403 Forum Posts by "TheEvilOne"
By Liza Porteus, Fox News
UNITED NATIONS — Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out America's case for military action against Iraq Wednesday, providing "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Powell, accompanied by top CIA officials, presented tape recordings, satellite photos and statements from informants at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to prove that Iraq has not complied with its order that it disarm. He also told the group that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda and other terror groups, although Saddam just this week denied such relationships.
-------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think the evidence seemed pretty convincing, and I've heard that the American people are convinced as well. I think most of the nations of the UN will also be convinced, although some nations (France, anyone?) may still have a skeptical attitude. So what do you think? Is there anyone here who previously opposed the war that now supports it?
I've been saying for a while now that war is justified. Does anyone here NOT think that Iraq is trying to give us the run-around when it comes to the inspections? I personally think they have something to hide--if they don't, why aren't they cooperating better?
Affirmative action is wrong, period. Discrimination is not cured by more discrimination. Personally, I don't think that college applications should even ask the question of race--don't put the question on there, and judge an applicant solely on merit. That is the way it should be done.
At 2/3/03 08:38 AM, DingleberryClock wrote: And can someone direct me to a thread where I can read whatever was said by Wade upon deletion? I'm just curious, but I'm sleepy and just woke up.
At 2/2/03 09:00 AM, karasz wrote: personally, i see no differnence between Osama and the founding fathers... Cuz they did use 'terroristic' activities during the Revolution.
I don't recall ever hearing about our founding fathers killing 3,000 civilians. Comparing Osama to the founding fathers is ludicrous.
At 1/31/03 10:11 AM, PuritanicalInterface wrote: well he did say that two sisters will burn and fall on 9/11 or something like that.
That statement turned out to be falsely attributed to Nostradamus. He never said it.
I think that it would run off hydrogen gas, and give off water as exhaust.
It's a good idea, and should be looked into. We need to take every opportunity we can get to stop giving money to terrorists.
At 1/28/03 01:06 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: who is Osiris? i never heard that name in Bible. it's a saint from Mormon or from Catholic. basically, i have no idea.
Osiris was the Egyptian god of the underworld, who died and was resurrected.
At 1/27/03 11:28 PM, fattony945 wrote: Well the USA went to war with Nazi Germany even though the Germans didnt do anything to us other than be allied with the Japanese, and yet no one argued about going to war.
I think that I should point out that it was actually Germany who declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Other than that, though, I agree with what you said.
Those Yahoo links don't seem to be working. Try this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html
Dammit, the link isn't working for some reason.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&;u=/ap/20030127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_blix_text_1
Copy and paste this into the address bar, it should work.
At 1/27/03 05:59 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The US is looking at only the bad things, and disregarding the fact that the UN weapons inspectors have already said that IAEA has said Iraq is totally compliant, and the UN weapons inpectors have said they have been "more than satasfactory" in their compliance with them.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030127/ap_on_re_mi_ ea/un_blix_text_1
The above link is to the full text of Blix's report to the Security Council. Read it for yourself. It's not just the US who says that Iraq is not cooperating fully. I'm not saying that this is definitive proof that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction, but it would seem to indicate that they are trying to deceive us in some way.
By DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - Top weapons inspector Hans Blix on Monday said Baghdad had not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm, while his counterpart Mohamed ElBaradei said there was no evidence so far that Iraq was reviving its nuclear program and asked for a "few months" to complete the search.
The Bush administration dismissed Iraqi cooperation as inadequate, and U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said he had heard nothing that gave "any hope that Iraq will disarm" voluntarily.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said inspectors' findings "came as no surprise" and that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) has "not much more time" to comply if he wants to avoid war.
According to the report, Iraq has not provided sufficient evidence that many of the weapons that they declared were destroyed, and there is also some evidence that they may still exist. If Iraq has truly disarmed, as they claim, why don't they cooperate better with the inspections? I personally think that they are hiding something.
At 1/26/03 07:57 AM, Speechless wrote: Oook , one its his country he can do what he wants America only has the right to defend countries not remove leaders of countries. BTW Who are you to say Saddam is a mad man , is that the only excuse you have so that he shouldnt have nukes ?! America shouldnt put rules about nukes if they have nukes.
