France Calls for Suspension of Iraqi Sanctions

[furie]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20030422/wl_nm/iraq_un_france_dc" target="_Blank"> UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a surprise move, France on Tuesday backed an immediate suspension of U.N. sanctions against Iraq even before U.N. weapons inspectors had certified the country had no more weapons of mass destruction. </a>

two things first, wasn't france dead against lifting the sanctions just a few days ago?
and second, if there are no more sanctions, why would there still be a oil for food program?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

It is a complete sham that the US and others are attempting to re-route the UN sanctions on Iraq. They were in place to try and control Saddam AS WELL AS contain their weapon arsinal. Considering they haven't found any weapons, how would you say that's containing it? This is a trciky move by the US and others to work around the international laws in place so that they will have full capabilities of oil, commerce and business dealings as well as not have to pay as much out of their own pocket fro the reconstruction of Iraq. http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_sanctions.php

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-22-03 @ 3:03 PM

[furie]

Considering they haven't found any weapons, how would you say that's containing it?


if no weapons were found, I'd say that was 100% containment. If the sanctions were in place to severely limit the funding going to WMD, and after 12 years of sanctions no weapons were found, based on that it would appear that the sanctions were very effective. Seems like a fairly simple correlation. How would you measure the effectiveness of the sanctions?


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Bergalad]

Oh, I see you moved your "America-Bad" comment here instead. Not to repeat my post elsewhere, but you are looking at America as wrong for trying to end the now-pointless sanctions and instead turning a blind eye to those who want them to remain in place. For 10 years the US has been criticized by many in the world as oppressing the Iraqi people with these sanctions, and now suddenly when they can be lifted the world wants the sanctions to stay in place? But according to you Five it's the US who are evil once again.

[FiveB247]

The US is trying to remove these sanctions for their own benefit...it has very little to do with the Iraqi people. It's a way to get more oil into the market and lower the cost per barrell, as well as help burden some of the cost of the reconstruction.

These sanctions were placed for 2 reasons:
1) Control Saddam from using his money on weapons.
2) Prevent and put a fix on the amount of oil and trade Iraq could do in order to help stabalize their economy in order to control his weapons and weapons programs (including complete removal of).

Both were part of the sanctions along with inspections.

The US has not removed all WMD and weapons programs from Iraq. In fact, they haven't and aren't sure where such things are (or if they exist). How does not controlling items and knowing of their where abouts equate to removal? When Iraq is weapons free, the sanctions should be removed.

It's beginning to appear that many countries were getting rich from the Oil-for-Food program, the #1 being Russia with almost $8 Billion in profit from the program. Five, you don't even cite this information in your attack against America. Why is that? This Oil-for-Food information is at least provable by records and facts, while yours remains in the realm of "could be" and "might". Your baseless "America-bad" rhetoric continues

Where are your sources?
"The United States is Iraq's biggest customer, through the oil-for-food program."
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_oil.php

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-22-03 @ 4:05 PM

[furie]

the sanctions were not placed on Iraq to stabilize their economy. severely restricting their main resource would have the opposite effect on an economy. That was the point.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

Sorry if i mis-spoke. What I meant was that the sanctions tried to leave a the basis of their economy so that the oil that was produced, the money and profit was going to worthy things...not weapons.

[Bergalad]

These sanctions were placed for 2 reasons:
1) Control Saddam from using his money on weapons.
2) Prevent and put a fix on the amount of oil and trade Iraq could do in order to help stabalize their economy in order to control his weapons and weapons programs (including complete removal of).

The sanctions were emplaced after Iraq invaded Kuwait as punishment for that action. It was only later that they were modified to facilitate WMD concerns.

[Yerdaddy]

if there are no more sanctions, why would there still be a oil for food program?
The oil for food program was an elaborate system for selling Iraqi oil, depositing the money in an escrow account in NY, and using the funds to purchase and distribute food and medical supplies within Iraq. There are disputes as to whether the program was sufficient to meet the needs of the Iraqi people over the years, it did evolve into what the World Food Program, the World Bank and UNICEF called the most efficient humanitarian aid distribution system of its kind. So, given that there's no central government in Iraq, and that 60% of the Iraqi people were dependent on it to live, it makes sense that it remain in place for the time being.

