American Troops?

Snowball

Man pointed out that there has been no poll, so here we are

Dritz

scum, trying to start a war that is going to end up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and what about the families? friends? and people who will be affected by the deaths of all those to die in this war? THE ONE WE ARE HELPING TO START BY FUELLING THE ****ING PLAINS!!!! GET THE **** OFF MY ISLAND U PSYCHOTIC ASSHOLE!!!
He only wants to control oil fields, should we let him kill people over oil that is ****ing up our planet all the time anyway? All it is is one potential mad man attacking another!

PH01

What's the big deal - US troops have been passing through Shannon for years and nobody kicked up a fuss then?

Snowball

Originally posted by PH01
What's the big deal - US troops have been passing through Shannon for years and nobody kicked up a fuss then?

they were not starting a war with a contry that is not actualy attacking them or they do not need to defend them selves from.
Bush is starting a war over oil, nothing less. What happend to Osama? What happend to alkieda? Why do 1 in every 2 americans think that Sad am was responsable for the twin towers? oil

Borzoi

if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

Snowball

Originally posted by Borzoi
if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

So wtf r the 300,000 US troops doing surrounding Iraq? And under international law set down by the UN any war that is started by a country without good reason or in self defence is illegal. So is oil a good reason because self defence is not when USA could turn Iraq into a waste land in a day or less.

"But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat." If I had 5 ppl surounding you telling you (not asking you) to hand over a gun that u may or may not have, what way would you react? would you think that I was going to attack you? DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO?

Meh

Originally posted by Borzoi
But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

There's no prejudgement. It's simply a statement of one of the possible opinions on the situation. It would be different if the poll question asked "Should we allow US troops through Shannon to wage illegal war on Iraq?".

moodyblue

SNIPPED!

[It is rude to correct someones spelling like that. Either post an opinion on the discussion or don't bother posting in Politics again.

Next time you do this I will ban you. - Gandalf]

Thorbar

Woah you can spell moodyblue do you want a medal?

PH01

4fùcks sake, if you have nothing to add to a discussion except to correct spelling then do it somewhere else like a 'correct spelling forum'...

Anyway, what is wrong with fighting a war over oil? It's one of the essential products which the world needs. Hey, we all want cheap petrol!

Snowball

Originally posted by PH01
Anyway, what is wrong with fighting a war over oil? It's one of the essential products which the world needs. Hey, we all want cheap petrol!

lol, we need. ffs. we all want cheap petrol! omg. If the world is defined by the terms of cheap oil so we can all have an easier life ... well then **** the lot of you!
How many ecological disasters have there been caused y oil? And one of the main problems is that the oil companies have so much money that they can block technologies that do not use oil products. Electric cars for example.
A war started by a man who is really no worse than the man he is attacking over a substance that will in turn make his friends and family more rich? I see a problem there. Do u?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Borzoi
if you're going to host apoll, you cou;ld a least make the questions unbiased:


"...to wage an illegal war."


There is no war - are pople fighting? No. There may be a war, it may or may not take place with or without UN approval. But this sort of prejudgement gets my goat.

Do a proper poll.

Couldn't agree more. . . . . I do not think that American troops should be allowed to use ireland as a stepping stone for any military action, because Irelands constitution tells me that that would be illegal. The nature of that military action is irrelevant !

PH01

Originally posted by Snowball
lol, we need. ffs. we all want cheap petrol! omg. If the world is defined by the terms of cheap oil so we can all have an easier life ... well then **** the lot of you!
How many ecological disasters have there been caused y oil? And one of the main problems is that the oil companies have so much money that they can block technologies that do not use oil products. Electric cars for example.
A war started by a man who is really no worse than the man he is attacking over a substance that will in turn make his friends and family more rich? I see a problem there. Do u?

You said it - the world is defined by cheap oil. And oil supply. Lets be honest here. If the supply of oil is threatened then the world economy is also at risk. So many products are made from oil (see list below) and not just petrol and if the oil price increases so does the price of these products (and many more). This then has a hit on inflation. Then higher interest rates follow. Recession, job losses, less money for health care, ...blah, blah blah. You name it, everything gets ***ked if oil increases in price.
Iraq with WMD is a threat that can not be ignored - it threatens oil, it threatens us. So the US and the UK are doing us a big favour in quenching this threat.




