Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Terrorists eating in KFC.

Aha, hmm...dunno what 2 say really. There is no KFC in Katowice now which is surprising. I'd've thought it would've had a roaring trade. I didn't eat there often but it's good to have a good Zinger burger once in a while

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/05/von.racing.iraq.cnn

Aha, thx!! Touching from Bush!!

I was watching them playing on the bikes.

Hi again folks-

That's the plan...U.S. is not getting Iraqi oil. Supposedly some of the profits will be used by Iraqi industries for rebuilding process, etc. There is also no plan to get rid of their way of life, other than giving Iraqis the chance to develop their own representative government, which while slow, does seem to be actually starting to work (even if a little too much religion is mixed into it for my taste). 30 years of a brutal dictator with WMD's (doesn't matter WHO you think gave them to him or if they were home-grown...Saddam had dirty deals with a LOT of nations, not just the U.S. during his time) do not breed a populace used to making their own decisions, but it is catching on.


That's just too funny. here's one reason, for example.... Guess who signed on for oil "benefits" with Saddam and who would be losing said contracts if Saddam were removed? Guess who provided 22.5% of ALL of Iraq's pre-war imports? France... Guess who had billions in exploration (oil) contracts with Saddam? Russia... Not to mention, approximately 8Billion in debt owed from the Soviet era to Russia for supplying 50% of Iraq's arms from 1981-2003... No nation survives long making all its decisions on what would be the "nicest thing to do". Germany and France had profits at stake. And reputations to be smeared were everything completely aired. Convenient for them, the only ones being smeared lately are Americans. The other countries staying out of it had NOTHING to do with what is just or for any moral objections.

No kidding? First, it was UN resolution 687, that he interfered with, not "American demands". Saddam agreed to the resolutions, but apparently regarded them with all the respect Hitler had for peace treaties. Second, "no rock solid case"? When inspectors aren't even allowed to look....and are kicked out for periods of years and even when allowed in, subjected to harassment at the few places they ARE allowed to search...it somehow does not surprise me they found "no rock solid case".

As a matter of fact, inspectors ARE allowed into America. Russians, confirming mutual compliance with SALT treaties, etc. and watching destruction of ICBM silos, etc...

I agree.

Much to the chagrin of the administration, I'm sure. I believe the concern was that we had destroyed too much of the Iraqi army, fueled by scenes of carnage as the Iraqi army was decimated on its flee toward Baghdad. The administration no doubt originally thought the job was done, and the next thing to do was keep Iraq able to at least protect its borders from Iran or whoever else wanted to move in after we left. Too bad the biggest threat to Saddam at the time was not Iran but his own people.
Hindsight is 20-20, though. The following 2 terms after Bush Sr made that mistake (IMHO anyway-one certainly hopes such things are not premeditated) the White House was too busy lording it over American citizens, banning any firearm with a black shoulder stock (apparently those are more "evil" than other firearms?) burning out strange churches, and pulling out of everywhere any time there seemed to be a threat. Oh yeah, and reducing the armed forces and capabilities to dangerously low levels...and ignoring Saddam in favor of "feel-good" missions that really helped no one other than to make America look weak to those waiting for their chance (e.g. Somalia, etc)
Just my opinions.

John P.

John,you think thats bad,our govt' after gettng us in this mess through trying to be the "big man" that frankly "we" havnt been since 1938 or so, has decided that instead of clamping down on people smuggling illegal firearms into the UK and forgiegn "gangstas" ,namly illegal jamaican yardies who are the predominant users of firearms in crime in this country,all that and our govt has decided to Ban Deactivated firearms,ie, Seizing a WW1 or Boerwar Enfeild rifle with its barrel plugged and its bolt split/missing from some harmless colector,is going to be the priority of our Police TFUs before years end.......

That's a plan, if they eat that crap they won't be with us long.. good thinking Southern

JohnP, why did America see Iraq as such a great threat whilst others didn't? Hussein never used biological weapons and, I think, had any intention of firing WMD. It was just paranoia on America's part. The resistance was not at strong as u make out. I remember watching video clips of Americans simply upping the ante and getting access. Scott Ritter seemed to have more of a free hand than Hans Blix. As he said in his reports, American satellite technology could have spotted any suspicious activity. America has missed chances again and again. Also, could we have accused Saddam of genocide? He was killing for many years while the international did what? Sanction him? Whoop dee doo! Condemn him, WOW!! Come on JohnP, drop some of ur patriotism and see reality

Look at what you are saying now, we do move in and we are still wrong.

