PDA

View Full Version : War


rfa_vasquez
09-11-2002, 07:11 PM
Should we go to War with Iraq

rfa_vasquez
09-11-2002, 07:14 PM
IMO war is the answer.I saw we go in and kill them all.

Tyrion
09-11-2002, 07:17 PM
I dont know much about the current situation with Iraq(I am trying to be ignorant and have bliss...) so I cant comment.

Pad
09-11-2002, 07:21 PM
war is never the answer. never. think what it does to the ppl and the country. think about that. cities r bombed, ppl r killed and when the war is over the country has no penny and cant even rebuild itself. think about the economy.

to solve the crisis in the middle east i think that first of all the crisis in israel needs to be solved.

gorganfloss
09-11-2002, 07:28 PM
I say blow their fvcl<ing heads off!Muhahahahahha:mob: :explode: :evil3:

thehomicidalegg
09-12-2002, 05:35 AM
it aint gonna hurt sadamm but it will create more enemies and potential enemies that will end up continuing this cycle of bloodshed

leXX
09-12-2002, 05:59 AM
yes, why not kill more innocent people ffs! :rolleyes:

War is never the answer especially nowadays with nuclear armageddon only a button push away. I would like my children to grow up in a peaceful world thank you very much. All you blood thirsty idiots are so narrowminded. How many more innocent lives must be lost before people realise that there is more to this world than us humans. Half of you don't even know the real politics behind all this and you are running your mouths off making yourselves look stupid. Do ANY of you realise that the Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and he received security training from the CIA itself. Bin Laden's associates operate in over forty countries - in Europe and North America, as well as in the Middle East and Asia, he has spys eveywhere. Do you think it will be an easy war? Well I have news for you, it wont! Where will it end, armegedon is where it will end. Alot of you better get your facts straight before you start crying WAR! :mad:

LadyGaladriel
09-12-2002, 06:26 AM
I completely agree, leXX.

XERXES
09-12-2002, 09:30 AM
I wouldnt necessarily say kill them all. But there deffinately needs to be some military action. Lexx made a good point. If piss Iraq off enough, it is quite a posibility they could do something utterly horrible such as detonate nuclear bombs, or other things they have up their sleeves.

I think that right now, we really need to think about what we are going to do. Cause if something slips up the consequences will be unbearable.

And you cant just rush in there gung ho style. There is a LOT more to war than running up to the enemey and shooting them in the face. There is startegy, you have to antisipate(sp?) consequences for your actions. WAR IS NOT AN EASY THING TO DO.

All you blood thirsty idiots are so narrowminded. How many more innocent lives must be lost before people realise that there is more to this world than us humans. Half of you don't even know the real politics behind all this and you are running your mouths off making yourselves look stupid.
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!! gee you couldnt have said it better Lexx.

XERXES
09-12-2002, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by gorganfloss
I say blow their fvcl<ing heads off!Muhahahahahha:mob: :explode: :evil3:
pardon me, but this statement makes you look like a moron.

Kstar__2
09-12-2002, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by thehomicidalegg
it aint gonna hurt sadamm but it will create more enemies and potential enemies that will end up continuing this cycle of bloodshed

i agree, war is never EVER the answer, and i'm glad that most of the swampies also see that

fat_101
09-12-2002, 09:37 AM
:usa: :racer: :chop1: :duel2:

FATTEH

XERXES
09-12-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by kstar__2


i agree, war is never EVER the answer, and i'm glad that most of the swampies also see that
true true, but eventually we will have to do SOMETHING. I am not saying fighting, but eventually something will have to be done such as making compromises or whatever.

Kstar__2
09-12-2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by XERXES

true true, but eventually we will have to do SOMETHING. I am not saying fighting, but eventually something will have to be done such as making compromises or whatever.

u are right, but i don't think that iraq is treatning us right now on this moment, or even in this week, month

BCanr2d2
09-12-2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by rfa_vasquez
Should we go to War with Iraq

Who is we? Is "We" the USA? Is it the UN? Is it Bob from down the road?

If "We" is the USA - No - there is no place for one country to bomb and invade another, without it being sanctioned by a body like NATO or UN, who in the current context, will be more objective than the USA will be.
Just remember the country with the largest amount of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is the USA, don't go throwing stones at glass houses...................
Don't be the world's bully, it will only upset more people than you could imagine...... especially in the Middle East, the last thing you need is to get any of those countries in anything remotely close to a religious war, as many allies may jump ship along religious lines......

Reb Starblazer
09-12-2002, 10:50 AM
Well, I'm saying that no, they shouldn't. But also, to people that say war isn't the answer and solves nothing, that's not entirely true. Sometimes, war is necessary, the only possible course of action that can be taken to ensure the safety of innocent people, is to sometimes lose the ones who are willing to fight for said innocent people. There are soldiers that enlist just so they can "blow sh*t up!", but there are also soldiers, fathers, brothers, mothers, etc, that enlist because they, like LeXX, want their children to grow up in a safer world than them. And if the price the of freedom of their children is their own lives, then that's the price they're willing to pay. "And if according to my fate I am to lose my life, please bless with your protecting hand
my children and my wife."