Products Made From Oil

Clothing Ink
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Transparent tape
Antiseptics
Vacuum bottles
Deodorant
Pantyhose
Rubbing Alcohol
Carpets
Epoxy paint
Oil filters
Upholstery
Hearing Aids
Car sound insulation
Cassettes
Motorcycle helmets
Pillows
Shower doors
Shoes
Refrigerator linings
Electrical tape
Safety glass
Awnings
Salad bowl
Rubber cement
Nylon rope
Ice buckets
Fertilizers
Hair coloring
Toilet seats
Denture adhesive
Loudspeakers
Movie film
Fishing boots
Candles
Water pipes
Car enamel
Shower curtains
Credit cards
Aspirin
Golf balls
Detergents
Sunglasses
Glue
Fishing rods
Linoleum
Plastic wood
Soft contact lenses
Trash bags
Hand lotion
Shampoo
Shaving cream
Footballs
Paint brushes
Balloons
Fan belts
Umbrellas
Paint Rollers
Luggage
Antifreeze
Model cars
Floor wax
Sports car bodies
Tires
Dishwashing liquids
Unbreakable dishes
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Combs
Tents
Hair curlers
Lipstick
Ice cube trays
Electric blankets
Tennis rackets
Drinking cups
House paint
Rollerskates wheels
Guitar strings
Ammonia
Eyeglasses
Ice chests
Life jackets
TV cabinets
Car battery cases
Insect repellent
Refrigerants
Typewriter ribbons
Cold cream
Glycerin
Plywood adhesive
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial turf
Artificial Limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Mops
Beach Umbrellas
Ballpoint pens
Boats
Nail polish
Golf bags
Caulking
Tape recorders
Curtains
Vitamin capsules
Dashboards
Putty
Percolators
Skis
Insecticides
Fishing lures
Perfumes
Shoe polish
Petroleum jelly
Faucet washers
Food preservatives
Antihistamines
Cortisone
Dyes
LP records
Solvents
Roofing
CDs
Fiber Optics
Computers

Snowball

I perfectly understan that pertolium supplies most modern materials (hell if we had no plastic tomorrow I would be wasting my education in the computer industry) but my point is that its going to run out (hell oil was predicted to run out in the sevenies) and since the oil scare in the (was it the 70's or 80's????) the US has not exported or used any of their oil, they are stock pilling it.

P.S: Fibre Optics are made with glass, teflon and plastic coering on the outside. Snowball = Networking student

mike65

Originally posted by Snowball
the US has not exported or used any of their oil, they are stock pilling it.

Wrong! The US oil reserves are at a near historic low, thanks in large part to the ongoing Venezuela oil strike. That and all those SUVs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,875662,00.html

Mike.

rien_du_tout

I would have gone for the "they shouldnt be allowed use shannon on their way to an illegal war" so I went for the comprimise thing though I dont think there's much comprimising needed if the interpretation of the constitution is weighted in the non-war favour. I would wish to see no military transportation vehicles from any country allowed in ireland or over irish airspace weather the world felt that the war was just or not. Only a UN mandate would justify a war for me or landings/refuellings/soldiers having a fag on the side of a runway ,and even at that it's the better but not best solution, which I guess doesnt exist, being non participation in war. I know that's idealistic so the UN is the next best bet.

Iraq with WMD is a threat that can not be ignored

by PH1

Yes it is, I would like all WMD to be dismantle but it aint gonna happen unfortunately. Surely if WMD are found in Iraq the UN will provide a mandate for action of some kind. Hopefully not military action but most like so. Let the weapons inspectors do their work. Which last time round was hampered by the US using some of them as spies. I presume there were no repercussions for that showing of non-confidence. Hmmmmmm...... It didnt bring the downfall of the UN yet the powersharing institutions werent so lucky.

seán

seán

Barry Aldwell

The american troops can come and go as they like, weapons or no weapons

The troops are unarmed, and travelling on chartered airline flights. All their weapons, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, having been brought there last month on Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships from Diego Garcia and Italy last month.

Snowball

Originally posted by mike65
Wrong! The US oil reserves are at a near historic low, thanks in large part to the ongoing Venezuela oil strike. That and all those SUVs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,875662,00.html

Mike.

....raising fears that the government will be forced to tap its strategic reserves even before any full-blown

My point exactly, does anyone know how much is there in there "strategic reserves"???? Since the last scare they have been officially stockpiling in both the open reserves and the strategic reserves and also they have been quietly stockpiling.
I read somewhere (can't remember now but will look for it) that the US gov. imports aprox. 80% or more of their countries needs and that the countries oilfields produce just enough to keep the country going.

