1  ...  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index

Feb 5, 2003, 7:56am

Yes UN should have more guts to help bring peace.

Give me one proof that Iraque is planning to attack USA.
I just find it so sad when a big part of the population is so brainwashed by
the goverment that they actually has started to call Irque the enemy. As I
see it the only hostile part so far has been USA, it is USA preparing for
war, treating and having a mediacircus (psychlogic war). So far I have not
seen any pictures of Iraquen troups standing at the board of Mexico waiting
for the right moment, not even any iraquen ships outside Florida...on the
other hand I have seen pictures of some other countries war mashine near the
borders of iraque *hint*

Drac
sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e40789d$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> That is why you should be criticizing the UN for not acting in those other
> countries! Everyone sat back and watched the Rwanda massacre.
>
> As for the Iraqi matter... The United States needs a peaceful way to
topple
> Saddam's regime. If they can't find one, then the alternative is to do it
> by force. If you have a peaceful way, then by all means, tell us! You
> can't sit on your hands, or your enemies will take advantage of that.
>
> Chris
>
[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 8:05am

bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e4052a3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote] Drac

Feb 5, 2003, 8:12am

I most honestly say, that I think this Bowen guy is even more arrgonat that
I am LOL.

I do not have much fait in the russian army either, but there is one thing
that makes them powerfull. The quantity. We tried to fight them ( Finland)
during WW II, and although one finnish solider would have killed 100
russians, there was still 1000 to come, however, Russia has quite advanced
technology these days .
I would not even want to know who would kicks whom ass in a fight, because
it would not matter. Both sides has enough weapons to take out all life on
earth. In the next WW there will be no winner.

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e40554d$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 8:16am

LOL it would not, but if some cowboy president of yours gets into his head
he needs something from Europe, he might declarte Europe an enemy (like
Iraque) and we need to be nuked in the name of peace. When that happens we
might need to go for our guns.

Drac
sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e4079b0$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Oh please. Why would a Russian-European alliance attack the United
States?
>
> Chris
>
[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 9:54am

Iraq is becoming a threat however because they did not get rid of their
nukes and biological weapons and the US plans to get rid of them before
anything can be done with them. The UN has even found proof that this is so,
and with all the stalling that Saddam is doing it's giving him time to hide
the weapons so that nothing will be found. Bush is not going in there to
start a war, he's planning to get Saddam out who has been a threat to the
world once before... Saddam said he will fight before he will leave, if he
wants to fight than the US will do everything in it's power to either get
him exiled or kill him. If you did not notice, this is turning out almost
exactly the same way as Hitler started his whole thing. Taking small pieces
of land and than saying he'll stop, and than taking more and saying he'll
stop, again and again while the rest of the world allowed him to do that he
kept taking more and more land and than it became a problem and many lives
were lost in the war that finally was waged against him. It's happening
again as the UN is deciding to try to ignore Saddam and his Weapons of Mass
Destruction, and Bush is trying to take a Pro-active stance so that WWII
will not happen again. If Bush gets rid of the problem (Saddam) he would
hopefully be saving one heck of a lot more lives than if the whole world
decided to wage war against Iraq and it's allies... (which could potentially
start a third world war) If the US goes in and takes out the guy who would
be causing the threat and leave than we don't have to worry about the WMDs
or Saddam ever coming back to power to cause more problems.

I do see it a problem however for the following reason:

Saddam probably will not use chemical weapons to get rid of his
"neighbors" at the moment because if he does, he knows death for him will be
in-excapable. If Bush DOES in fact go into war, Saddam might decide to take
as many of his "neighbors" down with him when he goes down.

I also disagree with Bush's three stupid excuses to go to war with Iraq...


-Sk8man1 (346035)

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 11:18am

> I do not have much fait in the russian army either, but there is one thing
> that makes them powerfull. The quantity. We tried to fight them ( Finland)
> during WW II, and although one finnish solider would have killed 100
> russians, there was still 1000 to come, however, Russia has quite advanced
> technology these days .

