Quote from shortnews.com:


"Tabloids: First Stage Of War Has Begun

UK and US warplanes have bombed Iraq's most critical air defence HQ. This event is said by the source to be the first stage of war. President Bush insists the world needs no proof that Iraq is building nuclear weapons before taking action against it.
We must anticipate," Bush said, "The most dangerous thing would be to find out they had a nuclear weapon after they developed one." This latest attack marks a change in tactics, buildings and bunkers were attacked instead of guns and radars.
"The idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me. I don't like the idea of our planes being shot at," said Rumsfield who says he ordered the attack and admits there is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."



Will they never learn?!?!?!

Some weeks ago, I actually laughed out loud at a newspaper here: on the front page, there was a big article about the possibility of a war in Iraque, on the second page, there was a small note saying "US bombers bombed xxxxxxxxxxxx (whatever it was) in Iraque". So the latter is not war or what?

I think this is insane, just look at these:

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=17963352&p=y79636y6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html

I think Israel will be the target if a nuke is fired, Iraq only has missiles that can fire that far.

America only do things that benefit them, but cover it all over with their 'it's for the good of the whole world speach'. America just want the oil and trade things they can't get with Sadam in power. They attack him because he goes against their power.

Israel are wrecked if war breaks out in iraq, being surrounded by all those arab nations iraq libia etc they will be destroyed.




Ok isn't it hard to find a weapon before it's developed ??? That makes no sense???

Edited by sterge10 at 06:26 on September, 18th 2002

I think it's pretty scandalous that George W. Bush has been able to exploit the post-11/9 mass hysteria and paranoia in such a way that he can now bomb a country in order to add a few oil fields to the collection of his family - which is already filthy rich by the way...

And Israël was a mistake right from the start, after WWII the Allies should never have given the Jews a piece of Palestina without asking Palestinians how they felt about that... And I think it's pretty sick that those same Jews - considering what happened to six million of them in WWII - are now getting tricked into hating the Palestinians by a few of their more orthodox/fundamentalist members...

What I think is sick is how 1.4 million Palastinians used to live there when Israel was created, now after the war they have been in, there is about 400,000. That's 1 million people, does that not count as genocide???

I thought America was a democracy!! Why would Saddam treat nuclear weapons differently than any other country? I'm pretty sure he knows that if he uses some (if he even HAS some) he's dead. Now they just said that most Americans want to attack Iraq (61%). Where in the #$%@# are they polling? The White House?

Tuss

Why this 'post-11/9' part? Was it in any way different before, no matter if with 'GWB' or other 'presidents'?

That's a pretty one-sided statement. The real problem lies deeper if you ask me: in the European rule over that region.

No, because it wasn't a systematical killing, but both sides in the conflict always wanted (and still want) to preserve the problem of the fleeing people after the wars. Both sides only put them in 'temporary camps' (where they are still, 30 years after the last bigger war) in order to use this for propaganda.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - great joke

No. In your neighbourhood.

I inserted the post-11/9 part because the American government does seem, in my view, to be using this as an excuse for everything... I remember just a few days after 11/9 Bush had already stated that a new strike on Iraq would be a necessary part of their 'War On Terrorism' (which is one big joke anyway)... would someone tell me what role Saddam played in the attack on 11/9?

It has been so in the past, of course... but who was president during the Gulf War? George Bush senior, same family, same oil wells, same interests... I think Clinton (or any democrat) would be way more diplomatic about stuff like this, he also made sincere efforts for peacekeeping in Israël (I'm not saying Clinton is a saint, nor that America was at peace with everyone when he was president, just that he at least tried)...

As for the real problem in Israël: if you want to put it that way I would say the real problem is the fact that Europe still thinks it rules there... For example that Sharon character is not exactly best friends with most European governments... Deep down it's something we started, and it went way out of hand, out of our hands...

Ha! Your turn to return the joke! I hate the Gallup polls, they're so dumb. I haven't met a person that supports an attack on Iraq. Sure, they might be out there, but 61%? I have to speculate on who they polled or what they did to achieve those numbers.


By only air-striking opposing countries? That's what he did, to many places, including Iraq. The president almost always takes action on what the polls show (another reason to hate them) not on what is right.


again, his motivation was probably not the people living in Isreal or Palestine, but for gas prices and polls.

