war on who?

[swayside]

i'm sure that most of you would agree that terrorism is appauling and evil. i'm going to trust that to make my point.

bush is not just going to war with iraq. the war on iraq is a part of the war on terror. don't try to say that bush only wants iraq's oil because that's not a major factor. it's just the easiest way for democrats to make him looks bad, and God knows they'll do anything to make him look bad. and don't try to say it anyway because we're not waring with north korea because they haven't done anything directly towards us. true, they are a threat and they should be dealt with, but they haven't done anything yet. and about the whole "smoking gun" crap, the only reason you idiots say that there isn't a smoking gun is because the democrats have pushed their "peace" cries for so long that the dust from 9/11 cleared out. iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements. they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11. we need to take sadaam out along with all those who share his anti-american attitude. we're not at war with iraq, though. we're at war with terrorism. iraq seems to have an abundance of it.

[Alakazam]

At 2/2/03 10:57 PM, swayside wrote: i'm sure that most of you would agree that terrorism is appauling and evil. i'm going to trust that to make my point. :

Tee hee hee. NG liberals love to cry "Oil War!" don't they? I guess we will never know for sure if oil is one reason...I believe it is to a point. However, if there is sufficient proof that Iraq has WoMD and ties to Al Queda then that is their own death sentence.

Having Saddam's head on a plater [along with his sons] should have been done 12 years ago.

[TheloniousMONK]

Saddam DOES need to go down, but the sick thing is, we shouldn't be the ones taking him down. It's the people's responsibility to rebel when their government steps out of line. If we do it, it won't mean crap in five years. The pathway to revolution is bloody, but the destination (usually) makes it worth it. If a government steps out of line internationally and the citizens of said country don't stop their government (WWII Nazi Germany), it is the responsibility of the global community to put them back in order. Think of the American Revolution; a hard, bloody, torturous war resulting in many deaths, but the birth of something new and greater.

[karasz]

At 2/2/03 10:57 PM, swayside wrote:

: bush is not just going to war with iraq. the war on iraq is a part of the war on terror.

How is it part of the war on terrorism? Iraq has done nothing to us, directly.

don't try to say that bush only wants iraq's oil because that's not a major factor. it's just the easiest way for democrats to make him looks bad, and God knows they'll do anything to make him look bad.

My friend that is called politics, and Bush has the person considered the greatest political consultant today, Karl Rove. So I am sure Rove can handle Bush wanting oil.

and don't try to say it anyway because we're not waring with north korea because they haven't done anything directly towards us. true, they are a threat and they should be dealt with, but they haven't done anything yet.

So is what you're saying is that we have to wait for another 9-11 thing to happen. If we are using pre-emptive strikes perhaps we should take a nation that can strike us... or better yet FIND OSAMA, although i dont think he will ever be found which will cause him to become a legend in the Arabian world, regardless if you agree with him or not.

and about the whole "smoking gun" crap, the only reason you idiots say that there isn't a smoking gun is because the democrats have pushed their "peace" cries for so long that the dust from 9/11 cleared out.

I dont get this so please explain

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

Israel is in breach of at least a dozen more UN resolutions yet we are not threatening force amongst them.

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Where? state your sources

we need to take sadaam out along with all those who share his anti-american attitude.

One of the founding pieces of democracy, which we are trying to help blossome in the mid-east, freedom of speech can be selective. If we were to invade every nation with anti-American views, then who is next, France Britian, Germany, Russia, China, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan.... you get the point.

we're not at war with iraq, though. we're at war with terrorism. iraq seems to have an abundance of it.

If we are not at war with Iraq then why are we attacking Iraq? Why should we attack Iraq for stuff they did 20 years ago... odd thing is though Saddam only used the stuff that the US gave him to fight IRAN so basically we gave the crazy guy the weapons.

GO THE USA

[t3kn1kul7-Industries]

Who knows whats true nowadays? The media fucks things around so bad its almost stupid actually listening to what they have to say. Doesn't anyone find the ambundance of crashes that are happening in the US army a little suspicous? I beleive that Iraq has taken out its fair share of american helicopters and planes, but there is noway the army will admit to it cos it would make USA and the countries backing them more un-easy about the war. And the term " Pre-Emptive strike" is the biggest load of bull shit i have ever heard...

[PeRv3rt]

Iraq=BAD
Amorika=GOOD

Any more questions?

[Slizor]

bush is not just going to war with iraq.

