Do you believe in Iraq or US?
-
In the current hot news about the possible war between the two country, who do you believe most?
Evil of axis or no weapon of mass destruction?
I find it hard to chose.
-
Hard to choose indeed. Both also don't want to lose face......something similar to our situation over here. -
JUST FIGHT IT OUT LAH...THE WORLD IS TOO PEACEFUL AND BORING LIAO.
-
When a NATIONAL LEADER can authorise the killing of his OWN citizens, by using chemical warfare on WHOLE TOWNSHIPS, for a simple reason that they do not belong to the same ethnic group as he is - can you trust this guy ?
Up till this day, the UN Weapons Inspectors still cannot get any SATISFACTORY ANSWERS from Saddam's officials, concerning the records and methods used in destroying the vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons that were discovered during the FIRST weapons inspections during 1991 to 1998.
Collin Powell is correct in that Inspection is not a DETECTING process to locate Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Inspection should be a process of VERIFICATION of Saddam's voluntary destruction of those WMD.
The onus is on Saddam to prove that he has no longer any WMD, and to prove how he has destroyed those stocks of WMD.
Tthe Iraqis are just sitting tight, to wait for each move that the UN Security Council make towards them, and react step-by-step in response to pacify those moves.
In so doing, they meet the declared concern of the UN Security Council, WITHOUT giving away more then necessary, so as to continue and preserve their Weapons of Mass Destruction project.
If Iraq or Saddam is prepared to disarm, they should follow South Africa's example, in a whole hearted co-operation with the IAEA, and VOLUNTARILY offer all documents and scientists for inspection, interviews and verification in the destruction of their Nuclear Weapon and research data.
Saddam is playing a game, and we live in a more dangerous world, as long as he continue with that game of deceit and open gambit.
Saddam is endangering the world with his surreptious WMD program, and also with his association with known terrorists who have no scruples to fight their cause in the midst of innocent people - as in Bali and WTC 9-11 in New York City.
Can you trust Saddam - a man who can wipe out entire townships of his own citizens with chemical gas ? -
i tink we are all gonna see the end times. but i dun trust both of them, usa only does things to its own benifit. but i trust bush more than saddam. so wat to do?
-
Well,it takes two hands to clap.......i dont trust on either side.....
Wat's the point of having war.
-
who win i trust who.
-
the US is telling North korea, iraq etc not to have Weapons of mass destruction, there the americans are already haveing 5000 ICBM ready to launch with another couple more thousand nuclear warheads in their arsenal.
its like saying ... "only I CAN HAVE. you can't !" -
when the war starts....u got a clearer picture then....
all these reasons are craps....welcome to the new world anyway.... -
i dun trust both. Bush fights, but got personal agenda also. Saddam is just a plain baddie. So i guess, i would support Bush more than Saddam.
-
who wins doesn't matter.......we r heading towards 1 govt policy anyway....
-
nt forgetting the tensionbetween india/pakistan, china/taiwan n famous israel/palestine.....
usa/iraq war may just trigger the ripple effect.... -
REVALATION
-
USA may have 5000 ICBM, however, she is a benign power, who has rescued the world from the brink of dictatorships in two World Wars; when she could have remained reclusive, and lock the world out of her life.
USA could have ignored World War 1 and 2, without getting involved, and she actually stayed out of both wars for the earlier parts of the wars - minding her own business.
On both occassions, when she was drawn into both wars, USA gave the best of her young generations to fight back the Axis Powers during WW 1 and WW 2.
After the wars, it was USA that had the financial muscle to help rebuild the defeated "Axis" Countries.
Germany, Italy and Japan were rehabilitated to what they are today, and without them having to answer to the USA, as each has its own Head of State and Parliament that are elected by their own citizens.
The only time it has used a Weapon of Mass Destruction was against Japan; and yet this was done as a consequence of the US experience in fighting the Japanese soldiers during the campaigns in the Pacific Islands.
The US soldiers discovered that the Japanese soldiers' ferocious loyalty to the Emperor did not allow them to surrender, but to fight to the bitter end.
In a short time, the Americans lost more of their young men in the Pacific Wars, then in their campains in North Africa and Europe..
USA had no choice but to save itself from losing more of her own young men in useless life bleeding battles over insignificant islands, and decided to drop the first Atom Bomb on Hiroshima.
