Nothing new. Mind you if you want someone to condemn the site for its stance, let me kick the party off for the American republicans here. "Those people are a frikin discrace. They are a bunch of anti-American SOB's. They should all be put up against a wall and shot." Yada, Yada, Yada.... Hows that? Good enough? Q

Mar 13, 2003, 09:13 PM	#4
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Oh I dunno, their sure loud enough to make your head hurt if you come on places like this. Besides I think a bunch of war crazed middle American Christian far right marchers might be a bit of a dangerous prospect don't you? How long do you think that could go on for without somebody getting hurt? Q

Mar 13, 2003, 09:49 PM	#6
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	No but that is probably the one element that was missing... Q

Mar 13, 2003, 10:08 PM	#8
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Not true, at least not in the USA, bluelight. Most Americans are fed up with the UN, and rightly so.

Mar 13, 2003, 10:23 PM	#9
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Maybe rightly so from your perspective. From other people's perspectives it seems like this administration has set out to undermine the authority of the UN from the beginning of this process. You say the French are guilty of this, but the French no doubt recognised that the US was not serious about the process and therefore saw no reason to play ball. Continual statements emanating from Washington clearly stating that the US would go to war at all costs, even if disarmament without war became possible, clearly demonstrated this lack of regard for international institutions and conventions and has done little to persuade the French, or anyone else, to support this US government's current position. You want to blame someone for screwing up the UN? Well there is more than enough blame to go around. But as usual I guess you will want to blame everyone else for this. Q

Mar 14, 2003, 07:49 AM	#13
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Well you can say anything you wish a bout the UN. The truth is that the majority of the worlds population outside the the US and including your closest allie Great Britain does not support a non UN attack. That clearly shows support for UN. Bluelight

Mar 14, 2003, 08:57 AM	#17
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Smoothdrive, your motivation is noble, and it happens to be something I share in. It's interesting to note that many anti-war fanatics will argue at great length that liberation never was the goal of the US, UK, or its good friends. They will point to history (as if nothing has changed), and will make wild leaps in logic and "prove" that oil, not alturism, is behind all this. Therefore what? Even if the opinions of the anti-war movement were true, would not the removal of Saddam Hussein liberate the people of Iraq? In other words, even if the motive was wrong, wouldn't the end result be something positive in spite of misguided rationalizations?

Mar 14, 2003, 09:40 AM	#19
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Part of fighting terrorism --and this is not the only reason the US is going to war against Iraq-- is fighting people that aid and support terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a prime example.

Mar 14, 2003, 10:21 AM	#21
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Terrorists? I believe I recall that terrorists that offered an opinion worth expressing on Al Jazerra T.V. , felt that Hussien was as evil as any western power, and his BATHEST party should be replaced with a fundamentalists government. I understood it that Hussien courted favor with some terrorist leaders to ease the Muslim fundamentalist opinion against him in his own country as well. He built fantastic mosgues of his own design all over IRAQ by most muslims feel he is a fake. I am sure his wealth has bankrolled some support for terrorists in the past, but publically it has been denyed by even Palestinians... I wonder if the overthrow of Saddam might herald in a new movement to restore IRAQ to a Khomeni like regime of religious fundamentalism and extremism.. As for bombing, well, we sure have been doing it almost every week since this whole thing began in 1990, and we have hit the same targets over and over again... It is also interesting to note that Hussien purposely creates phony targets to occupy no fly zone patrols and he routinely fires antiquated missles and anti air artillery to keep up his own strange war of attrition. I think he wants the whole world to see the level of western aggresiona against him to validate his own argument that the no fly zone patrols are illegal. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor." Last edited by fallang_jeff; Mar 14, 2003 at 10:28 AM.

Mar 14, 2003, 10:32 AM	#22
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	[offtopic] it's Hussein, not Hussien [/offtopic] In this case the entire claim of attacking Iraq against terrorism is wiped off the table. __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 14, 2003, 12:46 PM	Thread Starter #25
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	mabe should pull away from Iraq and circle them troops around france __________________

Mar 14, 2003, 01:17 PM	#26
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Man some people really do have a stick in a very dark place over the French. Grow up dude. Virtually everything bad you say about the French can be said about Americans too. The truth is you should love the French to pieces. They are actually staunch Republicans. The only thing is they believe exactly the same things to be true about France as you believe to be true of America. All I can say is its a good job the world isn't full of republicans, otherwise no one would ever get along... Q

Mar 14, 2003, 01:24 PM	Thread Starter #27
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	not tiping my hand now but I am digging for dirt on france.... exaple the billions in oil and other contants the french will loose ,,, anti-americanism,, anti alot ... just digging .... from what i have seen so far aint good __________________

Mar 14, 2003, 02:54 PM	#28
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	It is just so much deeper The regime in IRAQ must be replaced, this is an objective that is equally shared by everyone, even the Russians. However, it seems that it will not happen without a fight. Even the Pope offered to allow Saddam to leave, providing he turn his government over to his people,,it was respectfully declined by Saddam. His Arab nieghbors have made similiar overtures as well, and still, Saddam clings to power. I suppose there are enemies that would consume him once he steps outside his borders. I think, even the French would pursue him if he fled. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 14, 2003, 04:31 PM	#30
leon_cs DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 3 Rep Power: 0	May be you Americans dont know the the fact, or try to hide it just like that evil Bush does, but you supported that tyrant Saddam against my country Iran to make a mess there all the weapons and money was provided to Saddam for the sole reason to cause terror there during the war in 80s. And now the same friend of yours is the worst/evil and the amalgam of all the sh*t that happens. Same is true for Bin laden. Your Gov is the biggest supporter of tyrants and terroristd in the world and later brands them terrorists and fundamentalists. The world knows whos the real terror, its just that it cannot say no to the bully.