FREE ASS!

[FiveB247]

The sanctions were emplaced after Iraq invaded Kuwait as punishment for that action. It was only later that they were modified to facilitate WMD concerns.

This is the most over simplified version of a truth I've heard in some time.

the economic embargo against Iraq established in Resolution 661 in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Specified that the UN Security Council would lift the embargo when the council agreed that Iraq had met all its disarmament obligations.http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/UNresolutionsoct02.asp

From 1990. That's hardly added on recently.

[HBox]

France wants weapons inspectors back in. And I guess that's in a hope that they find WMDs, that way kind of validating their faith in them. I have no problem with that, we're not having much success on our own, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to want them there.

[Bergalad]

Alright...
This is the most over simplified version of a truth I've heard in some time.
I made it short because there was no reason to make a book out of it. Good that you agree it's true though.
I said:It was only later that they were modified...
You said:From 1990. That's hardly added on recently.
Where exactly did I put a timeframe on "later"? Could you find something else to get bitchy about? What an agrumentative ass.

[A.J.]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252167,00.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[TheMojoPin]

What about Russia? Yup, that proves my longstanding theory...only retards drive tanks.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

Considering they haven't found any weapons, how would you say that's containing it?

This is just an aside to this whole issue here, but I do so love this argument from the anti-war side, as it's the biggest bunch of assholes who are spewing it.

"SEE! They haven't found any WMD yet!!!"

But weren't you jackoffs claiming that the UN inspectors needed MONTHS to find any WMD that would be in Iraq?

But we're supposed to have found significant quantities of them in the 6 weeks or so we've been there. Right.

Fuck off now.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[Doomstone]

Right, but if/when they're found, what will it matter? Iraq had a pathetic weak military that put up almost no resistance, and if they had WMD's, they didn't even think to use them against the army that was invading their homeland. You'd think a country that was such a danger to another country on the other side of the globe could do better than that.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, the FEW DOZEN inspectors trying to cover an entire country. Now we've got several hundred thousand people there. Oh, and I doubt they really have to be "pros", we have hundreds, if not thousands of troops and specialists trained to locate and disable chem/nuke/bio weapons, so already we're outnumbering the UN inspectors by FAR, and because according to the hype, Saddam could've spilled this stuff on us and killed us left and right at the drop of a dime...if this were true they would have found SOMETHING, ANYTHING significant by now. I have no dobut they will find something down the line...but it'll be so insignificant that it'll never even hope to warrant the jumping of the gun.

But then again, I hope I'm wrong. Sadly, that doesn't look too likely.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."



This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-24-03 @ 2:50 AM

[A.J.]

they would have found SOMETHING, ANYTHING significant by now.

Well we did find hundreds of millions in U.S. currency stashed away. THAT'S good.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[afterganger]

Of course why would we expect Iraq to hide WMD's as hard as the money they skimmed off the oil for food program which took us over a month to start finding? Maybe they can teach the soldiers WMD in Arabic so they can find the buildings clearly marked with those labels.

And on another note, I don't recall Bush ever making the claim that Iraq's military was going to take over the middle east. His claim was that these WMD's that our intelligence and just about every former UN inspector (cause god knows they've gotten they're 15 minutes on TV) except Scott Ritter says he has can be passed out to various terrorist groups.

Now if its proven that Iraq doesn't have them, which is going to take alot longer in my own opinion than 5 weeks of which 3 were combat, than Bush is gonna have some major problems to deal with both domestically and internationally. But I'll worry about that like 2 months from now.

[FiveB247]

This is just an aside to this whole issue here, but I do so love this argument from the anti-war side, as it's the biggest bunch of assholes who are spewing it.

"SEE! They haven't found any WMD yet!!!"

