War With Iraq - When?

[JoeJoe440]

Hi,

How close do you all think we are to war with Iraq now?

I'm thinking that it could be in the next week or so, what about all you?

How many troops do the US and the UK have over there?

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[aerpix]

About 300,000, and war is imminent. I expect it to start on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest. That is the time needed by the UN to recall their weapons inspectors, and for other countries to recall their diplomatic personnel.

Regards,
Peter

[JoeJoe440]

:shock: 300,000! :shock:

To bad we have to go to war :nonono: but its the only way to get rid of saddam and get Iraq partly back to normal :nod:

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[aerpix]

You don't have to! It's Tony B who thinks war is inevitable, together with his playmate from Texas.

Regards,
Peter

[philip]

Hmm war can not be avoided anymore I am afraid...
I just cant understand the attitude of the USA and the UK...its such a egoistic decision to start a war. They forgot what the UN is there for and that they are not alone in this world! :nonono:
How many innocent people have to die for "Freedom" ... and guess what, this war will help to increase terrorism not to avoid it! oh well if oil is worth all that... :shakehea:

just my cup of tea!
Philip

[aerpix]

Agree 100 % Philip!

Regards,
Peter

[aerpix]

Further to the above, read this:


Monday, March 17, 2003

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com


Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

No offense aeropix, phillip, but i'm glad that you can't vote in our country!!! The MAJORITY of Americans support the war WITHOUT the UN approval. And it sounds like Bush will be reelected, so thats fine with me!!!

[indian airlines]

Hey, it seems you really like Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

On another note, war cannot be avoided, but i wish it could have been. I am totally anti-war. It is a pointless war (why can't we use profanity on this forum :D ), and there should never have been a problem in the first place. It is only when the Bush family comes into power that Iraq becomes a problem.

[dave4164_Z]

No offense aeropix, phillip, but i'm glad that you can't vote in our country!!! The MAJORITY of Americans support the war WITHOUT the UN approval. And it sounds like Bush will be reelected, so thats fine with me!!!


Don't forget, a majority of Americans polled still think Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, and a majority of Americans cannot even find Iraq on the map.

In addition, a majority of Americans voted for Bush's opponent.

[aerpix]

Don't forget, a majority of Americans polled still think Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, and a majority of Americans cannot even find Iraq on the map.

In addition, a majority of Americans voted for Bush's opponent.

You forgot that a majority of the Americans have no idea of the world beyond the US borders. Let me illustrate that: When visiting the UN in 1994, our guide asked where we are from. Later a guy from Minnesota approached me and asked "What's the name of the place you are from?". "Switzerland, Europe" was my reply. He, after a longer pause: "How far's that by car?".

That says it all, I have met many more of this kind in the US. I am GLAD I can not vote in the US, as if I lived there I would probably get infected by all this false patriotism, and I don't need that. I like to stay realistic.

Regards,
Peter

[indian airlines]

That says it all, I have met many more of this kind in the US. I am GLAD I can not vote in the US, as if I lived there I would probably get infected by all this false patriotism, and I don't need that. I like to stay realistic

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 100% True :nod: :nod: :nod:

[Aeronautics]

Hey, it seems you really like Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

On another note, war cannot be avoided, but i wish it could have been. I am totally anti-war. It is a pointless war (why can't we use profanity on this forum :D ), and there should never have been a problem in the first place. It is only when the Bush family comes into power that Iraq becomes a problem.

The real problems came with the dividing in the UN security councel. And that was because Donald Rumsfeld thought he could joke about Europe.

[Richard]

I know there are many hard-liners who are 100% in favor of going into Iraq. I really hafta let off some steam here, I watched Bush's speech at school today (it was about 8am-ish HK), I wanted to puke. I say NO to war. Heres why:

BTW, these are cold hard facts

1. Saddam has no WMD's. Inspectors have found NOTHING. When inspectors left in 1998 they in a report stated that Iraq had destroyed its WMD's and had NOTHING. Iraqi insiders, well aware of internal affairs in Iraq, fiercely anti-Saddam, whose info is widely respected by the US, say Iraq has NOTHING.