U r not wrong altogether!! My point is that it took too long to act. His actions remained constant but the international community flapped, griped/groaned, u name it, but didn't take him out earlier, MUCH earlier. Well done for removing a tyrant but I thought the international community had resolved never to let genocide happen again. America acted commendably when it took out Milosevic whilst these wa*ky little academics got paid for discussing the ifs and buts. WELL DONE AMERICA for stepping in whilst the EU/UN did fook all. As Szkotja2007 said, life if life and u can't devalue the life of a standard Iraqi. Why are they any less than u or I? Supplying a tyrant was LUNACY and showed greed in its worst form

Wait, didn't he gas the Kurds in Halabja 1988?

I aggree

weve had that one already,Gas is a chemical weapon,not biological.

Given the choice I bet they would have gone with the KFC. (Kentucky Fried Chicken) for the ones that do not know.

Exactly, I've learned from my mistake, thanks isthatu!! U can see who didn't take sciences as their majors, hehehe.

See my new Topic and the information. The real truth about Iraq may not be known for a very long time.

Could the truth "The Kremlin Fesses Up" at last be out?

Not so sure,is bacterealogical death any better than the other options?
Seriously,I was being ironic pointing out the whole C not B thing,I dont suppose either is a very pleasant way to die for a baby and its mother.

This is true.

another weird assemblage of facts. Celinski, why did Bush lie about the time when he knew the attacks? If Gordon Brown acted the way Bush did almost throughout, he'd have been castigated and torn to shreds. Has Bush ever been on insomnia pills? He should have

He always places his tongue in his lower left cheek after telling a porky. True, look out for it next speech he makes.

I thought he was making a sexual gesture to the male members of the opposition, well, just goes to show how wrong I was

At least I saw the face of Satan.I had such a curiosity.

What we need to see by Bush is the furnishing of evidence that Saudi Arabia is doing all that it can in the war on terror. They are money hungry so and so's, open to corruption. I don't trust them, where was the help to the Americans, informing them of sinister activity? They are slimeballs, greedy little bas***** out for their own.

Personally I disagree with bans on the private ownership of functional firearms as well, but taking some old collector's old rifle is just stupidity IMHO. Shame. When the government has ALL the power it never bodes well. (I'm uncomfortable with direction the UN is trying to go with that also...)
Next they'll be burning down the yew planted near churches...heaven forbid someone makes himself a military style "Assault" bow....

Really? That certainly isn't what his track record says....you would know this before the first shot is fired how? Willing to bet the lives of your family and friends on it? Multiple intelligence Agencies said he had them, not just America, his Middle Eastern neighbors were afraid of him and were also convinced he had something.

Upping the ante? Americans? I thought we were talking about Hans Blix. UNSCOM was completely banned from Iraq by Saddam for a period of time, UNMOVID stood up to take over, and were harassed by Fedayeen, or made to wait for days before looking at some locations, others they were never allowed into....

I'm sure people at the Satellite operations centers would love for the world to believe as Hans Blix and perhaps you do, but it simply isn't true. I am also not surprised that when a journalist wanted to look at something they are not given much trouble. Sort of a way for Saddam to thumb his nose at the UN. Journalists are also not biological or chemical (let alone nuclear) weapons experts....I could give a journalist a beer at a chemical weapons factory and he would think it was a brewery....

Then why do you seem so upset that after 12 years of administrations unwilling to go after Saddam himself, when we finally get one? Clinton could have cared less unless it got him publicity in Hollywood, so instead of doing anything substantial about Saddam, or OBL, etc. he was busy trying to "feed people" in Somalia, or on some campaign about Serbia and Kosovo(still don't think the truth is quite out about that one but oh well...) or giving the entire U.S. Patent database to the communist Chinese(!!!???) or completing Pres. Carter's illegal turn over of the Panama canal essentially to the Chinese as well...none of which helped the U.S. an ANY way strategic or otherwise...but lots of folks in Hollywood were "ooohhhh he cares about people!!!" sorry for the rant. It's no surprise OBL nor Saddam thought anything would happen to them after so many years of America being unwilling to do anything.

Rather...after reading this last portion of what you wrote, I think you are starting to agree with some of my own feelings on the topic. Scary....

Huh? what are you referring to here?