Let's just seperate this from the rest of the text. Where does Bush want to invade? Iraq. Who will be killed? Iraqis. Who does he want to get rid of? The Iraqi leader. Hmm, seems to me he's going to attack Iraq, i.e. wage war on Iraq.

the war on iraq is a part of the war on terror. don't try to say that bush only wants iraq's oil because that's not a major factor. it's just the easiest way for democrats to make him looks bad, and God knows they'll do anything to make him look bad.

Please qualify your claim that oil is not a major factor.

and don't try to say it anyway because we're not waring with north korea because they haven't done anything directly towards us. true, they are a threat and they should be dealt with, but they haven't done anything yet.

Iraq hasn't done anything to you.

and about the whole "smoking gun" crap, the only reason you idiots say that there isn't a smoking gun is because the democrats have pushed their "peace" cries for so long that the dust from 9/11 cleared out.

Please give me evidence of a "smoking gun".

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

How so?

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Who by? With what evidence?

we need to take sadaam out along with all those who share his anti-american attitude. we're not at war with iraq, though.

Because people are not allowed opinions?

we're at war with terrorism. iraq seems to have an abundance of it.

Actually Iraq has pretty much nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Saddam was supported by America because he was against fundamental Islam. He chopped most of their heads off(in Iraq) and waged war on the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 10:28 AM, Slizor wrote:

Hmm, seems to me he's going to attack Iraq, i.e. wage war on Iraq. :

The war against Iraq's government/military and not its civilian population.

Please qualify your claim that oil is not a major factor. :

The claim that the pending war on Iraq is a "major factor" is on the shoulders of those who say it is. Smells like you are asking for proof of a negative: "prove it is not a factor", when no one has hard evidence that it is.

Iraq hasn't done anything to you. :

Pointless. We do not know if Iraq has done anything until Powell presents his evidence to the UN this week. If there is not enough evidence to show that Iraq has WoMD or aids Al Queda, then the peace-niks will have a firm foot to condemn the war.

Please give me evidence of a "smoking gun". :

We do not need a "smoking gun." Iraq has failed to produce evidence that it has destroyed missing WoMD. Where did they go?

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

How so? :

Iraq agreed to a UN resolution made after the Gulf War in '91 to cease production of WoMD and destroy their stockpiles. The inspections were designed to make sure Iraq complied...and they were kicked out in '98. Iraq's recent report does not document the missing WoMD. So far they are in limbo.

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Who by? With what evidence? :

We will know if this is true once Powell delivers his evidence to the UN this week.

[Slizor]

Hmm, seems to me he's going to attack Iraq, i.e. wage war on Iraq. :

The war against Iraq's government/military and not its civilian population.

Is a war ever not against a government? The point is, which you clearly agree with, it is an attack on Iraq.

Please qualify your claim that oil is not a major factor. :

The claim that the pending war on Iraq is a "major factor" is on the shoulders of those who say it is. Smells like you are asking for proof of a negative: "prove it is not a factor", when no one has hard evidence that it is.

Please give me evidence of a "smoking gun". :

We do not need a "smoking gun." Iraq has failed to produce evidence that it has destroyed missing WoMD. Where did they go?

Failing to produce evidence, and having them are two different things.

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

The inspections were designed to make sure Iraq complied...and they were kicked out in '98.

Actually the inspectors left in 1998. And this is pointless anyhow since we are talking about the current resolution.

Iraq's recent report does not document the missing WoMD. So far they are in limbo.

This goes against the claim that they are in material breech.

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Who by? With what evidence? :

We will know if this is true once Powell delivers his evidence to the UN this week.

Then it would be false to claim so until that evidence is presented.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 02:59 PM, Slizor wrote:

Is a war ever not against a government? The point is, which you clearly agree with, it is an attack on Iraq. :

Iraq is composed more of Saddam and his military. The war is against the government and the military, nothing more.

Failing to produce evidence, and having them are two different things. :

Cop-out. If Iraq had a certain number of WoMD and fails to account for all of them [like it did in the recent UN report several weeks ago] that is evidence that Iraq is not complying according to the UN resolution from '91 and the one passed this year.

Logic is as follows:

UN: "Mr. Saddam, we know you had 100 biological weapons in '98. We have 75 accounted for so far...where are they?"

Saddam: "Shrugs"

It is up to Saddam to present evidence that he is complying to the resolution which states that he needs to cease from production and needs to destroy his stockpiles. It is not concrete, but it is still evidence non-the-less.

I also like how you skipped over the "Oil War" bit.

