The POINT, Norm,

Post #90,380 by cwbrenn 3/22/03 11:30:51 AM Reply	The POINT, Norm, is that moderate religious leaders, who were speaking out AGAINST Osama and other radical Moslem's calls for a jihad against the US, are now starting to say exactly the same things. These were the Moslem's who spoke out against the idea that Islam needed to, you know, kill the white devils and all that. And now they are saying that they need to resist the US invasion of Iraq. Since one of the ideas behind all this is to clear out Saddam so that the moderate Moslems can have a place to hang out, thereby establishing stability in the reason, I'd say this latest action indicated a "slight" flaw in the plan... "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #90,382 by deSitter 3/22/03 11:33:23 AM Reply	Liberal forces in Pakistan, for example.. ..are in despair - because if they had a steep climb before, now they're facing a vertical wall. -drl
Post #90,429 by orion 3/22/03 5:35:47 PM Reply	My point is that this is not a war against Muslims, or a war against a religion, it is a war against Iraq and its leaders who have not been honest in the disarmaments and not cooperated fully. We are not targeting Mosuqes and other religious buildings just military ones. Let me make this clear, this is not a war on any religion or race, just a war against a man and his country that would not cooperate and that supports terrorism (Saddam did offer $20,000USD to Sucide Bomber families, etc) after all else failed. We should not cower in fear, but strike now and free their people from its evil leaders. We are not going to take over Iraq, we are going to set up a new government made of the people of Iraq. If we tremble in fear, the terrorists have already won. But we have to strike to show our strength. If the terrorists topple another building, we have to keep on going. Sure it may happen, but we cannot live in fear that it will happen. Our security has been beefed up and we are at orange alert. We are not the bad guys here, they are. We are striking military targets, while they have killed their own people and built up weapons of mass destruction. Plus the terrorists struck civilians, and also people of their own relgion when they toppled the WTC. They are using religion as an excuse for a war, and as I have said this is not about religion. If it was, we'd be attacking more countries than Iraq, we'd attack Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,448 by Brandioch 3/22/03 6:31:20 PM Reply	So where are the nuke/chem/bio attacks? My point is that this is not a war against Muslims, or a war against a religion, it is a war against Iraq and its leaders who have not been honest in the disarmaments and not cooperated fully. So, it's because Iraq didn't disarm...... So, now that Iraq is being attacked, why aren't they using those weapons you claim they have? Let me make this clear, this is not a war on any religion or race, just a war against a man and his country that would not cooperate and that supports terrorism (Saddam did offer $20,000USD to Sucide Bomber families, etc) after all else failed. "cooperate" with whom? Yes, he did offer money to suicide bombers. And Bush is talking about giving suicide bombers their own state (which is the reason they've been killing people). So, that would mean that Bush also supports terrorists. We should not cower in fear, but strike now and free their people from its evil leaders. Look at Afghanistan. You cannot GIVE people their freedom. We are not going to take over Iraq, we are going to set up a new government made of the people of Iraq. Like we did in Afghanistan? If we tremble in fear, the terrorists have already won. But we have to strike to show our strength. How have they "won"? Would that make the US an Islamic state? If not, then how have they "won"? If the terrorists topple another building, we have to keep on going. No. If the terrorists topple another building, I think we should just give up and enact an Islamic state. After all, that's a lot of people dead. Almost as many as die on the road every year. Of COURSE we're going to "keep on going". Because the terrorists can't do enough damage to us. Sure it may happen, but we cannot live in fear that it will happen. And who is? Our security has been beefed up and we are at orange alert. We still have HUGE holes. We can't close them AND still operate the way we have been. We are not the bad guys here, they are. Whoa!!!! !!!BINARY ALERT!!! In THIS case we are BOTH "bad guys". Yep, it's possible to have TWO "bad guys" fighting over a resource. We are striking military targets, while they have killed their own people and built up weapons of mass destruction. And they are cleverly NOT USING those "weapons of mass destruction" even as the US forces move closer. No, they haven't USED them because they don't HAVE them. Your government has LIED to you to get you to support and ILLEGAL attack. Plus the terrorists struck civilians, and also people of their own relgion when they toppled the WTC. Those terrorists were NOT from Iraq. Iraq supports Palestinians who bomb Israel. Saudi Arabia supports al Queda which bombs the US. They are using religion as an excuse for a war, and as I have said this is not about religion. To YOU it isn't. Because you still believe the lies about Iraq having nukes and chem/bio. To THEM, it is about religion. Because they see the US telling lies about weapons that Iraq does NOT have and then, when the inspectors can't find them, invading anyway. If it was, we'd be attacking more countries than Iraq, we'd attack Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. Afghanistan Iraq Iran - wait for it, they're on the list. Or, rather, how many Islamic countries will the US have to invade before YOU believe it is about religion?
