you're mixing things up. the UN's clock hadn't run out yet.
they still had the inspectors in iraq and they were working their way through the mess.

bush set a ultimatum on his own and when his clock ran out, the US attacked.

hehe, yeah, the Porsche Tractor Club ...

Here is s question, would the US be in a war if the guy with the most votes was President?

Does that tractor have a 6 or just a flat 4

could it be the lack of action by the UN was because they were recieveing hundreds of millions of dollars brokering the Iraq oil which was supporting the UN. As long as they kept the statis que they were well funded. Bush said that the oil revenue would rebuild their country instead of buying arms etc.
I hate the war but I support out troops and hope it will be over soon.

Bernie

they came in 1,2,3 or 4 cylinder versions ...
the 1 cylinder were the most famous (the sound is incredible)

http://www.m-schindler.de/hobby_1_pors.htm

Andy has it all right. I am not anti American but I am not pro war either. I admire almost all the triats Americans have especially their patriotism. But do any of you really stop to ask "why does so much of the world hate us?" I dont mean dislike but really really hate. When I travel abroad I carry a Canadian flag pin and always get Americans asking me for it, why is this?
Why is more than 50% of all US foreign aid go to one country in the Middle East. (so they can arm themselves against car bombs?)
Why are people getting slaughtered in East Timor but Bush doesn't care? (no oil there or just no personal vendetta because someone put a price tag on daddy's head)
Why is the Pacific Fleet not parked outside Korea? (too much $$$ interest in that country right now?)

"If you are not with us you are against us" What the fuck is that.
I heard a quote this week, "The US does not have friends, it only has interests" Let's see how long the friendship last between Tony and George when the trade issues arise. Can you say softwood lumber?

So Andy and Tracks, what would you do if tomorrow you were President of the U.S.?

Saddam is PURE EVIL, there is no disputing that. He MUST be taken out, this is a fact.
But we have laws, yes, International laws that we must all follow in order to keep some sort of order in this world.
One country cannot go it alone and not expect some sort of backlash. With UN backing Bush would have had double or triple the support he has now. The way International Law is written, right now Iraq(a UN member) can ask the UN to help defend them against an illegal intruder in their country and they would have to consider it. Where would the US be then, yes fighting against the UN. That would look good.
If Bush had just said "fine, if you won't go in with us we won't either and we will leave now. Don't come asking us for help 6 months from now, we won't be here, You can go it alone with France Germany Russia and Canada at that time." and just wlked away.
Then the UN would be begging them to stay and think twice about supporting the cause.
With the UN support as a untited front they can do just about anything, but without it....just get ready for the backlash and be ready to pay the consequences for Bushes actions.
Consequences being more distrust for the US and a greater risk of terrorism against it.

I would also like to add, Canadian troops are in Iraq fighting with the US troops right now.(its part of an exchange program) I support all the soldiers for their courage and bravery to put their lives on the line for their countries and the policies of the countries leaders. I salute them all and hope no more of them get killed. They are in there now and must finish what they started, it's just too bad they had to start!

The UN has turned into an organization of pansies!

They prolly woulda let one of your countries past rulers do his thing, too.
(flamesuit on)

Pansies yes, but pansies with the majority of world support. They have to be massaged into knowing what they want. That is the job of a good diplomat not a thug.

Does anyone think Al Gore would be at war right now?

Al Gore?

Who the fuck is Al Gore?
It's a damn good thing he wasn't pres when the 9-11 attacks happened.

AL fucking Gore, HA!

Enlighten me, how would it have turned out any different. Would more plane have hit?

I'm scared. I think when we do make it to Baghdad our soldiers are going to be slaughtered. I cant imagine holding a gun pointing at a Iraqi debating on whether he is civilian or military while he pulls a gun out and shoots me before I shoot him. All because I hesitated.

Fun times.

B

Yep, Vietnam all over again...

Could even be worse because of the much denser population in the city of Baghdad than the jungles of Vietnam

cheers,

Jeroen

Gore would have hid in a shed in TN, his home state (which he didn't win).
He's not a leader, he's a whiner. Oh, by the way Tipper was the one leading that
whole album labeling bullshit-yes it was the left!