Actually the inspectors left in 1998. And this is pointless anyhow since we are talking about the current resolution. :

Which he is still not in compliance with.

[Slizor]

Is a war ever not against a government? The point is, which you clearly agree with, it is an attack on Iraq. :

Iraq is composed more of Saddam and his military. The war is against the government and the military, nothing more.

And the point remains that it is a war on Iraq.

Failing to produce evidence, and having them are two different things. :

Cop-out. If Iraq had a certain number of WoMD and fails to account for all of them [like it did in the recent UN report several weeks ago] that is evidence that Iraq is not complying according to the UN resolution from '91 and the one passed this year.

That is not evidence that it is in material breech. Evidence it is in material breech is if the weapons inspectors find weapons unaccounted for. So far, they have not.

I also like how you skipped over the "Oil War" bit.

Fine, I couldn't really be bothered posting...but..
There has been a great deal of shady dealings with the big Oil companies and Bush. For instance, Hamid Karzai was actually in a big oil company(that wanted to build a big oil pipeline across Afghanistan, rejected by the Taliban) and now, surprise surprise he is allowing it. There is, of course, the fact that Bush and Co(most the people in his Cabinet(What's in called in America?)) also happen to have made their fortune in oil. Then there is the fact that the American economy is depedent on oil.
To be brief there is a very big weight of evidence which suggests that oil is a major factor. Plus, there doesn't seem to be any other reasons.

Actually the inspectors left in 1998. And this is pointless anyhow since we are talking about the current resolution. :

Which he is still not in compliance with.

Which you still haven't proved.

[Slizor]

;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

As the resolution says, they have to account for all weapons they currently have, not those that they may have destroyed.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 03:25 PM, Slizor wrote:

And the point remains that it is a war on Iraq. :

"The war against Iraq" is a blanket statement.
If you want to say that Iraq is nothing more than Saddam and his military and civilians do not count, then I guess you are correct.

That is not evidence that it is in material breech. Evidence it is in material breech is if the weapons inspectors find weapons unaccounted for. So far, they have not. :

Heh. It is breeching the UN resolution that states Iraq must:

1)cease all production of WoMD
2)destroy all stockpiles of WoMD
3)provide evidence it has done so

Weapons are missing and Saddam nor his underlings have provided the evidence to show what they did with them. It is not a terrible leap in logic to say he still has them. Therefore, according to the UN resolution, he is in material breech.

there is a very big weight of evidence which suggests that oil is a major factor. :

Thanks for the anecdotal evidence...bordlerline paranoia. Bush and his cabinet want to go to war because there be oil on dem dar fields because that is why they are rich in the first place ~~ The Jews are in control of America's money because Alan Greenspan is head of the Federal Treasury. HA!

You know, an oil line across Afghanistan might help their economy, as well to have another ally with rich oil production/resources [so we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq].

Nevermind that...it's all a giant conspiracy.

Plus, there doesn't seem to be any other reasons. :

Nevermind there is a dictator that has invaded neighboring countries...nevermind he has used biological weapons against his neighbors as well. Nevermind that there is a dictator that slaughtered his own people. Nevermind that there is a dictator that is in material breech of a UN resolution.

Which you still haven't proved. :

Read previous remarks in paragraph two.

[Slizor]

And the point remains that it is a war on Iraq. :

"The war against Iraq" is a blanket statement.
If you want to say that Iraq is nothing more than Saddam and his military and civilians do not count, then I guess you are correct.

You do realise that your reasoning would mean that World War One was not a war between Britain and Germany(I'm not going to list all of the ountries) but between Lloyd-George, Kaiser Wilhelm and the armies of the two countries?

That is not evidence that it is in material breech. Evidence it is in material breech is if the weapons inspectors find weapons unaccounted for. So far, they have not. :

Heh. It is breeching the UN resolution that states Iraq must:

1)cease all production of WoMD
2)destroy all stockpiles of WoMD
3)provide evidence it has done so

Look at post above. Frankly I think you should read the UN resolution.

Plus, there doesn't seem to be any other reasons. :

Nevermind there is a dictator that has invaded neighboring countries

America has invaded neighbouring countries, many many times.

nevermind he has used biological weapons against his neighbors as well.

Biological weapons supplied by America and Co.

Nevermind that there is a dictator that slaughtered his own people.

That's wrong if you are talking about the Kurds, recent evidence suggests it was the Iranians who did it.

Nevermind that there is a dictator that is in material breech of a UN resolution.

