8 EU members say they are with the USA [Archive]

MrVicchio

2003-01-30, 04:21 PM

January 30, 2003

Europe and America must stand united

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists � the enemies of our common values � are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime�s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today�s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein�s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein�s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq�s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Jos� Mar�a Aznar, Spain
Jos� Manuel Dur�o Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
V�clav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

Bighoss

2003-01-30, 05:37 PM

woah I didn't read all of it but its a good thing they support us ! otherwise I would have thought they were harboring terrorists too and we would have to carpet bomb them !

Mazelmavin

2003-01-30, 06:01 PM

I noticed France is not on that list..

I guess it was all over once Julius conquered Gaul.

chopstickz

2003-01-30, 06:12 PM

I agree Saddam is a mad and totalitarian dictator who is responsible for countless human rights violations. His rigime needs to be stopped and he needs to be removed from power. I do however think there are more pressing matters to be delt with.

Kalam

2003-01-30, 06:14 PM

w00t
you should know: these all are europen countries, but only five of them are in the EU
and they are not nearly as important as Germany or France
England has somewhat influence, but you can forget about the other four.
The EU has 15 members, so you can see only one third has singed this.

archaic1128

2003-01-30, 11:21 PM

Actually i just watched an interveiw w/ some diploshit from France.They seem to be backpeddling a bit. I would have to think it's because they think the US might have some substantial proof and they are setting up a diplomatic escape route. However, i highly doubt they will pull their head out of Germany's ass long enough to see the light.

What really irritates me is this Diploshit said "We believe Saddam is a threat but we want proof before we commit to disarming him", What a lame stance. They admit he is a global threat but they refuse to take initiative. Sounds like they haven't learned their lesson from pre-WWII and Germany.

Anywhoot, I love how the Polish Diplomat responsed " Everyone in the world wishes Saddam would just fall over dead", now thats classic.

Navaron

2003-01-30, 11:23 PM

Germany and France don't want this to happen because theyve both been buying illegal oil from him and know that shit will hit the fan when that's common knowledge.

archaic1128

2003-01-30, 11:33 PM

That very well could be some evidence that the US has. I Don't doubt it one bit as the French Diploshit gave a run around answer to a question about them protecting their interests in Iraq.

Also, i haven't heard much resistance from Russia after they bought massive amounts of oil rights in Iraq. Their entire rhetoric for the last 6 months was how the US wanted war for oil. Sounds like there is some wheeling and dealing going on, hmmm?

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-31, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by archaic1128
Also, i haven't heard much resistance from Russia after they bought massive amounts of oil rights in Iraq. Their entire rhetoric for the last 6 months was how the US wanted war for oil. Sounds like there is some wheeling and dealing going on, hmmm?

Actually Russia has been against the US going into Iraq from the get go. I don't know where you got the idea that Russia wasn't against the US going to war with Iraq. Russia does know that if Saddam is ousted and there is a complete government upheaval they are very likely to lose their investment.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-31, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Germany and France don't want this to happen because theyve both been buying illegal oil from him and know that shit will hit the fan when that's common knowledge.

lol, If its not common knowlege how do you know this? Sounds like you are speculating.

Navaron

2003-01-31, 12:08 AM

Actually lex, I think they are on the fence, they can make a buttload of cash offa the oil they will sell if a war in the mideast breaks out.

archaic1128

2003-01-31, 12:17 AM

Lex,
what i was reffering to was "in the news".
The last six months Russia was in the news everyday talking about how the US was waging war for oil. That was their entire rhetoric that they were publicly stating. It just seems odd how they piped up since they bought all those oil rights.

Yes, i know they were against us from the beginning but they weren't as public about it as they were after Bush went to the U.N.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-31, 12:34 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030129/wl_nm/iraq_russia_dc_4

"Russia, said Wednesday it saw no grounds yet for using force against Iraq and called for U.N. arms inspectors to have more time, a day after President Bush sought support for a possible war."

This is from yesterday. Is that on the fence? (is this the part where you follow Vicchio's rules that you endorse and admit that you were wrong :p ;) )

archaic1128

2003-01-31, 12:18 PM

*On hands and knees* please forgive me, NOOO, don't take away my giant rubber ducky!

Hmm, must have missed that somehow........Anyways, i am always looking for more good reads. I'll have to read that, thx lex. oops:

Gortha

2003-02-02, 02:00 AM

:mad:
I think some of u are a littly bit blind.....

The greatest reason for the USA to attack the Iraq is, that they want Oil.
Only Oil.

The US-Tv spreads out to much Lies.
3 Days ago i read an article... in this article i read that over 50 % of the US-American folks thinks that Saddam is/was one of the Leaders which are the reason for the September 11. .
But thats not true.

And u think the Iraq has ABC-Weapons...... could be, but u and all Governments all over the World don�t KNOW. The US-Government and England have no proofs, that Iraq has A-,B-, or still having C-Weapons.

If u want to get clever read the 35 Questions for Bush from the repulicain-politician from Texas!

Or read this interview from M.J. Fox:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,229373-2,00.html
(it is in German)

Greetz
Gortha

Revolution

2003-02-02, 02:43 AM

We need some shit to hit the fan. Maybe THEN the world would understand that we are all the same race, and all might want to live in peace.

What if a disaster happened, be it alien invasion, asteriod, planet x, whatever!