Do you deny that Saddam is a madman? I think his past actions speak for themselves. If he were a good leader who simply sought nuclear weapons as a deterrent, then maybe you could say that he could do what he wants. However, his past actions indicate that he is not a good leader. He has threatened his neighbors and killed his own people. He has shown that he is unworthy to posess nuclear weapons.
WTF No levarage , major levarage , any time a country is out of order , "Hey stop or we'' nuke ya". America is a big bully in the game of politics. Making rules that dont apply to anyone except Iraq and other countries it doesn't like. This will be America's downfall.
I never said that we haven't tried to enforce our will on other nations, and we have made some mistakes in the past. All I said is that we have never used nuclear weapons for that purpose. There have been some cases where we went somewhere that we shouldn't have been (Vietnam, anyone?), but in this case, I feel there is justification.
At 1/25/03 11:07 PM, Paul138 wrote: Aren't there other dicators we can overthrow? Do they have to live on top of fossil fuel?
Aren't there other places we can go to get fossil fuel that aren't ruled by dictators?
At 1/23/03 11:19 PM, swayside wrote: who are you to call someone a communist, you communist?
I think he was being sarcastic.
At 1/23/03 05:15 PM, Scaletail wrote: I could've sworn that 2000 ended three years ago...
It did.
You would think that, given Bush's high approval rating and the GOP victories in the 2002 midterm elections, what happened in 2000 wouldn't really matter anymore. I guess there are some people who, sadly, can't let it go.
I agree with Bush on many things, but not this one. SUVs were made for heavy off-road driving, but almost no one buys them for that purpose. Most SUV owners these days seem to be people living in suburban areas who use them to drive around town. I live in Edmond, a suburb of Oklahoma City, and I cannot tell you how many times I've seen ridiculously large SUVs with only one occupant, and often, it's just to drive about a half-mile to the grocery store. It's getting out of hand. SUVs are overly large, dangerous, gas-guzzling vehicles, and unless you do a significant amount of off-road driving, there is NO REASON to own one.
At 1/21/03 12:29 AM, Zio_Shirai wrote: against saddam.....nothing, he's defending his nation, against the US surely, dont support it, its just an imperialist nation in search for oil. just dont support the war on iraq, if u dont mess with saddam and instead try to be his friend...that doesnt means getting his oil, then he wont do anything bad. btw, many ppl say that saddam threw chemical weapons to his own ppl, well, this werent his own ppl, they were rebels that wanted a war, so it wasnt at all unjustified
Good God--Are you implying that Saddam is actually a GOOD leader? You make him out to be a peaceful ruler who only intends to defend his people. He is not. The Iraqi people would jump at the opportunity to eliminate Saddam. There are many groups in Iraq that want him dead. The Kurds are separatists, to be sure, but with a ruler like Saddam, you'd probably want to separate too. He is a DICTATOR. He does not represent the interests of his people, only his own. He has shown agression toward his neighbors, and has attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We have evidence. Saddam has proven himself to be an unfit ruler, and should be ousted.
Just because we've turned our immediate attention to Saddam doesn't mean we've forgotten about Osama. The problem is that he is just flat out hard to find. I think it's safe to say that he is no longer in Afghanistan. There are any number of countries where he could have gone, and, as mentioned above, he could be dead. I think that we will eventually find him.
If you would post this to the politics board, I would be happy to rip apart your arguments.
At 1/19/03 06:17 AM, Slizor wrote: That's bullshit, if anything it's the will of the majority being imposed on the minority, if you are going to talk about it in that sense. But I think people would prefer that to the will of the minority being imposed on the majority. The bigger states would have no control over the smaller states, but a representative control of the Federal Government.
Yes, the smaller states would still have control over their own governments, but, in my opinion, the larger states shouldn't have COMPLETE control over the federal government. For the most part, the majority should rule, but the interests of the minority should be heard as well. That is what the electoral college does. It is rare for the candidate who wins the popular vote to lose the electoral college, but, since it can happen, that reminds presidential hopefuls to keep the interests of both large and small in mind.
