|
Post by mape on Jan 19, 2006 0:22:44 GMT -5
First you try to convince us that the UN is a joke and now you are saying that breaking UN sanctions is a reason to go to war? You can't have it both ways, because if the UN is a joke then breaking one of their sanctions shouldn't be taken seriously.
The premise for going into war with Iraq was that some people thought they posessed WMDs, and it wasn't to get rid of Saddam or to deal with terrorism. BTW all this stuff about Saddam gassing his own people is still very vague. No one really knows much about this issue and that numbers vary greatly from one source to another. Most of what you here is just over exageratted rhetoric made to justify the war.
Ok so North Korea has nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il is a dictator who kills people opposed to his regime, broke UN sanctions, and has said many negative things about the west and the US more specifically - so why is no one getting on their horses to go attack them? N. Korea have all the qualities that qualify for going to war that some of you mention in the case for Iraq.
No one is saying that terrorism shouldn't be stopped, but the point in discussion is how to deal with it. Destroying a country here and there isn't going to solve anything because terrorist organizations do not work with states. Doing that will just inevitably create more terrorists don't you think? How many iraqi kids are going to grow up now seeing their country destroyed, loved ones killed and nothing to live for - they will vent their anger towards those who caused the destruction. 20 years down the line I don't think some guy who had his country destroyed, and nothing to live for is going to care how many people he blows up in a public place.
I don't know of any sure fire solutions to solve terrorism, but i can tell you that bombing entire countries isn't the right way to go about it. Maybe they should look at the root of the problem because after all most of these terrorists do what they do because of a reason. I'm not saying that we should start giving into their demands, but there are underlying problems. Maybe some of these countries in the west should alter their foreign policies instead of just meddling around in other's affairs.
As for Iran I don't know if some of you actually take time to read entire news stories. Some of you sound as if Iran has already pulled the pin out of the grenade and is ready to toss it. The only thing that has happened so far is that they broke some UN seals on a nuclear refinement facility. They haven't made any nuclear weapons, and they don't even have any of the plutonium required to make a bomb. The whole debate is whether or not to let them carry on with their own Uranium enrichment program, and whether or not it is for nuclear power or for weapons.
China and Russia do have much invested in Iran in the form of oil. That's why those two countries would like this issue to be resolved without any sanctions because they fear that if any sanctions are placed on Iran, then Iran will cut off their oil exports.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 19, 2006 5:16:47 GMT -5
First you try to convince us that the UN is a joke and now you are saying that breaking UN sanctions is a reason to go to war? You can't have it both ways, because if the UN is a joke then breaking one of their sanctions shouldn't be taken seriously. The premise for going into war with Iraq was that some people thought they posessed WMDs, and it wasn't to get rid of Saddam or to deal with terrorism. BTW all this stuff about Saddam gassing his own people is still very vague. No one really knows much about this issue and that numbers vary greatly from one source to another. Most of what you here is just over exageratted rhetoric made to justify the war. Ok so North Korea has nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il is a dictator who kills people opposed to his regime, broke UN sanctions, and has said many negative things about the west and the US more specifically - so why is no one getting on their horses to go attack them? N. Korea have all the qualities that qualify for going to war that some of you mention in the case for Iraq. No one is saying that terrorism shouldn't be stopped, but the point in discussion is how to deal with it. Destroying a country here and there isn't going to solve anything because terrorist organizations do not work with states. Doing that will just inevitably create more terrorists don't you think? How many iraqi kids are going to grow up now seeing their country destroyed, loved ones killed and nothing to live for - they will vent their anger towards those who caused the destruction. 20 years down the line I don't think some guy who had his country destroyed, and nothing to live for is going to care how many people he blows up in a public place. I don't know of any sure fire solutions to solve terrorism, but i can tell you that bombing entire countries isn't the right way to go about it. Maybe they should look at the root of the problem because after all most of these terrorists do what they do because of a reason. I'm not saying that we should start giving into their demands, but there are underlying problems. Maybe some of these countries in the west should alter their foreign policies instead of just meddling around in other's affairs. As for Iran I don't know if some of you actually take time to read entire news stories. Some of you sound as if Iran has already pulled the pin out of the grenade and is ready to toss it. The only thing that has happened so far is that they broke some UN seals on a nuclear refinement facility. They haven't made any nuclear weapons, and they don't even have any of the plutonium required to make a bomb. The whole debate is whether or not to let them carry on with their own Uranium enrichment program, and whether or not it is for nuclear power or for weapons. China and Russia do have much invested in Iran in the form of oil. That's why those two countries would like this issue to be resolved without any sanctions because they fear that if any sanctions are placed on Iran, then Iran will cut off their oil exports. Attack N. Korea? Please why do you ask who? Send your mounties to do it Iraq destroyed? Its funny how everyone focuses on all the negatives over there. And it depends on who you talk to about that. Mant people are enjoying their new lives. Iran just broke some UN seals Sp whats next big boy? The UN shouldn't be taken as a joke
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2006 14:03:27 GMT -5
thank you DS!! Iraqi war made sense: -Saddam went against UN Mandates...thats war worthy yes He had broken it for years as a Brit i don;t see what changed so dramtically between Tony Blair coming to power in 97 and when we went to war. The war was nothing to do with broken UN mandates
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 19, 2006 14:22:45 GMT -5
Mape, you're perception is way off
N. Korea has been talked about greatly too....it was labeled in Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, and something needs to be, and will be, done about them too--but the topic of this thread is IRAN....if you want to talk about N. Korea, start a new thread--but its already been discussed many times in the media and the bush admin...if you think N. Korea is being ignored, you're wrong...