Tuss

Tuss: Have you asked all the people you've met lately if they support a war in Iraque?

Mole: Would you please stop using this ë character? It looks extremely gay
About your points: I think Tuss has answered those already - it's not as if another 'president' would do anything differently. I mean, Clinton even started a war to get his Lewinsky affair out of the main news!

Clinton was a much better president than Bush will ever be. I think it's a shame it'll perhaps take decades for him to be recognized as such, just because he had a thing for young secretaries. It's true he once shot off a couple of cruise missiles when he was in a fix, but that is very difference from the full-fledged war Bush has been promising, and which will most likely accomplish nothing but make the whole middle-eastern situation worse than it already is. (BTW, those "First Stage of War has Begun" headlines seem grossly exagerated. It might be a few more weeks before we see any developments in that direction).

Also, if Clinton were still president (or Gore, for that matter), things probably wouldn't have reached this point. The Clinton administration actually had a policy for the middle-east, and though you can question some of the steps they took, there actually was some sense of direction and the feeling that something could be accomplished. Bush, on the other hand, has accumulated one disastrous mistake after another, practically from the day he stepped into the White House. He seems to have absolutely no understanding of the extremely delicate balance that region has been living under in the past 50 years, nor does he seem to care a bit to learn.

Still two more years untill the next american presidential election...

Killing 1 million people in a total of 3 year and killing 1 million people over 30 years is still killing.

If you haven't realised, of that 1 million decline in population, a lot can be contributed to Israeli soldiers killing children and woman, hence destroying a generation of people.

Edited by Delos at 19:12 on September, 18th 2002

Not ALL, but most of the people I know, we have discussed this, and they all say no to war. Not even "Well, maybe we shouldn't attack iraq" but usually "Attacking iraq is completely idiotic!" These people include most of my extended family, and nearly all my friends. I think Gallup polls only a few thousand, but I'm not sure.


Don't be too sure. After something like 9/11, who knows how crazily an administration would react? Especially from a guy that considered killing innocent people a fair bargain for getting himself out of a sex scandal, or supporting a side in a war where there is no correct side, but then send propaganda through the news! That was bullshit, almost as much as this is.



No doubt that both sides contribute to continuing agressions here, but I wonder what would have happened if the UN never created Isreal.

Tuss

Bin Laden only bombed the twin towers because of the U.S. support for Israel. This was what was said to the U.S. people on those tapes, funny how no one ever saw them on CNN, BBC etc.

Bin Laden said US$77 billion has been given to Israel for "security" reasons, and of this money none of the American people had been asked if they wanted to give this tax money over or not.

Bin Laden said that the Jewish people (namely Israel) control the American government, and by shouting "holocaust", "anti-semite", or "racist" gets them even more more power.

I don't know about your countries, but New Zealanders on average hate people who shout racism for financial benefit.

As you can guess I don't support a war against Iraq, and of all the people I have asked, NONE of them have said it's a good idea, they ALL agree it is America bully tactics showing it's ugly head because Americas leader is less suttle then the past presidents.

I ask you, how can a country get away with bombing anyone they like? I mean, if it was New Zealand bombing Iraq, would the world allow it? NO.

Edited by Delos at 21:09 on September, 18th 2002

I hate that too, but here, who doesn't? I mean, even the MAJORITY has started to do it.


Exactly

Tuss

Isn't it funny how the minorities have always cried racism, and now they are more in number then us that they are still crying it? I mean, we (white middle class people) are now the minority, and yet if we say anything we still get slammed.

What I'm trying to say that we tried so hard to look after minorities in this country, and other places for that matter, and now that we are the minority we are not given that same respect we gave them.

BTW, looking at the headlines, most of our biggest income earners have just left New Zealand for Australia and England, so I guess we are in the shit here and maybe it's just New Zealand, oh well...

Delos: I know it is a common phase in teenage years, but could you try to take at least a bit of a more critical look at these conspiracy theories you always spread?
There is sometimes even a true or at least 'discussable' core in them, but only running around and stating them as facts will not get you taken seriously. I mean it!

Mr Creosote: I'll stop using 'Israël' when you stop using 'Iraque'

Done. Confused the English with the French spelling apparantely. How could I