World Idiots

:rolleyes:

I'm slightly confused (due to being overworked and sleep-deprived). Either I did get Vresi's message in post #115 (which is highly likely :p : )... Or fousto got it right in post #116, and I've misunderstood post #115 (which seems really unlikely - and that's got nothing to do with the whole "I'm always right" sort of thing).

As for Howard, he's nuts yet some stupid people here keep insisting that he stays on as PM. :rolleyes: If you guys don't already know, there'll be a federal election sometime this year.

How the heck can a machining process be traced into any particular country?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251406,00.html

Three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

How the heck can a machining process be traced into any particular country?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251406,00.html

Three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

---

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.

---

My idea of "machining processes" are metal work processes like drilling, grinding, etc.

Moral of the story: If two idiots are quarrelling, you shouldn't get involved unless you want to be the third idiot:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes

Is Iran to Blame? Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'a Don't Agree
Monday, Feb. 12, 2007 By APARISIM "BOBBY" GHOSH

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

U.S. officials tag elements from Tehran but can't seem to finger their Iraqi cohorts.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who comprise the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.

---

I hadnt heard of thse IEDs before but if you read the link I think the precision machining process relates to the concave, steel dish that forms the 2000 metre/ second armour piercing projectile. Not many processors in the region could manufacture those, I'd imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim mcglinchey

Not many processors in the region could manufacture those, I'd imagine.

---

And what says they have to come within "the region"? International arms dealers are happy to deliver to whom ever have the money to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

At least Chavez is a man who's not afraid to speak his mind and give tit for tat.

---

Ya we don't to wonder about Chavez, we know HE is a moron. Eki, Chavez in about 10 years will be seen as one of the worst things to ever happen to Venezuela. He wont be happy until he runs everything in that nation, and then cloak himself in the mantle of a democratically elected leader.

Meanwhile, apparently the Canadian and American embassies are swamped with Venezueleans with money and skills wanting out.

OH he speaks his mind alright, but just being forthright doesn't make you worthy of praise, being intelligent and having something constructive to add to the world's issues does. Hugo just demonizes the Americans because that is his game. You admire that of course Eki, but you like people with worthless anti-Bush platitudes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

At least Chavez is a man who's not afraid to speak his mind and give tit for tat.

---

Neither were Hitler or Stalin. Neither is Bush. So what? :confused:

Fact is that Chavez is doing a lot of damage to Venezuela and to the rest of South America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

My idea of "machining processes" are metal work processes like drilling, grinding, etc.

---

You are reading too much in those words. The same article says that they are not willing to give detailed information about the process used to determine the origin of the weapons. You may not believe them because of that, but to attack the truth of the investigation because of those words used is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Moral of the story: If two idiots are quarrelling, you shouldn't get involved unless you want to be the third idiot:

---

I heard a better one. Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Quattroporte, that is so true....lord knows there are enough idiots to argue with around this world too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quattroporte

I heard a better one. Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

---

That's a real good one :laugh:

Hey EKI
How do you like Vodka Breath's newest use for the army???


Russian soldiers 'used for sex'

Russia's military has been tarnished by a series of scandals
The Russian military is reported to be investigating claims that army conscripts were forced to work as male prostitutes in St Petersburg.
The command of the interior ministry unit denied the claims made by the Soldiers' Mothers human rights group.

The group says it was contacted by a parent of a conscript who had been forced to work as a male prostitute.

Last year, an 18-year-old soldier was so badly beaten that he had to have his legs and genitals amputated.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow says the latest claims follow a series of scandals which have damaged the Russian army's reputation.

A spokeswoman for the Soldiers' Mothers, Ella Polyakova, told the BBC that in St Petersburg there was "a network of clients" who would pay for sex with soldiers.

Older servicemen are said to have forced younger conscripts into prostitution and then taken the money for themselves.

Brutality

The Sychev bullying case drew worldwide attention to Russian army abuses.

Private Andrei Sychev was forced to squat for several hours by fellow soldiers and then tied to a chair and brutally beaten up last year.

As a result he developed gangrene in his legs and genitals, which had to be amputated.

Now permanently disabled, Pte Sychev has just announced that he is to write a book about his ordeal.