Post #90,500 by orion 3/22/03 10:07:27 PM Reply	Re: So where are the nuke/chem/bio attacks? We may have destroyed the places the weapons were being kept at. I don't have military intelligence in front of me, but I'd think if I was part of Military Intelligence I would try and target the places that the WOMD may have been stored. They did use SCUDs, which they said they didn't have. So that is proof that they do have WOMD of some sort. Lucky for us the Patriot missiles still shoot them down. But yes, as pointed out before, they don't want to use chemical or biological weapons on their own land, because it would hurt their troops and people as well as ours. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,552 by Brandioch 3/23/03 12:43:27 AM Reply	"So that is proof that they do have WOMD of some sort." I just went over this the other day with the OTHER fucking moron on this board. Now, because I'm not going to waste my time re-keying it, I'll just link to it. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=89769\|And here is that posting.]
Post #90,557 by orion 3/23/03 1:28:19 AM Reply	Part of the disarment agreement was to get rid of the SCUDs they obviously did not. Further proof that they did not follow the rules. The simple answer is that the US and UK have decided that Iraq had not disarmed voluntarily as it was required to do by United Nations resolutions and that it is, therefore, going to be disarmed by force. Getting rid of the SCUDs was part of the disarming process. Obviously they did not get rid of them. Which leads to further proof that Iraq did not follow the UN resolutions. Therefore, the war is legal. The British Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith has published his opinion that war is justified under Security Council resolutions. He says that the authority goes back to resolutions 678, which permitted war against Iraq over Kuwait and 687, which laid down terms for a ceasefire. These were reactivated by 1441 which warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with instructions to disarm. Remember the Gulf War? Iraq agreed to disarm. They obviously did not. Hence 1441 reactivated 687, and we are back at war with Iraq again. Does it matter if Iraq has WOMD or not? Not really, the fact is they didn't disarm and violated resolution 678, hence the legal right to attack and disarm them. Over 40 countries agree with this course of action. Of course take a look at the weapons both sides have in the war: [link\|http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/weapons/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/S...eapons/index.html] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2003/military_fact_files/default.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u...files/default.stm] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2462583.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u..._east/2462583.stm] But according to the UK prime minister's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: "Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the Scud ballistic missile in breach of UN Security Council resolution 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles." See the violation? See how clearly the fact got stated that these missiles violate resolution 678? What about that don't you understand? "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,562 by Brandioch 3/23/03 2:03:09 AM Reply	And Molly tore that apart already. [link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14694&CFID=6080478&CFTOKEN=77664199\|Here] The key word was "automaticity" -- that is, who decided if there was noncompliance. Now here's where the "legislative intent" is found: On the day the resolution was passed, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: "There is not \ufffdautomaticity,' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken." Now that is perfectly clear. And that is why the other nations so bitterly feel had on this. No one likes people who deal in bad faith. Yes, I remember the first Gulf War. We had authority to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Iraq left Kuwait. There was a ceasefire. Under those terms, Iraq was to disarm. Now, you and Bush and others have claimed that Iraq did NOT disarm. You claimed that Iraq had nuke/chem/bio weapons. Yet there haven't been any found and none used. Does it matter if Iraq has WOMD or not? Not really, the fact is they didn't disarm and violated resolution 678, hence the legal right to attack and disarm them. Over 40 countries agree with this course of action. Yes, it DOES matter. Because if Iraq does NOT have nuke/chem/bio weapons then we are killing children over ROCKETS. Rockets that CANNOT reach the US. Therefore, Iraq is NOT a threat to the US. Yes, 40 countries agree with the US. Of course, 15 of those countries refuse to be named. And the resolution the US wanted to push through the UN couldn't get any votes other than US/UK/Spain. And even the press corps laughed when our current regime claimed not to be buying support. Children will die because of ROCKETS that cannot reach the US. We will spend over $100BILLION because of ROCKETS that cannot reach the US. We are cutting education budgets to help fund this war. #1. Iraq does NOT have "weapons of mass destruction". #2. Iraq is NOT a threat to the US. #3. The money we are spending on this war would be better spent on education in the US.