Israel is in breech of a lot more UN resolutions.

Which you still haven't proved. :

Read previous remarks in paragraph two.

Read post above.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 03:52 PM, Slizor wrote:

As the resolution says, they have to account for all weapons they currently have, not those that they may have destroyed.

How cute. I like how you did not post the entire resolution.

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElem ent

Resolution 1411 states that Iraq has been and still remains in material breech. It also says that Iraq must disarm i.e. destroy its weapons, and disclose all information on programs to develop WoMD.

Iraq has yet to do this. Thanks for hammering the nail in your own coffin.

[Slizor]

Resolution 1411 states that Iraq has been and still remains in material breech.

Of the first resolution, not this one.

It also says that Iraq must disarm i.e. destroy its weapons, and disclose all information on programs to develop WoMD.

Iraq has done this, do oyu not remember? They handed over that big document. Unless you want to refute the document with unrevealed military intelligence(which is meant to exist) I suggest you shut up.

You do now realise it mentions nothing of weapons it has destroyed before?

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 04:01 PM, Slizor wrote:

You do realise that your reasoning would mean that World War One was not a war between Britain and Germany(I'm not going to list all of the ountries) but between Lloyd-George, Kaiser Wilhelm and the armies of the two countries? :

The United States has specfically said we have nothing against the Iraqi people, only Saddam & Company. In your example, war was declared against an entire nation irregardless of civilians.

Look at post above. Frankly I think you should read the UN resolution. :

Already been answered in a later post. Your concession is accepted.

Nevermind there is a dictator that has invaded neighboring countries

America has invaded neighbouring countries, many many times.

nevermind he has used biological weapons against his neighbors as well.

Biological weapons supplied by America and Co.

Nevermind that there is a dictator that slaughtered his own people.

That's wrong if you are talking about the Kurds, recent evidence suggests it was the Iranians who did it.

Nevermind that there is a dictator that is in material breech of a UN resolution.

Israel is in breech of a lot more UN resolutions. ::

Nice red herrings. We are talking about Iraq, not anyone else.

Which you still haven't proved. :

Read previous remarks in paragraph two.

Read post above. ::

As to Iraq being in material breech, this has been answerd. Concession accepted.

[DrNatchKilder]

At 2/3/03 03:53 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 2/3/03 03:25 PM, Slizor wrote:

And the point remains that it is a war on Iraq. :

"The war against Iraq" is a blanket statement.
If you want to say that Iraq is nothing more than Saddam and his military and civilians do not count, then I guess you are correct.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA
Could you tell me a war were NO civilians were involved? Or they will be "colateral damage" as Powell qualified it

Nevermind there is a dictator that has invaded neighboring countries...nevermind he has used biological weapons against his neighbors as well. Nevermind that there is a dictator that slaughtered his own people. Nevermind that there is a dictator that is in material breech of a UN resolution.

Actually, i think that this is only a "cover" for their real purposes. This war is provoked by two things:

1.- The oil
2.- The fact that all the weapon's industries were the ones who supported Bush political campaign ( alongside the oil companies)

This war is a preventive war, you are striking before the enemy has done something to you. This is a medieval idea that nowadays shouldn't be used.

Although those arguments are true ( it's never good to have a dictator etc,etc,etc,etc ) they aren't the true and we should wait until Powell gives the "evidences" because if they had all those evidences since the begining why didn't they tell the location of the weapon stocks to the UN?

If Sadam has been in iraq for a lot of years why didn't the US atack before the 9/11 happened?

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 04:30 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote:

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA
Could you tell me a war were NO civilians were involved? Or they will be "colateral damage" as Powell qualified it:

Red herring. Whether or not civilians are "involved" is not the issue. We are not at war with the Iraqi people as stated by the SoS, only Saddam & Company. Besides the Kurds and the Shiites are Iraqi people and they seem rather supportive of a war in Iraq...we are certainly not "waging war" on these Iraqi's are we?

Actually, i think... :

There you have it folks...a NG user uncovered the conspiracy of a war in Iraq.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 04:19 PM, Slizor wrote:

Resolution 1411 states that Iraq has been and still remains in material breech.

Of the first resolution, not this one. :

UN Resolution 1441 was passed in November of 2002. This is the resolution concerning Iraq and its WoMD. The later resolution, UN Resolution 1454, deals only with stricter security concerning exports to Iraq.

Basically, I posted the correct resolution.

It also says that Iraq must disarm i.e. destroy its weapons, and disclose all information on programs to develop WoMD.