Snowball

Here are more people who don’t know what they are really talking about. Because they don’t inform them selves as much as they could.

Originally posted by Barry Aldwell
The troops are unarmed, and travelling on chartered airline flights.

DO you read the papers, watch the news or primetime or anything like that? DO you think that the people at The Shannon Peace camp would be protesting about weapons passing through Shannon if there was really none?
US troops (and all other troops around the world) travel with their weapons (like side arms [glocks] and their rifles [M16's]) on the plains in case that when they get to the "Theatre of operations" there is some kind of threat and they need them. It also saves the US military from having to deploy men and the arms separate, this way they deploy ready men in one go. Also there were an ex. US General and a British General both said the same that they have never seen or heard of ground troops travelling without their weapons.

Originally posted by Barry Aldwell
All their weapons, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, having been brought there last month on Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships from Diego Garcia and Italy last month.

Have you any idea the amount of equipment that 300,000 men need? There is no way that it is already there. Also the 300,000 men number will raise much higher, prob past the 500,000 mark.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Snowball
DO you read the papers, watch the news or primetime or anything like that? DO you think that the people at The Shannon Peace camp would be protesting about weapons passing through Shannon if there was really none?
US troops (and all other troops around the world) travel with their weapons (like side arms [glocks] and their rifles [M16's]) on the plains in case that when they get to the "Theatre of operations" there is some kind of threat and they need them. It also saves the US military from having to deploy men and the arms separate, this way they deploy ready men in one go. Also there were an ex. US General and a British General both said the same that they have never seen or heard of ground troops travelling without their weapons.

Yes, in fact I do read the papers and watch the news. Some troops might carry weapons, probably on C-130s carrying perishables (food, water, etc.), but most are on charter flights that are virtually indistingushable from civilian flights.

Originally posted by Snowball
Have you any idea the amount of equipment that 300,000 men need? There is no way that it is already there. Also the 300,000 men number will raise much higher, prob past the 500,000 mark.

They've been massing weapons for 12 years, plus what the Maritime Pre Positioning Ships brought in, and the C130s that are causing all the trouble in Shannon.

actually the only problem i have with american troops landing in shannon is how it affects our neutrality. (in my eyes). I wish we could just say we're neutral or not, and then stick to our guns one way or the other. If we're neutral, then we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries wars (even to the point of letting foreign troops to land in route to their final destination). If we're not going to be neutral lets at least announce it the world, and aid our allies in more than words.

Snowball

Originally posted by klaz
actually the only problem i have with american troops landing in shannon is how it affects our neutrality. (in my eyes). I wish we could just say we're neutral or not, and then stick to our guns one way or the other. If we're neutral, then we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries wars (even to the point of letting foreign troops to land in route to their final destination). If we're not going to be neutral lets at least announce it the world, and aid our allies in more than words.

well put klaz

Sand

Id prefer Ireland to be more open in its support for the US, but sadly that just doesnt seem to be an option - so the old nod and wink approach will have to do. On a related note the war planners may be counting on exams in the next few months decimating the "legions" of the protestors.

Snowball

Originally posted by Sand
Id prefer Ireland to be more open in its support for the US, but sadly that just doesnt seem to be an option - so the old nod and wink approach will have to do. On a related note the war planners may be counting on exams in the next few months decimating the "legions" of the protestors.

the nod and wink has always been our way.
Would not be suprised and I also think that bush is pushing so hard because he thinks that if the war starts the US public will get bihind it and his up comming election will be safe. I hope the **** not, we will be all in trouble if he is in charge of one of the bigest and scariest nations around.

I hope the **** not, we will be all in trouble if he is in charge of one of the bigest and scariest nations around.

I agree. Especially with america's perseption of themselves as the sheriff protecting western civilisation. This has been increasing over the last two decades, but with Bush at the steering wheel, things could get alot worse.

The Saint

I think we should put sanctions on the US for human rights violations, for posessing WMD's, training and funding terrorists, illegal use of force and not operating within international law.

I think we should put sanctions on the US for human rights violations, for posessing WMD's, training and funding terrorists, illegal use of force and not operating within international law.

then America would attack us, for restricting their right to do such things. Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation, so they have the right to do whatever they like.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation,

Was it Churchill who said that America was the only nation to go from ignorance to decadence without ever becoming civilised?