I hope you don't have platoons of 1 troop. This is the same excuse people use to
claim China is a super power. Just because you have mass numbers does not mean they
are trained to fight. I'm sure one US soldier with a rifle and a lot of ammo could
mow down a couple hundred thousand Chinese before they ever reached him. (China
doesn't have enough weapons for every soldier as far as I'm aware)

> I would not even want to know who would kicks whom ass in a fight, because
> it would not matter. Both sides has enough weapons to take out all life on
> earth. In the next WW there will be no winner.

The cockroaches. There are some humans that will have the right genes to survive
nuclear fallout/nuclear winter.

--Bowen--

Feb 5, 2003, 11:23am

> History shows that all imperiums fall at some point.
> So you Bowen seriuosly mean, since USA is big and powerfull, it gives it
> right to bomb a country if it feels like it ?
> So we should just stand quiet and watch while you "fix" things?
> Iraque is a quite powerfull country in middle-east also, so we should shut
> up and just watch if they decide to occupy Kuwait ( for example)?
> I guess it is very hard for a person to realize that ones "own" country
> could actually be wrong. If you Bowen was an iraque schoolboy and would read
> someone saying " Since when does the US have to answer to anyone for going
> to war? Last I checked it's our nation and we are the strongest one." ,
> this is combination that the person saying it would be in the country, which
> is lining up their warmachine at your border. Would you think: yes of course
> they have the right to come and nuke us, because they are the strongerst
> one, or would you maybe want the UN to find a peacefull way out ?

Please. I'll say this again, if you don't take risks, something worse could happen.
The UN doesn't do squat, they found empty shells that weren't declared in the weapons
report. Why would you not put empty shells on the weapon report? Well obviously you
could load warheads into there. It makes you wonder what he _did_ lie about. Gee
could maybe he have some other empty shells that, just happenstancely, a nuclear
warhead fell into it; or maybe a botulism toxin warhead?

--Bowen--

Feb 5, 2003, 5:20pm

yeah right, come on and get a grip on reality

"count dracula" <dracula at netsonic.fi> wrote in
news:3e40e470$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> LOL it would not, but if some cowboy president of yours gets into his
> head he needs something from Europe, he might declarte Europe an enemy
> (like Iraque) and we need to be nuked in the name of peace. When that
> happens we might need to go for our guns.

Feb 5, 2003, 5:49pm

Looky what just came up today:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?cp1=1

Feb 5, 2003, 5:57pm

[View Quote] Gee, no crap. Iraq lied? Who would've thought that... Like I said, they lied about
empty shells... why not lie about real weapons?

--Bowen--

Feb 6, 2003, 4:03pm

It is not the taking out Saddam I have a great problem with, just that it
should not be one country deciding about it. I do not either understand why
USA is/was holding back their so called proof. Powell said something that we
have more but we cannot give it. I think the right way would have been,
presenting proof, deciding in UN about a solution, and a last way war,, not
threat with war, presenting selected pieces of proof and then even saying if
you will not join us ( Europe) we will go alone.

I do not think people realize that taking out Saddam is not a short process,
well taking him out might be, but it will not stop there. This will probably
cause a terror wave by the fundalentamist, a possible "civil war" in Iraque,
when Shia-muslims and the kurds wants their voice heard. People has also
forgotten how will Iran react. One strike in the bees-nest can cause a lot
of unwanted action in middle-east. So I really hope there will be a
peacefull solution. I think the problem is that a strike will be a signal to
middle-east, now is western world again telling us what is good for us. It
should rather be made by supporting the "anti-saddam" ppl in the region.
Last time the shias was left on their own when they would have needed help
the most, some managed to escape to Iran but a lot was killed by Saddam.

