At In-N-Out Burger, you make 9.75 an hour.
Soyuz said:1441 was a final ultimatum to the Iraqis to get rid of their WMDs (which they didn't have, its two and a half years later and still no sign!, so there was no way that they could have complied with it anyway) it didn't really have anything to do with oil for food.
Also isn't it a bit hyocritical of the US to be so keen to launch a war on Iraq over tis failure to comply with a UN resolution but yet it completely ignores israel's failure to comply with the various UN resolutions against its illegal settlemants in the west bank! ( one of many reasons for anti american feeling in the middle east and elsewhere in the world)
On your other point about the rights of terrorists you mention that they have no rights under the Geneva convention (even though they are effectively combatants in Bushs war on 'Terror'). This may be the case however they still hav e rights as human beings as set out in the for example..
The US However has shown a complete disregard for this document in its war on terrorism which is a vwar it can never win as the more countries like Iraq it invades the more terrorists it is going to create as more and more people in the middle east will wrongly percieve the US government as being hell bent on the destruction of Islam!
Sea Dog said:First point, it was up to the Iraqi's to prove that THEY were in compliance with the agreements. Hussein was found in non-compliance of 1441 by not providing 'immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted acess' to all sites of inspectors choosing. Hussein failed. Iraq was in violation of 1373. 1373 dilineated Hussein's shelter and support of terrorist organizations. Remember when Saddam was paying terrorist families $10,000 a pop for every terrorist act committed? And in regards to the WMD, ain't it funny how Russian, British, U.S., and several other national intelligence infrastructures all came up with the same intelligence showing Iraq had WMD? Wake up, dude.
And the oil-for-food had everything to do with it. It is UN corruption at it's finest. The UN's very own resolution 1441 had shown that proceeds from the sales were going into direct weapons purchases....not the Iraqi people. Wake up, dude. You're other point, you may disagree, but the Israeli's aren't the ones using their territory to conduct suicide bomb attacks on innocent Hamas families. Are you calling for the U.S. to go invade Israel to force Israel out of the West Bank?
Your point about human rights is valid. But like I said, it wasn't government sanctioned torture at Abu Ghraib, and all involved are being punished. So what's your point? Next.
The Iraqi's have voted for a constitution and are making significant progress towards making their society better. I wonder why so many people want them to fail? Don't let your anti-U.S. hatred destroy what the Iraqi's are trying to build, sir.
MIGleader said:hussein does not have to provide unrestricted access just because the un wishes so. no proof has been made against him, so he does not to allow weapons inspectors in if he doesnt want to. husein can pay terrorists all he likes, its up to them on how they spend it.
The_Zergling said:Well, I have another point of view for you to think about, SeaDog. Although national security (Of the US or of most insecure feeling countries) is widely perceived to depend on military strength, more weapons do not provide enduring security. Military expansion provokes fear and potential retaliation. Threats tend to increase the hostility and distrust that lead to war...
Multilateral disarmament, supported by the conversion of military industries to the production of civilian goods and services, and the retraining of personnel toward that end is the better way to do things in this world... I advocate that the United States and China and Russia and everyone ought to take unilateral steps toward their own disarmament, believing that other nations will respond affirmatively to this example.
A convincing argument is, "If China, US, UK, Russia, Israel, India, France, Pakistan etc. can have nukes, why can't I? What right does anyone have to say who gets nukes and who shouldn't?"
BTW, when I post "nukes" in my posts I also mean WMDs...
Why should Saddam Hussein have to allow people to inspect Iraq? Why can't Iraq have WMDs when China, US, UK, Russia blah blah blah have plenty of them, proven to be destructive and completely immoral?
The_Zergling said:Look man, I hate to burst your bubble, but Bush is the most evil despot in the world... but at least we agree nukes are horrific things...
this is a really childish argument, just because bush is not THE worst leader in the world does not make him a good leader. I donâ€™t think the point is that bush is THE BIGGEST EVIL in the world,(even monkey knows that if he is, his would be kicked out of his presidential seat) you are not showing that you are â€œcapable of true logical thoughtâ€ by replying about that issueSea Dog said:Do you know what utter BS you just threw out? So you think Bush is worse than Kim-Jong-Il. You know, they guy who looks like he eats at HomeTown Buffet every meal, but his people are desperate for food. Kim builds weapons, his people starve. In North Korea you better watch what you say lest you end up in a labor camp or worse. Nice...according to Zergling, Bush is more evil than this. Do you honestly believe Bush is worse than Castro? You can go right in front of the White House calling Bush a criminal, and calling for his downfall, and you can go home with no problems. Try that in Havana and end up in a political prison. But in your myopic world, Bush is worse. These are just two examples. There are plenty more. But you have now proven that you are incapable of true logical thought, and not worthy of my time.