And here they are as the self-proclaimed bastion of civilisation.

Sometimes these things make me smile...but I'm sure someone will accuse me of being anti-American for saying that.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Was it Churchill?

Originally posted by Oscar Wilde:
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
then America would attack us, for restricting their right to do such things. Remember, per Bush's attitude they are the last bastion of western civilisation, so they have the right to do whatever they like.

What was it Gandhi said when asked what he thought about western civilisation - something to the effect that he thought it would be a good idea if it came about?

"What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea." Mohandas Gandhi

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/q141784.html

The funny thing is that America throws its roots off to quickly. They forget that they as a country aren't around that long. The fact is that they received most of their civilisation from people emmigrating from Europe. Shame their ancestors didn't put something in the constitution to the effect, "if you have nuclear weapons, one of the best equipped armies in the world, and a crazy guy for a president, don't dare attack a foreign country, without just & realistic cause".

But they didn't. Unfortuently.

Cork

It was great to see the 8 European countries coming out yesterday supporting the US. I think that it really isolates the Germans & French.

Of course, the world commuity has to get hard with Saddam. His people are living under a tyrant. He uses chemical weapons on them.

When are the Iraqi people to get democracy or human rights?

The vandalisim of the US plane in Shannon was a disgrace.

Bertie was not even asked to support the European Statement yesterday - Yet the Shannon "Peace" Group think that Geoge W Bush is worried about their protests?

Of course, the world commuity has to get hard with Saddam. His people are living under a tyrant. He uses chemical weapons on them.

As i've said before the use of chemical weapons is just an excuse. If he had starved them, or shot them there wouldn't be this reason to use against him. Lets face it, there's warlords in Africa who have killed off whole tribes, and theres no international community ramming troops down their throats.

When are the Iraqi people to get democracy or human rights?

When they want human rights for themselves they'll get them. I'm not a socialist, but i understand that nothing can stand in the way of the people. If the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone, he'd be dead. Its that simple. The Iraqi people live under a harsher culture than we do. All arabs live under that culture. Its kinda like saying, we want them to have democracy, so we're going to give it to them, without their consent. Democracy is born of the people, not by other countries choosing it for them.

It was great to see the 8 European countries coming out yesterday supporting the US. I think that it really isolates the Germans & French.

To be honest i find the opposite. It just shows how fragmented Europe is. Lets face it, America is operating on their own steam, and europe are falling in line simply because theyre afraid to be seen to oppose america. Germany & France are at least standing up for what they believe in (even if they have to consider their recent deal with Iraq for oil).

Originally posted by klaz
As i've said before the use of chemical weapons is just an excuse. If he had starved them, or shot them there wouldn't be this reason to use against him. Lets face it, there's warlords in Africa who have killed off whole tribes, and theres no international community ramming troops down their throats.

Hmmm, it is terrible, that, an incentive like, the presence of oil in the region, is needed before western countries take an active role in modern times in a countries or peoples fate.

Theres no sign of russia or China, bringing resolutions for war against, corrupt African war/lords/regimes either....
But they are signing oil contracts with Sadam:rolleyes:

China is no eejit and realises if the march towards pseudo capitalism is to continue, in their country, then they also have to secure oil for their country...
Oil now is at the root of Every large regimes lack of scruples, I'm afraid
mm

The Saint

As soon as we have wind power and hydrogen powered cars the better. As for the people who say that the Iraqis deserve democracy, who do you think props up every oppressive regime in the Middle East for their own convenience? Which country didnt overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War saying that they preferred an iron fisted oppressive regime in the name of stability. The only reason the US is going to war is because Germany, France, Russia, ect, have control of the oil in Iraq and America wants it. They said after they invade they are going to take control of the oil fields and "hold them in trust for the Iraqi people". As for gassing his own people and the Iranians? The US, UK, ect, knew completely what was going on and fully supported it and continued to sell arms and munitions to Saddam for years after. He was called the darling of the west.

Cork

As i've said before the use of chemical weapons is just an excuse. If he had starved them, or shot them there wouldn't be this reason to use against him. Lets face it, there's warlords in Africa who have killed off whole tribes, and theres no international community ramming troops down their throats.

There is no scale of brutality. What Saddam is doing his his people is unacceptable.

If the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone, he'd be dead. Its that simple.

The Iraqi people would be dead as Saddam is defended by his army.