Not that I was accused, but I certainly don't believe that a
major reason we went into Iraq was to liberate them. Of
course for political reasons it is always good to remind
people that that is one hopefully good result from what is
being done.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don't remember anything
changing in the oil flow in the last decade, didn't seem like
any stability problem from Iraq. Heck, Saddam's been around
longer than most leaders in the area. So I don't believe
the stability of oil is really it. Bush would go drill Alaska if
he really needed oil stability.

I know there is no direct link found between Saddam and
any of the terrorists. I kinda suspect there is one, but a
guy who can hide money as good as he can and hide other
stuff from the world may never be found out. The real
problem we're told is that Iraq is a likely place for terrorists
to acquire stuff to attack us. And I believe that. Maybe
I'm just falling for the line, but hey whatever.

Mark S.
'70 914-6

Hey! Al Gore invented the internet!(LOL)

I agree that Saddam is a real fucker and should be taken out!!
He should have been taken out when he used to be best of buddies with our whole White House staff and supporting the world's weapon market.

"Powell condemned Saddam’s “use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988” that killed “Five thousand men, women and children.” True, but he did so with the blessing at the time of many Reaganites who now serve Bush — including Powell. In 1988, “Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan’s decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds,” says former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith in the Boston Globe ( http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/...tire.htm)\"
Dennis Hans
Let's not forget Reagan’s special emissary to Baghdad, Donald Rumsfeld.

How about:

"Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad. One of the most damning revelations to come out of the Scott inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more. Saddam said he had punished the Kurds for "collaboration" after the town had been successfully attacked by Iran. The weapons were produced with German-supplied chemicals.

This cynicism and hypocrisy was matched only by the US. Soon after the attack, Washington approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. And while the Reagan administration condemned the use of chemical weapons during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, US officers were secretly supplying Iraqi generals with bomb-damage assessments and detailed information on Iranian troop deployments.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," Walter Lang, a former senior US defense intelligence officer, told the New York Times this week. Washington was worried about the threat of Iran spreading its Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian

But the war is not about oil? What do all of these people know the most about?

George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her....Saddam sits on the second biggest oilfield in the world. America's economy depends on oil for: generating power to run factories, powering cars to get the workforce to those factories, and transporting goods produced by those workers in those factories We will not take their oil. Instead, we will help them rebuild their oil infrastructure along with their schools and hospitals. Bush has promised that they will be able to use their money from oil sales to pay for their nations reconstruction. The Bush administration has already picked companies to help Iraq do this..in a slightly unusual manner. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/i...ract030322.html We will not take their oil, but we will take their oil money...at least some of us will. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/...8653848780.html Is it also possible we will be more likely to get favorable trading for the oil we do need to buy after we go through all the trouble of helping them rebuild their country?

Of course, I would never suggest that anyone would try to use this whole Iraq situation to their advantage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...,918742,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,924541,00.html
None of the companies that will benefit the most, or their stockholders, would ever try to influence national policy. (Don't even try to suggest something so ENRON-ish)
None of these people will ever be paid outrageous sums to give speeches or be an adviser later on down the road.

Nor would I suggest that having Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan under new leadership that is US friendly would have ever been on our minds.
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/uzbekistan.htm

It is true that Iraq is in violation of a much older UN resolution. I just think that it is mighty funny that nobody was in a hurry to deal with Iraq until we got the son of the man, who's war brought about the first resolution, in the driver's seat. Of course, it is all about disobeying a UN resolution. If this is true, why do we support Israel both politically and monetarily in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions? Is it about getting rid of an evil dictator? We can't stand evil dictators...except when we need them. Read up on Pakistan and Uzbekistan. For that matter, we killed off the Indians, we blew up nukes near our own troops to test the after effects, but there is no UN resolution for either one of those.

I will say once again..Yes, Saddam is BAD!! He probably has reserved parking in Hell. Just don't tell me how he is doing all this shit, and never show me the proof. Don't tell me that we know he has chemical and biological weapons, but leave out the part about how we helped him acquire them and finance him because he was needed at the time. Don't give me every reason but the truth in a long winded speech. It is in our best interest to have stable, American friendly governments in that area. Fine!

74GoKart

thank you sir!

It appears this war is not as black and white as the Bush administration would want you to believe. I wish I had an oil tanker named after me.