But weren't you jackoffs claiming that the UN inspectors needed MONTHS to find any WMD that would be in Iraq?

But we're supposed to have found significant quantities of them in the 6 weeks or so we've been there. Right.

Fuck off now.

I don't know about the rest of you..but when a country declares a war...the reasons should be legitimate and hold fact. Bush and the US sold this war to the public and specifically said WMD was the reason for this. Without finding or having proof of these items, the war was a lie and should not have been done. And I don't want to hear anything about how we freed the Iraqi people....we could have done that 20yrs ago.

[furie]

And I don't want to hear anything about how we freed the Iraqi people....we could have done that 20yrs ago.


and you would have complained then too.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

and you would have complained then too.

Don't try and put words in my mouth or justify others actions. The US could have "freed Iraq" during the last Gulf War and didn't. They left the Shi'ites hung out to dry hoping they would overthrown Saddam themselves. It was a huge mistake. Saddam has been the same evil dictator for 20 or so years....how come the US didn't find their noble cause then? Nowadays, the US saying we're here to free you is a load of crap. We did it all for our interests and agendas...had very little to do with Iraqi freedom and their citizens.

[furie]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. One of your main sticking points has been the preemptive war on Iraq. That we had no justification for invasion.

Now, 20 years ago, we would have had even less reason for invasion. No WMD, not even a hint. He had not attacked an ally or us. Would you have complained then?

It's not putting words in your mouth, it's drawing a logical conclusion from what we've learned about you through your posts here.

And if by saying that I'm putting words in your mouth do you mean that you would not have complained? are you saying you would have supported such an invasion? I'm surprised by your support of Reagan.

Please clarify if I'm incorrect.




<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. One of your main sticking points has been the preemptive war on Iraq. That we had no justification for invasion.

Now, 20 years ago, we would have had even less reason for invasion. No WMD, not even a hint. He had not attacked an ally or us. Would you have complained then?

It's not putting words in your mouth, it's drawing a logical conclusion from what we've learned about you through your posts here.

And if by saying that I'm putting words in your mouth do you mean that you would not have complained? are you saying you would have supported such an invasion? I'm surprised by your support of Reagan.

Please clarify if I'm incorrect.

This was all called "Operation Iraqi Freedom"; Bush and others have gone around and talked about we need to remove Iraqi WMD, etc..

20yrs ago...Saddam Gassed the Kurds. Is using chemical weapons not included in WMD and disarmament discussion? Of course it is.

I believe this war was not justified for its intentions. We did not remove a threat; we've yet to find the massive stock piles Bush was so readily warned the US and World about, we faulted to seriously contend about terrorist ties that effect us as a nation; do I need to keep going on with this? War should be the last step in diplomacy...not rushed into nor against the UN and international consensus and laws. The US throws all these BS reasons like the people of Iraq need to be free, etc...of course they do...but they've been under control since 79'...so where's their logic in that? Are we to believe the US will free all people under hostile or unworthy governments? It's completely bogus and silly to think or justify such actions with that type of reasoning (whether in the present, past or future).

By the way..Who ever said I supported Reagan? Certainly not me.

[furie]

why quote my posts if you don't refer to them. I asked you a flat out question. Would you have complained about a US invasion 20 years ago?


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Se7en]

I don't know about the rest of you..but when a country declares a war...the reasons should be legitimate and hold fact. Bush and the US sold this war to the public and specifically said WMD was the reason for this. Without finding or having proof of these items, the war was a lie and should not have been done. And I don't want to hear anything about how we freed the Iraqi people....we could have done that 20yrs ago.

How about you go back and read CAREFULLY my post over again.

I don't give a shit if you feel the war was justified. Because I don't care.

I'm just saying this: don't be a fucking hypocrite.

If you're gonna argue that Blix and his boys needed MONTHS to sort out whether there were WMD in Iraq, and if so how many of them were present, than all I say is to PLEASE, for once, extend some courtesy to this country and at least afford us the same amount of time.

Don't be getting your panties twisted because we haven't found much of anything in the six WEEKS we've been there.