Sure, did he not get 100% of the vote. I am sure they all love Saddam. They are living in fear of their lives.

Germany, France, Russia, ect, have control of the oil in Iraq

So - this this is the Germans motivation?

I think the US & the EU pay the same price for oil.

The whole oil thing is a complete RED herring.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
The funny thing is that America throws its roots off to quickly. They forget that they as a country aren't around that long. The fact is that they received most of their civilisation from people emmigrating from Europe.

Hmmm, the argument of State -v- the Individual. I'm slow to agree with you do you blame the current generation of say Germans for Hitler's attrocities? People are who they are, not some varient of their ancestors (it is another matter if the current generation directly benfits from past crimes, especially imperialism).

Originally posted by Cork
It was great to see the 8 European countries coming out yesterday supporting the US. I think that it really isolates the Germans & French.

No it doesn't. There are many countries around the world taking a similar stance. And aren't there about 40 countries in Europe, why didn't they all join in the chorus?

Originally posted by Cork
Of course, the world commuity has to get hard with Saddam. His people are living under a tyrant. He uses chemical weapons on them.

Of course the world community has to get hard with Saddam, but that does not mean war is currently justified. And isn't it a matter of him once having used chemical weapons against a rebellious town (not acceptable, but lets be clear what we a talking about).

Originally posted by Cork
When are the Iraqi people to get democracy or human rights?

Klaz has addressed this.

Originally posted by Cork
The vandalisim of the US plane in Shannon was a disgrace.

Is it vandalism? Isn't vandalism damage or destruction without cause? This damage was for a specific political purpose. Were the IRA vandals? Are demolition contractors vandals?

Originally posted by Cork
Bertie was not even asked to support the European Statement yesterday - Yet the Shannon "Peace" Group think that Geoge W Bush is worried about their protests?

How do you know he wasn't asked through diplomatic channels, why would the Americans only seek the support of some specific countries when they are looking for a broad coalition?

The Saint

"There is no scale of brutality. What Saddam is doing his his people is unacceptable."

What Saddam has been doing for 30 years is unacceptable especially when the US and others were supporting him for 20 of those years.

"So - this this is the Germans motivation?
I think the US & the EU pay the same price for oil."

Maybe, but you dont need an excuse not to go to war. The burden of proof is on the aggressor. Oil is priced in US dollars and whoever controls the oil controls the price.

The Iraqi people would be dead as Saddam is defended by his army

Again i disagree. Where does the army come from? but from the people. And i'm also saying that if the Iraqi people wanted to be free of him, he'd be dead. Its hard to operate a country if theres no-one there to work with him.

There is no scale of brutality. What Saddam is doing his his people is unacceptable

True. It is unacceptable. However using this as a reason for america's/britains plans to invade is unreasonable. If they were so set against brutality then there wouldn't be a dictator/warlord left in the world. Nor would america have taken prisoners from afghanistan and tortured them.

The burden of proof is on the aggressor

yes. i see. Well its obvious that America is the aggressor in this case.

do you blame the current generation of say Germans for Hitler's attrocities? People are who they are, not some varient of their ancestors (it is another matter if the current generation directly benfits from past crimes, especially imperialism).

to be honest i was talking about the civilisation that america is so proud of. But in regards to your qustion, i don't. The situation with Hitler & the German people was brought about by external circumstances, caused mainly by the restrictions placed by the allies after WW1.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
There is no scale of brutality. What Saddam is doing his his people is unacceptable.

Yes, but so is what is happening in many other countries, but nothing is being done about it.

Originally posted by Cork
The Iraqi people would be dead as Saddam is defended by his army.

Armies are often slow to kill their own people wholesale - see Romania c. 1989.

Originally posted by Cork
Sure, did he not get 100% of the vote. I am sure they all love Saddam. They are living in fear of their lives.

Yes they are, but that is from a combination of factors. Do you not think that ordinary Iraqis have any patriotic pride (not that I am big on patriotic pride, most patriots end up dead)? Do you not think it is largely for the Iraqis to decide what direction they go in?

Originally posted by Cork
So - this this is the Germans motivation?

Actually I understand it is mostly French, Russian and Chinese companies have contracts. Indeed I understand a few Irish companies have contracts.

Originally posted by Cork
I think the US & the EU pay the same price for oil.

No they don't, companies from the USA are banned from Iraq, so no profit can be repatriated from Iraq to the USA via oil companies.

Originally posted by Cork
The whole oil thing is a complete RED herring.