Now I'm with 74 GoKart and Sir Andy.

Douglas

74GoKart

Some else with knowledge, research and intelligence. Not someone willing to take Bush's word for it that it has to be done for "these reasons".


But what would you do now that we are already in Iraq?

I have tried many times in the past to undo my "mistakes". Thank God I dont have to "fix" them in front of them world.


So.. how do I get into politics ??

Good reading 74.

So... did George Bush have anything to do with this in the past ?(besides the obvious link to oil) which all Texans have (including me)



B

If he was still in a shed, not one American or British soldier would be DEAD from this action.
The price of oil versus the price of human life, if it was your son killed in Iraq you might think different.

By the way, at the cost of this war that the US is forking out,($75B) how long could you have subsudized the price of oil or spent it on exploration in North America so we are not dependants of the Middle East?

The scary part to me is that the UN was formed to eliminate the alliances that where in existance for 2000 years previous.

These alliances are what got us into many wars, WW1, WW2 etc...look back and see all the failed attempts at global domination and the alliances that formed because of these wars, and caused the wars.

The UN has just been broken down to a truely powerless entity, when in reality we all need the UN to become more powerful to attain true global peace.

Fuck OPEC, give the UN the power over the oil and then the UN will have real power.

Give the UN the power over the money and the flow of capital and then we will have peace, till then its just a stupid game that no one wins.

I am truely sorry that George Bush stole the election and all the old boys who didnt do it right while with George Senior are now trying to fix there previous mistakes.

It scares me that the right wing of our society, I mean the far right...has such a close relationship with Bush.

The homeland Security office is a Mcarthy-est organisation that will eliminate our civil rights if we let them....

Scary times....

74GoKart,
this is exactly what i meant when i said "educate yourself" before
you come to any final conclusions about something as important as a war. all the info you mentioned plus the stuff i have brought up is publicly available. if you have followed world politics for some 20+ years like i have, all of this info was in the news at one point in time. if you haven't followed world politics closely, you're missing some variables in the equation. go educate yourself. go to your local library and look up news articles from those events mentioned. it's all out there (hmmm, sounds like the x-files, hehe) ...

Andy

good question!
i do not know the answer.
but he smoked pot in the past. does that make a difference?

I cannot tell you what we should do now. I do not think anyone knows. We are stepping in it big time. There are so many issues that are part of this problem, that we will have to be very careful in how we handle this to not end up in another Vietnam or unknowingly setting in motion the next 9-11.
We are doing exactly that Brad, going in to fix a problem we helped invent. I can only tell you that this is all part of the path our government chose years ago.
We trained freedom fighters in Afghanistan to get rid of the Soviets that were there looking for some beach front property. We helped those guys, which in turn helped us shut down the USSR's chances of getting all that oil and natural gas to a sea port and prevented them from having another money making outlet. Standard Cold War tactics. We helped Iraq because we hated Iran. We dropped them both like a hot rock after we got so far down the road. Now we have people pissed at us all around the world.
I may not think that this was the only way to clean this mess up, but I also do not think that my opinion matters that much to all the limo riding fuckers in DC. I do feel that it was our mess, and now our responsibility. But, like I said earlier, the real reasons have been spelled out in past press conferences, newspapers, and speeches. It would be nice if they would stop trying to play the whole "holier than thou." Some Americans are actually smart enough to understand what is going on, and it really pisses me off that they try to put a good PR spin on it to make it sellable to the dumb, non history knowing, sheep..I mean voters. How helpful to the next campaign would the war be if they told the whole story?

Way up here we still have 90% of our TV is American based. But we do get a different look at the news with CTV, CBC and BBC. I watch CNN all the time but it amazes me with the different coverage of the same story from other sourses. CNN is really good at quick sound bytes of info but can readily gloss over some touchy issues like foreign policy and Israel. It seems that the American media are so closely tied to the government and dare I say the "J" word, that they do not want to offened the government for fear of reprisals?
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has the best coverage of the war and American politics. He is not affraid to tell it like he sees it. (Rep or Dem)

yeah, i watched FOX news last night and they ripped that actress lady apart like she just had tried to assassinate bush. and all that for just raising her arm at the Oscars and making a peace sign. WTF? she didn't even say a word. (no anti-american, no anti-bush, no anti-anything comment). and they totally accused her of being a national traitor. so much for "freedom of speech".
"pro peace" now means anti-american?
"pro peace" now means anti-patriotic?
"pro peace" now means you forfeit your right for "free speech"?

