http://news.yahoo.com/...n=world&cat=iraq

Some of the articles on that page are scary :(

Is George Bush a bit dense?....you don't make the guy who owns weapons of mass destruction, angry.

Hmm we have an episode of ER on this week and the story line is a myterious small pox outbreak.....hmm not good timing really.

The same question could be asked of you. "Oh no don't make Saddam angry"..."Run-a-way!". You don't fail to act just because there is danger in doing so.

Saddam has already used 'weapons of mass destruction' against Iraqi citizens - the difference being that they couldn't defend themselves. While his officers should know that use of such weapons in combat against Allied forces would bring massive retaliation in kind, the risk that Saddam's regime brings to the region and to the world must be dealt with.

That risk is not something that will go away simply by burying our heads in the sand. Sanctions have proved to be ineffective and the UN is simply impotent.

Ideally, freedom loving Iraqis would solve the problem for themselves, but Saddam is a well studied student of Stalin and knows how to retain power with an ironclad boot (and well oiled pistol).

But opinions may vary

Some good reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/...tent/?020325fa_FACT1

http://chembio.janes.com/

http://www.fas.org/...uide/iraq/index.html

>>
The same question could be asked of you. "Oh no don't make Saddam angry"..."Run-a-way!". You don't fail to act just because there is danger in doing so.
<<

Hmm I don't believe I said to run away, I just said making Saddam angry is not the best solution.

Judging by your username you have a biased view anyway.

I don't know if you've ever seen the film "Tremors" with Kevin Bacon but you remind me of one of the guys in that film.....

Ooo I found a nice pic of him :)

Sanctions have not worked due to countries such as Turkey (a supposed allie) taking up billions of dollars in export business to Iraq. And now Turkey has warned the US that an invasion would be costly. I wonder which side of the bread they have buttered?

We're all biased, otherwise we wouldn't have opinions. Yes, I'm a college educated military veteran. Does that make me a caricature of some gun happy moron, no.

Nor do I assume that you're some young naive, bad reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain...although I wonder

Saddam's level of anger is irrelevant to the threat he poses. He's not going to pose less of a threat because he's happy.

>>
Does that make me a caricature of some gun happy moron
<<

Your replies do :)

Who is Neville Chamberlain?


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm

Ahhh, in there with Hitler etc.... you learn something everyday.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

The lame insult only solidifies the weakness of your argument.

I wonder if the US has plans to invade Poland



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

>>
The lame insult only solidifies the weakness of your argument.
<<

You mean like calling me "Neville Chamberlain" lol

It was more an observation than an insult.

Let's just say that both our tongues were planted firmly in cheek (our own cheeks not each others).

My point is that peace and security are admirable goals, but that dialogue will only be one sided in any conversation with the likes of Saddam Hussein. Saddam has only one goal - the security of his dictatorship at the expense of any who stand in his way and personal enrichment.

-Scott

>>I wonder if the US has plans to invade Poland<<

I'm only speaking as an Englishman watching from overseas and this is just my opinion....

It just seems complete irony to me. I started off by agreeing with what was going on but I'm changing my mind....

Essentially the Taliban and Al-Quaida are only defending what they believe in...that is how they've been brought up, that is their "faith" and what they believe in...most are brain washed and know no better....by bombing all over the place the US are acting in the same way....just because they are in the west and Afghanistan is in the east doesn't mean the west is right and the east is wrong. You didn't see Ireland bombed to smitherines as a result of the IRA's behaviour did you?

American just has a big hardon for itself.

.....is bombing Afghanistan any better than what happened on Sept 11th?....the US has a lot more power and have kicked the shit out of Afghanistan. Hijacking and more meagre forms of retaliation are the only options open to Al-Quaida due to the nature of the country and their resources...it seems awful to us in the west but flying over in fancy planes and dropping big bombs doesn't make it any more acceptable.

.....with all these bombing campaigns it just seems that the USA wants to gain more and more power, or at least wants the feeling of power which is part of the reason Osama has such hatred towards the US in the first place.

