warhawk

I have to concur with 300mag. Most of any decent coming from the US about Canada is almost always directed at the Government of Canada not at the people. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie The whole argument behind the inspectors is a very closed circle. If the inspectors find something countries like France will say "see they work all we need is more time." If they don't find anything then they will say "see he has nothing". And we know that last statement is not true. As far as for the first statement well the inspectors will only be allowed to stay there for as long as there is a military threat against Saddam. But I have posted at lenght about this on another thread. Check out the thread about "French Government shows it's true colours", the complete name of

I heard something else on CNN that just astounded me. I can not remember the name of the actress/comedian that said it but here is her quote. "That man (referring to Saddam) is an upstanding gentleman." I nearly lost it when she said that. Guess that shows the true mentality of Hollyweird Stout hearts Warhawk

The one major point that I think keeps getting lost in the shuffle, the one point those that oppose military action in Iraq conviently seem to forget, is that Saddam has been in Material Breach since 1991. UN resolution 687, which was passed in April of 1991, gave Saddam ninety (90) days to disarm. This was one of the conditions of ending the first Gulf War. If the French don't want to accept their responsibilties to not only the United Nations and the rest of the world then they are going to help a great deal in the downfall of the UN. Inaction by the UN is going to make it a toothless, w

@budgie I'm glad you finally see the light Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie That's the point budgie. When France pulled it's military from NATO they lost their right to vote on what other countries did with the military aspect of NATO. If France doesn't like it TOO BAD! The French are real good about leaving something for someone else to deal with when the situation suits them. When it comes time for someone else to help them out they expect, no demand it be there. So I am glad that they got left out of the loop on this one. It serves them right. @jester I was in the Navy at the time of this event and to confirm what you have said here

The only thing that really concerns me Zappa is that some of these protestors of today may very well become the politicans of tomorrow. Then what? Stout Hearts Warhawk

I have been intentionally staying out of this for a bit to see just how many of the same points can be brought again under a different mask. 300mag is right, France (by Chirac's statements) just became the one thing everyone ALWAYS accuses the US of being. A bully! Now that the shoe is on the other foot you want to say it's ok? You are in a round about saying "if Bush can do it so can others". Well if it is wrong for Bush to be a so called bully then it is wrong for Chirac to be one too! What I am getting sick and tired of is people wanting to paint with different brushes when it suits t

As far as the argument for more time goes, I think having 12 years is enough. If you are not going to do what you say you are going to do in 12 years then it is time that you are made to do it. If we do as you suggest budgie and wait until our back is against the wall it may be to late to do anything. Remember the world waited once before and all that got us was a World War. I personally hope that people like Bush and Blair don't wait for some chemicial/biologicial or nuke attack by Irag on some country before they do something. Talk about shutting the barn door after the horses are out!

You know you are playing too much Ghost Recon when you get that "thousand yard stare" Stout Hearts Warhawk

The next person I come face to face with that says "we have to do something about this global warming" I'm gonna knock their front teeth out. Someone once said to me, "I going to pack up everything I have when I retire and start driving south, the first person who points at my snowblower and asks what's that, is where I will retire." Sound advice I think. Stout Hearts Warhawk

I think what we are seeing and hearing from North Korea is nothing more than political postering. The North Korean Government is going to say one thing publicy and sing a completely different tune in private. They need the backing of China in order to be able to withstand any fight with the "free world". They are going to have to deal with this very carefully as China has worked to long and hard to get consessions from the west on trade for some little puppet state do something to jepordize it. I think, unless the rest of the world did something to threaten China, that China might very wel

@budgie If he has to step on a few toes to get the job done properly then so be it. Peoples toes wouldn't feel stepped on if they didn't have a guilty conscience. I believe that deep down these countries realise what they have to do but because of other reasons, whatever they maybe, they are not going to do what is right. Your right when you say there are going to be serious consequences. But these will be cosequences as a result of inaction by the UN itself. The UN has set itself up by it's inaction up to this point. If it continues along this road it will fall. Not beca

I just did a dance. That just made my whole day. My comment to the French. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it! Stout Hearts Warhawk P.S. Yes I am gloating. It's about time they got left out of the loop on something instead of it being them doing it to someone else!