Why cant it end and we all respect each other's beliefs. They dont agree? Well Boo Fucking Hoo. Just learn to get along and live our short lives on this 3rd rock from the Sun without the chaos that it is.....

:mad: :mad: should turn into :love: :love:

You dont agree? I respect that. You flame? I hate that. Get the symbolism?

Warborn

2003-02-02, 02:44 AM

3 Days ago i read an article... in this article i read that over 50 % of the US-American folks thinks that Saddam is/was one of the Leaders which are the reason for the September 11. .
But thats not true.

I don't think he was involved at all, but I don't know for a fact, and neither do you. But the American public tends to not know jack either, no offense to the Americans out there who do have the facts. Even still, the war won't be because they think Saddam is partially responsible for Sept. 11th. It'll be because he's the kind of sick son of a bitch who'd be more than happy to help some terrorists put on another Sept. 11th show. But, I suppose that doesn't really matter to you when it's not your country, huh?

And u think the Iraq has ABC-Weapons...... could be, but u and all Governments all over the World don�t KNOW. The US-Government and England have no proofs, that Iraq has A-,B-, or still having C-Weapons.

Guess we should wait until a Sept. 11th repeat huh? The only way you can know if Saddam has these weapons is if you go in there with force, or until he uses them or, more likely, gives them to terrorists to use. You don't honestly think a couple hundreds UN Inspectors are going to find a damn thing in a country the size of France when the government of said country has had a LOT of time to plan for future inspections, and is currently evading the inspectors, do you? The inspectors were damn lucky to find the empty warheads, and the irony of the situation is that the Iraqis likely did forget about them. They were so busy moving their mobile bio/chem labs that the warheads they left behind were forgotten.

Anyway, what Germans or Frenchmen or whatever else think or want makes no goddamn difference in this matter. Saddam and American go way back, and it is in America's best interest to remove Saddam. The UN will of course never go along with a war, but who cares? The US has every right to protect itself from future attacks, and if your nation doesn't have the brains to realize the threat posed by Iraq, then you can watch the news and sit on the side-lines for all America cares. There are enough nations out there with the balls to make the world a safer place that America really doesn't need everyone to actively support them.

SandTrout

2003-02-02, 03:10 AM

Nail on the head, Warborn.

We know that Iraq has had Bio/Chem weapons in the past, and the chances that they have destroyed those weapons is between zip and nilch. He has also proven the willingness to use them flamboyantly. I'm glad to see that the US isn't the only country that hasn't been castrated by the UN.

BTW, Revolution, You're right about some shit needing to hit the fan. The US know's that it is not invunerable, maybe the rest of the world should consider that possibility as well.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 03:26 AM

...again.

Biggest Reason for US-Industrie und Bush is the Oil, not Saddam as a real combatant.

I see it is mindless to try to tell u whats really goin on, cause u are blind, not in that u are stupid, but the press coverage u got from your US-Media is not as true as u think.

And I think you are not willing to enquire yourself the trueness.

If u would u could do it. Search the WWW and try to open your eyes for whats really goin on.

Gr�sse
Gortha

PS: Euer Bush ist ein dummer Hurensohn, ich hasse den! ;PP

Warborn

2003-02-02, 04:12 AM

I see it is mindless to try to tell u whats really goin on, cause u are blind, not in that u are stupid, but the press coverage u got from your US-Media is not as true as u think.

Kettle, pot -- you know the drill.

And I think you are not willing to enquire yourself the trueness.

This will be an easier read if you translate it via an online translator. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76427,00.html)

If u would u could do it. Search the WWW and try to open your eyes for whats really goin on.

Ok, I will. In the meantime, want to give me the reasons why you think ousting a known Evil Mofo in the interest of American safety in the wake of a major terrorist attack is in fact all about oil? I mean, shit, if you wanted, you could say Hitler started WW2 because he didn't like Poland or France, and you know what, if you had your head lodged in your ass-cavity, you'd look at how the war went and think that's true. I mean, after all, he beat the piss out of Poland and France didn't he? So therefore his motivation must have been a hatred for Poland and France... right?

Euer Bush ist ein dummer Hurensohn, ich hasse den!

And your what's-his-name (Gerhard something?) is a coward.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Gortha
...again.

Biggest Reason for US-Industrie und Bush is the Oil, not Saddam as a real combatant.

I see it is mindless to try to tell u whats really goin on, cause u are blind, not in that u are stupid, but the press coverage u got from your US-Media is not as true as u think.

And I think you are not willing to enquire yourself the trueness.

If u would u could do it. Search the WWW and try to open your eyes for whats really goin on.

Gr�sse
Gortha

PS: Euer Bush ist ein dummer Hurensohn, ich hasse den! ;PP

Yeah, the oil arguement, Why pray tell is this? Can you give us THREE reasons why Bush is going to war "just for oil" Please try there big guy.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 11:30 AM

... I haven�t to tell u about your Lobby-Work in your policy. Everybody knows that.

There are Movies over this.

PLease just have a look at this from Septembre:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

(Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ)

Gortha

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Yeah, the oil arguement, Why pray tell is this? Can you give us THREE reasons why Bush is going to war "just for oil" Please try there big guy.

