To Americans and the rest of the world...

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Dissident
agreed. In any case there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of muslims that would like to see every single Israeli and American dead. Not just the terrorists.

That is something those people will never see.

This cretinous and dehumanising "them and us" attutide between nations must end.

Before millions of people are wiped out.

[Dauphin]

It just isn't PC to say that most muslims hate americans. If they had the courage, they'd be terrorists as well. But they just don't have what it takes to do terrorist acts. So they silently root on from the sidelines. And yes it does take courage to be a terrorist. 9/11 is probably one of the bravest attacks I have seen since ww2. But also one of the stupidest.

In any case there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of muslims that would like to see every single Israeli and American dead. Not just the terrorists.

Do you truly believe that? There are over a billion Muslims in this world. How many of them hate the US as much as you think, enough to wish all Americans dead? Even if it was millions, or tens of millions, they still account for a tiny proportion of Muslims.

Your generalization worries me.

[Master Zen]

One thing is that they would like to see everyone in the US and Israel dead, another is actually working on making it happen.

[RGBVideo]

This cretinous and dehumanising "them and us" attutide between nations must end.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by South killer
I totally agree with comrade tribune.

Someone actually takes him seriously? The rest of the post was quite stupid, so that might explain it.

[badman]

I also think that most of the muslims all around the world dislike (not hate, but many of them also hate the US) the Americans, mainly because of the Palestinian problem.
They feel that America solely supports Israel and in order to fight terrorism that problem has to be solved. That is more important than getting rid of Saddam.

I mean, Saddam is a problem and he is a insane brutal dictator but that has been known ever since 1991.
The question is:

Why do you have to go to war now?

What has changed since 2000 (or even since 1991) in Iraq? There is no evidence at all that Saddam has any links to the Al Qaeda and there is no reason why we shouldn't let the inspectors do their work for another 6 months.
The inspectors _are_ destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - that Saddam would otherwise use against American soldiers in a possible second gulf war - and I think we should let them continue their work.

I won't object to a war if Saddam still has a serious nuclear/biological/chemical weapons program after that time but right now I'm totally against war.

Unfortunaly the American administration seems to have decided to start this war no matter what and there is noone who can stop the Americans from doing so.

[Drake Tungsten]

The inspectors _are_ destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction

The Iraqis haven't admitted to any WMDs, the inspectors haven't found any WMDs and the inspectors certainly haven't destroyed Iraq's WMDs. You're free to your opinion, but it would be better if you based it upon "facts" that aren't blantantly false...

[GePap]

The inspectors found delivery systems, which are as important as WMD. Besides, without Iraqi cooperation, the inspections regime destroyed in the 1990's Iraqs nuclear program and 90% of all their stockpiles. When the admin. talks about all Iraq hasn't accounted for, think that it is a fraction of what once was.

Plus, Iraq's WMD are nott he reason for this war anyway.

[curtsibling]

And what is the reason for the war then?

Oh yes, humanitarian concerns...?

Hmmm...

[Drake Tungsten]

So you think that the current inspections are working, even though they haven't found or destroyed a single Iraqi chemical or biological weapon? Are you French, GePap?

[GePap]

First Drake, your Francophobia is either a sign of immaturity or rising racism..give it a fvking rest.

Second: the inspoections are doing work..will they lead to 100% disarmament.no, will they lead to the end UNSCR 1441 asks for, probably not.

And I don't care. Iraq as of 1999-2002 was not a significant threat to the US, and the links to international (ie. Al Qaeda) terrorists is the most lakcing aprt of the "case" for war.

WMD are the issue to giev the ignorant masses, who will back any war they "think" will make them safer from terrorists. The real aim of this war is regime change, not disarmament (If Saddam disarmed tommorrow, Bush would still have to invade. he could not survive politically, nor blair, with saddam in power in Baghdad, even fully disarmed), so what the inspoectors do and don't do is of no concern to me, nor does it really affect the reasons for this war.

[curtsibling]

To kill the cobra you must strike off it's head.

The head of this cobra is Saddam, he is a loon that must go.

And Mr Drake, please don't give us the French whine.

[Drake Tungsten]

First Drake, your Francophobia is either a sign of immaturity or rising racism..give it a fvking rest.

Good old ad hominems...

Second: the inspoections are doing work..will they lead to 100% disarmament.no, will they lead to the end UNSCR 1441 asks for, probably not.

Exactly. The inspections don't work. I applaud you for admitting it.

[Jaguar]

Re: To Americans and the rest of the world...

Originally posted by PrinceBimz So why don't the terrorists target military facilities like the US attempts to do (and does fairly well) in last Gulf War?

The did go after the Pentagon, which plays a significant role in our military...

But if Al Quaeda attacks our military, our military can attack Al Quaeda. It doesn't really matter to me what they attack. They're still attacking us, as a people. They are attacking America.

However, we should not attack Afghanistan in general, or Iraq in general. Because it wasn't the people of those countries. It was the fundamentalist ****s.

Hence, we should attack the fundamentalist ****s.

Pretty simple logic to me.

[GePap]

Oh, poor drake.. someone points out that your endless jabs at french people are , besides no longer original at all, becoming offensive.

Also, on the seocnd part: as UR stated elsewhere: you classify something's effectiveness by the desired outcome. if what you want is 100% disarmemant of Iraq, no isnpections will, without Iraqi help, never work. If what you want is to destroy the majority of their WMD and keep them down, then inspections worked (ala inspectiosn destroyed Iraq's nuclear program and 90% of other WMD and delivery systems, manufacturing sites)

Since I don't give a damn about 100% disarmement cause I find the chicken little "the sky is falling" dumbass doomsday scenerios we are given by the chickenhawks laughable at best, then I say..towards the goal I care about, the y do work.