Bravo 300 mag! Well said on both posts. @budgie One other thing I would add. Where was the UN during the Vietnam conflict? Or how about Grenada? Or Panama? If war is not the answer if armned conflict is not the way to go why didn't this "great" world organization step up and stop the US then? Why is it Iraq that they feel necessary to stop the US on? And don't give me the answer "its because they don't see him as a threat". Vietnam wasn't a threat to the world peace, and yet when the French asked for US assistance there (then subsequently left the US holding the bag), you didn't

What can I say but "that's what I'm talking about!" Stout Hearts Warhawk

@firefly It's not what the US does in Iraq but rather what the UN does or doesn't do in Iraq that will influence North Korea. If they see that the UN does not have the backbone to stand up against Iraq, then they may well take that as a sign that the UN won't stand up to them. Remember one very important detail. The Korean War was sanctioned by the UN and basically run under UN mandates. I would suggest reviewing the Korean War to get a better prospective on this. Stout Hearts Warhawk

Ok budgie you knew with a long post like that it was bound to get me out of my nest. So here you go. I looked over TRC's post, I hope that TRC doesn't think I am steppin on his toes here, (If I am misunderstanding what you are saying TRC please correct me), and I don't see anywhere in there where he said Bush is trying to rush everyone into it. What I see is TRC saying that becaue Bush's tight time schedule is what is forcing Saddam to comply, in the small ways that he actually is, not the UN itself. I agree. As I am sure I have said before it is this threat of action that is wor

@300Mag DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED! The one person who should have never led the US Military, the one I served in for a time, for any reason. How he even thought he had the right to step one foot in Arlington National Cemetary on of all days Veteran's Day is beyone me, not to mention the fact my blood boiled everytime I saw it on T.V. But you are right this is exactly what we get for having to endure political correctness for 8 years. Those comments are beyond comprehension. Talk about wanting a free ride. To think that she honestly believe's that her son's education came without

Which leads me to something someone once told me. "Find something your good at in life and stick to it" "You will be rewarding for a job well done". Stout Hearts Warhawk

@TRC I noted the wink at the end of your post, and in the back of my mind figured you were being sarcastic. What floored me was when budgie jumped all over it. The only thing that I would disagree with you on is withdrawing from the UN. But you are right about one thing the UN is quickly becoming impotent like the League of Nations before it. And I also agree that Saddam does not now or ever intend to comply with UN resolutions. If he was going to he would have done so long before now. He is not now going to say "oh you really mean it this time, ok I give". Like you TRC I have yet

Clouding the issue with facts. What an interesting choice of words. So what you are saying then, if I am reading this correctly, is when it comes to the UN Security Council that they (according to France, Russia, Germany and China) shouldn't be concerned with facts only whether or not someone poses a risk? If that is the case then why say things like "full compliance with UN resolutions", "Completely disarm or else"? If the issue is not compliance with UN resolutions then why have resolutions demanding compliance? The logic in the statement "he doesn't represent that big of a threat" comp

In watching the weapons inspectors report to the UN today I heard something of interest. I had completely forgotten about this myself and I think it bears bringing up. In his speech to the security council, The Honourble Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, reminded those of the security council of a portion of a previous UN Resolution. UN resolution 687, which was passed in April of 1991, gave Iraq ninety (90) days to completely and fully disarm or face serious consequences. That means that deadline ran out in July 1991. Not only does the wording sound familiar but hey "Times up". I

I have always been hawkish in my political views for one. The other is I prefer military style games over all others. I especially enjoy strategy based games. It helps to keep the marines, that I run into from time to time in their place too. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@Dark Ranger After reading your initial post several times, I couldn't find in there where you attacking me personally. But I appreciate the fact that you took the time to offer an apology in the first place. Your response was the kind of response I was looking for from my intial post. A discussion on the issue. I find myself in daily conversations with others, taking up the side of "no you can't do that". That is not to say that quietly I find some of the arguments for internment seemingly sound. Please note that I said seemingly. This is not to say that I do agree with it. In