Of course I guess one can look at this from this point also: Since USA was
the one who put Saddam in charge and give him the weapons, they have the
right to take him down also ( since he did not become the puppeteer they
wanted)

Drac
sk8man1 <someone at someone.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e40fb63 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Iraq is becoming a threat however because they did not get rid of
their
> nukes and biological weapons and the US plans to get rid of them before
> anything can be done with them. The UN has even found proof that this is
so,
> and with all the stalling that Saddam is doing it's giving him time to
hide
> the weapons so that nothing will be found. Bush is not going in there to
> start a war, he's planning to get Saddam out who has been a threat to the
> world once before... Saddam said he will fight before he will leave, if
he
> wants to fight than the US will do everything in it's power to either get
> him exiled or kill him. If you did not notice, this is turning out almost
> exactly the same way as Hitler started his whole thing. Taking small
pieces
> of land and than saying he'll stop, and than taking more and saying he'll
> stop, again and again while the rest of the world allowed him to do that
he
> kept taking more and more land and than it became a problem and many lives
> were lost in the war that finally was waged against him. It's happening
> again as the UN is deciding to try to ignore Saddam and his Weapons of
Mass
> Destruction, and Bush is trying to take a Pro-active stance so that WWII
> will not happen again. If Bush gets rid of the problem (Saddam) he would
> hopefully be saving one heck of a lot more lives than if the whole world
> decided to wage war against Iraq and it's allies... (which could
potentially
> start a third world war) If the US goes in and takes out the guy who
would
> be causing the threat and leave than we don't have to worry about the WMDs
> or Saddam ever coming back to power to cause more problems.
>
> I do see it a problem however for the following reason:
>
> Saddam probably will not use chemical weapons to get rid of his
> "neighbors" at the moment because if he does, he knows death for him will
be
> in-excapable. If Bush DOES in fact go into war, Saddam might decide to
take
> as many of his "neighbors" down with him when he goes down.
>
> I also disagree with Bush's three stupid excuses to go to war with Iraq...
>
>
> -Sk8man1 (346035)
>
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 4:07pm

Do we really know what China has hidden in their huge land?
I have a feeling you think a bit too much of US soliders ( not meaning to
disrespect any US solider), a hint : Vietnam .

Btw, do you know why Bush is in such a hurry to attack ? Because soon there
will be too hot for american soliders to fight

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e410f37$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
thing
Finland)
advanced
>
> I hope you don't have platoons of 1 troop. This is the same excuse people
use to
> claim China is a super power. Just because you have mass numbers does not
mean they
> are trained to fight. I'm sure one US soldier with a rifle and a lot of
ammo could
> mow down a couple hundred thousand Chinese before they ever reached him.
(China
> doesn't have enough weapons for every soldier as far as I'm aware)
>
because
on
>
> The cockroaches. There are some humans that will have the right genes to
survive
> nuclear fallout/nuclear winter.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>

Feb 6, 2003, 4:10pm

Reality changes fast, just think of WW II, one day we fought with the
germans the next day against them. German was an anemy to USA, now they are
a memeber of Nato. Countries from former Warzava pact are now memebers of
Nato. USA used to support Saddam when Iran was they empire of evil, how is
it now?

Drac
baron sweetman <petrossadeletethis at msn.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:Xns9319CEE7AFB9Fpetrossa at 64.94.241.201...
> yeah right, come on and get a grip on reality
>
> "count dracula" <dracula at netsonic.fi> wrote in
> news:3e40e470$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:
>

Feb 6, 2003, 4:13pm

I am not saying Iraque do not have these weapons, but what happened to
innocent until proven quilty?
EMPTY warheads do not sound so dangerous to me. About 10 years ago when USA
last bombed Iraque, a lot was destroyed, many war shelters become a mess, so
it is actually possible it is hard to make a list of everything .
If you was asked to make a list of all items you own, could it happen you
would miss some?