Such cases have highlighted the appalling conditions suffered by some Russian service personnel at a time when Russia is seeking a greater role on the world stage, our correspondent says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

Hey EKI
How do you like Vodka Breath's newest use for the army???

---

It's not my problem as long they keep within their own borders. I could imagine worse use for their army.

so the USA doesn't engage in torture???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOD

so the USA doesn't engage in torture???

---

This was happening within the Russian army. I think a better analogy than torture would be the rape cases in the US Air Force Academy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_U....ssault_scandal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

We can destroy the world without ever leaving home.

---

Its exactly this possibility and this habit, that makes me shiver! And its really nothing to be proud of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world.

---

That is true. Currently. But how will USA react, when i.e. freshwater resources become short some day in the future? Or if USA runs out of fuel? (you can imagine a lot of similar and perhaps more probable scenarios yourself). I guess you know the answer... and its an answer that´s not going to strenghten my good feelings when thinking of America and his citizens...

The greatest World Idiot of us all speaks again. Like Rumsfeld once said "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns.That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...nce/index.html

"We know [the bombs are] there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government," he told a news conference.

"I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said 'the Quds force, go do this,' but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding."

Eki, there was a new report out yesterday from the Telegraph in Britain about big-bore Austrian rifles sent to the Iranian national police to fight drug smugglers......that have been used by Iraqi resistance forces to kill US troops. I'm rather shocked nobody mentioned it.

I dunno how Chavez got into this, but he's a pain in the backside but harmless to the US really, and his power lust is gonna end up hurting him and Venezuela. The country's oil wells apparently are tough to keep producing and thanks to Chavez most of the country's skilled people are trying to get away as fast as they can. Hardly surprising that is, but Chavez better get people to replace them or he may be in deep trouble rather soon.

Has the US combined forces with al Qaeda against Iran? The Middle East is getting more and more like a soap opera:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Iran hangs man convicted of Revolutionary Guards attack
POSTED: 7:50 p.m. EST, February 19, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran executed a defendant by hanging after a court convicted him of a bombing last week that killed 11 members of the elite Revolutionary Guards, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi was executed at the site of the attack in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province in southeastern Iran, the report said. The sentence was carried out a day after a revolutionary court convicted him of the bombing.

A car loaded with explosives blew up Wednesday near a bus carrying members of the elite military corps, killing 11 and wounding 31. Zehi was arrested a few hours after the bombing.

A Sunni militant group which some believe is linked to al Qaeda claimed responsibility. Jundallah, or God's Brigade, has also been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops.

IRNA quoted an unnamed official as saying on Friday that Zehi confessed that the attacks were part of U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.

The report said Zehi was also convicted of separate offenses including the deaths of four policemen and two civilians and a bank robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

This was happening within the Russian army. I think a better analogy than torture would be the rape cases in the US Air Force Academy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_U....ssault_scandal

---

At least they aren't Gay !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W8&C

Its exactly this possibility and this habit, that makes me shiver! And its really nothing to be proud of.


That is true. Currently. But how will USA react, when i.e. freshwater resources become short some day in the future? Or if USA runs out of fuel? (you can imagine a lot of similar and perhaps more probable scenarios yourself). I guess you know the answer... and its an answer that´s not going to strenghten my good feelings when thinking of America and his citizens...

---

the rest of the world will run out of sh!t long before we do.

Hi fousto,

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

And now look at your own statement:

Quote:

---

the rest of the world will run out of sh!t long before we do.

---

or listen to the tirades of George W. Bush instead. And keep in mind that your adored ideal, the Nation of Freedom and Justice, is ignoring civil laws and human rights i.e. by eavesdropping your own citizens, kidnapping people and sending them to prison without trial. Looks quite like a "vodka-breathe-behavior", doesn´t it?


All in all, as an American I´d be at least concerned and maybe sometimes even ashamed, that the current image of my country is heavily suffering in the eyes of a huge crowd of people and a steadily growing part of the world starts to dislike this nation...

Well posted, W8&C. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W8&C

Hi fousto,

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

And now look at your own statement :o r listen to the tirades of George W. Bush instead. And keep in mind that your adored ideal, the Nation of Freedom and Justice, is ignoring civil laws and human rights i.e. by eavesdropping your own citizens, kidnapping people and sending them to prison without trial. Looks quite like a "vodka-breathe-behavior", doesn´t it?