Hmmm, let me give you a couple:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html

This Article which I posted in another thread outlines well over three reason why the US would wage war with Iraq, as well as evidence that states that securing the oil fields is a primary military objective.

archaic1128

2003-02-02, 12:29 PM

Gortha,

This war has more issues than just stating that the US wants Iraq's oil. Let's take a look at some:

1. U.N. sanctions on Iraq.
The sanctions against Iraq were to be "oil for food" remember that? Yet, for the last 12yrs the Iraq people have not had sufficient food or living conditions. Where is all of the money going? Obviously not to the people.

2. Iraq's snubbing of weapons inpectors.
The Iraq government has been doing everything in their power to obstruct ongoing weapons inspections. This is a well known issue and to say that us Americans are are being fed BS about it, shows complete ignorance on your part. Did not Hans Blix give a report stating so? Does not Hans Blix refuse to continue inspections because the Iraq government is not cooperating as they agreed to? Did not Mr. Blix state that Iraq needs to comply much more openly and willingly than they currently are? The concept behind inspections is not a hide and seek program. It is meant for a country to WILLINGLY comply and for the inspectors to VERIFY that the said country is complying.

3. War or not.
Lets look at something very simple here. There are only a couple options as to what should be done w/ Iraq.

A. The U.S. and it's allies remove Saddam. With Saddam gone the people of Iraq can be free of oppression. They will have an opportunity to live in a evolving economy, and w/ their oil resources it should be a very strong economy. The Iraqi(sp?) people will finally have better living conditions, more food and the prosperity that normal civilized countries now enjoy.

or
B. The world can leave Iraq alone, w/ ongoing weapons inspections. The U.N. will lift the current sanctions allowing Iraq to trade more freely. Thus giving Saddam more resources and opportunity to evolve and grow his military to accomplish his ultimate quest. The complete and utter annihalation of Israel, and to be the one and only power of the middle east. This man has publicly stated he "wills to destroy Israel."

Now, we can either let him free of his leash, or we can take him out. Either way, the weapons inspections have been ongoing for 12yrs, and Saddam has done nothing to comply. He has not shown the evidence the the U.N. wants him to provide. So in my opinion this process has had 12yrs to show it can work, which it has failed miserably. It's time to put up or shut up. Leave Iraq alone, lift the sanctions and let them do as they will or take Saddam out and rebuild them. I personally choose to take Saddam out, because given the opportunity he will do his best to bring about a Holy war which will involve every nation, not just a few.

Hamma

2003-02-02, 12:41 PM

There are 2 sides to all arguments. Each side always accuses the other of being blind to the facts.

Doesent anyone know nobody wins these arguments?

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 12:54 PM

There are movies about this...

Wow, there are movies claiming we didnt go to the moon too... :rolleyes:

Look, I read both those links... Go find pro-war stuff, they are just as serious and persuasive, but less emotionally based.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by archaic1128
Gortha,

This war has more issues than just stating that the US wants Iraq's oil. Let's take a look at some:

Addressing your point 1)
This demonstrates that even though sanctions were errected against Iraq, a loophole was left in to allow oil trade. You first point demonstrates the importance of Iraqs oil.

Addressing your point 2)
We have more proof that North Korea has weapons of Mass destruction and they are distributing weapons. Why aren't we focussing on North Korea?

Addressing your point 3)
part A
That is none of our bussiness. It is not our bussiness to impose western ideals on the rest of the world. That is an issue of soverignty. If we are really worried about the rights of the people of Iraq, why aren't we invading other countries with worse human rights violations goin on.

Part B
If Saddam starts a war against Israel the entire west will rise up against him. This would not longer be a sovereignty issue. Even if Iraq attacked Israel, it is not like Israel is powerless. Israel does have nuclear weapons.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio

Look, I read both those links... Go find pro-war stuff, they are just as serious and persuasive, but less emotionally based.
They were raw facts and quotes from US intelligence and military. How is that emotionally based?

Come on Mr Vicchio, I expected better from you than calling our evidence emotionally based. ;)

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 01:51 PM

I dont see the point, you guys hear what you want to hear. I was against Kosovo and Somalia because there was NO POJNT in America being there, there IS a reason for us to be in Iraq, and Oil is not our main and only goal. I am tired of argueing with Liberals.. they singuarly lack two things:

Belief that there is good in this world.

That the UN is near collapse because it is almost useless, and would fall apart if the USA withdrew.

archaic1128

2003-02-02, 01:55 PM

Lex,
Issue 1.
My point is that there are more issues than just OIL. I'm not saying oil isn't an issue, but to say that it is the ONLY issue is pure ignorance.

issue 2.
If you think N. Korea is not in the minds of the government then you are sadly mistaken. Read between the lines of the ongoing negotiation process. Can you think of a reason the U.S. will not sign a Non-aggression pact w/ them? Think about it. I will go out on a limb and say "do not be suprised if they're next".

Issue 3 pt-A.
You're right, there are many countries that violate the human rights issues. That is one thing that is so screwed up about our foreign policy. What is the deciding factor of us going in or not, strategic importance? It can also be said that we can't be everywhere either. Both arguments have flaws.

Issue 3 pt-B.
This is where we disagree i think. I personally wish for Saddam to not get the opportunity. If Saddam did attack Israel it would turn into a holy war. It would draw every nation into it. As it stands right now, many nations surrounding Iraq want him gone but they don't want a democratic government next door in fear of what it might do to their culture. They also fear what will happen during a regime change.
At this state in the game the chances of it turning into a holy war are slim to none and that is a good thing.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
you guys hear what you want to hear.
It seems more like your are ignoring whatever you feel it is convenient for your argument to ignore.