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e41104a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
shut
read
going
which
course
>
> Please. I'll say this again, if you don't take risks, something worse
could happen.
> The UN doesn't do squat, they found empty shells that weren't declared in
the weapons
> report. Why would you not put empty shells on the weapon report? Well
obviously you
> could load warheads into there. It makes you wonder what he _did_ lie
about. Gee
> could maybe he have some other empty shells that, just happenstancely, a
nuclear
> warhead fell into it; or maybe a botulism toxin warhead?
>
> --Bowen--
>
>

Feb 6, 2003, 4:21pm

9/11 is what is diffent now Count. We have seen what muslim
fundamentalists are capable of.

I do sincerely hope that after iraq then next country to be bombed is
north korea....

So we at least can try to prevent those fanatics acquiring weapons of
mass destruction.

I know we all have to die one day, but for me to die because some crazed
fanatic dumps antrax spores in my neighbourhood, or flavours milk tanks
with ricin?

no thanks


"count dracula" <dracula at netsonic.fi> wrote in
news:3e42a508 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Reality changes fast, just think of WW II, one day we fought with the
> germans the next day against them. German was an anemy to USA, now
> they are a memeber of Nato. Countries from former Warzava pact are now
> memebers of Nato. USA used to support Saddam when Iran was they empire
> of evil, how is it now?
>

Feb 6, 2003, 4:46pm

[View Quote] No. Anyone with half a brain would know how to inventory correctly. If the UN
weapons inspectors can find them, they're not hidden too hard not to notice.

The point is the LIED about EMPTY warheads. That strikes me as puzzling as why would
you lie about a weapon that can't do anything but make a pile of dust? Now, if they
would lie about _EMPTY_ ones, why oh why couldn't they lie about warheads that are
completely armed and ready to be used?

--Bowen--

Feb 6, 2003, 5:10pm

Give me one reason why you think Iraq's supposed plans to attack America is
the only reason the international forces are going to attack?

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 5:12pm

I'll bet you $50 you will see Iraqis dancing in the street after Baghdad is
liberated. I'm 100% serious.

You want to take that bet?

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 5:12pm

Maybe that excatly was the reason, it was empty and they thought it is not
important ?

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e42ad7d at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 5:35pm

Well, for one thing they had these things made to a greater specificity than
any others, or any the US ever had made and each one was made to greater and
greater specificity. In other words, they went to unnecessary pains making
them "perfect" if they were for "standard" warheads.
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 7:19pm

Lol no, in their hearts they are dancing already, they just dont want to
get bombed. As i was in Israel in the north, 16 km from the lebanese
border during the 1976 libanon crises, i can tell being bombed is really
scary...

I still remember vividly after hearing a whistling sound and a bang
seeing a human leg dangling from a tree.

Who wants to be bombed?

Which normal person wants to bomb someone?

But if it a question between the lesser of 2 evils pleas ebomb the shit
out of sadam before he gives antrax to terrosts groups. Or do you
believe his big blue eyes he doesnt have contact with them?



"sw chris" <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in
news:3e42b381$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> I'll bet you $50 you will see Iraqis dancing in the street after
> Baghdad is liberated. I'm 100% serious.
>
> You want to take that bet?
>

Feb 7, 2003, 2:04pm

As long as it is a supposed attacke, I see no reason. I cannot go and kill
my neighbour just because he has a gun and could harm me. UN was founded to
help keep the peace, and yes if there is proof Iraque is going, is in
progress of attacking ANY country , UN needs to take action. So far we have
the word of USA against the word of Iraque. I have not seen one missile
flying towards USA yet.

Drac
sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e42b321$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Give me one reason why you think Iraq's supposed plans to attack America
is
> the only reason the international forces are going to attack?
>
> Chris
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2003, 2:07pm

Yes Iraquan shias and kurds most ceratinly yes, the militray no. But sure,
if the majority is dancing I will send you 50 dollar LOL

Drac
sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e42b381$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'll bet you $50 you will see Iraqis dancing in the street after Baghdad
is
> liberated. I'm 100% serious.
>
> You want to take that bet?
>
> Chris
>
[View Quote]

1  ...  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index