So what is it about, exactly? WMD that people can't find? Regime change? War crimes? Bad government?

Originally posted by The Saint
Oil is priced in US dollars and whoever controls the oil controls the price.

Actually quite a few countries (including Iraq) have their oil priced in Euros, as a snub to the American Dollar.

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
Is it vandalism? Isn't vandalism damage or destruction without cause? This damage was for a specific political purpose. Were the IRA vandals? Are demolition contractors vandals?

It was'nt vandalism, it was a politically inspired violence.

Mike.

anthonymcg

Whether this potential war is about oil or not is incidental. We don't know for sure that it is and we don't know for sure that it isn't. Simple as that.

I believe that Bertie should have the balls to stand up to the blatant flouting of our constitution by the US. RTE News reported that the amount of planes REPORTING they have munitions on board has more than doubled over the past month. What about the planes who DONT DECLARE they're carrying weapons. Is anybody checking this?

For the moment Shannon shouldn't be used as there is no UN mandate for it. Does anyone really think that Bush is gonna send the best part of a quarter of a million troops to the region just to bring them all back in a few weeks? Of course not, he'd lose face and Bush aint about to let that happen.

The US is determined to go ahead no matter what happens. The inspectors should be given more time to find what, if anything is there. The US should show us the so-called "evidence" that the CIA and NSA have, otherwise it'll struggle to gain support from the public. A war that is unjustified will only de-stabilise the whole region.

Cork

[

It was'nt vandalism, it was a politically inspired violence.

It was vandalisim & will cost the Irish government.

It will be less money that the Irish government will have to spend on schools & hospitals.

The inspectors should be given more time to find what, if anything is there.

The Iraqi dictator should let us know what weapons he has.

He should come clean and stop trying to out fox the UN.

The UN report was quiet damning on his co-operation and reports have stated that co-operation has not improved.

I am completely anti - war - but if Saddam has nuclear war heads - this would be a danger to the world.

I think heshould begin to co-operate fully with the UN.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The Iraqi dictator should let us know what weapons he has.

Sure, and lets assume that he did - lets take the farcical situation that he was completely honest in getting the report compiled.

Then lets assume that the west turn around and say "but you have more - stuff you didnt report".

Exactly how do you prove that you dont have something?

The US and UK have insisted that they know Saddam has WMDs, and rarely pass the opportunity up to mention this in any speech.

They talk about the incompleteness of the report, but never mention the fact that hundreds of kilo's of nuclear fuel is unaccountable (on paper) within their own nations, and this has never been seen as a problem. Yet Saddam's report is unacceptable because there are some contradictions in the thousands of pages? Convenient.

If we look at the background for these allegations, what do we see? Any evidence produced to back these claims to date is already-known information which was known to be out of date, or information that has been shown to be incorrect (i.e. they have not led the investigators to a smoking gun despite promising they would).

Now, most people dont even question the fact any more, but when they do we get a new line....acceptence now, proof later. The US and UK wants us to believe their word sight-unseen, and they will provide proof after we have accepted and acted on the allegation.

So maybe if you quit with the pointles rhetoric and instead showed that Saddam does indeed have these weapons....then maybe youd have a point.

As it is....you've still got nothing.

jc

mike65

Cork, when I said it was politically inspired violence, that was'nt approval from me! That woman should have her ass sued off by the government to the tune of $500,000.

Trouble is if they tried she'd end up "The Shannon One" and would have Trevor Seargent starting a hunger strike so she can win freedom from having to face the consequences of her own actions.

Mike.

Cork

So maybe if you quit with the pointles rhetoric and instead showed that Saddam does indeed have these weapons....then maybe youd have a point.

The UN is seaching Iraq for trace of Saddams stock pile of weapons. It would be great, if Saddam could be trusted. But a man who uses chemical weapons on his own people cannot.

President Bush said he would welcome a second U.N. resolution on Iraq if it served to reinforce the message that the international community is determined to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.

Dr Hans Blix has stated:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

However, Iraq appeared "not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it

Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors' request to deploy a U2 plane to carry out aerial imagery and surveillance.

Are we to ignore Hans Blix?

I think they are a lot of people who are opposed to geoge W Bush who never miss an opportunity to attack him. I am anti war. But I feel Saddam has got to own up to the arms he has.

A lot of stuff being written in our papers is so completely anti american. Why are not the same columnists writing about the sheer horror of Saddam?