Do you really disagree with the idea that America would see significant economic benefit from an Iraqi leader who was more willing to make trade deals with the US? If we would see such a benefit then there is clearly a motive.

If there is a clear motive then why is the idea of a war for economic reasons so farfetched?

If this war works out well and turns the American economy around, wouldn't that assure Bush another 4 years? Wouldn't a significant economic upturn be good for the American people? Wouldn't our government persue such an economic boon to the American people?

Why not try to drum up reasons to go to war, if American casulties will be at a minimum and our economy will see such a boost?

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 04:49 PM

Look, real simple, afte the first gulf war.. our economy took a dump, and it got Bush Senior the boot from offie. If you REALLY think that is is a war for oil to get Bush 4 more years, you don't study history.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 04:59 PM

@archaic1128:

We didn�t say OIL is the ONLY reason, we say Oil is the biggest.
The main Reason.

@Lex: Bohica-Mebers are droll.

Greetz Gortha

Lillemanden

2003-02-02, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Look, real simple, afte the first gulf war.. our economy took a dump, and it got Bush Senior the boot from offie. If you REALLY think that is is a war for oil to get Bush 4 more years, you don't study history.
I don't think you really can compare the two wars that way, in the first they didn't get Iraq�s oil. They off cause made sure Iraq didn't get more oil, which would properly have dumped the U.S. economy even more (higher oil prices). But this time they plan on taking the oil, I still find it a little unclear what will happen after (cause I do believe the war will come). This is the same concerns France and Russia have, as I understand.
BTW by �they� I mean U.S forces.
Anyway I must agree that the U.S. have been a little too trigger happy (which properly can't surprise anyone after sep. 11). But Sadam have had too much time now, which is why I'm 100% behind my "statsminster" (that�s Danish for Primeminster). And I'm glad he is on that list (Anders Fogh).
Also I find it very understandable that Germany doesn�t want to rush into a war, cause Sep. 11 is nothing compared to how Germany suffered under WW2 (hard to compare war with a terrorist action, but still).

And Warborn your comment about a translator is just plane lame, since not everyone in here talks English everyday. Of cause it wouldn't hurt to copy-paste into a word processor with spellchecking.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Look, real simple, afte the first gulf war.. our economy took a dump, and it got Bush Senior the boot from offie. If you REALLY think that is is a war for oil to get Bush 4 more years, you don't study history.

I think it is to benefit the US economy. (getting Bush 4 more years is merely a side effect)

ROFL @ your study history comment. With that question, are you seriously suggesting that replacing Saddam, with a leader that would be more willing to trade with the US, would hurt our economy?

Come on Mr Vicchio, I know you can do better than merely question my knowlege of the Gulf War. :)

Camping Carl

2003-02-02, 05:35 PM

The solution is really simple, I have to become ruler of earth. First, I'll nuke every pissant, power-hungry little country that starts trying to build nukes/chem. weapons. Then, when the earth is a smoking radioactive ball of death, I blast off into space and go live on the moon. Of course, I'd have to bring an assortment of attractive supermodels, to make sure I don't get lonely.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 05:50 PM

No, I can't see, cause no matter what I say, you see it as an oil/power grab and nothing more. I say, thats wrong, that is not the reason we are going in there, but will be a side benifit. Iraq had one of the highest standards of living before Saddam took control of that country,a nd turned it into what you see today. HE is a thug, a murderer, and athreat to everyone in the region.

He would, if he thought he could, destroy Isreal Tomorrow.

The FRENCH do have lucrative oil deals, as well as Russia for thier LUKSoil. Both those countries would have no garuntee to keep said contracts if Saddam were removed. IF anycountry is after the oil, its france.

BTW Speaking of France.. whats up with thier invasion of Africa?

Gortha

2003-02-02, 05:55 PM

oohhh...BOHICAS special Enemy FRANCE!

*ggg*

(just a joke nothing to do with this discussion)

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
The FRENCH do have lucrative oil deals, as well as Russia for thier LUKSoil. Both those countries would have no garuntee to keep said contracts if Saddam were removed. IF anycountry is after the oil, its france.

Doesn't that point suggest that Oil is at the center of this war?

And GB and the US do not have lucrative deals with Iraq. Coincidence? I think not.

"Saddam has offered lucrative contracts to companies from France, China, India and Indonesia as well as Russia. It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts."

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
oohhh...BOHICAS special Enemy FRANCE!

*ggg*

(just a joke nothing to do with this discussion)

:rofl:

Warborn

2003-02-02, 06:03 PM

And Warborn your comment about a translator is just plane lame, since not everyone in here talks English everyday. Of cause it wouldn't hurt to copy-paste into a word processor with spellchecking.

It was lame for me to suggest using a translator to translate a lengthy article which is written in English into German so that he could understand it more easily perhaps? Gee, sorry. Guess I should go read a book on how to be totally rad to the extreme (that's the opposite of lame, right?) like you and not suggest things to prevent confusion and misunderstandings.

archaic1128

2003-02-02, 06:07 PM

Gortha, what you fail to realise is the fact that claiming the Americans are doing this for oil is heresay, period.
Show me 1 shred of evidence that simply implies such. I did read your links and let me say the questions the senator has written down were from SEPTEMBER. Not only that, they were merely his CONCERNS, not FACTS. So peddle your propaganda somewhere else. Did you happen to see how this senator's questions were answered...NO! My guess is that it's probably confidential info, no?