concerning the purpose of iraq: ive dealt with this above, but quickly: -WMB (yes a reason, and the main reason in the publics eye, but not the only reason) -Going against UN Mandates -Not allowing inspectors to inspect what they want (SUSPICIOUS INNIT) -Saddam = criminal/terrorist--> crimes against humanity, killed own people (yes, thats a documented FACT), shouldnt be in charge of a country -Stabalize terrorism in the middle east, bc a democracy in between Syria and Iran will help limit terrorist activety
as for bombing countries....we cant do anything else really....its unfortunate that innocent civilians die, but thats not our intention, and just thinking how many lives we are actually saving when bombing terrorists....its like a paradox.....just a reminder, we came very close to killing Al-Qaeda #2 guy (or #1 if OBL is indeed dead) just last week....not many people criticize driving out the Taliban and bombing Afghan. mainly cos they knew something had to be done, but also bc it was successful....
everything Bush is doing is for the purpose of breaking up terrorist organizations and making it harder for another 9/11 style attack...terrorism will always exist, but to the extent that it does is in our control ^(that deserves the award of sentence of the year)
we are stumbling to victory in Iraq and thats why its getting crticized....if the war was over now and no troops remained, and it was a success, there would be no/little argument....just because its taking longer than anticipated, people want to give up (EVEN THO WE ARE WINNING)....pathetic
and no, mape, we can not negotiate with terrorist, for a couple of reasons: 1.) If terrorist realize they can get their way, they will continue to be more terrorists....we kind of want to prevent that... 2.) they are irrational....convert to islam, pull troops out of every middle eastern nation....ffs...NO!!
Mape, i just dont know what you're on about, your points are so ilogical....sorry....
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 19, 2006 15:10:30 GMT -5
i'll post this here too because: a.) more people we see it here, then in the other thread (CHECK THAT ONE OUT) b.) mentions Iran --
Breaking News: Thursday, January 19, 2006
Al Jazeera's english-language website bannered a breaking news report that it has recieved an audio tape from Osama bin Laden warning of an "imminent attack".
According to the current American media reporting on this audio tape bin Laden is directly addressing the American people. Western media are giving translations of bin Laden's words as offering "conditional truce" to the American people if we withdraw our troops from Aghanistan. At the same time bin Laden reportedly goes on to say that new attacks are being prepared and "you will see them".
Up to this point we do not believe bin Laden has ever offered the US any "conditional truce" as was the case with Europe. This is an indicator of the audio tape prossibly being a recent construct. Bin Laden's offer of a conditional truce to the west included no conditions for a truce in the portion released by Al-Jazeera:
"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America."
This bin Laden audio release appears to be a blatant attempt to divert attention from the ongoing nuclear crisis between the western allies and Iran. Based upon our analysis we believe Osama bin Laden has long found safe haven in the Islamic Republic of Iran along with his son, Saad, and other key Al Qaeda leadership.
Should Usama bin Laden's threat of attacks upon the US homeland come to fruition, Iran should be pre-emptively placed on notice and held accountable that any such potential terrorist attacks will be considered de facto acts of war by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States of America.
* 19 January, 2006: Further Developments-
The bin Laden audio tape has been authenticated. Furthermore, it has been dated to within the past 45 days. This has been the longest period without a video or audio taped message from Bin Laden. The last released message was more than one year ago.
While Al-Jazeera has broadcast portions of this audiotape from Osama bin Laden, there are larger portions of the tape which have not been released at this time.