Iraq has done this, do oyu not remember? They handed over that big document. Unless you want to refute the document with unrevealed military intelligence(which is meant to exist) I suggest you shut up. :

*Sigh* This is the problem with you...you simply do not remember previous posts in your zealous attempts to prove me wrong. Apparently you never watch the news and pay attention to world leaders expressing concern over the fact that the "declaration" that Iraq presented was full of holes...it was old news. There were questions about a full disclosure of disarmament [destruction of WoMD] and proof that they ceased production. Hence the inspections.

But before you respond to this post, I suggest you cut and past any responses into one single post so I can answer. As I am tired of proving you wrong on three different posts. It would do us all a world of good...:~)

[DrNatchKilder]

At 2/3/03 04:38 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 2/3/03 04:30 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote:

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA
Could you tell me a war were NO civilians were involved? Or they will be "colateral damage" as Powell qualified it:

Red herring. Whether or not civilians are "involved" is not the issue. We are not at war with the Iraqi people as stated by the SoS, only Saddam & Company. Besides the Kurds and the Shiites are Iraqi people and they seem rather supportive of a war in Iraq...we are certainly not "waging war" on these Iraqi's are we?

Perharps you are waging war against them when you are planing to use them as spearhead forces while the glorius american marines watch how they get killed. And well, involved is not the right world. how it sounds you KILLED?

Actually, i think... :

There you have it folks...a NG user uncovered the conspiracy of a war in Iraq.

Anyway, you have not said why my arguments are wrong

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 05:06 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote:

Perharps you are waging war against them when you are planing to use them as spearhead forces :

We are?

Anyway, you have not said why my arguments are wrong :

It's all anecdotal evidence formulated by personal opinion. Feel free to believe it, but it cannot be proven for the simple fact that you are gauging a person's feelings, or associations business or otherwise and not actions that explicitly show that this war is for oil.

[Slizor]

Resolution 1411 states that Iraq has been and still remains in material breech.

Of the first resolution, not this one. :

UN Resolution 1441 was passed in November of 2002. This is the resolution concerning Iraq and its WoMD. The later resolution, UN Resolution 1454, deals only with stricter security concerning exports to Iraq.

I haven't said anything about resolution 1454! I was talking about the first resolution, in 1991. that is the one they are in breech of. They are not in breech of resolution 1441. Just to clarify this, I have quoted from this resolution and have been talking about it all along.

Iraq has done this, do oyu not remember? They handed over that big document. Unless you want to refute the document with unrevealed military intelligence(which is meant to exist) I suggest you shut up. :

*Sigh* This is the problem with you...you simply do not remember previous posts in your zealous attempts to prove me wrong. Apparently you never watch the news and pay attention to world leaders expressing concern over the fact that the "declaration" that Iraq presented was full of holes...it was old news.

It has not been proved that the declaration was in fact "full of holes". World Leaders may think it, and it may be true, but it HAS NOT been proved. It would be proved if the inspectors found WMD that are unaccounted for, which they haven't. Get that? Got that? Okay!

You do realise that your reasoning would mean that World War One was not a war between Britain and Germany(I'm not going to list all of the ountries) but between Lloyd-George, Kaiser Wilhelm and the armies of the two countries? :

The United States has specfically said we have nothing against the Iraqi people, only Saddam & Company. In your example, war was declared against an entire nation irregardless of civilians.

You're trying to make a difference which does not exist. War is never meant to kill civilians, the Gulf War of 1991 was not meant to kill civilians, yet it was still a war.
A definition of the word war

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

Notice the word states. Saddam and his cronies are Iraq's state.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 05:19 PM, Slizor wrote:

I was talking about the first resolution, in 1991. :

Awww, another red herring. We are talking about the current situation are we not...which is UN Resolution 1441, passed last November.

:They are not in breech of resolution 1441. Just to clarify this, I have quoted from this resolution and have been talking about it all along. :

I posted the link the CURRENT UN Resolution 1441 that deals with Iraq and its WoMD and what it needs to do. Concession accepted.

It would be proved if the inspectors found WMD that are unaccounted for, which they haven't. Get that? Got that? Okay! :

Your concession has been accepted already Slizor. Weapons are missing and as stated in the CURRENT UN Resolution 1441 it is still in material breech because of its ommissions. :

You do realise that your reasoning would mean that World War One was not a war between Britain and Germany(I'm not going to list all of the ountries) but between Lloyd-George, Kaiser Wilhelm and the armies of the two countries? :

You're trying to make a difference which does not exist. War is never meant to kill civilians, the Gulf War of 1991 was not meant to kill civilians, yet it was still a war. :

You ignore what the United States has said concerning the Iraqi people. Concession accepted again.