Post #90,570 by Ashton 3/23/03 3:45:05 AM Reply	If the $100B were spent on eduction.. You wouldn't have to explain such things.. (Hell, if the $100B HAD been spent on eduction - Aaahhh never mind..)
Post #90,628 by Brandioch 3/23/03 11:04:10 AM Reply	Exactly.
Post #90,532 by orion 3/22/03 11:36:55 PM Reply	Please read Q&A's about the war from the BBC, as apparently you don't trust US sources: [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2829771.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u..._east/2829771.stm] I hope this answers most of your questions, I don't have the time to fully answer all of them, but I can answer some that I do have time for. Big difference, we target miltitary targets, they target civilian ones. That makes them the bad guys, and us not the bad guys. Note this is not saying we are 100% good here, but we are not as bad as they are. Saddam is a madman who makes his opposition vanish (read dead, terminated, disposed of, etc) and has tried to kill off the Kurds with genecide, and supports terrorism, and Iraq would be better off without him. The war is about removing him from power, and disarming Iraq of any WOMD that they have. The inspectors couldn't find the Drones that the Saddam had, the weapons inspection was botched because Saddam did not cooperate with weapon inspectors and was not totally honest with them. For example, he said he had no more SCUDs, yet he launched them on Kuwait after the war started. Face that fact, he lied to weapons inspectors and hid weapons from them. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,551 by Brandioch 3/23/03 12:42:57 AM Reply	I read that. Now, show me where it mentions chem/bio.
Post #90,558 by orion 3/23/03 1:33:29 AM Reply	Violation of resolution 678 [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=90557\|Please read this] explains it in more detail. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,559 by Brandioch 3/23/03 1:51:46 AM Reply	Lots of detail. Very little applicable. So, we have to kill innocent Iraqis because Saddam has rockets? I notice you've back off of your ORIGINAL position that he had "weapons of mass destruction". In fact, you don't even bother to mention it any more. So, are those rockets worth killing children over?
Post #90,830 by orion 3/23/03 7:22:10 PM Reply	Re: Lots of detail. Very little applicable. Rocket which violate resolution 678, and can be used for long range attacks using nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads. Come on Saddam had 12 years to destroy the things and he did not. They wouldn't use them for short range attacks because it would hit their country and troops and people as well, but they would use them in long range attacks. We are only targeting military targets, not children. I think it is best we end this discussion if you insit on saying we are targeting children. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,836 by Brandioch 3/23/03 7:41:28 PM Reply	So you don't think children will die in this invasion? Explain why Saddam has not used nuke/chem/bio weapons. Children will die in this invasion. That is the reality. And you are STILL going on about: Rocket which violate resolution 678, and can be used for long range attacks using nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads. The rockets cannot deliver those payloads. Because Saddam does not have those payloads. Dead children. Because Saddam does not have the weapons you claim he has. But don't feel bad. It's not like they were real boys and girls. Just some more rag head gutter snipes. The world's probably better of without them.
Post #90,841 by boxley 3/23/03 7:50:02 PM Reply	yeah, they might get run over by a drunk will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
Post #90,886 by orion 3/23/03 9:19:13 PM Reply	I see no further need to continue this conversation "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,891 by mmoffitt 3/23/03 9:28:05 PM Reply	Correction: Children have died already. [link\|http://www.moffitt-tech.com/foo/war.html\|Pointing to a primitive page I put up w/photos of dead Iraqi children BEFORE the war "started"] bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?

Welcome to IWETHEY!