If we haven't found anything six MONTHS from now, then I'll listen to you rant and rave.

Bitching about it now, just makes me think you're a whining asshole.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[FiveB247]

That's not a reasonable quesiton to ask. It would all depend on the situation, actions, and justifications.

The intentions of such a war would weigh heavy in any circumstance. Obviously, The US could have removed Saddam 20yrs ago for many of the same abuses we claim now. So with that said...Do you think 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' as it is called was just that? Is that why solidiers placed their lives on the line in the name of the US? For Iraqi Freedom? If you do think so, you're just going along with lies and rhetoric that the US government throws out in speeches and justifications for such actions.

[furie]

That's not a reasonable quesiton to ask.

then why'd you bring it up?!?

It would all depend on the situation, actions, and justifications.


i've already covered that. the situation would be less justified, due to the complete lack of WMD, and he was a low threat to us. the only reason for going in would have been the pil and human rights.



<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

How about you go back and read CAREFULLY my post over again.

I don't give a shit if you feel the war was justified. Because I don't care.

I'm just saying this: don't be a fucking hypocrite.

If you're gonna argue that Blix and his boys needed MONTHS to sort out whether there were WMD in Iraq, and if so how many of them were present, than all I say is to PLEASE, for once, extend some courtesy to this country and at least afford us the same amount of time.

Don't be getting your panties twisted because we haven't found much of anything in the six WEEKS we've been there.

If we haven't found anything six MONTHS from now, then I'll listen to you rant and rave.

Bitching about it now, just makes me think you're a whining asshole.

Name calling eh? Very adult of you.

It's funny when the US didn't allow the UN the courtesy and time to do their job in order to go to war...yet you now expect the same courtesy in return? Talk about hypocrisy. It won't be long before the UN is back in Iraq..cause the US can't do it alone. Let's see if they're big enough to ask for help of the international community...or would their arrogance and 'we can do it alone' mentality get in the way.

I also enjoy the fact that you call it 'whining and crying'. Do you also just side with a notion and not see if its implications and outcomes are just, valid or due?

[Yerdaddy]

The question of WMD won't be resolved, even if they are found, because they were'nt used during the war. Thankfully they weren't. But the premise of the argument that Saddam was a threat was that 1) he had WMD, and 2) he would not hesitate to use them. But if he didn't even use them to protect himself when it was raining bunker-busters in Baghdad, then how can we think he was going to use them for some sneak attack on anyone else? I believe we will eventually find a stash of precurser chemical and/or biological agents, and maybe a rusty old missile or two, and the argument will continue on as to the significance of such a find. But the administration will be, and I think is, playing down the rationale of WMD as the reason for going into Iraq. It will play up the "liberation" of Iraq, (the only valid reason for the war, in my opinion), and it will continue to try to draw a link from Iraq to al-Quaeda. But the WMD issue is a weak argument now.

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[CaptClown]

That would be like bringing a potato gun to fight someone with a M-60.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonFez/files/cptsig.gif

[furie]

well now, lets not be hasty. Is the potato gun loaded with a frog?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[CaptClown]

No a raspberry.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonFez/files/cptsig.gif

[Se7en]

Name calling eh? Very adult of you.

Well I've come to the decision that I will no longer be civil to people whose opinions I don't give a shit about.

Oops, must clarify - whose opinions I don't give a shit about, outside of the times I spend ridiculing them for having that opinion.

In other words, I've decided to become belligirent.

It's funny when the US didn't allow the UN the courtesy and time to do their job in order to go to war...yet you now expect the same courtesy in return? Talk about hypocrisy.

We thought that they had 12 years worth of time to get the job done, but that's really neither here nor there.

I am saying, YOU, yes you, are a fucking hypocrite. Because you can't argue that one organization should have loads of time to find WMD, and then turn right around and bitch about the military not finding anything in a fraction of the time you were willing to give the UN.

I suppose I shouldn't ask for you to show "courtesy", just ask that you not be so blatantly two-faced.