Paul,

3000 people losing thier lives is not a meager retaliation. It was a full frontal assult.



To put this in perspective Paul, the USS Arizona which was sunk in Pearl Harbor went down with 1100 men on board. The total losses from Pearl Harbor were equal to or less than the losses of 9/11. Pearl Harbor put us at war with Japan. 9/11 put us at war with terrorism.


edit: I should also add that the UK is VERY much a part of the Iraq issue and has and will continue to be a supporter of the ousting of Saddam.

A little trivia: Did you know that during the gikf war then president Bush was calling Saddam a nasty name everytime he said his name? Saddam (pronouncing it like the word SAD then um) is a derogatory term there. I laugh my rear off every time I see the old footage.

>>
3000 people losing thier lives is not a meager retaliation. It was a full frontal assult.
<<

Of course...the end result was tragic, but I was referring to the way in which they reached the end result...hijacking three planes with box cutters _is_ meager compared to a B52 dropping 1500lb bombs

and dropping an ounce of Anthrax in the ducts of a major 10,000 person mall or office building is any different?

Erm that is the point I'm making :) ....I'm saying they are both as bad as each other....the way in which the attacks are carried out may differ but the end result is the same...death.

War is death.

But war they have and war we will give them. Without remorse for our actions.

The BIG point you are missing is that WE were prevoked, they were not. Currently you do not live with terror as we have to here in the US. Your financial district was not a target of these terrorists. But your politicians understand something that you are overlooking. You are not immune and you are a world power which makes you another target of these extremists.

I hope that England would not have to suffer the losses that we have before you understand.


edit: Have you ever had to go get your mail wearing surgical gloves and a particulate mask? There were people here that did just that. Yes it was over the norm but the point is the terror that they live with was not there before 9/11.

Paul, please take the time to read up on biological weapons of mass destruction. It makes any bomb EVER dropped look like a water balloon.

>>
The BIG point you are missing is that WE were prevoked, they were not.
<<

So you think they had no motives for doing what they did (the only way they know how) ?

You see this is part of the reason for this whole thing...USA can't see it's own faults. I'm not siding one way or the other and I'm certainly not condoning the behaviour of either "side" but in order for this to be resolved the USA have to start accepting some responsibility.

>>
Currently you do not live with terror as we have to here in the US. Yur financial district was not a target of these terrorists.
<<

Hah, that is bull....granted we can sleep a little easier at night as Osama has most of his beef with the US but do you think London isn't a target with one of the largest airports and financial districts in the UK/world, nevermind the royal family, Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and huge (important) buildings like Canary Wharf?

>>
Without remorse for our actions.
<<

That says it all.

And Paul, I said that the UK was a potential target.



As well, the first call after being hit with a terror attack there will be to the Old Buddies (the US) to help. And we will as we always have.



Osama didn't start the fight on 9/11, his actions of blowing up our buildings and trying to take out the WTC prior were there way before 9/11. We lost men when he blew up one of our Naval vessels in port in the middle east. But we didn't strike back then. We lost people when he blew up our embassy but we didn't strike back then. We had thousands injured in the first attempt on the WTC and we didn't strike back then.



At what point do YOU think we should stop taking losses and stike back?

Before (some years before) September 11, 2001, bin Laden and al Qaeda did declare (Holy) war on the US when the US 'invaded' the Moslem world - especially Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. And their 911 attack does parallel the US (a-bomb) attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; an attack that melted tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. The 911 attack pales in comparison. However, I do not condone either attack and my heart-felt sympathies go out to the family and friends of all the victims. But al Qaeda is fighting a war in the similar spirit as the Americans or freedom fighters like the French Resistance during World War Two. You use whatever weapon at your disposal to disrupt and hopefully defeat the enemy. Especially against a formidable enemy as the US. Economical targets even at the expense of non-combants is a twentieth century tactic employed by most countries including the US.

But at least the US has recouped the loss of innocent US lives through their trigger happy and often inaccurate bombing of Afghanistan. Hundreds if not thousands of innocents (including some foreign troops, and UN representatives) blown to bits. That should give the US administration and military some comfort.