Ahh... the ever-present "abolish the electoral college" argument. Some people fail to realize that without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to win in the country's major population centers (New York and California) to win the election (and I probably don't have to get into how different California's political views are from those of the rest of the nation). Thus, the voice of the smaller states is silenced. With the electoral college, in order to win, a candidate has to win both large and small states, and thus has to have broader appeal. That way, the smaller states don't fall under the iron boot of the larger ones.
Damn, I was beginning to think that I was the only conservative here. My views tend to reflect the general views of the Republican party, with a few exceptions (I think marijuana should be legalized, for example). I am irritated by the Democrats, who don't seem to have a solution for anything. All they ever seem to say is "Everything sucks because of Bush". Well, tell me what YOU think you should do!
Crap, I accidentally hit enter before I was finished. Anyway, as I was saying, that shows that he knows no ethics or morals. He does whatever it takes to stay in power. If he acquired nuclear weapons, he would use them to blackmail his neighbors, as well as the United States and our allies. I don't think that such destructive weapons should be in the hands of a madman such as Saddam Hussein.
At 1/17/03 12:20 AM, Speechless wrote: Well lets see, Iraq and US have nukes. Iraq is about to be bombed because it hasn't used the nukes. You say Iraq has done bad before, well WHAT ABOUT THE US , HIROSIMA AND ETC. Why doesnt the UN destroy and bomb America it has done bad things before and has more nukes than any other country , why not bomb it. Or Israel , its attacking Palestine and hasn't been investigated for nukes. Think before you talk.
Perhaps we have done some bad things in the past. The United States is not a country that is without foreign policy screw-ups. However, aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I think were horrible but necessary (see the Hiroshima thread on this board), we have never used nuclear weapons. We keep them as a deterrent, to prevent other nations from using them against us. We have not attempted to use the fact that we posess them as leverage to force other nations to bow to our will. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein is a man who's past actions indicate that he probably would do just that. This is a man who has gassed his own people, for crying out loud!
At 1/16/03 09:00 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: But Iraq has as much right as the US to have empty warheads or even full warheads, for that matter. Until Iraq does something violent, there is no cause for war.
That's the thing--Iraq has taken violent actions in the past. If you recall, in 1990, they invaded the small neighboring nation of Kuwait. The US and UN sent troops to repel this invasion, and won a swift victory. After this, we could have--indeed, we probably SHOULD have--invaded Iraq and finished off Saddam for good. But we didn't. Instead, a cease-fire agreement was made on the condition that Iraq would end its weapons programs. Inspectors would be allowed into the country to see to it that this was done. Time and again, Iraq has violated this agreement, forcing the inspectors out of the country. Sure, they let the inspectors back in (only after we threatened war), but it is possible that they are still playing a game of deception. Today's discovery would seem to support that theory. To me, if a nation violates an agreement that was made to end a war, then that's as if the war never ended.
Wow... I guess the inspectors really are doing their job after all. :)
Basically, this just shoots down the argument by those that are opposed to an attack on Iraq that it would be an unprovoked attack without any evidence. It proves that Iraq is indeed trying to hide weapons of mass destruction in their country. It may help swing world opinion into our favor, so we won't have to do this alone. I know that the French and Germans had been grumbling about needing another UN resolution before going ahead with an attack. If it does come to another resolution, this could help us get it passed.
Maybe we'll give Saddam another chance to disarm himself, but if we keep finding stuff like this, then we are probably heading for war. And I'm all for it.
I think the attack will come in late 2003 or early 2004.
As horrible as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, an invasion of Japan would probably have resulted in an even greater loss of life. Large numbers of American and Japanese troops, as well as Japanese civilians, would have died. Japanese culture was one that did not believe in surrender--either you won, or you died. Period. It would have been a long, bloody struggle, which may or may not have been successful.
The situation over there was escalating a few months ago, bit it seems to have cooled down since then. It is a concern, but right now, we have our own nuclear problem to deal with--from a little country called North Korea.