Lex, as far as saying that we Americans will see a economic boost is kinda limiting. Not only would the US see a benefit but so will EVERY other nation in the world, including IRAQ. So i think more countries than just the U.S. will be reeping the rewards.

Face the facts people, Saddam is a complete MADMAN. Nothing any of you Liberals can say to twist the true reasons will work, NOTHING. The man has had enough time to fully cooperate, which he has repeatedly DEFIED. Saddam is bringing this on himself, 12 yrs of defiance is enough. If you hate this country so much move to IRAQ. AGAIN, I WILL HAPPILY PURCHASE YOUR TICKETS.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by archaic1128
Gortha, what you fail to realise is the fact that claiming the Americans are doing this for oil is heresay, period.
Show me 1 shred of evidence that simply implies such. I did read your links and let me say the questions the senator has written down were from SEPTEMBER. Not only that, they were merely his CONCERNS, not FACTS. So peddle your propaganda somewhere else. Did you happen to see how this senator's questions were answered...NO! My guess is that it's probably confidential info, no?

Lex, as far as saying that we Americans will see a economic boost is kinda limiting. Not only would the US see a benefit but so will EVERY other nation in the world, including IRAQ. So i think more countries than just the U.S. will be reeping the rewards.

How is the oil motive heresay? It seems like our other reasons are more heresay than the oil reason.

We do not have the weapons evidence we need. We have been unable to link Saddam with Al Queada. We have been unable to link Saddam with September 11th. Saving the Iraqi people would fall into a sovereignty issue.

As far as your second paragraph, no, the contries that already have lucrative deals with Iraq will lose those deals. Hence they will not see any kind of benefit. In fact they will see a loss. There are countries that are aginst the US going into Iraq. Why would they be against th US going into Iraq if they saw benefits from a US invason? Their motives are primarily economic aswell.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 06:19 PM

@archaic1128:
U are right, Saddam is a fully mad man! He has to be removed, but not in that way the US-Government wants... for their benefits and the dead of thousands of iraqis(also Civilians) and US-Soldiers.

And it is only your opinion that u think the arcticles and questions we posted are propagana. This is quit ignorant.

Behind this Articles and Questions are facts. So do not try to blame us, u can�t.

And if u want i will buy u a German G36 and a Ticket to Iraq then u can die with your men. .....(same niveau u try to punish us)

Gortha

Lillemanden

2003-02-02, 07:10 PM

It was lame for me to suggest using a translator to translate a lengthy article which is written in English into German so that he could understand it more easily perhaps?
Sorry Warborn, misunderstood you...oops:

archaic1128

2003-02-02, 07:11 PM

Lex,

"We do not have the weapons evidence we need. "

Really, we don't? Hmm, what about the missle heads that were found? you know the ones that were claimed to be destroyed. The ones that were also claimed to have never existed.

What about the secret papers found at a scientists home? You know the 3,000 pages of info that the said scientist just took home to do his work, Right?

What about the missing remains of the biological weapons and programs that Iraq claims to have destroyed, again w/ no evidence to back it up?

Let me phrase my opinion again, IT IS NOT OUR DUTY TO FIND THE MISSING ITEMS OR EVIDENCE. IT IS IRAQ'S DUTY TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS. Which they have failed to do, again. When will enough be enough?

Gortha,

"And it is only your opinion that u think the arcticles and questions we posted are propagana. This is quit ignorant."

Again, show me where those questions were answered. Those are not facts unless they were backed up by PROOF. The Senator's questions were simply his CONCERNS not FACTS.

"And if u want i will buy u a German G36 and a Ticket to Iraq then u can die with your men. .....(same niveau u try to punish us)

No thanks, i have to many guns now, any more and i might breaking the unwritten rule. I don't need the FBI at my house :)

Also, how are our military men supposed to die? Iraq has no weapons, right? Atleast nothing that could cause major casualties. Unless you count the missing biological and chemical
warheads that were supposedly destroyed. Then again, Saddam outfitted his troops w/ exosuits because the U.S. is the one that will use Bio or Chemical weapons, right?

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 07:14 PM

Actually, If Saddam is stupid enough to use a Chem/Bio weapon, there is gonna be a new Glass Parking lot in the Mid-East. He has allready said he will use Nukes in retaliation to WMD. Seeing as we don't have any Chem or Bio weapons to begin with...

Gortha

2003-02-02, 07:32 PM

@archaic1128:

The questions from the Congressman are self-explanatory.
If u know what happened in the world in the past u can answer the questions yourself.

U are right when u say the Iraq has to provide their claims.
But let em do this. They are willed to work together with the UN.

The Missile-Heads were empty and old. Only Steel.

@MrVicchio:

USA have A, B AND C Weapons.

Greetz
Gortha

Hamma

2003-02-02, 07:42 PM

I am growing tired of threads like this.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by archaic1128
Lex,

I Really, we don't? Hmm, what about the missle heads that were found? you know the ones that were claimed to be destroyed. The ones that were also claimed to have never existed.

What about the secret papers found at a scientists home? You know the 3,000 pages of info that the said scientist just took home to do his work, Right?