All in all, as an American I´d be at least concerned and maybe sometimes even ashamed, that the current image of my country is heavily suffering in the eyes of a huge crowd of people and a steadily growing part of the world starts to dislike this nation...

---

In the time of JFK's famous speech we were not faced with the enemy we have today. As I have said many times - I am content to finish our job in Iraq - Come straight home - and cut out foreign aid. I don't know what is so difficult here. Bring all the weapons home and mind our own business. we don't need missiles in Europe. Cut the aid, build ethanol plants and mass transit. I don't subscribe to the theory of "Give me your Money and I will be your friend when it suits me" If you are worried about your image then get out of the spotlight. Let the rest of the world carry this backpack for a while and see how they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W8&C

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

---

No wonder he got shot then. There was a man about 2000 years ago who said something similar and was nailed to a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

No wonder he got shot then. There was a man about 2000 years ago who said something similar and was nailed to a tree.

---

OT
Well I think its too far fetched to compare JFK with the nailed one, but although I was a kid in the early sixties I realized that JFK was something special.

And by the way: in my last posting perhaps it might sound as I´m an American. If that´s the case then sorry for that, I´m European and English isn´t my native language as everyone can easily see.
OT

Eki, he got shot because someone he made promises to didn't like what he was doing.

He was NOT shot however for his noble words. The strange part is, his words and the goals of the US now really are not diametrically opposed. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were the whipping boys of the left for their human rights abuses all throughout the 70's and 80's until Saddam stood up to the US. Then all the sudden, many of you made Bush the enemy....which says to me you really don't care about those people in Iraq. Well, the last time I looked, the reason Americans were going home in bags in Iraq was to try to give the Maliki government a chance to run a peaceful nation. How is THAT wrong? Ah yes, it is wrong because they are Americans, and they had no business getting rid of a man who was killing 20000 of his own people a year to hang onto power. Terrible man that Bush, getting rid of a man everyone saw as a stain on the human race....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Well, the last time I looked, the reason Americans were going home in bags in Iraq was to try to give the Maliki government a chance to run a peaceful nation.

---

So it wasn't the WMDs and the 9/11 attacks? Yep, and the real reason Stalin invaded Finland in 1939 was to liberate the Finnish working class from its oppressive capitalistic and fascistic leaders as he said it was. You can always find some "noble" cause to hide your true intentions. There were/are people in other parts of the world that were worse off than the Iraqis under Saddam, why didn't Bush do something for them instead? In Saddam's Iraq the life expectancy at birth was about 70 years, despite the sanctions, in some parts of Africa it's less than 40 years. Also according to the UN, about 35,000 Iraqis a year are now dying because of the current violence. That's worse than the 20,000 under Saddam. It's just not right to make a bad situation worse no matter how "nobel" your intentions are, especially to people in other countries who didn't even have the right to vote for you and you have no legal power over.

Oh Eki, do I really want to go to down this road with you again? First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk. The Americans have spent billions of dollars and 3100 of their own lives to get to the point they are at now. Halliburton and the like would have made the money they make in other places if not rebuilding Iraq.

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from. A lot of Western nations didn't manage that until the 60's and 70's. As for 35000 dying there now, it isn't the Americans killing them, Iraqi's of Shiite and Sunni faiths seem very happy to do that to each other. If the Americans leave, you really think this will stop? You really are naive if you believe THAT.

I would like to know how the Americans are making anything worse at this point. They are not making things better I will say, but if they don't put in the effort, change tactics and maybe find new ways to stop the violence, then that is a far greater sin isn't it? They made the mess in Iraq, so don't let them off the hook. Let them find a solution by either beating those who would kill, maim and enslave their fellow country men.

Also, when the Iranians get out of Iraq, maybe a lot of the shooting will stop, but as usual, you only have eyes for Uncle Sam. Spare me this crap about the Iranians just doing this because they don't trust the Americans. The Iranians want the US out of there, all they have to do is put a stop to the war and the Yanks will be out of there so fast it will make your head shake. The American people want an end to this but they want an end that will make sense. Walking out on a basketcase nation in a civil war is more gutless than anything. Of course, you tend to defend gutless actions I have noticed....