2. Has Saddam been harboring terrorists? Has he provided them with aid and training? NOPE. For crying out loud, BIN LADEN HATES SADDAM!!! Why on earth would he choose to then collaborate with him? Bush and others say that Hussein is aiding terrorists, but this hasn't been proven AT ALL!!!!

3. America backed Hussein. America turned a blind eye to his atrocities when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the north and the Iranians in the east. Let's not forget his extremely repressive rule which America, until 1991, turned a blind eye to. So, Bush wants to liberate the world from dictators as he said? Well, that's interesting seeing that America has supported and in some cases installed repressive regimes in Panama, Chile, Iran, Vietnam et al. Come on! Don't give us that we'll free the Iraqi people rubbish!!! America didn't care about their freedom when they were America's "friends", and now they do!!!? Right........ :shakehea: :shakehea: :shakehea:

4. There are those who believe that UN backing for war is superficial. Sure, America is strong enough to fight Hussein, but it's not the force that the UN provides, it's the moral support. So far, America has very little moral support from the world. Well, what does that tell you? Well, it tells you that war isn't such a good idea. DUH..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

5. OK, so we intend to overthrow Saddam. But how many innocents will be killed as a result? In the last Gulf War more than a million people died in the first year after the war. Why? the war created powercuts, lack of water, poor sanitation, and food shortages....And the US is going to do this again? Yeah, let's kill more innocent people so that we can oust a leader we don't like and subsequently benefit from this. YEAH, BRILLIANT. :roll:

6. Iraqis want to see Saddam gone, quite frankly, so do I. But they don't want to see America overstay their welcome. Heck, most Iraqis have a strong dislike towards America anyway. It is most likely that America WILL overstay their welcome. Heck, they'll probably install some pro-western puppet. Who's to say that the Iraqi's will accept this new government? What if they revolt and a fundamentalist government is born?

7. Why does America have the meager support it has in the first place? Trade incentives. Britain, well they are very close with the US to begin with. What about Spain, Portugal, Aussie, and other fmr. communist-cloc countries? Well, my friends it's trade. Let's not deny the fact that these countries will receive handsome trade benefits as a result of their support for the United States. Why is Turkey reaccesing whether to let US troops in? Trade benefits. Their economy is in tatters at the moment, they previously denied US use of Turkish bases. Why? They oppose War. But now they are changing their minds. Why? Not because they agree with Bush's policies, but because a war could potentially help their ailing economy.

Look, the present time to invade Iraq simply isn't legitimate. Saddam has yet to to mess up. Sure, he's messed up in the past. But might I add, any force used against Iraq between after the Gulf War, and what will be Gulf War II, was not because Iraq wasn't disarming, it was because they were breaching the no-fly zones (such as troops, anti-aircraft missiles, cannons, guns, planes flying into, etc...). Hey, even fmr. President Clinton opposes war. Now he was an intellectual, unlike the incumbent President.
Well, actually I heard there's an anti-war protest on in front of the US consulate this weekend, I think I might go along.... :D

I think I've explained my point sufficiently. Anyone who outright denies these facts and dismisses it in my opinion needs to crack open their heads and see if they still have a brain inside. Honestly, I don't care if someone comes along and attacks me for what I've said. I have three words: Bring it on.

I've heard the pro-war side. I feel that this post counters any pro-war rhetoric sufficiently.

Richard.

PS-"We are a peaceful people"-George W. Bush.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!

[aerpix]

Anyone who outright denies these facts and dismisses it in my opinion needs to crack open their heads and see if they still have a brain inside.

Thank you, Richard, there is not much else to say!

Regards,
Peter

[philip]

absolutley correct Peter! I once saw a CNN map with Switzerland placed where the Czech republic should be :lol:

My opinon about that war is standing above, I will not take part in any more discussions because I know most of the US people would not accept or even respect my point of view.

greetings
Philip

[JoeJoe440]

Hi,

Theres just a few things i realised while i was thinking about a war with iraq:

1.) America used a weapon of mass destruction on Japan in 1945, shortly after this America told all countries to sign a agreement to ban weapons of mass destructions why? - because it was the one weapon it could not protect itself againest, but why can America develop, create and test these weapons of unbelievable strength and then attack Iraq for having missiles that fly a bit further than they should?

2.) Why should America be able to tell countries how to arm themsleves?

I know there only to small points but am i correct?

By saying this i am not saying i hate America for going to war with Iraq because i dont.

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[herpa2003]

Well, Saddam had a chance to leave and end the war, he said no, so now the war willl begin because of him. Also, it is easy for you to sit back and oppose war when you are from Europs and Asia. You didn't have 3,000 of your own citizens killed by arab terrorists. You don't have to worry about future attacks from Iraq, Iran, and other countries with their WMD. (The UK is an exception) Iraq has WMDs, it has been proven, and if you don't like the war, tough! We have right to self defense, and we have the right to invade Iraq. Right now we have 30 countries that support the war with Iraq, and that isn't low at all!

[aerpix]

You are 100% right Joe, we are at the classic 'if two do the same it is not the same'-situation here.

I give nothing on any American accepting my point of view, I have my point of view and made it clear. Anyone free to accept it, or not.

I live in a country that has been neutral since the 16th century. We have marginally escaped from WWI and II due to our neutrality, and we do not see any reason here to start any kind of war against any other country.

Mr. Bush is bending international law to suit him, and I look forward to the next trial at Den Haag:, the UN vs. war criminals Bush & Blair. If this is not going to happen then Mr. Milosevic and Mrs. Plavsic have to be freed immediately.

Regards,
Peter

[JoeJoe440]

You didn't have 3,000 of your own citizens killed by arab terrorists.

Maybe we didnt have any where close to 3,000 people die, i dont even think the british deaths reached 100 but there were still british casualties.

Also i dont oppose a war with Iraq i'm with the US and UK 100%

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[aerpix]

Right, we did not have 3,000 citizens killed by Arab terroists, but the US did not have 3,000 citizens killed by Iraqi terrorists. That makes quite a difference!

30 countries that support war stand against the other 150 UN members that don't. Strange calculation!

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

ACtually if Bush did nothing then he would have to go to the HAag for allowing terrorists to strike again with WMD! BTW- My statement wasn't directed towards you JoeJoe440!!

[aerpix]

How many WMD were turned and used against the US, and by whom? And how many times was the US using them, against whom?

Think, Herpa2003, and learn your lesson of history.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

I once saw a CNN map with Switzerland placed where the Czech republic should be :lol:

greetings
Philip

I agree, there are some morons in our country but that is true of every country. DOn't hold it against us!!

[herpa2003]

How many WMD were turned and used against the US, and by whom? And how many times was the US using them, against whom?

Think, Herpa2003, and learn your lesson of history.

Regards,
Peter

They haven't been used against us yet, and I hope it stays that way. That is why we need to go into Iraq.

[aerpix]

If I am right the US nuclear strikes against Japan took a toll of well over 100,000, not so speak of all the disabled people that suffer until the present day. 100,000 vs 3,000?

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

Yes, sadly we did do that. But that was during a time of war, a war not of our choosing. We prevented many allied casualties by bombing, I am not trying to justify it, I think it was horrible, and no country should have to face WMDs again!

[aerpix]

Why do the US have them then ???

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

For our own security. If someone uses WMDs against us, we have somthing to fight back with. We have cut down on our WMDs also, but we have to have some or else we would not feel safe!

[aerpix]

Mr. Hussain would say exactly the same why he may have them, albeit there is no proof he really has? And now?