Which missile heads? the Iraqis have plenty of missiles but is WMDs that we are looking for. So far the UN weapon inspectors have found none.

I am not farmilliar with the papers you are talking about, but last I heard you can't bomb people with papers (not effectively atleast). :D

Yes, there are things that implicate the possibility of Iraqi WMDs, but there is not definitive proof. This is why there everyhting is hinging on the findings of weapons inspectors.

Note to Hamma: I would just like to state that all of the political thread, started by me, have been humor or joke threads. (although I participate in the other threads)

My offer of not making posts concerning politics for 5 days for each of my questions that gets asks still stands. I'll even throw in a bonus 2 days for each Command ability you get dave to talk about (besides the two that were mentioned in the recent IRC chat). ;)

SandTrout

2003-02-02, 11:05 PM

The reason both sides say the other is blind to the facts is that 1 side IS blind to the facts, and that side thinks the other side is because they don't see the opposeing viewpoint. I wont say which side because that would make me a hipocrite.

Also, Gortha, that link about the questions that should be asked has nothing to do with the facts that we have to deal with today. The senator was worried about possibilities. While other anti-war people around here acctualy back up what they are saying, you have done this very little, if at all.

Originaly writen by Gortha
USA have A, B AND C Weapons.

Yes, but we don't use them to devistate villages in our own country, torture and rape people to force confesions, and intentionaly starve our people by preventing aid from geting to them.

I'm starting to suspect Gortha is trying to be nothing more than a Troll, I sudgest we all ignore him.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-03, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by SandTrout
The reason both sides say the other is blind to the facts is that 1 side IS blind to the facts, and that side thinks the other side is because they don't see the opposeing viewpoint. I wont say which side because that would make me a hipocrite.

You have to realize that there is a duality of the discussion.

For example, what does it mean for a country to have weapons of mass destruction.

There are two answers. There is the answer to the question of whether or not there is enough evidence for you to personally believe that a country has WMDs.

There is also the answer that is concerned with whether there is enough evidence to present to the international system to conclude one way or the other.

It is similar to some being tried before a court. You may think OJ did it, but is there enough evidence to convict him in a court of law? As far as legal action you have to go by the legal decision.

In a discussion about justification for a war, the view that pertains to the international system is more relevant than the one that pertains to our own personal beliefs. As far as the International system, there has not been enough evidence presented to conclude that Iraq is in possesion of WMDs.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-03, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by SandTrout
Yes, but we don't use them to devistate villages in our own country, torture and rape people to force confesions, and intentionaly starve our people by preventing aid from geting to them.

Who determined that this is the criteria for posession of weapons of mass destruction? It may sounds good to you and me but that doesn't make it right.

Gortha

2003-02-03, 06:43 AM

SandTrout, i think u are and arrogant US-Guy, who don�t want to accept other opinions, bitte verspr�he deine Scheisse wo anders. *grrr*

I think the most US-Americans do not want to belief that the main reason for this war is oil. It�s really a pity.
Not to free Iraqis.....

Gortha

Lillemanden

2003-02-03, 11:24 AM

Being a "non-US-guy" I would say that you are exactly the same, s� du skulle m�ske ogs� lige hidse dig ned. :)

Anyway wether or not the oil is the main reason or not is hard to say, I don't think everyone in the US gov/mil thinks the same. There is allmost without a doubt someone who is doin this for the oil, but I'm sure that there are as many that aint doing this for the oil. Wether Bush is doing this for the oil or not is hard to say, but actually don't think he is (I'm fare from sure).

Gortha

2003-02-03, 12:48 PM

naiv

Hamma

2003-02-03, 12:59 PM

Look who's talking about only seeing one side of teh story :rofl:

Warborn

2003-02-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Which missile heads? the Iraqis have plenty of missiles but is WMDs that we are looking for. So far the UN weapon inspectors have found none.

I am not farmilliar with the papers you are talking about, but last I heard you can't bomb people with papers (not effectively atleast). :D

Yes, there are things that implicate the possibility of Iraqi WMDs, but there is not definitive proof. This is why there everyhting is hinging on the findings of weapons inspectors.

Iraq is a very large country. It's roughly the size of France in total area. If you were a government and you wanted to hide things in your country from the eyes of a couple hundred UN inspectors, you could do so fairly easily, especially if you, like Saddam's regime, have been working toward making chemical/biological weapon production labs mobile. In all seriousness, the inspectors won't find anything. You could put them there for a decade and they'd still find no "smoking guns". What people seem to not realize is that the Iraqis don't want their weapons to be found. And as evil as those people are, what they aren't is stupid. The inspectors won't find a damn thing, and the only reason Bush is even waiting for the inspections to carry on is because it'll help him secure allies.

I actually wonder what the French and German governments are getting out of trying to shoot down the war effort. They're not stupid enough to think that something will actually be found, yet they want more time for inspectors. Makes me wonder.

Warborn

2003-02-03, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
SandTrout... bitte verspr�he deine Scheisse wo anders.

Just in case anyone is wondering, he said (roughly translated) please spread your shit somewhere else.

MrVicchio

2003-02-03, 03:03 PM

All I ask is, for future reference, please use English.. its a wonderful language 99.9% of the forum users speak, thanks.

Gortha

2003-02-03, 04:05 PM

hhmm.... sorry for the flames

Warbon u must be very clever when u know they have
CB-weapons. ;P

U think so... okay.

