Announcement

**SlowwHand** · February 5, 2003, 16:38

Read the terms of agreement I posted. You don't even have to search.
Just read what was SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

**Chris 62** · February 5, 2003, 16:39

Can always count on at least one completly delusional post.

Yes, Bush and Blair are in love.

Are you really that stupid, or do you work at it?

**Ned** · February 5, 2003, 17:15

Originally posted by Spiffor

If you are serious, I'd advise you to get a serious reality check.
Germany will not hurt Iraqi freedom fighters, for their stance is mainly due to the radical German pacifism (which fuels Shröders' position, as he doesn't want to lose the last bit of credibility he still has), and killing freedom fighters juts messes with this picture.
France made it clear the regime of Saddam has to be dismantled. The disagreement between France and US comes from the way to do it. Plus, Chirac being a great demaguogue would flaunt it if we protect any freedom fighters from Iraqi secret agents.

You seem to imagine that disagreeing with the US means the "Axis of Weasels" favor Saddam's regime, and will support/follow it against the will of the US. Again, you need to pause your wild speculations, and think a bit. I trust you'll laugh at the above quote after mere seconds of questioning it

The post was just a tad exaggerated. I was trying to make the point about some of the anti-American posts seeming to be just a bit much as well - everything we do, for example, is to get access to Iraqi oil.

**SlowwHand** · February 5, 2003, 17:19

Not exactly true, Ned.
In the last reports I read, the U.S. did take half of Iraq's export, but that amounts to only 9% of our useage.

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 17:49

what surprises me is the lack of ability to PROVE that iraq has WMD. powell showd some photos of a truck in front of a factory, he played a tape of some iraqis phoning (which were probably exiled iraqis who are on the payroll of the US regime).
the FBI and the CIA claim that there is no reason to believe saddam's baath party and al-kaïda have something in commong, but still bush and the hawks keep mentioning.

i'm against the war. but if they would at last bring REAL proof and not just accusations and big words, i'll change my mind about the war. and i'm sure china, russia and france will too...

but in the civilised world and our legal system, we say "in dubio pro reo": which means something like "in doubt for the accused". it's the job of the world to prove saddam guilty. but if they fail to do so (so far...), iraq is innocent.

i personally believe iraq has got weapons, but until this is proven, i have no right to state they do. neither do others

but some people have double measures and don't look at the facts, just at the propaganda...
what a shame for humanity if words of the mighty mean more than the truth

**Willem** · February 5, 2003, 17:54

Originally posted by Ned

The post was just a tad exaggerated. I was trying to make the point about some of the anti-American posts seeming to be just a bit much as well - everything we do, for example, is to get access to Iraqi oil.

Yeah right, you've been setting a good example haven't you? Something about consequences if we don't kiss the US's ass?

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 17:58

Originally posted by Ned
The post was just a tad exaggerated. I was trying to make the point about some of the anti-American posts seeming to be just a bit much as well - everything we do, for example, is to get access to Iraqi oil.

stop saying "anti-americanism"

no one in europe was against america under clinton - it's only since mister "my words are backed by nucular weapons" regime is in power, that we DOUBT (note: "to doubt" is not equals "to hate" or "to dislike") the present governements decisions.

i also strongly disagree with the italian governement and think (or know?) it's a bunch of corrupt guys. but i love italy and i love the italians...

btw: my girlfriend is us-american. i love her too.

**Agathon** · February 5, 2003, 18:01

Originally posted by Chris 62
Can always count on at least one completly delusional post.

Yes, Bush and Blair are in love.

Are you really that stupid, or do you work at it?

Dear Chris 62

There's always one completely humourless and lobotomized twit online at any one point in time. Right now it's you.

If you think I'm seriously suggesting that Bush and Blair are poofs rather than posting a rude and amusing fake photo for the delight of others, then you need your head examined.

I take it you are the sort of guy for whom emoticons were invented.

**DinoDoc** · February 5, 2003, 18:05

Originally posted by sabrewolf
what surprises me is the lack of ability to PROVE that iraq has WMD.

We already know they have WMD. Hell, even European governments like France know that Iraq has WMD. The question is if that justifies invasion.

but if they would at last bring REAL proof and not just accusations and big words, i'll change my mind about the war.

I find that doubtful given your post.

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 18:17

Originally posted by DinoDoc

We already know they have WMD. Hell, even European governments like France know that Iraq has WMD. The question is if that justifies invasion.

but if they would at last bring REAL proof and not just accusations and big words, i'll change my mind about the war.

I find that doubtful given your post.

it's not enough if you convince a politician in a head-to-head convesation. photos must be check for their authenticity and specialists must see if the rocket is really for transporting a nuke or if it's just a regular (and allowed) rocket.

until proven correct, those pictures and phone calls are about as authentic as that fake photo of tony and georgy.

you have my word on it. give us REAL proof (e.g. give the inspectors the exact and current location of the VX gas) and i'll open a new thread here and say sorry for my doubts.

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 18:20

but i expect you to do the same if after the inevitable war (even without proof there will be one) if it is discovered that baghdad did not have any WMD program as of september 2002 (when the resolution 1441 started)

**DinoDoc** · February 5, 2003, 18:27

sabrewolf: Iraq would help there case before the UN and the inspectors greatly by providing a verrifiable accounting of the weapons that remain unaccounted for according to Unscom reporting.

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 18:37

so saddam lied?

of course he did! he's a politician and he's a tyrant --> 2 reasons to be a liar

(p.s. sorry to those three or four honest politicians, you're excluded

)

**lord of the mark** · February 5, 2003, 18:39

Originally posted by sabrewolf

but in the civilised world and our legal system, we say "in dubio pro reo": which means something like "in doubt for the accused". it's the job of the world to prove saddam guilty. but if they fail to do so (so far...), iraq is innocent.

In our legal system we call it innocent until proven guilty. But then in our legal system it is possible to subpoena witnesses for example. Someone who threatened to kill a key witness would be prosecuted for that alone. Someone who maintained a totalitarian state on his "property' so that everyone there was afraid to testify against him would be prosecuted for that.

but we cant prosecute Saddam for running a totalitarian state. Iraq is soveriegn. And so the standards of proof must be different than in a domestic court of law.

**sabrewolf** · February 5, 2003, 18:44

so saddam lied?

of course he did! he's a politician and he's a tyrant --> 2 reasons to be a liar

(p.s. sorry to those three or four honest politicians, you're excluded

)

Announcement

The War in Iraq Thread (post here)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment