Powell's Evidence Enough??

skibum1080

skibum1080

Member
What do you guys think about his evidence he presented to the UN this morning? (Feb. 5th)

I think all of it was very convincing.

(we haven't had a political thread in a while, and a lot of stuff has happened since the last one)

-----------------------

peace--->chris

***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse
 
Colin powell's name makes me laugh

his last name sounds a bit like bowel.

hehehe

America, we love you as the child loves the father who sits slobbering in his corner eating flies and spiders.
 
i dont know, didnt watch it

ProudEST Member of the Hobum Posse

----------------------------------------

As a famous person once said 'I like to ski'

-Famous Person

I want to be a Ski Bum that lives in a tent on the mountains when I'm older.

'You fight with spork. You ride house cat'

-Very amusing calulator game called HicQuest
 
You're an idiot. It's NOT about oil. I've stated and posted evidence for my point several times.

-Andy

I am God... Please feel free to take a number, I'll be right with you.

 
i'm willing to concede that the impending war isn't completely about war; iraq certainly does pose a threat to world security.. this being said, one has to admit that the US is not going into this as a humanitarian state looking out for the good of the world.

 
When 10 european countries agree and state they will sign to back up the us and any action taken....kinda proves a point...

NS Media
 
Well Andy, you can't say that their intentions are purely humanitarian. I think it has a large part to do with oil.

And I think that any photographic, voice recorded or even video evidence is going to be doctored. Even if it's not they won't be able to convince the world that it's real. 'The Camera never lies' is no longer a viable phrase. Look how good Andy is with photoshop and imagery. If he can do that in his spare time then imagine what someone working for CIA or NSA can do as their job. Pretty scary stuff.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

%Jesus Is My Homeboy%
 
Tim, you are right in that it is possible, and that the US has the capability, and possibly the motive, however I REALLY REALLY think that the US wouldn't risk doctoring evidence at this point. It's WAY too dangerous a game to play. If anyone found out and it got to the public, than the US would lose what little support it had. The US Government is notorious for being as leaky as a cheap condom. Politicians really can't keep their mouths shut and basically most higher ups in all the goverment agencies are political in nature. I think that if anything was doctored, we'd find out about it real soon.

Just my take on Tim's statement, and it comes COMPLETELY impartially at this point, not taking either side.

-Andy

I am God... Please feel free to take a number, I'll be right with you.

 
just look at it this way, if Iraq produces any uranium or plutonium and it gets into the hand of of terroist and he gets into America of some country, a lot of people are gonna get fucked up if they have the means to make it into a bomb, which is probibly extremely hard but we have seen how far these scumbags will go.

 
I don't know. A lot of it doesn't seem to be very good to me, but I'm not a military expert. It's weird that the US has all this 'evidence' but yet hasn't shared it with the inspection teams until now. It's also weird that so much of the 'evidence' presented is listed on cnn.com as assertions. From dictionary.com:

Assertion: The act of asserting.

Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

Finally, I find it sad that Powell actually said 'I cannot tell you everything that we know,'. If the US has more, like SOLID CONCRETE evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, maybe we NEED to know, so that we can make a clear decision on whether or not to blow them up. 4 more things...Isn't it weird that the US is so willing to go to war with Iraq, a country who's defencive capabilities will be VERY well known, and reportedly almost non-existant, while they are unwilling to go invade North Korea, a country which we KNOW has nuclear weapons and might use them if necessary? Isn't it also weird that the US is still calling Pakistan a friend, even when they just recently obtained nuclear weapons? Finally, who's got the biggest arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons of mass distruction and who is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons? The US, that's who...

'i'm not too bright sometimes, when i turn my mind off school'

Nolan, after I reminded him of what a verb in the past tense was.
 
well, I think the US looks at it like cost and profit. With Iraq, the cost not be very high, they have a crappy military (much worse then desert storm) and by going to war, there may be economic and oil related profits to gain. With Korear however, it would be suicide, the war would cost a lot both in money and in lives and there would not be much to gain from us winning the war. And the thought of possible nuclear attack is most likey a great deterent.

 
Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan and North Korea, there are your seven countries that harbor terrorism. Do you see Pakistan on their anywhere? No but I see North Korea and Iraq. I don't think Pakistan even is signed on under the nuclear nonproliferation act. It's not hard to see why we aren't attacking Pakistan.

I think it's bullshit that you are saying we aren't attacking North Korea when we are attacking Iraq. How long has the Iraq thing been unfolding versus the North Korea situation. The North Korea situation is only a couple months old and there are other countries w/ interest such as China, Russia, and Japan. The North Korea incident will take even more coordination than the Iraq effort, hence it not happening right now. Everyone says we are too hasty to jump Iraq and then also use supporting evidence of us not jumping North Korea. That's so contradictory based on method.

 
I think the whole prospect of war is very scary. I'm not 100% sure about other countries (as we obtain our information from the media, and who knows if they are telling the truth) but our Prime Minister is being very gung-ho about going to war. A document got leaked to the media this week stating that John Howard had signed an agreement with George Bush about our troops not being returned from the Gulf even if war did not eventuate. This has caused public outcry, and apparently our Senate (state parliament) had a vote of no confidence in our nation's leader. I know that they must, but at this point it doesn't seem like leaders of all the countries (including mine) have thought about the imapact that it will have on our nations, as well as the ones they are prepared to attack. I was talking to my boss about this today, and she said that the people who it will really effect are the families of young men who will be called up to fight if conscription is used again- and she's right. It is a very scary thought.

I haven't seen much about the evidence, just snippets, and the fact that a lot of the media seem to think it is false. I'm not sure what I think about it at the moment, but I do wish that there was some other way to solve the conflict other than full-blown war.

- - - - - - - - - -

haha...I read ya like the dictionary baby

HAHAHA...I gotta write that one down:

Mr. Matt Harvey
 
Yo Andy.

Come to think of it, you're quite right. The US government is as 'leaky as a cheap condom' - haha, nice way of putting it. But still, I think the capabilities are still there. There is so much secret stuff going around and if it was maximum classified and not too many people knew about it then it could be done fairly easily I imagine. If say the President and a few others knew then it could avoid politicians quite easily. Or it could be done without the President even knowing himself.

But then I guess I'm at the point of view where I'm just assuming that they're gonna try and pull something like that anyway. Ah well, will be interesting to see what happens.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

%Jesus Is My Homeboy%
 
ya, i don't think that the US would risk doctoring any of the information. and even if they had, don't you think that they would have produced some more definite evidence than aerial surveillance of some factory being cleaned up and a couple of brief phone calls?

on another note, i think it's kinda silly for the bush administration to be attempting to link saddam and al-Qaeda, when there have been very strong reports from the CIA that say there is almost no possibility of a link. it seems as if they're taking blind stabs.

having said all of this, i still unfortunately feel as if war in this case is inevitable.

 
i think we NEED to go to war. no questions asked. saddam is a crazy bastard. if he has nuclear capabilities(which i believe he does), he will use them eventually. i mean c'mon, the guy killed his own son-i-law just because he didn't agree with him on something. as soon as we piss him off enough, and he figures he has nothing to lose, BAM! we won't even know what hit us. we need to stop him before it's too late.

and i am 95% sure those pictures aren't doctored. why would they be? as many others have said, we have too much to lose to doctor photos. and we KNOW saddam has nuclear weapons, it's just our media isn't telling us everything because they're liberals. i forget where it was, but my history teacher was telling me, in some newspaper there was an article that saddam's body gaurd fled iraq and told the media who the scientists were working on the weapons, where they were hidden, and all that good stuff. i think it was in england or somehwere, i forget, but he showed it to me on the internet.

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

Viva la Resistance!

'I could take that thing out with my paintball gun'

-my friend who wanks it to paintball guns talking about the military helicopter parked outside our school
 
The media isnt always liberal... ever watch Fox News? Now that shit is as conservative as you're gonna get... (even I can't stand it a lot of the times) I like that show thats on with the conservative and the liberal that debate all the current news items, I forgot the name of the show though...

-Andy

I am God... Please feel free to take a number, I'll be right with you.