U really only think in "good" and "bad"? Like Bush wants?
*rotfl*

U can�t just take over a Country that haven�t done something to the US. US will braek the law of nations if they do this without a UN-mandate.

It is really a gag u just want to overtake Iraq because u think they have weapons BuT u have no proofs.
*wine*

Greetz
Gortha

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-03, 04:12 PM

Warborn, do you believe that countries have rights the same way that individuals do?

Do you believe there should be a rigorous system in place to prevent wars from happening on a whim?

If so then there is a process we must go through.

To get international aproval, we are going to need to prove that he has weapons, regardles of however good or bad Saddam is hiding them.

Say we have a purely economic reason for invading another hypothetical country. How far do we have to go before we are allowed to wage that war? Can we get away with a war merely based on suspicion of a crime?

Do you see how this could be abused? Do you see why we need the due process?

What are the french and germans getting? It is very simple, they have lucrative oil deals with Iraq.

"It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts."

Navaron

2003-02-03, 04:17 PM

Gortha I have refrained from this debate and have observed all of it as it progressed. You seem set on arguing, not debating. You presented facts, and then argued, "No I'm right, you're wrong and stupid", instead of continuing to post your facts. When you first entered, I thought that perhaps you would add a different perspective to the debate, and you did, until you decided to post again. I am not attacking the content of your points, or even you points. Make those as long as you desire, but you have a tendancy to deviate from topic. This discredits your previous statements, and does not give you lee way or a lead in the debate.

You are entitled to your beliefs only as far as they do not intrude upon others. There has been a crack down on political forums here, and it would be in your best interest to tone it down, and refrain from posting until you have something to add to the debate. It would seem that you are dead set on mocking and flaming, and that have no true interest or knowledge in debate. Keep it civil and intelligent, or leave.

"It is best to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it".

I'm not saying you are ignorant, however, if all I had to judge by was your posts, I would say that you are well out of your league. Please keep it clean, if not for your self respect, then for your fellow website members who enjoy political debates.

Thankyou,

Nav

Edit: this certainly applies for all other parties, including myself.

Gortha

2003-02-03, 05:43 PM

In a certaion way u got me....

Often i become sour. I take to much emotions in my posts.... i know this my on my own.

But u can�t say leave.... cause i see this as an offensive debate.
In the beginning when i postet my opinion and the reasons that the US is/are on the wrong way... i got told that the reasons are not true.

So I can reserve the right to speak with my opponents like they speak with me.

Navaron u can�t trick me with the intellectual way. I belief that u are one of those people who think I am on the wrong way with my Opinion and u do not want me in this debate.

I read some postings of u also in other Threads and saw that u are politically far-right. So i don�t wonder about your statement.
U don�t like people like me. Pehaps,don�t u like any foreigner?

Say it if i am not right.
Perhaps i missunderstood your postings.

Gortha

Greetz
Gortha

Hamma

2003-02-03, 05:50 PM

Gortha

2003-02-03, 05:53 PM

But now i will leave this debate... i�ve said waht i wanted to say.

Greetz
Gortha

Navaron

2003-02-03, 06:00 PM

Good job with the research. I am a Conservative. However, like I said, I have no personal bias in this case. I have issued several warnings like this to people new to the forums to save them the embarressment of hamma doing so. Like I said, you started off well, and got out of hand. There were several others doing the same in that thread, yet they should certainly know better.

"But u can�t say leave"

What I said, or meant to say, was if that is your motive - to simply agitate, then leave.

"U don�t like people like me. Pehaps,don�t u like any foreigner?"

This is certainly not true. Check the gun thread. I made very staunch opponents with many people in that thread, however, I have good relations with many of them. I consider Liquid_Lex, Flashing Fish and several others to be friends. Hell, even me and Bonnie Dundee are civil to each other. About the foreigner thing, I have friends in real life from all over the world, England and Togo are the first two that spring to ming. Hell, Dio is a General in my clan and he's from Canada.

"Perhaps i missunderstood your postings"

If you are reffering to my posts about the French, then yes, I have almost no respect for the French government or the common mindset of its populace. If you are reffering to Canada, well I like pancakes much too much to dislike them.

It would appear, that you do posses some intelligence, how much is not yet available information. Continue to post well thought out posts, and it will reveal itself. I think you might bring an interesting perspective to the table, however, when you get "sour", you discredit yourself and no one takes you serious.

Nav

Bighoss

2003-02-03, 11:06 PM

yah nav u act like a smarty pants and then if somone gives a fact but u have heard of another your like your ignorant and I'm so smart that my phsyic powers will kill u because I know everything their is about every subject:love:

SandTrout

2003-02-03, 11:08 PM

Please, let this post die now.

Navaron

2003-02-03, 11:10 PM

I seriously hate you. If you had the common sense to read that post, I'm not even commenting on the debate. I realize I haven't sunk to your level of spam and flame, but hopefully God will intervene and hit your computer or you with lightning.

Bighoss

2003-02-03, 11:19 PM

your the only one who accuses me of spam. I think you got some kind of love hate thing going with me nav=:love: /:mad:
you know its true !!!