It won't be long before the UN is back in Iraq..cause the US can't do it alone. Let's see if they're big enough to ask for help of the international community...or would their arrogance and 'we can do it alone' mentality get in the way.

I'd say that your contempt for this country surprises me, but it doesn't.

We'll let them back in, of course, but it won't be us crawling on our hands and knees - like you seem to want - it'll be on our own terms. We probably won't do it until we figure out a nice way to fuck over France, Germany & Russia in the process.

I also enjoy the fact that you call it 'whining and crying'.

Because it is.

Do you also just side with a notion and not see if its implications and outcomes are just, valid or due?

I believe that we were just and valid.

You don't.

Which is why I suppose you can't wrap your brain around the idea that there are people who HAVE looked at the issue from all sides and STILL believe we were just and valid. But hey - if you thinking all of those that do are nothing but blind Homers gives you a self-assuring glow, go right and believe it. I don't want to piss on that little parade.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[Bestinshow]

Hey Five. Stop getting all the nice people upset. Sadaam=bad new government=good
Besides, the weapons are probably in Syria. He couldn`t use WMD if he had them. We wiped out his army alone. If he showed he had WMD, the rest of the world was jumping in too. He had nowhere to hide and was definitely dead. Now at least if he escaped he has people like you who will hide him. (Only kidding Five) He had nothing to gain by using them. With all the labs,and chemical suits and antidotes you really believe nothing was going on? Than again, maybe he just owns Pfizer. We know about those big corporations.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Well I've come to the decision that I will no longer be civil to people whose opinions I don't give a shit about.

Oops, must clarify - whose opinions I don't give a shit about, outside of the times I spend ridiculing them for having that opinion.
In other words, I've decided to become belligirent.

In other words...you're being a dick to those you do not agree with or find their perspective valid? Very big of you.

I am saying, YOU, yes you, are a fucking hypocrite. Because you can't argue that one organization should have loads of time to find WMD, and then turn right around and bitch about the military not finding anything in a fraction of the time you were willing to give the UN.

I never argued that fact....I simply stated the US is in control of the country...something the UN never had...the US is claiming they can do it all on their own...something that remains to be seen....The US is ready and easy to throw out the build up to war and all their reasons for ...but aren't so quick to show of such items and justifications.... Seems like you should hold one to the same rules and guidelines you would hold the other. You all want to belittle and ridicule the UN for their lack of action and findings? Where's the US's results in finding such items and removal of programs? You're all so ready to dump on the UN when the US alternative is just blown up a nation and ask questions after the fact.

I'm far from hypocritical and two-faced. I believe and think international standards and laws should be used. Not trampled upon or worked around....something the US is use to doing.


Quote:
It won't be long before the UN is back in Iraq..cause the US can't do it alone. Let's see if they're big enough to ask for help of the international community...or would their arrogance and 'we can do it alone' mentality get in the way.

I'd say that your contempt for this country surprises me, but it doesn't.

It's not contempt....you just want to differentiate levels of wrong doings..when I say...a wrong is a wrong. You view the world as a US citizen, through that specific perspective...I on the other hand view the world from a broader, more diverse perspective.

If you find dissent or disagreement at any time to be crying or such...it's absurd. You just want people to obey the officials and then get back into line of orders. You can argue to a point....then after you think or believe it is enough...it's over? Highly unlikely. If people went along with your type of disagreement ... the population would be robots with 2 seconds to disagree or argue an item and it would be done with. Reality doesn't work that way.

Which is why I suppose you can't wrap your brain around the idea that there are people who HAVE looked at the issue from all sides and STILL believe we were just and valid. But hey - if you thinking all of those that do are nothing but blind Homers gives you a self-assuring glow, go right and believe it. I don't want to piss on that little parade.