And I'm glad to see that Canada is witrhdrawing most of our combat troops from Afghanistan. It is not our war. It's not one we initiated, and not one that serves our national interests. Although not the reason we are withdrawing, it's good news to have our troops return. Hopefully other nations will (albeit unlikely - especially the Brits) follow suit.



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

>>
Hopefully other nations will (albeit unlikely - especially the Brits) follow suit
<<

I think the general feeling over here is that we don't want to get involved either. However Tony Blair has a soft spot for George Bush (maybe not so soft ;) )......as shown in George Michael's latest video.

I don't see why we should get involved, like you said, it's not Canada's war and it isn't England's war either.

Paul, you indeed are a trouble maker

So the only thing I will add here is that I think it is comon knowlege that the Antrax deaths and scares were not acts of external terrorosts, but rather it was an inside job. In other words, it was crazy americans doing that to ourselves....taking advantage of the chaos of 9/11. I am not sure if this is widely known, or some how I summized that it was crazy right wing religious zealots who were spreading the Anthrax around. Did anyone else read/hear/summize this as well?

>>
And we will as we always have.
<<

Hmm not quite true.

>>
Osama didn't start the fight on 9/11, his actions of blowing up our buildings and trying to take out the WTC prior were there way before 9/11. We lost men when he blew up one of our Naval vessels in port in the middle east. But we didn't strike back then. We lost people when he blew up our embassy but we didn't strike back then. We had thousands injured in the first attempt on the WTC and we didn't strike back then.
<<

Also not quite true...thats quite a clouded view of the situation. Not quite as one sided as you like to make out.

That wouldn't surprise me. It seems UK PMs (regardless of political party) typically side with the US. Not so different as here in Canada (especially under our once Grit PM Mulroney who was a puppet of Reagan). But from what I hear on the news, the British people are not so agreeable. Britian like Canada and many other countries (including the Arab nations - some like Jordan will not allow their soil or airspace be used in an US invasion of Iraq) are not in favour of attacking Iraq. The US has a uphill battle on their hands 'policing the world for all of us' - albeit in the end, just serving the interests of the US.



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

when the US 'invaded' the Moslem world - especially Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca

We have never invaded Saudi. We were invited!

Yes the US did hurt and kill people other than the enemy as has other countries pilots and infantrymen. And I as well as most Americans were sad to hear of the Canadians that died or were hurt.

War is Hell and the world is at war with terrorism. We have lost many men as well and they will not be talked about as much as the people lost from other countries.

I cannot argue the point on the A Bombs in Japan. They were brutal and something that nobody wants to happen again. Especially us!

We are far from the bully on the schoolyard though. We give more than any other country in dollars, resources and support. But that is always overlooked when convenient to do so by other countries. But when these other countries need monry, resources or support, guess who they ask first?

Hmm I really need to cut down my use of the word "quite"

Also not quite true...thats quite a clouded view of the situation. Not quite as one sided as you like to make out.

That is the current belief as they have not been able to show a tie to terrorists outside the US.

BUT, Iraq DOES have weapons grade anthrax and will use it.



Cutaneous (“skin”) anthrax can occur when bacteria enter a break in the skin.

Cutaneous anthrax, the most common naturally occurring types, comes from handling contaminated animal product - such as meat, wool, or hides.

Begins as a small bump, progresses to a larger blister in 1-2 days, followed by a black scab called an eschar.

About 5% to 20% of untreated cases can result in death, but death is rare if given antibiotic therapy.

Gastrointestinal (“stomach”) anthrax can occur when eating raw or undercooked contaminated meat.

Gastrointestinal anthrax is a very rare disease—no documented U.S. case in the 20th century.

Initial signs are nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, and fever — followed by severe abdominal pain, vomiting blood, and severe diarrhea.

Death results in 25% to 60% of cases.

Inhalational anthrax can occur when inhaling as few as 5000-6000 anthrax spores—perhaps in a single deep breath.

Initial symptoms may develop in 1-6 days, and resemble the common cold or flu: sore throat, mild fever, muscle aches, and tiredness.