Notice the word states. Saddam and his cronies are Iraq's state. :

Thanks for showing me that civilians do not count. Concession accepted.

[DrNatchKilder]

At 2/3/03 05:14 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 2/3/03 05:06 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote:

Perharps you are waging war against them when you are planing to use them as spearhead forces :

We are?

Please, could you explain yourself?

Anyway, you have not said why my arguments are wrong :

It's all anecdotal evidence formulated by personal opinion. Feel free to believe it, but it cannot be proven for the simple fact that you are gauging a person's feelings, or associations business or otherwise and not actions that explicitly show that this war is for oil.

But there isn't anything that demonstrates that my hypothesis are wrong. It's a fact that the weapons industries suported Bush campaign and that he wants the oil for fixing his economy. So it's easy to think that he is constantly waging war for paying back their suport.

The 9/11 has provided him a perfect excuse for making a war on terrorism (using some friend's weapons to fight in it) which, let's face it, has very weak points of suport, as countering violence with more violence isn't a very clever solution.

[Slizor]

I was talking about the first resolution, in 1991. :

Awww, another red herring. We are talking about the current situation are we not...which is UN Resolution 1441, passed last November.

But they are not in reech of that! Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of the 1991 resolution. You brought up this subject!

They are not in breech of resolution 1441. Just to clarify this, I have quoted from this resolution and have been talking about it all along. :

I posted the link the CURRENT UN Resolution 1441 that deals with Iraq and its WoMD and what it needs to do.

And it has done all that is asked.

It would be proved if the inspectors found WMD that are unaccounted for, which they haven't. Get that? Got that? Okay! :

Weapons are missing and as stated in the CURRENT UN Resolution 1441 it is still in material breech because of its ommissions. :

Please, a quote would be nice saying this. Your link does not work.

You do realise that your reasoning would mean that World War One was not a war between Britain and Germany(I'm not going to list all of the ountries) but between Lloyd-George, Kaiser Wilhelm and the armies of the two countries? :

You're trying to make a difference which does not exist. War is never meant to kill civilians, the Gulf War of 1991 was not meant to kill civilians, yet it was still a war. :

You ignore what the United States has said concerning the Iraqi people.

Red Herring. A war can be a conflict between states, which means Saddam, thus it is a War on Iraq.

Notice the word states. Saddam and his cronies are Iraq's state. :

Thanks for showing me that civilians do not count. Concession accepted.

Please explain how this at all relates to anything you have said.

[Slizor]

Frankly Alakzam, you bore me. You constantly lie, change the subject and ignore valid points. Now I've argued with a lot of people on this board, but you are by far the most weasely debator so far. You give no evidence, your claims are unfounded and you seem unaware of this.

Freakapotimus, I suggest you moderate.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 05:35 PM, Slizor wrote:

Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of the 1991 resolution. :

UN Resolution 1441 is an affirmation of previous resolutions and has "senority" so-to-speak. It has been breeched. Concession accepted.

Red Herring. A war can be a conflict between states, which means Saddam, thus it is a War on Iraq. :

How cute, you are starting to use my own logical fallacies, although rather poorly. Saddam & Company [government & military] are PARTS of the Iraqi state. You ignore the civilian populous as part of the sovereignty that is Iraq. We are not waging war against the civilians...notably the Shiites and Kurds who support military action.

Concession accepted.

[Alakazam]

At 2/3/03 05:41 PM, Slizor wrote: Frankly Alakzam, you bore me. You constantly lie, change the subject and ignore valid points. Now I've argued with a lot of people on this board, but you are by far the most weasely debator so far. You give no evidence, your claims are unfounded and you seem unaware of this. :

Hey, if you would learn to argue logically besides getting all frustrated...it would be enjoyable. You ignore UN Resolution 1441, you nitpick over dictionary definitions, you build a Wall of Ignorance™, your stone deaf, and you suffer from Black Knight Syndrome™ as well.

[Freakapotimus]

At 2/3/03 05:41 PM, Slizor wrote: Freakapotimus, I suggest you moderate.

Until someone does something against one of the rules so far, I can't ban. While I think Alakazam does sometimes give the run-around, he's not doing anything truly ban-worthy.