 
Althought I personally agree that Saddam does have 'weapons of mass destruction' - Damn I'm getting sick of that phrase - I think that a diplomatic solution is still the answer. Look at the threats flying around if a US led assault is made. Most of them are probably not backed but I think it's very dangerous to mess with countries like North Korea, China and even Israel. We'll see what happens, but no, war is definatley not the only answer and it does not HAVE to happen.

And besides, when Powell released the 'proof', Germany said that it was exactly the same as the evidence that they and France had both gathered. And they're still pretty firmly against Bush at this stage.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

%Jesus Is My Homeboy%
 
a few things i've been hearing.

1) why don't they release all the top secret evedence? well, here's why. andy said that politicians are leaky like a cheap condom. so, if you release all your top secret information, then everyone knows how you got it, where it is, what kind of resolution you actually get out of those satalites.

2)why don't they attack north korea? north korea, as someone stated earlier, is brand new, comparitivly speaking. need planning time. the threat that we know that they will use their nukes on us is one reason to back down a bit. why risk entire cities being nuked in the u.s. when you can overturn a government in iraq? given, terrorist attacks will spring up after we invade iraq anyway, but not the devistation and size (hopefully) that a nuke produces. on the north korea front, it is troubling that they ousted inspectors if they are just 'peacefully' making power. and today's news that they will do a pre-emptive strike on the u.s. (who will be sending an aircraft carrier to the region soon) is no help either. they say that a pre-emtive strike is not only given to the u.s. so, tensions mount and without people logically thinking will make this escalate much more than it should. and one word. VIETNAM. ya. they don't want whatever was supposed to go down there but didn't happen again. they also say that the u.s. is a 'pussy' when it comes to war because it doesn't want to risk american lives. well, this plays into the hands of any naysayer out there, because when the u.s. gets attacked, then retaliates, people say they moved too fast and should give it time and political manuvers. if we don't attack and save american soldiers from getting killed, then the u.s. is seen as weak because they aren't willing to use force. my point being, that this is a double edged sword. whether we do or don't, somewhere, there are people that hate us. no matter what. that would love to see america lose itself and crumble.

and another thing, i think career politicians should be fired and we need to get back to what it means to elect someone for you. these career politicians make laws that affect their CAREERS, not the american people. if your in office for more than 8 years, you should go back to whatever it was that you were doing before and let more people in that care about THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY instead of what this or that will do to their careers.

late

Just Huck It.
 
Attacking North Korea would be both very very messy and very very stupid

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

%Jesus Is My Homeboy%
 
sorry aboot the spelling too. oi. that's another thing. stop worrying about whether you can still buy your 600 dollar toilet seats and start worrying why there are schools being closed and classes that will be approaching 40 kids to 50 kids a class. abraham lincoln said: America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.'

well, from the greed that i see out of the politicians that would rather see the programs that helped their careers along survuve instead of schools, we are slowly creating death for the country by not caring about the education of those that will run it in the next 50 years.

late

Just Huck It.
 
i agree with tim totally. attacking n.korea would create another vietnam, but multiply it by thousands. right now, there isn't a threat from north korea. yes, they have shut out inspectors, yes they have started up a nuclear generator, but give this a bit of time to see how discussions go, whether they will let inspectors back in once everyone has cooled down (which personally i think is highly doubtful), and whether or not nukes are actually being produced.

Just Huck It.
 
but one thing you need to understand about anything off the news is that news corporations aren't in the business of reporting news anymore. they are in it to make the news. when ratings drop, or they need a better story, make up a white lie, let millions of people get angry over it and bicker with each other, and blam, you have a news story. i don't think that the evidence is assertions. it's homework being done by the military. 'Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.' what kind of proof would you like about these photo's? military spy planes that they want to fly more over iraq are (according to sadam) going to be shot down. any attempt to look into whether he is moving sites around before inspectors arrive has to be done by satelite or spy plane, and any forces the u.s. puts into iraq to stop him from moving sites around will cause war anyways. plus, there are rumors going around (started by the u.s., so ya.) that there is a nark in the inspection teams that notify the iraqies that teams are coming to a certain site. but that is just a rumor. but it sounds like a plausable one to me.

Just Huck It.
 
yeah, that does seem possible. I think Iraq definatley is hiding stuff that they dont want the weapons inspectors to see.

 
The problem with releasing top secret information is that you reveal your source in the process....

Say we have a source in the Iraqi goverment, the US releases info on the bio/chem weapons, and such... Iraq can EASILY track down who leaked that info to the US.. andthat person would be shot as a spy. The CIA would rather keep its sources than watch them all killed.

-Andy

I am God... Please feel free to take a number, I'll be right with you.

 
Ok...you guys are saying things that aren't true. Everything i'm saying here has been run through and proven by the U.N. You can go to their websites and look at this stuff.

First off, the North Korea thing is NOT only a few months old, it's been going on for a LONG time. They have SAID they have nuclear weapons and have THREATENED other countries openly with them. now you tell me, who's more dangerous, North Korea or Iraq? Weapons inspectors are in Iraq, Iraq isn't threatening anyone at the moment.

Second, whoever it was that said Saddam Hussein is a crazy bastard was right. But you know what? Hussein was funded by the CIA all through his campaign even though he was assassinating people, and when he came into power he had the support of america until he attacked Kuwait, which disrupted the oil flow into america.

Andy...no offense but when you say it's not about oil you don't know what you're talking about. I don't care how small a percentage it is, compared to others its damn big. Iraq and its middle eastern counterparts(which it has had dominance over for many years) are the 2nd largest oil producers for america in the world. What? Not about oil?

'what if iraq gets weapons of mass destruction where does it go' i don't know, why didn't the United States think about that when they sold it to him??

Going to war and bombing the fuck out of iraq is not the solution, and it never has been. otherwise countries like Canada and Germany and more prominently the United Nations would have already given bush the go ahead. Think on that.

Also, this has been said, but in my recollection the only country in the history of the world that has ever used weapons of mass destruction was the united states of america.....twice. Think on that too.

This debate is a joke that's been going on for a long time.

Mayor of NS Isle

If you don't make it the first time, you need to go bigger
 
The claim that it's about oil is 70% bullshit in my mind, yes read the Andy thread. If it's about oil, why don't we go in and throw our influence around Turkmenistan eh?

North Korea isn't new as a liability, but their recent external actions are new compared to the Iraq situation... depending on how you wanna look at it is years old or several months.

 
Let's see, here's the choice facing the US Government: Protect a source in a government that won't exist for much longer, destroy Iraq for what might be very good reasons, but lose most of your credibility/respect throughout...OR...Expose your source, get the world's approval for an attack, kill everyone(including your source, but remember that's just 'collateral Damage' according to the military)and look like heros, instead of war mongers. OR, option #3: There is no real source, and the media is lying to us, which believe me is easily done. I can't claim to know what's going to happen, but whatever does happen is very scary, and we still haven't dealt with North Korea, which is a much bigger threat with a REAL AND KNOWN arsenal of nukes. And I still stand by these statements: The US has the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Pakistan recently developped nuclear weapons, as did India, but Pakistan is a US ally, so it's ok. Pakistan harbours terrorists, and one more: To REALLY step up the fight against nuclear weapons, reduce the US arsenal, get North Korea back in line diplomatically, and most importantly, help Russia with their disarmament plans, because their nukes are under super poor security and can easily be sold by under/not payed scientists, or simply stolen by whomever wants one. But I forgot...Iraq's 'maybe/maybe not' arsenal of weapons is more of a threat...

'i'm not too bright sometimes, when i turn my mind off school'

Nolan, after I reminded him of what a verb in the past tense was.
 
just to chime in, and answer a question, the tv show is hannity and combes... a great show indeed... alan combes is one likable liberal... this coming from a decidedly conservitive man... so if the name of the show hasnt already come back to you, there you are...

-all you need are drums to start a dance party-

 
Jib_this: This is what I'm talking about 'we still haven't dealt w/ North Korea.' I don't understand this call for hastiness at all. There is a lot of diplomacy going on in the early stages here w/ them and action is being taken. Like I said before there are a lot of nations with possibly even more interest in North Korea than us, China, Japan, Russia, and duh South Korea. People at like nothing is being done w/ North Korea, but it is. aye.

 
You're right. But the question is this: Who's the bigger threat, Iraq(with approx. 0 biological/nuclear weapons, and almost no army as I now understand it) or North Korea, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and the willingness to use them, not to mention statements like kicking out weapons inspectors and saying stuff like 'any UN sanctions will be regarded as an act of war and will be dealt with accordingly' or something to that effect. And yes, South Korea/China/Japan have much interest in the situation, but considering that North Korea was singled out by your president(that's not fair, you might not have voted for him...hell, not that many people did...) as being part of the 'axis of evil', and considering that there is no doubt that they possess nuclear weapons, might North Korea not be the more pressing problem? It should be if the main goal is to rid the world of weapons of mass distruction/terrorism. Of course if the main goal is something else, then perhaps another country makes a better target.

'i'm not too bright sometimes, when i turn my mind off school'

Nolan, after I reminded him of what a verb in the past tense was.
 
well out of the 30 UN nations more than half agree that Baghdad has violated UN dis-arm sanctions. so i'm pretty sure if its good enough for them its good enough for me..

________________________

Just JIB It !!
 
attacking north korean wouldn't create another vietnam. north korea won't fire a nuke. they would never survive the backlash from it because the country is so poor. what they will do however, is sell those nukes to anyone willing to pay a few million dollars for one, including terrorists. north korea itself do not pose a threat but their nukes do.

Hold my girlfriend while I kiss your skis!

Official Storm Trooper of the Silent Army

::VIVA LA RESISTANCE::
 
Pipe Munky brings up a good point, and Jib_this I definitely agree with you on the point that North Korea is a much more dangerous threat to the world as a whole. Who said something about Israel getting mad?? Israel would be retarded to go against the US w/ force or any other kind of backlash. Do you know how much money we give Israel every year? I don't remember the exact amount but my roomate reminds me everyday and it is pretty ridiculous.

 
two things:

1) I didn't read most of the posts, so sorry if I'm say some stuff over again.

2) It obvious that the U.S.A doesn't need UN support or permission to persue a war with Iraq, and certainly there is genuine evidence (don't even start with that doctered bullshit, this isn't a Tom Clancy book) which according to the U.S.'s ultimatum is sufficient evidence to declare war on Iraq. It seem however, that anti-war type aren't against war on Iraq because of a lack of evidence, although they may use that angle to strenghten their position, but rather the morality of the U.S.'s foriegn policy. People who belive that a war on Iraq is wrong do not believe so because of a lack of a 'good' reason to go to war, but rather the belief that to wage war is wrong. And you know what, this debate is irrelivant because it has gone on for thousands of years and has done very little but educate with some of the examples used in it.

I you want to talk about this just message me, because that type of conversation is detrimental to its cause in an uninterested person's ears.

----------------------------------------

A scholar's ink lasts longer than a martyrs blood - Irish proverb

So, what would jesus do for a Klondike Bar?

 
''Powell's Evidence Enough for what?'' would be my short reply.

----------------------------------------

A scholar's ink lasts longer than a martyrs blood - Irish proverb

So, what would jesus do for a Klondike Bar?

 
It seems to me that whenever Powell mentions 'Links to terrorist' or 'Ties with Al Queda' (er whatever) Americans get all patriotic and start equipping themselves for war. WHY? Do you guys remeber the invasion of Afghanistan? Well this retaliatory measure was undertaken with no solid evidence whatsoever. The Americans had 'Secret Proof' which 'Could not be revealed'. Im my opinion, this is bullshit. If I murder someone, can I justify it by telling the jury that I did it for 'Top Secret Reasons' which 'Cannot be disclosed'? If you ask me, Powell has all the evidence that he needs (which is NONE, unless he can prove it) because the American people have proven that they don't need any. The Americans are more like lemmings then free thinking citizens.

Weapons of mass destruction? Thats just a well contrived catch phrase (not to mention excuse) to launcha few missles and get re-eected for a 2nd term. Oil? Who cares. Evil dictator? Americans have put more in place than they have taken down.

Yup. Any way I look at it, I don't understand. Bush is clearly popular, why continue this farse? Perhaps, as some well spoken Prime Minister's aid put it:

'Moron.'

 
So Anson you're saying no proof exists that the ruling government, the Taliban, at the time of the attack on Afghanistan did not support or did not turn a blind eye to Al-Qaeda?

 
Just popin' in, don't mind me.

*places piece of paper on floor*

''Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.''