I agree with this statement almost completely, although I'm pretty sure I know why we deal with them. Saudi Arabia did capture and kill some Al Qaeda early on, but their efforts otherwise makes one wonder. Anyway. After all the environmental laws here (Lord forbid someone cuts down a tree to get to billions of tons of fuel here) have pretty much tied the hands of anyone hoping to drill for U.S. oil, we have been made dependent on South America and the middle east, largely Saudi Arabia and UAE, Bahrain etc. in much the same way as it seems Putin wants to control Europe. It is an unholy alliance, but the Saudis also know they can charge whatever they want because we and much of the rest of the world now HAVE to get our oil from them. Putin will do the same to Europe. There is so much political resentment built up in the U.S. against oil companies (which actually don't have nearly the profit margin people would imagine they do-the tycoon days have long been over) that there is a room full of laws forbidding them to drill here, pump there, etc. etc.
So not only the U.S. but the countries we USED to supply have been hurt by these laws and rather than help the environment as people strangely think, we just buy it from nations like....Saudi Arabia.
Again, sorry for the rant. We see eye to eye on this point however.
John P.

A difficult manoeuvre if you ask me.

I have wondered about similar statements, and I did so with a smile of disbelief. Unless it becomes legal for individuls to own tanks, military helicopters, atomic submarines, tactical missiles and the like, how on earth would people seriously consider themselves as capable of opposing the US government by force? Do you think the heavilly armed wackos at Waco, TX had any chance in defending themselves from the said government?

The US can incinerate a city, or a smaller country in minutes, but it would fear a guy with a shot gun? C'mon. What would this be saying about the alleged might of the US armed forces? Get a gun and the government is shaking and will be good, huh?

I am against personal gun ownershiop but if pushed I could understand reasons such as personal defense from burglars, hunting etc. But to say that personal gun ownership has any bearing on the restraint of the US government in relation to the US citizens is can't be anything more than a joke.

While at first your statement seems to make sense, it only applies if a tiny group (eg the weird church at Waco) is able to be demonized by the media/government. It was never explained how that compound caught fire btw...
On the other hand, remember that when servicemembers put on a uniform, at least in America, they are still Americans. They are bound by posse comitatus, which forbids them from engaging American civilians, but furthermore, one does not revolt against the army, but the politicians giving it its orders.
Oh, and btw, depending on state laws which vary, state to state, Americans *can* own tanks, etc.
None of us is going to start mowing down our own citizens. Which is one reason why the idea of a national "police" force (NOT bound by Posse Comitatus) bothers me. Gestapo anyone? and if the citizenry is already disarmed, there's nowhere near the ruckus, gunfire, and risk. People just disappear in the night. Pretty sure that's happened a few places in the last century...even Hitler proclaimed he had the safest country in the world, after taking firearms away. We all know where that led.
So...private ownership DOES apply.
Adds teeth to the vote.
John P.

I am not thrilled about guns but feel, "freedom to bear arms" is very important in America. Lets face it without this freedom who would own guns?

It's a lazy Sunday afternoon JohnP so my boxing gloves are off. The Saudis early killings of Al Qaeda members could be interpreted as merely a token gesture on their part. They reportedly told OBL that he could do his thing as long as it wasn't conducted on Saudi soil. My, such dedication to the cause!! I am a little surprised JohnP that u r highly sceptical of an insider job. I recall an interview with George W Bush jnr saying that he found it hard to resist his father and that his opinion still held favour. Has it been confirmed that Bush snr was with 1 of OBL's brothers on 9/11? I wonder!! He just couldn't help himself, Bush snr. One boxing glove is going on now, I'm just unhappy about the fact that it did take 15-20 years take out Saddam. On the other point, I was referring to the point at which Bush claimed he knew about the attacks. He was seemingly first informed around the time when the 2nd Tower was hit but he is on tape as saying that he saw the first Tower being hit on TV and that the pilot was terrible. Was this a fabricated video on Youtube? All a hoax? I keep saying it, America dramatises too much and who knows what 2 believe now? I think Saddam did possess weapons btw but the proof was never brought and hasn't been brought to the attention and full view of the relevant authorities. Again, my point about timing. The principle is the same, Saddam was the constant and America was the variable. The man was a danger 15 years ago, he was a potential threat a couple of years back also. Why wait all this time if the idea is the same? U want to eliminate the threat, u do it ASAP.