???

Something else that scares me: While educating myself on this mess... I have to read what somebody else wrote. I absolutely think our media is bending over for the government so my reading is taken with a grain of salt. We dont KNOW 100% that any of the past events or current events are being reported without some kind of slant.

I read the Iraqi military is shooting other Iraqi's as they flee. Is this true ?

I read we bombed a market place. Is this true ? or did Saddam blow it up and blame it on us ?

I question everything.

B

1) altough i do not know, i wouldn't surprise me.
a lot of armys have done that in the past ...

2) again, i do not know for sure, but both possibilities would
not surprise me very much. even with 80% being "smart" bombs,
there's always room for error (intended or not). and it also
could very well be a scam from saddams troops.

i guess, the question is, either way, does it reallly make a difference?

i am more concerned about the fact that the US is now controlling some 75% of the country and they haven't found any WMD yet.
and the iraqis haven't used any mustard gas yet either. does that mean they don't have any? or does it mean they're waiting for the US to get to the capitol to get them all at once? and what if there will be no WMD at the end of the war? can bush afford NOT to find any? and if not, would he go ahead and "plant" some to get international justification for his war?

i suppose we have to wait and see ...

Ha ha.. Of course he will plant some if they dont find any.

My honest gut feeling: they have WMD. Saddam knows damn well if he used them it would justify the whole war (to some extent)

Raises another question:

Did we plant what they have found recently (3000 some od gas masks) ?? Or was the Iraqi military planning something for us.

Nothing we say or do makes a difference... so NO its doesnt.


B

haha, just 3000? you'll find more gas-masks in novato these days ...

and what about those (empty!) grenade shells that "could have been used for mustard gas" ???

i'm actually with you on the gut feeling that they at least
have some mustard gas sitting somewhere. and if they do,
they will use it once it gets ugly ... sure glad i'm not in Baghdad.

I think that a lot of people should actually pay attention to what is going on. If it sounds like the "X-Files" or "1984," then maybe people should pull their heads out of the mass pacifier (TV) and get back into making this a government of the people, for the people, by the people. Most of the information you need to make informed opinions is readily available just by typing. You can read the news from around the world http://newslink.org/news.html, watch CSPAN to see what they are debating, or read up on the new bills and issues on congressional websites. There are countless ways to get information, but most people are too busy, too lazy, or too trusting to make that effort. We "elected" these people, our opinions are supposedly what they make laws and foreign policy by. When we do not pay attention to what is going on in front of our faces, we really do not have the right to complain later when the bills come due for all the shit they have done in our name.
Has anyone actually watched how much of our freedom has been taken away right in front of our own faces? For our own good of course. I am not talking conspiracies, I am talking about self serving politics.
As far as whether or not there really are WMD in Iraq, I would be willing to bet that there are. What moron would spend all that money, time,and effort only to get rid of the very thing that keeps the surrounding countries on their side of the line. We have all that shit, plus god knows what else...it is called a deterrent

Brad, understand your concerns about hesitating while trying to figure out friend or foe. Latest papers say that a major concern is just the opposite is happening as solders find out about Iraqi's hiding among civilians. Self preservation is a powerful motivator...for both sides.
This brings up a interesting paradox for the US when they state they will prosecute for crimes against humanity. Does the date Mar 16, 1968, ring a bell? Almost 35 years to the day, My Lai?
Andy, I'm well aware that the US is no knight in shinning armour. Decisions were made that seemed like a good idea at the time. Hindsight always gives us the luxury of asking, what the fuck were you thinking?

How about the lead singer for the Dixie Chicks? You don't get any more American than that but when she spoke out against the war, the radio stations were told to stop playing her music. WTF is this all about? Freedom?
I don't listen to country western music but I will go out and buy her CD now.