Mild symptoms can progress very rapidly after a few days to severe breathing problems and shock—if left untreated, death rate exceeds 99%.

Even when treated aggressively in a state-of-art hospital center, once severe symptoms develop, 45% to 80% of patients could die.

Edit: I figured the info would be better than the pictures

http://www.cbc.ca/...07/19/bombing_020719

http://www.peacecouncil.net/AfghanResponse.htm

Not "quite" necessary. One of my high school English teachers taught you should use repitition of key terms to grind your point into your listeners' heads.

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

The US was not invited by Saudi Arabia per se. You were invited by a family in Saudi Arabia. The royal family that runs Saudi Arabia as a dictatorship, with an iron fist. The Muslim people of Saudi Arabia did not invite you. But it was 'accepted' by some in the short term for the purposes of the 1990 Gulf War. But when it became a permanent occupation of holy Moslem soil, the tide quickly changed. And al Qeada warned the US that they would act. Muslims including Saudis appear to be united in large numbers to rid Saudi Arabia of the US occupation.

Friendly fire incidents involving US troops actually was well documented by the majour Canadian news media outlets. But then news reporting in Canada tends to be less biased, and more balanced.

In total money contributed yes (no surprise given the US GDP). Per capita, it is questionable. Canada usually donates and lends more based on per capita. And sometimes, more in absolute terms as the US often closes its wallet when certain causes (e.g., UN family planning programs) upsets its sense of morality, or is counter to US interests. And when you factor in all other contributions from other nations, the US is still a minority player. But I do not spit in the face of US contributions. They are pivotal and greatly appreciated by the countries that depend on them. But throwing money around does not give the US carte blanc to do as it pleases. And there are consequences.

Further, the US has made no friends or allies in Canada and other countries that the US has declared economical war against. I have to wonder when the US will invade and occupy Canada when our abundant resources (water, energy, etc.) become too valuable to the US.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Afganistani people were under the control of the Taliban. The Taliban was under the control of Osama.

The comment made in that article about Osama - Hitler and Afgans - Jews is way off. If Osama is Hitler then the Afgans would be the Germans not one specific sector of the German population. Duh!

So as the Germans were held responible for the actions of Hitler, the Afgans are NOT being held responsible.

The bottom line is that War is Hell and all war is bad. But at what point do you stop turning the other cheek? Iraq will NOT give us OR YOU a warning. They will just launch there missles full of weapons grade anthrax and create the largest amount of deaths ever in world history.

Note of the George Micheal video: We laugh at it because we consider the source! And oh, he GM can thank us for virtually every dime he has as he was VERY big here and NOT elsewhere. But we lost interest in him when he started his slide. So now, to get exposure GN once again has to go to the SHOCK video to get attention even in his own country.

So what was it Dan, an invasion or an invitation? Geeeze!

Yep, the tragedy continues. They died for no good damn reason, and their killers will unlikely pay the consequences. Not the consequences they deserve anyways.



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Further, the US has made no friends or allies in Canada and other countries that the US has declared economical war against. I have to wonder when the US will invade and occupy Canada when our abundant resources (water, energy, etc.) become too valuable to the US.



Now THAT is the silliest statement I have heard in this whole thread. LOL

Good one Dan!

It was an 'invitation' of sorts (after some US arm twisting) by a non-democratically elected head of state in a dictatorship where the people have no say and do not support US (infidel) imperialism on their soil - at least not part of a protracted and even permanent occupation of Saudi Arabia. From what I hear, the US does not support dictatorships, but they will exploit them to serve US interests. And it's this behavior that gets the US in the constant trouble it finds itself in, and contributes to global destablization.



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

So the US is the cause of global destablization then?

OMG....LMAO

Whew...I was told that pot made up for a large chunck of the Canadian GNP but I really had no idea!

I am just kidding Dan...I respect your views and really like a good debate. Thanks for the debate!