-Bertrand Russel

----------------------------------------

A scholar's ink lasts longer than a martyrs blood - Irish proverb

So, what would jesus do for a Klondike Bar?

 
What I'm saying is that the US did exactly as the terrorist organisers thought that they would. They lashed out in retaliation at the nearest convenient resource. With no actual proof to support Bush's claims, It's a wonder why some of the other nations joined in the fun. What I am saying is that by pointing the finger at Osama, and with some phoney 'Classified' information, the United States lead half the free world into an un-needed war. Thats what you call REAL power.

Also:

George just want's to kill the man who tried to kill his old man.

 
unh huh... so now what?

----------------------------------------

A scholar's ink lasts longer than a martyrs blood - Irish proverb

''One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.''

-Bertrand Russel

 
oi America, just ask for more money if you want it that much, greedy fucks! thats the government im not pointing blame at anyone on here so don't get all 'we hate you lagwagon'

or 'your sooo dumb'

or any of that bullshit, coz i know all about it!

Lagwagon. Is it legal to marry a band?
 
Oh, I love you lagwagon.

----------------------------------------

A scholar's ink lasts longer than a martyrs blood - Irish proverb

''One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.''

-Bertrand Russel

 
Lagwagon, do you ever post on subjects unrelated to politics? Do you ever post comments that are interesting to read? If not, you might want to consider finding another place to waste your time online.

'i'm not too bright sometimes, when i turn my mind off school'

Nolan, after I reminded him of what a verb in the past tense was.
 
To me the real question is this: Would you trust Saddam Hussein without sanctions of any kind to run his country? My answer is: hell no. That would scare the shit out of me, especially since they have openly stated that they were pursuing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs before the 1991 Gulf War.

So, if you accept my answer, then what's the solution? You either have to: a) Keep sanctions on that kill millions of Iraqis every year because of not enough food and not enough medicine or b) get him out of there. To me, b) is the best answer by far. I'd rather they just send him into exile or something, but he needs to leave. Yes, a war will have civilian casualties and that is obviously bad, however that number would be less than the number that die every year due to the sanctions I would bet.

About North Korea, no one has yet stated the real reason why the US doesn't want to attack them. Yes, on a cost/benefit basis North Korea isn't very appealing, but the main reason why they cannot fight North Korea is because of China. If you know the history of the Korean Peninsula, it is basically that after North Korea virtually took over South Korea and the allied forces (including the Canada and the US) helped push North Korea back, they actually took over all of North Korea as well, all of the way up to China. China didn't want a western presence that close to its borders and so it sent in troops and pushed the allies back to where the border is today. So, China didn't, and still doesn't want a western presence right against it, and so if the US took over North Korea they wouldn't be able to occupy it to ensure a favourable government was instated after the fact.

Finally, a couple other points:

i) The person who pointed out that the US has the largest stockpile of nukes, etc. was wrong, that's still Russia by far

ii) The US is the only country to use a nuke in a war, but that was to end World War II, and no one even really knew about the radioactive fallout. Are you honestly going to bitch about that?

iii) You can't reveal intelligence information without compromising the methods used to gather it. Powell's speach was supposedly the biggest public de-classification of information in the US' history, so give them some credit.

iv) North Korea would never turn into a Vietnam, because the US wouldn't fight a war with all of the political strings attached to the Vietnam war ever again. A Vietnam commander was quoted as saying after the Gulf War that if they had been given as much leeway to just bomb anything in sight as they were during Desert Storm that they could have taken over Vietnam in a week.

v) The oil argument. Sure, the US would like to have control of oil, but Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are totally in debt to the US and constantly trying to get on their good site. This is not to mention the fact that they are the biggest oil producers right now. So, I don't know if controlling Iraq for a few years would justify the billions that will have to be spent on this war.

Thanks!

 
im going to a meeting with the korean ambassador on tuesday so im expecting some answers on that subject. as for saddam, does it really matter if powell's evidence is enough? i mean the US is gonna go in no matter what so what's the point? without the US, the UN is nothing but a bunch of little crying bitches!!

Hold my girlfriend while I kiss your skis!

Official Storm Trooper of the Silent Army

::VIVA LA RESISTANCE::
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top