Nav brak says it all in this song about how much fun I get out of you and your posts your like a record I just keep playing:D

Heh heh heh, oh-ho boy! Oh man, I never laughed so hard, until I cried! And I laughed some more! And I laughed, a lot! Oh man, I'm laughin' so much! I can't stop laughin'!
All you ever do is bring me down, and I can't stop laughin',
Turn my happy smile into a frown,
You keep on tellin' me that you'll be - I'm slobberin' on myself -
Well, don't let the front door hit you on your stupid - ah ha ha ha! Oh, man! Oh, somebody, somebody call a doctor, my gut hurts, 'cause I'm laughing so much! And I don't know how to stop it! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha! I guess I better take another drink of my pop. Yessirree, that's it, what'cha gotta know, ev'rybody.

SandTrout

2003-02-03, 11:31 PM

Die Die Die! :domotwak:

Bighoss

2003-02-03, 11:37 PM

:sniper: :domotwak: <---------the attempt to fight off the brown thing is futile

archaic1128

2003-02-04, 02:50 PM

This thread deserves to die but heres some food for thought....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/EB05Ak02.html

There is another article pertaining to France's dealings as well.

MrVicchio

2003-02-04, 03:02 PM

I heard a great line by a caller on the Rush Limbaugh show:

"Even IF this si a war for Oil.. lets just say it is.. do the Liberals REALLY feel that the oil money and all the neat things that go with it are better in the hand sof Saddam? Who has spent the last 12 years, building WMD and his military at the expense of his people... Or would it not be better for the Iraqi people to reap the benifits of that oil? Which leads one to wonder how they can support NOT removing Saddam and his cronies... do they really care about human rights? Or jsut stopping America at all cost?"

I loved it.. had to post it.. night all.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-04, 03:30 PM

exactly, Saddam isn't cutting deals with the US.

Hey, it is like I have been saying this whole time, I beleive that this war is mainly over oil and I am for it.

Bighoss

2003-02-04, 03:50 PM

I have a question and a might be wrong isn't part of the reason suddam has these "weapons of mass destruction" is because when Amierca helped put him into power in Iraq to keep down the Iranian revolutiont thing. Maybe thats what they say they have all the evidence but they don't want to show it because it would make America look bad.

could be wrong just wonderin:)

ABRAXAAS

2003-02-04, 03:52 PM

:eek:

Gortha

2003-02-05, 08:16 PM

Rotfl @ postet Link from archaic1128 ;D

Sure the big Firms like "Siemens" or "BASF" or "Krupp" and other Weapon-Firms so on did some deals with the Iraq.... but the US did it too and they did the most of it. They made him strong like the US made the Taliban strong....

Gortha

MrVicchio

2003-02-05, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
Rotfl @ postet Link from archaic1128 ;D

Sure the big Firms like "Siemens" or "BASF" or "Krupp" and other Weapon-Firms so on did some deals with the Iraq.... but the US did it too and they did the most of it. They made him strong like the US made the Taliban strong....

Gortha

I shouldnt respond to this ignorance, but it must be responded too...

Our support of the Taliban was limited to logistical support, and giving them Stingers so they could test them for us in real world conditions. Hardly making the "Taliban" strong. I would like to see any proof you have of this statement.. oh wiat, you cant because its not true. Please, quit trolling our forums with this unbackable garbage and go hit this site, its full of people JUST LIKE YOU:

www.democratunderground.com

Navaron

2003-02-05, 09:26 PM

Ladies, I'm reminded of a line in a great movie...."Tell your bitch to be cool" "Be cool honeybunny be cool".

Sigurd

2003-02-05, 09:27 PM

The U.S. sold weapons to Iraq in exchange for terrorists the FBI wanted to get its hands on, that deal never went through. The U.S. sold weapons unofficially to Iran to fight Iraq in exchange for hostages, that blew up in Reagans face.

I think the real reason people are against war, is because they think that by allowing weapons inspectors in, they can buy themselves time untill they have to make a decision, do we go to war or not.

It is obvious that Saddam is an evil man, and his two kids are worse, he needs to go. People who say that the Iraqi civilians are going to get killed and mistreated, that is most likely true. Their are always civilian casualties in war, but the question is this, if we liberate an oppressed people are the casualties worth the cost of freedom? History tells us it is.

As for the reasons we are going to war, of course a part of it is oil. If your attacking a country with large natural resources part of your objective should be getting a share in the trade of that resource after the fighting. Its the capitalist way, any country should do it, and if they dont their stupid.

The other reasons for attacking are quite simple. To remove an evil dictator who oppresses his people. Many people dont think it is truly an objective, and even if it wasnt, it would still be a side benefit because they will be freed no matter what happens.

The other is to disarm Iraq of potential NBC weapons in its inventory. We KNOW they have bio and chem weapons, their is no speculation on this point. We KNOW they had them before the gulf war, the inspectors went in to find out what happened to these weapons they supposedly destroyed. They also have the potential to sell these weapons to terrorist, and god knows saddam would do it in a heart beat.

The reason we are making a bigger deal over this than N. Korea, is because N. Korea is much less likely to sell Nuclear weapons to terrorists groups that would target the U.S. and its allies.

As for the European affair, i agree European support is an important thing, but if Germany and France are against it, so be it. We wouldn't need them for anything more than moral support. If they want to pout on the sidelines, so be it. I for one am almost glad to see the Europeans for once showing some backbone and settling with their own agenda, not that of the U.S.

For all the naysayers of the war, your points for the most part are true, but you just spin them in a real negative light. Most of you are obviously cynics so its to be expected.