In what regard is it silly. Canadians (and Europeans as well) are becoming increasingly more resentful of Americans. And would not the US invade Canada if the conditions were right, and such actions were required in the best interests of the US? What if Canada dammed a number of major waterways that drain into the US, thereby reducing supplies of fresh water to the US? For example, as part of the escalating trade war between Canada and the US, or a desire to save the resources for ourselves (our prarrie provinces have been in a drought for some years now). And perhaps greatly restrict or block energy imports to the US. Currently, 49 US states are experiencing drier than normal conditions, and 39% of the US is under drought. And this will only worsen under global warming (now recognized by the Bush administration). And the US is having some measure of difficulty of meeting its energy demands. Not in Canada. Not saying by any means that it is enevitable or likely. But the scenario is possible and plausible. Albeit almost two hundred years ago, you did invade Canada and did draft a policy for the invasion and seizing of British North America (like taking California away from the Spanish). Doubt it will happen, but it's always a possibility down the road.



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Hey it was fun. We agree to disagree. And last I heard pot was only 60% of our GDP. The other 40% is racked to ding dongs, hogies, twinkies and zig zags. Mind you, the Federal guy who compiles and collects the economical stats is as high as a kite



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Why would we bother invading our 51st state?

OK Dan...you went all over the place on that one. Let me see if I can throw in a couple comments:

In what regard is it silly.

It is silly as we do not invade or occupy a member of our team (so to say). If Canada was to choose not to be on the team then that is a choice that Canada would have made and not the US.

Canadians (and Europeans as well) are becoming increasingly more resentful of Americans.

Until they need us for something and then we are their big brother fighting the bullies in the schoolyard for them.

What if Canada dammed a number of major waterways that drain into the US, thereby reducing supplies of fresh water to the US?

If Canada did this it would just a likely flood itself out then hurt us. You forget, the water from there mainly hits the upper east coast. The west is all covered by the Rockies thank you!

And perhaps greatly restrict or block energy imports to the US.

I am sure that Canada would not want to hurt itself fiscally. Especially since it would not even make a dent (less than 3 percent) in the overall energy use in the US.

And the US is having some measure of difficulty of meeting its energy demands.

This is not new news Dan. Why do you think we helped and were invited to help the Saudis and Kawait?

Albeit almost two hundred years ago, you did invade Canada and did draft a policy for the invasion and seizing of British North America (like taking California away from the Spanish).

Establishing a nation and maintaining a nation are two different beasts. And all of California was not Spanish. Only a couple hundred miles up the coast. California is a huge state Dan.

Doubt it will happen, but it's always a possibility down the road.

Do not be paranoid Dan. We like Canada and Canadians. I guess we like you more than you like us. But that is OK. We can like without being liked back!

LMAO...now now

As a consumer of everything US (as Canada is) then surely you are also aware of growing disgust here with Europe and its head in the sand policies. We even have a term for it, "Euro-Whining".

In other words, where they fail to act - we will.

And of course there is no need to physically invade Canada. All that needs to be done is change a few signs, and move the existing border to the vicinity around Québec.

Voila, Pax Americana.

If you want Quebec, help yourself Never could understand them or the French - and my gf is French Canadian. All one has to do is to check out CBUF (French CBC), or French television. Man, weird (surreal) stuff. But that's my cultural bias

Now enuff of this. I type at a 3 year old level (just kidding, but not by much), and this is more text typing I do in a week. It was fun, but now back to work. All play and no work makes Johnny a poor boy



Cheers - Dan

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Hey, I hold high regards for Canada. ummm, I'd pass on Quebec. I could never understand the French in German anyway. A guy I know from New Foundland tried to explain it out to me, but still ... I'd still pass on that area.

Besides, I go with the 51st idea.

What is the borader between the 2 countries? What is it, a mostly mowed 2 meter wide zone? lololo come on, For America to invade Canada would take really a lot, I mean a lot. Mexico, would probably be before Canada. The south border is like a terminator movie.

Actually, part of California was Russian at one time.

I do wish though, that some body would take over the policing issue. The US isn't really the best choice. Although, it's not that bad of one either. Sure it might have hidden agendas, but who could replace the US?

---

openoffice + gimp + sketch ...