I like how you explain you're view as the only "correct" way of seeing things. It's cute. As if I'm the only one in the US to continually disagree with the war, its justifications and methodology. People are for and against this war.....experts lay upon both sides...not just yours. You want to make it seem as if...just cause the invasion took place...it's ok now...or that all the after effects of these actions won't have implications. The US is now dealing with hordes of Anti-american Iraqi's...and in a way...they've brought it upon themselves and put many a troops in harms way. Let's see how you and the citizens cope with suicide bombers and mayhem while trying to create democracy in a nation which holds content for such beliefs. Will you simply blame the "barbarian Iraqi people" for not being civilized...or will you try and understand they don't value the same things we as Americans do...or that they hold different beliefs than we do? Sadly it's the white man's burden again.

[furie]

I never argued that fact....I simply stated the US is in control of the country...something the UN never had...the US is claiming they can do it all on their own...something that remains to be seen.


yes you did argue the fact.

It won't be long before the UN is back in Iraq..cause the US can't do it alone.


which is it, does it remain to be seen or they can't do it alone?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

This message was edited by furie on 4-26-03 @ 12:28 PM

[FiveB247]

Furie...One is in regards to what the US is saying and doing...and the other is my opinion and many others as well. Sorry if it was confusing or something.

[Bestinshow]

Will you simply blame the "barbarian Iraqi people" for not being civilized...or will you try and understand they don't value the same things we as Americans do...or that they hold different beliefs than we do? Sadly it's the white man's burden again.


C`mon Five, what beliefs? All we are pushing on them is the freedom to make a choice. we are "forcing " them to pick their own government and policing the state so they don`t kill each other until then. Do you believe that it is their culture and belief that they need a dictator that tells them what to do? What American beliefs are we forcing on them? Five,
I hate to say but I wonder if you can agree with anything this government does. With you they are doomed if they do or doomed of they don`t.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

see all the bad will on this thread and now its broken.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

It's quite simple...You can bring a horse to water...but you can't make them drink. In this case, we've freed people (which is good), but that doesn't mean they will take or like our methods of government, beliefs, etc... And if they choose not to do so, the people who freed the oppressed (the US), many will call them 'barbarians' or uncivilized. It's the same notion as the white man's burden. The US can try and free and democratize the world...that doesn't mean it will hold or that the people are welcoming such ideas.

[Bestinshow]

No, but we did help them and hopefully they take advantage of it. Either way, you can`t make it sound like its a bad thing. Also, I don`t hear many people refer to them as uncivilized. Most people rationalized the looting in fact and blamed it on their oppression for so long. The only term I hear is ungrateful. And they should be more grateful.
Hussein was a scumbag. On the other hand we don`t really know how many people are actually complaining. This thing is still playing out. If we leave too early we will be accused of abandonment. Gosh politics sucks.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Se7en]

If they adopt a theocratic Islamic fundamentalist government, then I will call them barbarians, because that it what they will be. Yay, let's let the jokers who were beating their heads bloody the other day for FUN run our nation, it'll be ggggggreat!

BTW, I love the guy, but furie fucked up the thread.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[furie]

suck it

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[TooCute]

1. furie, you just need to edit your post - you probably did a 'quote' instead of '/quote'

2. Yay, let's let the jokers who were beating their heads bloody the other day for FUN run our nation, it'll be ggggggreat!


Whether you like it or not, that is what they did for their religion. it's hardly your - or anyone's - place to judge what a person does to themself in the name of religion. I think going to church every Sunday is retarded, but if it that's what people want to do, why do I care?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[TheMojoPin]

Once a week I devour the flesh and drink the blood of the dirty hippie I call "God". HOT.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

Whether you like it or not, that is what they did for their religion. it's hardly your - or anyone's - place to judge what a person does to themself in the name of religion. I think going to church every Sunday is retarded, but if it that's what people want to do, why do I care?

Exactly...Too Cute. But If you don't agree with democracy and American beliefs, values, etc...you're an un-civil barbarian. Right?

[Se7en]

Whether you like it or not, that is what they did for their religion. it's hardly your - or anyone's - place to judge what a person does to themself in the name of religion. I think going to church every Sunday is retarded, but if it that's what people want to do, why do I care?