I feel many "socialists" would be anti American no metter what. This may be a weakness in any ideology they may have. Hans Blix's comments on Saddam have been damning. Are we to ignore these comments and continue bush bashing?


Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix's comments on Iraq cannot be brushed under the carpet. Eight European countries have voiced support for the United States and are calling for the U.N. Security Council to "face up to its responsibilities" on Iraq.


What is the best Iraq could come up with: an invitation to U.N. inspectors to return for further talks.

It is about time that Saddam began to talk.

I know Saddam has his support but really Hans Blix has done a good job on exposing Saddam. Yet people continue to make attacks on the US.

IIf is no coincidence that Cork City & County has only 2 "Socialist" TDs - Before this we had none.

Cork

Originally posted by mike65
Cork, when I said it was politically inspired violence, that was'nt approval from me! That woman should have her ass sued off by the government to the tune of $500,000.
Mike.

Well the tribunerals are investigating much smaller amounts. I think due process needs to be taken.

Paying the US is crazy. $500,000 could be spent on our hospitals or schools. Now it is going to be a repair bill on a US aircraft.

If the government said tomorrow morning said they are purchasing a new jet - These very same people would be moaning about waste of public money.

Consistancy in a world gone mad.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Cork
President Bush said he would welcome a second U.N. resolution on Iraq if it served to reinforce the message that the international community is determined to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.

So he welcomes resolutions that support his own position? big surprise. But the big problem is that he will also go ahead without worldwide support. Because aside from the security council, the main council of the UN which represents all the world would never support his action. And the security council not passing a resolution specifically about the use of force against Iraq would be a pseudo-sign of distaste for the said war.

Are we to ignore Hans Blix?

No, yet u have picked the things that suit your arguement. Are we to ignore the fact that he wants more time to search and that the war not go ahead straight away.....not really a question is it.

I think they are a lot of people who are opposed to geoge W Bush who never miss an opportunity to attack him.

Isnt that our right and especially the right of the american people, yet he's brought patriotism into the mix and so its harder for a citizen to condemn him. Pretty handy position for an elected representative, who generally do get an attack whenever there's a chance by people who oppose him- it's called politics!

A lot of stuff being written in our papers is so completely anti american. Why are not the same columnists writing about the sheer horror of Saddam?

There's somebody threatening to kill 1000's of people, both innocent and uniformed. Who are u gonna right about, this aggressor or the past deads which the agressor is trying to use in justifying the present murder.

I feel many "socialists" would be anti American no metter what. This may be a weakness in any ideology they may have.

It is an ideological weakness to oppose a system which due to my ideology, I do oppose. Strange logic. I also oppose dictators and despotism, does that mean its a weakness of mine to oppose any regiems in the world using said method of governence?

I think the word socialist is being used in about as broad a meaning as anti-american. Socialism ranges from coservative to liberal and all in between. Its pretty much the advancement of democracy, IMO. Its power to the people by the poeple and isnt simply an election every 5 yrs and forget about everything for another 5 yrs. There are various models and obviously some are more to my liking. If all any1 can say is that it hasnt worked in any country b4 then I would challange that statement and also say that changes could be made for a different outcome. Please stop implying that all socialists are racists because that really is the true meaning of anti-american in my eyes.

Eight European countries have voiced support for the United States and are calling for the U.N. Security Council to "face up to its responsibilities" on Iraq.

8 Countries in a world of how many?? Hmmm....... and Oasis's song "little by little" is on...how apropriate.

What is the best Iraq could come up with: an invitation to U.N. inspectors to return for further talks.

It is about time that Saddam began to talk.

Hmmm, any1 else notice these contradictory sentences side by side in his post???? I dont think its time for extra talk personally because Saddams obligations are clear and he needs to co-operate with the UN, not the US.

seán

Cork

I dont think its time for extra talk personally because Saddams obligations are clear and he needs to co-operate with the UN, not the US.

I agree but Blix has stated:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

It is time for Saddam to stop the symantics & start cooperating with the UN.

Are the "Peace" troop protesting outside the Iraqi embassey?

No?

They are below in Shannon Airport.

This Anti American thing is pretty dreadful.

Turnip

I've no problem with the war, it'll be over quickly, but Ireland shouldn't make itself a target for terrorism in the meantime. If one loony left moron with a hatchet can breach Shannon's joke security, then what damage could a few intelligent organised and dedicated terrorists do?