1991-1998 is 7 years actually, and oh yes like I've said the inspections were beginning to bear fruit as Saddams long range missile and WMD plan was facing severe setbacks as they were too busy running and hiding evidence to do much work. Which is why the inspectors were removed.Originally posted by Ding:Hmmm... so seems that 12 long years is not long enough![]()
Sigh, yet another who doesn't read the original posts carefully before replying. Let me reiterate what I've posted before, in bold this time:Originally posted by Ding:I disagree. I think there'll be no end to this Saddam nonsense. He sense that the UN will not take action against him hence the delays and playing punk.
Real action is needed to stop him.
Originally posted by Viper52:No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
Sigh, yet another who doesn't read the original posts carefully before replying. Let me reiterate what I've posted before, in bold this time:
[b]
I am opposed to a war against Iraq WITHOUT international consensus and PROPER PROOF of Iraqs wrongdoings. I will happily support a war when the above are adhered to.
I don't doubt that Saddam will continue playing punk and defying the UN to develop WMD. And I agree fully that he must be stopped. BUT I do not agree with the US attempts to pass off dubious and ambiguous information of of Iraq's wrongdoings as proof to hoodwink, then bribe, threaten and force the world into going along with their agenda. And then going it alone to violate the UN Charter when its obvious that the world would not bend over for them. Geddit?[/b]
Originally posted by Viper52:How long? Definitely longer than 3 months. The previous UNSC resolutions and weapons inspections ran for years, and were finally bearing results before Saddam kicked them out in 1998. Answer me this: Do you seriously think the couple of months between resolution 1441/arrival of inspectors and the war is anywhere near enough to properly inspect Iraq?Yah like you said, the thing ran for years. . .
No, by allowing money to dictate their their policy of Iraq and admitting as much, France and Russia are showing CONSISTENCY. By talking about morals when your Iraq policy is all about money like the US, thats HYPOCRISY. Do you know the difference in meaning between the 2 words?Admitting? France and Russia admitted and openly declared their actual reason for opposing war? And the point is that France and Russia is accusing US when it is in effect doing the same thing, thinking about money, now is that hypocrisy?
Did you actually even read my reasons for opposing this war as it is now? The US went to war WITHOUT a consensus. What kind of precedent are they setting? And whos next? Now anyone with a stronger military can march into their neighbours land on some lame pretext for "regime change" because of the wonderful example set by the US. With this geopolitical implication in mind, whos the real threat to world peace and stability? In case you still don't get it, let me repeat again:
I am opposed to a war against Iraq WITHOUT international consensus and PROPER PROOF of Iraqs wrongdoings. I will happily support a war when the above are adhered to.Right. Its the US fault for not waiting till the rest of the world supports it. Hmmmm, isn;t the rest of the world at fault for NOT supporting the US in this case?
And don't try to lecture me on how Saddam has mistreated his people and caused regional instability. I saw the news when he gassed the Revolutionary Guards and Halabja, I saw the newsclips of him invading Kuwait and his men line up Kuwaitis to be shot by the beachfront in Kuwait City. What were you doing then?LOL, can't remember , but i think I was doing what any 3 year old would be doing. . .
You talk about responsibility, spending on public etc etc as a condition for allowing a country to build nukes? So I suppose the good citizens of North Korea are well-fed, rich middle class folk and the government surplus is too high hence the government spends money on nukes?Nope, the part about responsibility was why countries like US and UK got nukes, North Korea is explained in the part u attacked below. . .
So North Korea's spending on the military at the expense of its population is perfectly fine with you?
You say "Kim Jung Ill's possibility of rapidly building up a large military force is much lower than that of iraq's".
Really? And how pray tell did you arrive at the conclusion? Lets examine a few facts:
* North Korea's missiles are known to have a range of at least 800 miles, and it is already known that a newer version that can reach 1000. Saddams Al-Samoud(a locally modified SA-2 Guideline SAM) missiles have trouble reaching 200.
* Iraq has been under sanctions since 1991, making it difficult to smuggle weapons in. North Korea has no such problems giving it unfettered access to the market in WMD.
* Iraqs WMD program has been severely damaged in Desert Storm, and set back by a couple more limited military strikes since then, in addition to being subject to constant surveillance by U-2s and American satellites. N Korea's WMD program has been allowed to continued unmolested, save for the occasional satellite pass.North Korea also happens to not have started a war in 50 years, or maybe thats cos they never formally ended the Korean War, but anyway, they have not conducted any large scale military operation in 50 years. Though yes, they have counducted terrorists strikes against SKorea.
Who said North Korea has been allowed to continue as they wish? What was the US surveilliance plane that was almost shot down by the NKoreans doing there? US and other countries have also attempted to close NKorea's reactor by promising them oil shipments and help with nuclear reactors that do not produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
And Iraq's the bigger threat? Whatever it is that you've been smoking, stop before it does some REAL damage to your brain,LOLOLOLOL, Hey, i haven't said anything about YOUR brain, so you dun start saying anything personal, or else YOU gotta close down this thread as well because of a flame war YOU started!