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein. The fact that Sunni and Shiite whack jobs cant learn to understand that sharing power would be in their best interest is also not the fault of the Americans either. What is more, with Al Quaida running around helping the Sunni's, the Shiites being aided by Iranian elements, your condemnation of those two groups is sadly missing. Yet another example of you being willing to overlook the truth to bash just the Americans. Eki, your arguments are so damned one sided that they always seem to ignore glaring truths. I for one don't think America carried out the occupation of Iraq very well, and it was my only disagreement with them going to Iraq in the first place.

That said, they have gained very little by staying the last 2 years for all they have gotten is dead soldiers and scorn by the self righteous boobs in this world would tolerate almost any level of oppression as long as it was the other guy suffering.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from.

---

I dug it up from the CIA World Fact Book DURING the invasion when we were debating if the invasion was a right thing to do. It's 69 years now, and it was about the same in 2002:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/iz.html

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 69.01 years
male: 67.76 years
female: 70.31 years (2006 est.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

---

They were autonomous before the invasion too, since the first Gulf War in 1990. The only things they've gotten more now are mainly revenge and some seats in the Iraqi parliament.

An Iranian official says the US and Iran are natural allies:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...our/index.html

When the official waved the column by Friedman in my face at the start of the conversation, his point was this:

That despite disagreement over Iran's nuclear program, despite accusations that Iran is supporting anti-American killers in Iraq, despite even the 1979 hostage crisis, Iran and America are "natural allies" and the time has come to restore relations.

"We are natural allies. Why?" he said. "Because now the major threat for both Iran and the U.S.A. is al Qaeda."

He said al Qaeda had attacked the "symbol of our faith" when it struck the Golden Dome mosque -- the Al-Askariya Mosque -- in the Iraqi city of Samarra last February, setting off much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the war-torn nation over the last year. Similarly, he said, al Qaeda struck the "symbols of American power" on 9/11.

"Why is the U.S. forcing us to enter a struggle with them that is only in al Qaeda's interest?" he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk.

---

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

---

Out of curiousity, do you think that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power, or do you think the getting rid of Saddam has made the world a better place, or even just Iraq? Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

---

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program. I thought the premise to invade on WMD's was weak, and said so and have admitted so on many occasions. That said, Saddam did not live up to his terms of settlement with the UN under the cease fire of the first Gulf war. Remember that one? Where he brutally tried to annex Kuwait, raped and pillaged that little country, blew up the oil fields to create a great enviromental horror show that we civilized nations had to clean up. When it was clear the US could walk right up to Baghdad, they FOLLOWED their mandate from the UN, and didn't go any further, and Saddam signed off on 12 resolutions that allowed for inspections of his WMD programs by the UN under very strict rules. Saddam flouted these rules for over 8 years as the nations of the world threatened to enforce them by force if neccessary. So spare me the crocodile tears about poor ole Saddam being singled out.

This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons. It wasn't just the CIA that was reporting he had the weapons, and the Kurds know damned well he had them because they were on the receiving end of them. So spare me again this argument that we are changing history because the US cant find the weapons now. In the build up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had ample time to sell them to nearby Syria, bury them or destroy them himself. We have really no way of knowing what happened to the weapons, but if he didn't have the weapons, he sure put on a great show to the UN and the rest of the world pretending he was hiding something? THat is like going all in at a poker game with a 2-4 offsuit when the guy across the table is holding pocket aces and 3 face cards just came up on the flop. It wasn't very bright, and of course, he didn't deter anyone.

What is more, Iraq was as good a place as any to the US to invade for no other nation in that part of the world was as obvious in their distate for American foreign policy and American Influence. As obnoxious as the Iranians are, they are skilled at not pushing people into corners. Saddam, on the other hand, left the world with the choice of enforcing the UN terms by force, or for the UN to lose total relevence. Most of you think the UN has relevence, but without Bush actually holding Iraq to the terms of the 12 resolutions and the two that were passed leading up to the war, it has zero releveance.