Sorry, almost didn't see you cause of that high horse you rode in on.

I mock them just as I would mock some Southern yahoo who handles snakes for Jesus.

But perhaps I wasn't fair with my earlier comments - I should have thrown out the qualifiers that if these Shiite Islamic Fundamentalists, who just happen to have a hobby of fanaticism and self-mutilation, take control of Iraq, than we'll be replacing a brutal secular regime for a brutal regime of zealots.

You're correct, what right do I have to judge them? I'll just wait till they assume control, and start the gross human rights violations in the name of Allah, all praise be to his name). Maybe then I'll be allowed to speak ill of them.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[TooCute]

I mock them just as I would mock some Southern yahoo who handles snakes for Jesus.
Mock all you want. I'll join you. But I'll get right back on my "high horse" the moment you try to invade the south and make them just like you.

But perhaps I wasn't fair with my earlier comments - I should have thrown out the qualifiers that if these Shiite Islamic Fundamentalists, who just happen to have a hobby of fanaticism and self-mutilation, take control of Iraq, than we'll be replacing a brutal secular regime for a brutal regime of zealots.
Good for them. If the Iraqi people want Shiite fundamentalists to rule them, then that's their problem. If they want to whack themselves with chains, that's their business. It's not really our place to be putting our people in charge there.

Hell, I'll throw out the suggestion that before you worry about that, you worry about the US. I mean, we're got a "regime" that is trying to put religion into our schools and outlaw abortion and get people to get married instead of shacking up and all sorts of other things. Is it like the brutal, oppressive regime in Iraq? Not at all.


You're correct, what right do I have to judge them?
None.

I'll just wait till they assume control,
Why do I doubt that Rumsfeld will allow that to happen?

and start the gross human rights violations in the name of Allah, all praise be to his name).
The 'gross human rights violations' are not a necessary result of Islam.
Maybe then I'll be allowed to speak ill of them.
Sure. Speak ill of human rights violations all you like. That's not what you were doing, however.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Se7en]

Good for them. If the Iraqi people want Shiite fundamentalists to rule them, then that's their problem. If they want to whack themselves with chains, that's their business. It's not really our place to be putting our people in charge there.

Hell, I'll throw out the suggestion that before you worry about that, you worry about the US.

Well, I am.

It seems to me that people an awful lot like you were arguing that the fundamentalists are a hotbed for terrorist recruitment - one of the chief reasons why we should NOT have invaded Iraq.

I'd rather not make it that much easier for terrorist groups by allowing a fundamentalist government to take over Iraq and harbor anti-U.S. and Israel terrorist groups like Iran.

But I'm sure you'll prove me wrong in your infinite wisdom.

I mean, we're got a "regime" that is trying to put religion into our schools and outlaw abortion and get people to get married instead of shacking up and all sorts of other things. Is it like the brutal, oppressive regime in Iraq? Not at all.

Boy, are you sidestepping about a million different things in your reach to make an analogy.

It'd work better if not for the checks n' balances, but I can somewhat see your point, as muddled as it is. Touche.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[FiveB247]

It seems to me that people an awful lot like you were arguing that the fundamentalists are a hotbed for terrorist recruitment - one of the chief reasons why we should NOT have invaded Iraq.

I'd rather not make it that much easier for terrorist groups by allowing a fundamentalist government to take over Iraq and harbor anti-U.S. and Israel terrorist groups like Iran.

But I'm sure you'll prove me wrong in your infinite wisdom.

Israel actually recently tried to counter-act the fundamentalist recruitment by rounding up and jailing those who get recruited for bombings and other terror actions. But gathering some innocents with a small, few guilty parties doesn't do anything but punish the group for a few bad apples.

Pre-emptive war to create long standing peace doesn't correlate to rational method of gaining such achievements. The US can not make the world a democracy no matter how much it wants too. Many places do not welcome us or our help and that doesn't make them barbarians or anything relatively close to that. The Americanization of the world isn't possible and makes foreigners think we want world order and empire.