Not exactly, Saddam knows UN will eventually do something to him. The point is that Saddam has ALWAYS been a risk taker. Look at how he came to power, his invasion of Iraq, kiling his son in laws, etc...Originally posted by Ding:I disagree. I think there'll be no end to this Saddam nonsense. He sense that the UN will not take action against him hence the delays and playing punk.
Real action is needed to stop him.
well..i can c another American Dog here barking again...oh u think its rite just to invade other country??Originally posted by Ding:No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
No point saying this and that but no real action and determination to back the regulations up. Hence IMO, Saddam is trying to play punk and delay time......
BTW, full international consensus will not happen so what will you do? Wait till the cow comes home
This world needs people who can make things happen![]()
Haha, sorry but you need to check your facts again. No post-Desert Storm UNSC resolution on Iraq's WMD authorises the use of force should Iraq not cooperate. US tried to get a "use of force" clause added to 1441 but was shouted down by most of the UNSC who insisted that such a clause must be voted on in a SEPARATE resolution, which the US tried to bribe, beg, threaten and browbeat the UNSC into voting on one using the rubbish it calls proof of Iraq's non-compliance. Unfortunately the UNSC refused to, and reduced the US into violating the UN Charter to carry out Dubya's agenda.Originally posted by Ding:No. US did not violate any UN regulations. The coalition forces just enforced the many regulations(1441 etc).
No point saying this and that but no real action and determination to back the regulations up. Hence IMO, Saddam is trying to play punk and delay time......
BTW, full international consensus will not happen so what will you do? Wait till the cow comes home
This world needs people who can make things happen![]()
So you are calling our ministers and that includes PM Goh "American Dog".Originally posted by NathanG5:well..i can c another American Dog here barking again...oh u think its rite just to invade other country??
yea..nothing wrong rite..cos its not ur own country...u like ur own country to be BOMB?
heh..some American wannabe..tsk tsk
If India does follow the US actions and launches a unilateral strike into Pakistan over Kashmir which degenerates into a full-blown nuclear war(a very real possibility), is that really a choice of lesser evil in geopolitical terms?Originally posted by Ding:It's a choice of the lesser evil
hohoho, so from now on whoever starts a war and just BLAME in on USA, it means that is the TRUTH? THen I might as well ask Singapore to start a war and BLAME it on Germany cos last time they attack their neighbours so we follow suit. Be more objecive lahOriginally posted by Viper52:If India does follow the US actions and launches a unilateral strike into Pakistan over Kashmir which degenerates into a full-blown nuclear war(a very real possibility), is that really a choice of lesser evil in geopolitical terms?
Ahhh...the typical neo-conservative hawk, when their stand is disagreed with by someone else, call the other side names. Such as Liberal do-gooder/Terrorist sympathiser/Osama lover/Saddam supporter/Al-Qaida fanatic/Bleeding heart. Anything I missed?Originally posted by gasband:NO matter what I had against USA last time, tis time they are right to invade Iraq. As for those who shouted so loudly that it is wrong to invade a country like Iraq, where were you all huh when Iraq invaded Kuwait? How come never see u all shout so loud to Saddam huh? tsk tsk, Iraqis wannabes.
Well, the Indians have said so themselves didn't they? Before you say anything about the writer of the story being anti-US, look at the source of the story at the end, "The Washsington Post"Originally posted by gasband:hohoho, so from now on whoever starts a war and just BLAME in on USA, it means that is the TRUTH? THen I might as well ask Singapore to start a war and BLAME it on Germany cos last time they attack their neighbours so we follow suit. Be more objecive lah
Originally posted by Viper52:anyway, i was calling NathanG5 the iraqi wannabe cos in a few posts earlier he called some pple American wannabe, it was not directed at you but if you consider yourself one, i cant really help it.
Ahhh...the typical neo-conservative hawk, when their stand is disagreed with by someone else, call the other side names. Such as Liberal do-gooder/Terrorist sympathiser/Osama lover/Saddam supporter/Al-Qaida fanatic/Bleeding heart. Anything I missed?
Seems CNN/FoxNews et al have been real successful at exporting this breed to where their trash masquerading as news have penetrated the market.
Despite what the pro-war lobby here and elsewhere have ranted and raved repeatedly, I've yet to see a credible argument as to why the US's unilateral action against Iraq is preferable to giving 1441 more time to establish Saddams guilt before going the UNSC for a resolution for action which would easily pass.
Let me reiterate one final time, [b]I'm neither pro-war or anti-war. I believe Saddam has to be gotten rid off, and am one hell of a glad he is(or on the way to be at least). But I still don't see the logic behind the US violation to the UN Charter to do so. [/b]
As i said, just because the Indians say its all USA fault lor, thats why I must attack Pakistan, just because they say so, u believe ah?Originally posted by Viper52:Well, the Indians have said so themselves didn't they? Before you say anything about the writer of the story being anti-US, look at the source of the story at the end, "The Washsington Post"
"Asserting the same right of pre-emptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir.
"