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

The difference is we are not threatening to give our weapons to terrorists to use against other democracies. Unless we are attacked by WMDS, we will probably NEVER use our WMDs again. We are not threatening to blow up, say, Paris, for example, just because we disagree with them, We also publicly make it clear that we have WMDs, we do not try to hide them like Iraq does.

[aerpix]

Still, all this does not give the US more rights to have WMDs than any other nation, and that includes Iraq.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

I agree, it would be great if NO nation had WMDs, but it is not practical for us to disarm in interest of our national security. We disarm and now Russia or some other nation is the superpower and we will not be safe anymore.

[aerpix]

This will not work. If you feel you need WMDs for your national security, then any other country has the right to say (and do) the same.

This is the typical American way of diplomacy, and we have all seen where this leads to.

Regards,
Peter

[JoeJoe440]

but it is not practical for us to disarm in interest of our national security.

Then isnt it Iraqs national security that we are taking off them by making them disarm?

Joe, 8)

[aerpix]

Furthermore, it is like Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

If Iraq was interested in their own security they would have disarmed peacefully to the UNs demands.

[aerpix]

But they can't, as long as their national security is in danger due to the USA having its WMDs. Furtheron, the UN would have to require the USA to disarm, too.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

Furthermore, it is like Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Regards,
Peter

Hmm that is a good comparison. But if a smaller animal looked like it was going to strike you, wouldn't you want to strike first to ensure your safety?

[aerpix]

Yes, maybe, but this smaller animal, let's call it Iraq, is not doing anything towards going to strike the larger animal, which we want to call the USA.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

But they can't, as long as their national security is in danger due to the USA having its WMDs. Furtheron, the UN would have to require the USA to disarm, too.

Regards,
Peter


The UN would not require us to disarm because we are not threatening innocent people with our WMDs. As for your first point, they would actually be safer if they disarmed. If you are worried about your safety and the choices are either war or disarm, and you are the underdog, I would disarm. BTW- Saddam still has a chance to resolve this peacefully!

[JoeJoe440]

Hmm that is a good comparison. But if a smaller animal looked like it was going to strike you, wouldn't you want to strike first to ensure your safety?

I dont know i've never been a animal before :lol: :lol:

Sorry i'm just trying to put a bit of humor in here :smilewin:

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[JoeJoe440]

The UN would not require us to disarm because we are not threatening innocent people with our WMDs

:skeptic: Neithers Iraq :skeptic:

Joe, 8)

[herpa2003]

lol humor is always good!

[aerpix]

Iraq is no immediate threat to the USA, what can not really be said of the USA to Iraq. So why should the USA take out the right to strike against Iraq. I would agree that those that are in immediate and direct danger have the right to stike, but that's certainly not the USA. The distance between the two is, at a good guess, some 7,000 miles, and no Iraqi weapon can fly that far. The B-2 can!

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

Iraq is a danger to the USA and our allies. First, theycould smuggle a WMD to our country or our allies, second, they could give their WMDs to a terrorist group. Third, they could hit Israel with their missles.

[herpa2003]

The UN would not require us to disarm because we are not threatening innocent people with our WMDs

:skeptic: Neithers Iraq :skeptic:

Joe, 8)


Actually they are, They are trying to hide their WMDs, they have already expressed their hatred for the us, and there are ties between Iraq and Al Qada.

[aerpix]

Yes, Iraq could do all that, but India could, too, Pakistan could, too, Switzerland could, too, France could, too. Anybody could, too.

We still seem to forget that there is no proof that Iraq has any WMDs.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

Aslo, as I have said before, we dont need war if Saddam and his govt will just step down!

[herpa2003]

Yes, Iraq could do all that, but India could, too, Pakistan could, too, Switzerland could, too, France could, too. Anybody could, too.

We still seem to forget that there is no proof that Iraq has any WMDs.