The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, as the Japanese Government did not respond to the first Atom Bomb. (However, historical records revealed that the Japanese gave notice to the Russians that they were prepared to surrender. Unfortunately, the Russian kept the Japanese note a secret until the Russian campaign to seize the Kurile Islands were completed). -
u noticed? once this is established. another prophecy of the bible would hv occurred. and satan will rule earth for 7 years. 7 years of hardship and pain.Originally posted by duotiga83:who wins doesn't matter.......we r heading towards 1 govt policy anyway.... -
for the first time i agree with a devilOriginally posted by Juz_devil:Well,it takes two hands to clap.......i dont trust on either side.....
Wat's the point of having war. 
-
To refute Atobe's post, I offer but one question:
The USA might have been a benign power in the past, but is she behaving like a benign power today? -
I am not a Saddam-lover, the man is in my mind like Hitler, the worst incarnation of mankind. But look at the US attempts to justify war, other than the fact that Saddam is a madman who must be stopped, what have they offered? Nothing but feeble excuses, half-truths and worst of all, moral bleating. This coming from a country who has a record of forgoing morals to meet its self-interests in the past 60-odd years. What does it make them? IMO Hypocrites
-
The USA is definitely not going into Iraq to conquer it, but to get rid of a known despot who is hell bent on a WMD Program, hiding unaccounted and known stocks of missing WMD, and known to be associating and harboring the Al Qaeda elements - who are sworn to destroy USA and Israel.Originally posted by Viper52:To refute Atobe's post, I offer but one question:
The USA might have been a benign power in the past, but is she behaving like a benign power today?
The "by word" in Post-911 world is to "pre-empt the terrorists".
Had the Indonesian Government listened to the Malaysian and Singapore Governments, in making pre-emptive arrests of all the main J.I. Characters, the Bali incident would probably have been thwarted, delayed, or checked.
After 911, Bush is definetly not going to sit around for Saddam to hand over a WMD to Osama's silent and hidden operators.
Osama's faithful and obedient followers can easily ship one of this WMD in a 20 foot container, and activating the device with a long distance telephone call, while the container is sitting in the port of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, L.A., or anywhere in the world - even in our local PSA.
Osama and his affiliated Muslim Organisations worldwide, have no qualms about fighting for their cause anywhere on this globe.
In their percieved "battle against injustice towards the Palestine and the Muslim World", they believed that killing the innocents in the 911 and Bali attacks is acceptable
If the USA is prepared to take the lead to prevent such an incident from happening, it is simply doing what the Singapore Government is doing with the ISA on a local scale - in nipping the problem at its bud before matters take a turn for the worse. -
Originally posted by Viper52:
Sorry, but I certainly would beg to differ from your posted views concerning "half truths, feeble excuses, moral bleating".
I am not a Saddam-lover, the man is in my mind like Hitler, the worst incarnation of mankind. But look at the US attempts to justify war, other than the fact that Saddam is a madman who must be stopped, what have they offered? Nothing but feeble excuses, half-truths and worst of all, moral bleating. This coming from a country who has a record of forgoing morals to meet its self-interests in the past 60-odd years. What does it make them? IMO [b]Hypocrites[/b]
The WMD program pursued by Saddam was exposed and confirmed by his own Sons-in-Law, when both of them fled Iraq, only to be enticed back to Iraq for a short reunion with Saddam's daughters before being executed for betraying Saddam's secrets.
On Monday, in Manila, one of Saddam's primary engineer, who worked on the WMD program, confirmed the existence of such attempts by Saddam, in a pre-planned game of "Hide-and-YOU-Seek-if-YOU-can".
Reading the manner in which Saddam has responded to the UN Security Council, it is very obvious that he will hold out to the last minute, just to see what the Inspectors will report and what the UN Security Council will demand. Saddam will then TAILOR his response to pacify those concerns which is demanded by the Security Council, while he continue to have the latitude of time to hide his WMD for another day.
He plays his cards close to his chest, responding to the gambit by carefully watching what the other side intends to do, nullify it with adequate response, buy time to save his pet projects, and at the same time try to take the sting out of any aggressive actions from the USA by playing to the world's opinion and sympathy.
Quote:
"This coming from a country who has a record of forgoing morals to meet its self-interests in the past 60-odd years."
This is quite a sweeping and forceful statement, which I can only wonder what could have caused you to bear such a burden of opinion against the USA.
In the world of politics, are there any morals involve, even when viewed in our local Singapore political scene ?