As the audio tape is being translated, the Northeast Intelligence Network has received confirmation that several direct threats are made against locations and interests within the United States itself.
This partial release of bin Laden's message holds a dire and direct relationship to the recent news reports and stories concerning suspect un-traceable cell-phone purchases.
The Northeast Intelligence Network continues to investigate this message, and its possible impact on the current threat situation to the Unites Staes, and its interests around the globe. Check back for updates and further developments, which will be posted as they are uncovered.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 19, 2006 17:56:40 GMT -5
everything Bush is doing is for the purpose of breaking up terrorist organizations and making it harder for another 9/11 style attack... terrorism will always exist, but to the extent that it does is in our control^(that deserves the award of sentence of the year) i disagree, i think this sentence deserves sentence of the year personally:- Mape, i just dont know what you're on about, your points are so ilogical....sorry....
|
|
|
Post by Bizzle on Jan 19, 2006 18:18:48 GMT -5
LMAO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2006 7:44:38 GMT -5
i'll post this here too because: a.) more people we see it here, then in the other thread (CHECK THAT ONE OUT) b.) mentions Iran -- Breaking News: Thursday, January 19, 2006 Al Jazeera's english-language website bannered a breaking news report that it has recieved an audio tape from Osama bin Laden warning of an "imminent attack". According to the current American media reporting on this audio tape bin Laden is directly addressing the American people. Western media are giving translations of bin Laden's words as offering "conditional truce" to the American people if we withdraw our troops from Aghanistan. At the same time bin Laden reportedly goes on to say that new attacks are being prepared and "you will see them". Up to this point we do not believe bin Laden has ever offered the US any "conditional truce" as was the case with Europe. This is an indicator of the audio tape prossibly being a recent construct. Bin Laden's offer of a conditional truce to the west included no conditions for a truce in the portion released by Al-Jazeera: "We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America." This bin Laden audio release appears to be a blatant attempt to divert attention from the ongoing nuclear crisis between the western allies and Iran. Based upon our analysis we believe Osama bin Laden has long found safe haven in the Islamic Republic of Iran along with his son, Saad, and other key Al Qaeda leadership. Should Usama bin Laden's threat of attacks upon the US homeland come to fruition, Iran should be pre-emptively placed on notice and held accountable that any such potential terrorist attacks will be considered de facto acts of war by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States of America. * 19 January, 2006: Further Developments- The bin Laden audio tape has been authenticated. Furthermore, it has been dated to within the past 45 days. This has been the longest period without a video or audio taped message from Bin Laden. The last released message was more than one year ago. While Al-Jazeera has broadcast portions of this audiotape from Osama bin Laden, there are larger portions of the tape which have not been released at this time. As the audio tape is being translated, the Northeast Intelligence Network has received confirmation that several direct threats are made against locations and interests within the United States itself. This partial release of bin Laden's message holds a dire and direct relationship to the recent news reports and stories concerning suspect un-traceable cell-phone purchases. The Northeast Intelligence Network continues to investigate this message, and its possible impact on the current threat situation to the Unites Staes, and its interests around the globe. Check back for updates and further developments, which will be posted as they are uncovered. If the attacks are being planned it is serious and terrible news indeed, but as for the truce i just wonder if bin laden still has the power as terrorism has spread so far, and so much has happened in the last year in which we heard nothing from bin laden.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 21, 2006 10:34:46 GMT -5
the truce is not really a truce -he offered a truce to Europ in 2004, then attacked Madrid, and eventually London -he offers the truce to make him look like the good guy...so everyone in the middle east sees that OBL is trying to stop what the U.S is doing peacefully, and when the U.S doesnt accept, it makes the US look bad to all the ignorant fools who believe OBL -he feels obliged to warn us before he attacks
also
would OBL really stop attacking us if we negotiated with him? does he have the power to stop every single cell connected to al-qaeda stop? NO
THERE IS NO TRUCE...IT IS JUST ONE OF HIS TACTICS THAT HE HURTS THE US WITH
OBL is actually a smart man, so it seems, hes heavily into politics, and he knows how to manipulate everyone
i feel an attack is coming....people claim it will be like London/Madrid....but i feel its going to be much worse...OBL wants something bigger than 9/11....think about it, its not that hard to organize 6 suicide bombers and bomb the transit system, so if that really is what he is planning, why has it taken 4.5 years....
plus, we are all v complacent...some people even claim OBL is dead, or v weak....its bad to write him off...
just be careful....
|
|
|
Post by Currian on Jan 21, 2006 11:51:04 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be shitty to live in constant fear and anticipation of an attack.
|
|