Regards,
Peter


But Switzerland won't, India won't, Pakistan won't, and Switzerland for sure wont! Our allies won't strike against us! That is why they are our allies! And we would never want to fight our own allies.

I thought that there WAS proof, Colin Powell convinced me!

Wouldn't this be better in the chatroom!!

[aerpix]

This was a multi-stage process:

1. The US requested Saddam to let UN weapons inspectors in his country, or he would face war.
2. Saddam did.
3. Then the US requested that Saddam proved that he had destroyed his WMDs, or he would face war.
4. Saddam did, the UN did not find any proof that there are still WMDs.
5. Then the US requested Saddam to destroy his Al-Samut weapons on grounds that they can fly 30 km than allowed, or would face war.
6. Saddam started doing this.
7. The the US requested Saddam to leave his country within 48 hours.
8. Saddam does not comply (understandably).

So what, there will always be a reason for the US to start a war. Just wanted to show the shizophrenia of what is going on right now.

I do hope that the world will finally awake and see reality.

Regards,
Peter

[herpa2003]

OK, last post for a few hours for me.

No proof that Saddam destroyed his weapons, we could debate about the proof for hours. Second, they destroyed their missles while they are still making more of the same!! THey have done nothing but lie to us.

[JoeJoe440]

This was a multi-stage process:

1. The US requested Saddam to let UN weapons inspectors in his country, or he would face war.
2. Saddam did.
3. Then the US requested that Saddam proved that he had destroyed his WMDs, or he would face war.
4. Saddam did, the UN did not find any proof that there are still WMDs.
5. Then the US requested Saddam to destroy his Al-Samut weapons on grounds that they can fly 30 km than allowed, or would face war.
6. Saddam started doing this.
7. The the US requested Saddam to leave his country within 48 hours.
8. Saddam does not comply (understandably).

So what, there will always be a reason for the US to start a war. Just wanted to show the shizophrenia of what is going on right now.

I do hope that the world will finally awake and see reality.

Regards,
Peter

There all good points i agree 100% with them

Thanks,

Joe, 8)

[philip]

good arguments Peter, I agree with them!

greetings
Philip

[JoeJoe440]

Read:

http://www.freeserve.com/news/national/story_news2.htm?linkfrom=Today&link=newsticker

I dont think its true but...

Joe, 8)

[herpa2003]

Good, no need to delay! Have to attack before the weather gets too hot!

[Richard]

Firstly, Iraq won't give weapons to terrorists. Primarily because A, Iraq has no such weapons and B, Terrorists hate Hussein. I said this in my post long ago.....

Terrorist attack from Iraq and Iran? Iraq, hated by Bin Laden. Iran, comdemmed 9-11 and sent their condolences to the US when the Columbia broke up. You think Iran is a threat? You are gravely wrong.

Iraq played no role in 9-11. None of the terrorists were from Iraq or Iran. Some however were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt etc....Friends of America nonetheless....

Paranoia towards terrorists is clouding up the heads of so many Americans, impeding common sense and judgement.

Herpa2003, you seem to insinuate that America is the only place where terrorists could strike. WRONG. Look at Bali. Look at Northern Ireland, look at India. Heck, even my school here in Hong Kong is a potential target. It is an American school.

The world understands the seriousness of terrorism. But the world also understands the true facts, not just the mindless propaganda.

[JeffM]

What a load of crap you guys spew. Well it does not matter anyway. Saddam just had an expiration date put on his birth certificate.

[JoeJoe440]

What a load of crap you guys spew. Well it does not matter anyway. Saddam just had an expiration date put on his birth certificate.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Joe, 8)

[aerpix]

What a load of crap you guys spew. Well it does not matter anyway. Saddam just had an expiration date put on his birth certificate.

Yeah, and you will probably be the one getting him! From your sofa in your living room. Spew.

Regards,
Peter

[JeffM]

Put it on the 5 o'clock news! I would love to watch it.