Against the historical backdrop of the Cold War rivalry between US Capitalist and Russian Communist systems, both sides have resorted to unscrupulous means to gain footholds in the world's communities across all continents.
It is just our good fortune that the "immoral" and "unscrupulous" policies of US Capitalism won the day.
If the USA did not prevail against the odds stacked against them from World Opinions during the various periods of crisis, we would have been dominated by the Russian Communists model that swept almost half of Europe, and taking the biggest cut from Asia in China, North Korea, and Vietnam (the last two are still bogged down in Communist style economy, while China has embraced Capitalism).
Hypocrisy ?
It is a trademark and a common feature of politicians.
Let us not be naive in this competitive world.
Let us be street smart and know which side of the street to walk, just to avoid getting into any troubles. -
on another political forum i used to went to, the common reply would've been.
"kill them all, let god sort them out."
sometimes, i agree.
-
Actually there's little way about it, Saddam must go, if the Iraqi people want to fight for him, it's their loss, they're sealing their own fate. All this talk about what's right and how we must take absolute high moral ground and not be hyprocrates before we can launch any kind of war is poppycock. It's only nonsense that helps people like Saddam. These kind of pple will only understand force, that's how he holds his current position anyway.
-
Even if the US is stopped by the UN from attacking Iraq. This problem will still continue unless the conflict between two countries end by:
1) Iraq uses continental ballistics missiles attacking USA itself or by terrorists attacks.
2) US attacks Iraq.
I think I want US to attack Iraq ASAP cause if this "War or Not War" thing persists, the economies throughout the world will remain affected.
People die everyday. By natural or man-made. Yet man-made deaths can be considered a natural cause as human population is so big, that we see deaths of humans so often. This known as the "Human Civilisation Ecology System". Watch "Final Destination 2". You will know death is everywhere. But of course we should live well and live it to the fullest. You can try to stop the war etc. After all, its always a failure to please everyone.
Let US conquer Iraq. Iraq could have a better future like Japan after World War II. US wouldn't torture Iraq then, it knows the more you torture a nation, the hatre of the country will be there and will get back at their enemies. This is like Germany from WWI leading to WWII.
"Peace will reign after war and post-war period" -
Originally posted by Atobe:
WRONG the USA got into both wars for her own personal good.WW1 was because Britian bought equipement under the lend lease scheme.....if Britian had lost the USA would not have been paid.
[b]USA may have 5000 ICBM, however, she is a benign power, who has rescued the world from the brink of dictatorships in two World Wars; when she could have remained reclusive, and lock the world out of her life.
USA could have ignored World War 1 and 2, without getting involved, and she actually stayed out of both wars for the earlier parts of the wars - minding her own business.[/d]
For WW2 the USA was attacked by Japan so there was no reason for it to sit this 1 out.
This was done so that the Soviet could not gain control of those countries.It was merely part of the USA's overall strategy to keep control those countries under friendly goverments
After the wars, it was USA that had the financial muscle to help rebuild the defeated "Axis" Countries.
Germany, Italy and Japan were rehabilitated to what they are today, and without them having to answer to the USA, as each has its own Head of State and Parliament that are elected by their own citizens.
Wrong.....the USA lost more men in Europe and Africa and that over a shorter period too!However i do not dispute the dropping of the nukes on Japan
The only time it has used a Weapon of Mass Destruction was against Japan; and yet this was done as a consequence of the US experience in fighting the Japanese soldiers during the campaigns in the Pacific Islands.
The US soldiers discovered that the Japanese soldiers' ferocious loyalty to the Emperor did not allow them to surrender, but to fight to the bitter end.
In a short time, the Americans lost more of their young men in the Pacific Wars, then in their campains in North Africa and Europe..
well my friend this is quite true....however both bombs were dropped on CIVILIAN targets just like the firebombs of berlin and other german cities which was aimed at lowering civilian morale more then destroying the enemy
USA had no choice but to save itself from losing more of her own young men in useless life bleeding battles over insignificant islands, and decided to drop the first Atom Bomb on Hiroshima.
The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, as the Japanese Government did not respond to the first Atom Bomb. (However, historical records revealed that the Japanese gave notice to the Russians that they were prepared to surrender. Unfortunately, the Russian kept the Japanese note a secret until the Russian campaign to seize the Kurile Islands were completed). -
Oh and my stand on this Iraq matter is that Iraq should only be invaded when the UN give's it's go ahead.From what i read the Europeans have a good reason to think that attacking Iraq without 1 will cause more terrorist attacks