AS for Zimbabwe, why would the US invade there? First off, you would be correct in saying there is no oil there. Damn right, it isn't altruristic to ignore this mess and I would love for the Americans to march in there and take the fool out who runs the show there, but they wont. Oil will pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, and it is the flow of oil on a free market that the US is always looking to protect. WHY? Because the world's economy would go into a complete tailspin without the free flow of oil. Letting someone like Saddam dictate terms to the rest of the world would guarntee trouble.

So in conclusion, you cynics can say the Americans are self serviing boobs who had no business invading Iraq. Us more logical people look at it this way. If Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices, would he be a ressponsbile member of the world community? Would he have stopped killing 20000 plus members of his own nation to keep power? Would he cease to be a threat to the world's oil producing nations in the Middle East? Would he cease funding terrrorist networks who would kill any one of us for no other reason than we are from the west? Would Saddam Hussein respect the resolutions of the UN? Would the UN enforce fairly and evenly these resolutions in a manner that would dictate they actually mattered?

If you seriously can answer YES to any one of those above questions, you are living in a fantasy land. History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. WE can agree that the US has botched the "peace" in Iraq, but I think for most of you, it isn't concern for the common guy on the street that Iraq that is driving this, it is an open desire to see the Yanks get humiliated and embarassed yet once again.

Well, they have bit off more than they can chew, but unlike some of you, I put the blame on this on the feet of of a leader who would enslave and kill his own people, religious zealots who would kill or maim anyone in the cause of creating an Islamic world, and naive champagne socialists who are great at telling everyone how if everyone would just listen to their enlightened arguments, we could all disarm.

The title of this thread is apt, WORLD IDIOTS seem to abound....and while I will accept that Bush may be an idiot on a lot of levels, some of you shouldn't throw stone in glass houses....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program.

---

He MAY have been athreat if left unchecked. I don't think mere suspicion justifies as drastic measures that were taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons.

---

The US jerked the UN around far worse when it decided to invade despite the opposition of the UN. It has jerked the UN around also by not paying its due membership fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. .

---

With the money they have ALREADY spent on the invasion, they could have kept Saddam in check until Saddam and his sons died of old age.

Saddam was a threat to some in Iraq and POTENTIALLY to his neighboring countries, but he was a negligible threat to the World until the US decided to make it one. By defying the will of the UN and invading another sovereign country despite international opposition and against international laws it has created a dangerous precedent and lowered the bar to every crackpot leader who wants to flex their muscles and increase their circle of power. Now they may just say "If the US is allowed to do it, we should be also allowed to do it".

Negligible threat? Eki, the man invaded Iran and Kuwait. He was paying Hamas money to give to the families who offered up their KIDS as suicide bombers. I wont disagree that the US has spent a lot of money on this war, and that keeping Saddam under their thumb was cheaper, but it is a fallacy to say, well the US and the UK can keep Saddam in check by just keeping a lid on the sanctions. The dirty little secret is the French, Russians and Chinese were quite willing to ignore the UN sanctions and go around that great scam of "oil for food". You see Eki, unlike you, I don't expect the Americans to just pay to keep the world sane while telling them how stupid and inept they are.

As for their share of the UN, may I also remind you they put up with the presence of the UN in New York and would probably wish the UN would either gain some relevence or grow some balls and stand for something, but they wont, so why should the US keep pouring money into a hole. They do still fund a quarter of the UN's budget on paper, but for the abuse they take for it, I wonder why they belong to the UN at all.

They didn't defy the damned UN, they were enforcing UN resolutions. Saddam agreed to open access by the UN for WMD inspection. Saddam didn't give that by any real honest assessment and the US used THAT as the legal grounds to invade. Only you would use moral equivalency to say other nations would use this as a legal pretence to invade a neighbour. There is a few huge differences. One, I don't recall Saddam asking the UN's persmission when it invaded Iran or Kuwait, so it is obvious to me that most dictators do what they want when they want, and the other massive difference is that the US did it with 53 other nations, and their blessing. This was not a unilateral operation, although many of you seem to want to ignore that salient fact.

The fact that a left of center politician such as Tony Blair was in on this from the start says to me that this was not a George Bush wet dream. You continue with your fiction though that it is just American imperialism. Nothing I will say will ever change your closed mind, but I figure someone has to occasionally point out the truth.