Watch what you wish for...

[SmallTown]

The old statement "Watch what you wish for, you might just get it" comes to mind:


"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was pleased to hear of some cooperation from the Iraqis, but "sorry" to hear that the cooperation had come grudgingly and "primarily under the threat of force."

I thought that was the message behind "Iraq must disarm or we will disarm them". I thought this is why we put 200k troops in striking distance. This is why we are pushing the UN to back the resolutions. To put pressure on him to do it. Bush even said last time that he hopes there is a peaceful end to this conflict, but we are prepared to go to battle if need be. If building pressure wasn't the puprose, why didn't we just go in months ago?

Then the secretary of state is upset because iraq is folding under the pressure??? This is what we wanted! (at least publically)

Regardless of a resolution, you can't tell a country to disarm an arsenal they have spent billions on and expect them to be overjoyed by it.

 

[jimmy]

He's upset because that is making our case for war weaker in the eyes of the international community.

 

[Kain99]

You'r gonna give me a stroke today ST! You are taking Powells statement completely out of context.

Powell is sorry that Iraq has forced the issue to this point! You guys act like Iraq has only had a few months to swallow the idea of disarming.

Iraq has had 12 years.

Now be a good boy, and look for more evidence of George Jr's secret perversions!

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Kain99
You'r gonna give me a stroke today ST! You are taking Powells statement completely out of context.

Powell is sorry that Iraq has forced the issue to this point! You guys act like Iraq has only had a few months to swallow the idea of disarming.

Iraq has had 12 years.

Now be a good boy, and look for more evidence of George Jr's secret perversions!

It is not out of context.
I would like to believe the president when he says he doesn't want war and hopes iraq disarms themselves. But when you have the sec. of state say he doesn't like the idea that iraq is complying because of pressure, it completey throws out the notion we want to avoid war.

 

[SmallTown]

"Britain is proposing an amendment to the U.S.-backed U.N. resolution that would set a March 17 deadline for Iraqi compliance with the U.N.'s demand for disarmament. Unless the U.N. decides Iraq has shown "full, unconditional, immediate cooperation" on or before that date, the resolution reads, Iraq "will have failed to take the final opportunity" to disarm. "

Quick! pull out the troops! We don't powell to complain, if they comply, that they only did this because of pressure

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by SmallTown
It is not out of context.
I would like to believe the president when he says he doesn't want war and hopes iraq disarms themselves. But when you have the sec. of state say he doesn't like the idea that iraq is complying because of pressure, it completey throws out the notion we want to avoid war.

OH Puh lease! With the Iraqi's destroying less than a dozen missiles a day, it should take about 200 billion years for them to be fully disarmed!

Saddam is acting like my kids when it comes to cleaning their rooms. They believe it's clean once they've shoved all their crap in the closet out of my view.

 

[Kain99]

So What? America wants War! Big deal.... after 12 years of Saddams B.S. I think this action is long over due.

I still maintain that you are taking Powells words out of context. Blix never stated that Iraq is now in compliance, so whats your point?

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Christy
Saddam is acting like my kids when it comes to cleaning their rooms. They believe it's clean once they've shoved all their crap in the closet out of my view.

Awesome analogy!

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by SmallTown
The old statement "Watch what you wish for, you might just get it" comes to mind:


"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was pleased to hear of some cooperation from the Iraqis, but "sorry" to hear that the cooperation had come grudgingly and "primarily under the threat of force."

I thought that was the message behind "Iraq must disarm or we will disarm them". I thought this is why we put 200k troops in striking distance. This is why we are pushing the UN to back the resolutions. To put pressure on him to do it. Bush even said last time that he hopes there is a peaceful end to this conflict, but we are prepared to go to battle if need be. If building pressure wasn't the puprose, why didn't we just go in months ago?

Then the secretary of state is upset because iraq is folding under the pressure??? This is what we wanted! (at least publically)

Regardless of a resolution, you can't tell a country to disarm an arsenal they have spent billions on and expect them to be overjoyed by it.

And the whole frustration level from Powell comes from Countries who are run by tards like you and Jimmy that feel that a few destroyed missiles a day brings him into compliance!

Y'all just kill me! :razz2:

 

[Christy]

And I'm calling you both "tards" with the utmost respect!

 

[pixiegirl]

....closes her eyes really tight, takes a deep breath....

I wish I had a puppy
I wish I had a puppy
I wish I had a puppy

:razz2:

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Watch what you wish for...

Originally posted by Christy
And the whole frustration level from Powell comes from Countries who are run by tards like you and Jimmy that feel that a few destroyed missiles a day brings him into compliance!

Y'all just kill me! :razz2:

So the problem here is the timeframe? What? At the current rate the weapons may not be removed before the next election?

the resolutions state full disarmament, but not at the snap of a finger. It takes time. Can you imagine how long it would take for us to destroy 1/20th of our arsenal?

Read some of the latest blix transcripts from today. The latest compliance goes beyond the missled being destroyed. Not perfect, but getting there.

 

[jimmy]

I never said he was in compliance. Where'd you get that? I like this new ammendment idea because it acutally puts a timeframe on the damn thing. Which is how it shoud have been done in the first place.

Until this happens, all Bush's "time is running out" talk is completely not credible because what "time" would he be talking about?

 

[SmallTown]

Actually, I don't see why Bush wants to a quick end to saddam. In fact, he should send him some nice wine and maybe give him free room and board at camp david for allowing everyone's attention to be on saddam and not on domestic issues like the economy.

Latest reports don't look good for us. Hopefully we can get this turned around pretty soon.

 

[Heretic]

Remember we probably dont give a #### about missles that have a slightly longer range than allowed. Those missles pose no threat to us unless we are within 100 miles of Iraqi borders. The threat comes from the Mustard, VX, Sarian, Anthrax, and possible nuclear materials.

Its basically a case of too little too late.

 

[Bruzilla]

I wonder why it is that no one ever asks the question "Why did/does Hussein feel the need to have a huge arsenal of WMDs?" Could it be that he's still holding onto his dreams of being the new Mohammed and uniting all of the Arab states under one ruler named Saddam Hussein? He's not threatened by any country in the region, so why does he need all these weapons?

The answer to this question has an impact on the disarmament timeline.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I wonder why it is that no one ever asks the question "Why did/does Hussein feel the need to have a huge arsenal of WMDs?" Could it be that he's still holding onto his dreams of being the new Mohammed and uniting all of the Arab states under one ruler named Saddam Hussein? He's not threatened by any country in the region, so why does he need all these weapons?

The answer to this question has an impact on the disarmament timeline.

Conisdering israel has flown in to destroy nuclear plants, I wouldn't say they are without enemies and have a right to defense. We claim to be the "peace keepers" of the world, yet we have one the largest arsenals ever seen.

 

[bknarw]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Conisdering israel has flown in to destroy nuclear plants, I wouldn't say they are without enemies and have a right to defense. We claim to be the "peace keepers" of the world, yet we have one the largest arsenals ever seen.

Our ability to keep the peace depends largely on the fact that we have one of the largest arsenals ever seen.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
We claim to be the "peace keepers" of the world, yet we have one the largest arsenals ever seen.

Really, just how many chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction do we have in our arsenal? And when was the last time we used them?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by bknarw
Our ability to keep the peace depends largely on the fact that we have one of the largest arsenals ever seen.

It has done one hell of a job so far The world is nothing but a bunch of peace loving fools who never even think of harming the US in any way.