Just watching CNN and a misile hit Kuwait city.
Could it be a misfire from the US?
Could the US have marched so fast to Bagdad that they went around critical targets only to have them regroup behind them?
Could the US have sent it into an empty shopping mall at 2AM local time (no casualties) in order to drum up more support for the war? A war that isn't going as easily as they had hoped?

I hate to say this but WAR IS HELL!!!
When fighting for your life you are bound to lose sight of good judgement, to winn at all cost.
What have some of them got to lose? They have watched their comrads slaughtered for questioning authority and don't want to face the same wrath. Just go back and read the first page of this post. Fear does motivate them and fear of humiliation and dying at the hands of their leaders is less honerable than killing civilians as a ru to help defeat the yankee intruders.

They now say it didnt hit the building. It landed in water next to the building. I was surprised about the Dixie Chicks boycott. It really really surprised me considering they are from North Texas and grew up in the area under the Bush's. We will see how their tour does when they reach the USA.

B

Still a good shot if you didn't want to kill anyone.

Actually, the oil has been flowing from Iraq for several years, that is how they have been paying for things, the amount has been controlled by the UN, so much for that. If you all want to get to the root of the 911 terrorists, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia, but then we would have no oil for the suvs, if we want to kick ass on some country that has ignored the most un resolutions, lets start with Israel. And, last but not least, don't forget who put this Asshole Saddam and his buddies in business...It was us. We sold him the bulk of any WMDs that he may have(no real proof so far, sorry). Also, if you are young enough to have missed the Vietnam war read up on it. A bogus reason(gulf of tonkin "incicent"). We were there to stop communism, we did'nt, we lost, because we were trying for a political victory with a military tool...it doesn't work and I have several dead friends to prove it, as Andy said just because on opposes the war does not mean they are not "good Americans" or patriots. I think it wood behove some of you to get your information from someone besides CNN, MSN and the other self serving talking heads who frankly need to get off of W"s dick. Jim

What nationality were the pilots on 9/11?
Afgan? NO
Iraqis? NO
Saudis? YES
But the US has an air base there, we can't piss them off, how would we defend Israel?
Why do we have to defend Israel? The US already sends them more than %50 of all foreign aid money, that's right, more $$$ to Israel than all other countries in the world combined.

By the way, this is a 914 site so I would just like to add that my restoration is coming along quite nicely!

I'm thinking about adding a temporay WAR ROOM to the Forums.

I just wanted to say this: I dont personally hold any of these comments or "statements" against anybody. We alll know that Andy hates American's. LOL


B

I don't know...deep down inside (like some of us) I think he just wants to be one.LOL

Let's hope that it is just temporary and all the soldiers can come home soon.

The cost of the war?
$288 for each American. Where do I send the check? I'll send two if it helps!

Damn French....

I only read the first and last pages of this thread. I hope I didn't miss any thing important.
My position on the war on Iraq is one of ambivalence. Since death is inevitable I can't get too worked up about any of this, people make choices which lead them to their final end. If Iraqis are given weapons and forced to use them, why don't they turn them on their oppressors? After all their life and the lives of their family are effectively over anyway once a fedayeen operative becomes involved.
Some very important literature related to this issue are two things by Michael Moore. You know, the guy who was booed at the Oscars for saying "Shame on you Mr. Bush." His documentary Bowling for Columbine goes a long way toward explaining the fascination that Americans have with guns (and any projectile weapon IMO). And the book Stupid White Men paints an unflattering picture of a good number of us. Mr. Moore is right on with a lot of his commentary. The cliche " I resemble that remark" comes to mind.
Desperate people resort to desperate measures, and one needs to examine the source of their desperation before passing judgement on them. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists. The fact that they choose America as their scapegoat has some validity.
Personally I dislike the favoritism that the US shows for Israel. I have long thought that the Jews choose (unconsciously) to be oppressed by those who surround them, just as the Germans choose to act like they are the master race.
914 content: I hope to paint my race car today.

My wife goes to the "General Hospital" website and that have a OT section where they talk about the war.
Now that would be something to read. Women from all over the world going on and and on about Luke, Laura and Saddam.

Now that would make for fun reading.

914 content: Today I'm continuing to work on the f-glass hood and cowl piece. I have to add about 3/8" to one side of the hood to close the gap to the fender. I'm really getting tired of being a body work man. The garage is covered with bondo dust.