When someone slaughtered over 6 million innocent people, invadeded other countries, and was trying to take over all of Europe, and perhaps the world, it was time for war. There was no other choice of action, and it brought peace, for a time. But peace is not something that can just be given, by taking away weapons. Peace is something that everyone has to want, has to long for. Peace isn't just the absence of war, it's the willingness to not fight ever again. The problem is, people want to fight, want to kill, they wish revenge for their fallen, which only creates the longing for more revenge. And revenge my friends is sweet at first, but eventually turns to ashes in your mouth. When people can finally put aside their differences, and ask "Why? Why are we fighting?", then there will be peace. Until then, there will always be a time and place when war is neccessary, but this is neither the time, nor the place.

OnlyOneCanoli
09-12-2002, 02:17 PM
I didn't vote for either option here. We don't need to "kill them all." That's freaking ridiculous.

But for those of you who say that war is never the answer, let me ask you this: do you think we should've let Hitler's Nazis and the Empire of Japan take over the world in the 1940's? That's basically what you're saying, isn't it? I'm sorry, but I'm very glad I'm not a Nazi - and I would be, today, if people two generations ago didn't do something about it.

I would agree on the statement that war is a horrible thing that people can't even contemplate until they've seen it first hand. But I'd also say that it's what we have to do in a last ditch effort, when appeasing and diplomacy are simply no longer working, or never worked from the start. If you want freedom, you must be ready to defend it and fight for it at certain times.

Now, as for the question at hand: I believe that Saddam's regime needs to go, and that it needs to be replaced. I would hope that there is some alternative than going to a full-scale-ish war with Iraq to accomplish that.

XERXES
09-12-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by kstar__2


u are right, but i don't think that iraq is treatning us right now on this moment, or even in this week, month

yes, true. But Iraq doesnt exactly trust us because last time we inspected their contry our inspectors spied also and found out bomb targets they had...... And yes they arent directly threatening us now, but eventually something will come up and require something to be done. Not necessarily fight, but compromise also.

Agen
09-12-2002, 03:55 PM
War isn't the only alternative.

Jedi_Monk
09-12-2002, 04:20 PM
US intelligence has been digging for a connection between bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein for the last 366 days, now. They've found nothing.

That was the first reason that was given to justify war with Iraq, was it not? That Hussein is aiding Al Queda in its holy war against the US? Well, 366 days after that domestic strike on the WTC, there's no link between the two. When the anthrax first showed up, immediately, they jumped on Hussein--it was later proven to be from a domestic source.

Now, the administration's reason is that they have nuclear and biological weapons that could be used against us if we don't strike now, NOW, NOW! Well they don't have nuclear weapons--there is no proof whatsoever about that. They've never had nuclear capabilities, and have no technology close to our ICBMs. Even if they did have nukes, they'd have NO WAY of using them against the US.

However, Hussein wants to live--he is not like those religious fanatics who walk into a crowded area and blow themselves up. He wants to live and stay in power, and all this talk about a regime change? What do you think that means? That means his death, doesn't it? If Hussein's final hour grows near and he does have nukes (not saying he does, now), then what's to stop him from firing--not on the US, but on Israel? What would that do to the Middle East? That would be complete destabilization and possibly the end of humanity as we know it.

I might sound like I'm contradicting myself, here... but I'm just looking at both sides of the issue:

Here are our two options:
1) If he doesn't have nukes, he's no threat, period--there would be NO REASON to go after him and this would NOT BE A JUST WAR.

2) He does have nukes, but won't use them because he knows--just like America knows, just like Pakistan knows, just like China and Russia know--that to use a nuke in this day and age means MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. He won't use them unless his life is over, and logic would state that, in a case like this, YOU DO NOT PUT HIM IN A POSITION WHERE HE KNOWS HE WILL DIE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

The same goes for his biological and chemical armaments: more likely than not, he won't use them unless he's provoked.

Iraq is a secularist country, not a theocracy like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Saddam Hussien's deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Azziz, is a Christian! Christians are not persecuted in Iraq, women are able to go to school. In fact, one could argue that the US is doing more harm in Iraq than Hussein because of the sanctions. Because of our continued pressing of the sanctions, we're denying them vital medicines and supplies which would improve the lives of millions. Why do we punish the people for the blunder of their leader a decade ago?

Why? So we could destabilize their government and coerce them into throwing down someone we don't like.

Maybe they have no interest in overthrowing Saddam... or maybe Saddam is using the sanctions against us by saying that the US doesn't care about them!

America cares about OIL! Saddam's got it--we don't like Saddam... we should just go into Baghdad, raze it to the ground, killing thousands (this is no small city, remember), or resort to street-fighting (against innocent people who have no love for us... they might :gasp: fight to preserve the life of their leader against us!).

May God bless America and keep us from going to war with Iraq!

http://www.psa-software.com/images/American%20Flag.gif

Mandalorian54
09-12-2002, 04:59 PM
I diden't vote I don't like all the choices, war isen't just to kill people it's to fight for freedom.

FatalStrike
09-12-2002, 05:14 PM
Who cares if he is a threat to the US or not.

Fact: Saddam is a mad man that has chemical weapons which he has already used on his own people

Fact: Saddam has broken every aspect of the peace treaty with him AND has fired on our aircraft. This ALONE is reason to get him out of power

Fact: Saddam is a Tyrant and tortures, rapes, muders, and oppresses his own people

Fact: Saddam has always said that America is his enemy. Thus he would not turn over terrorist members to us and protecting them is an act of war.

So you see while we should want to "kill them all" we should want to remove Saddam.

by the way if we don not go to war, people still will die, Saddam will keep killing his own people, and will eventually give someone a toy to kill us with.

XERXES
09-12-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike
by the way if we don not go to war, people still will die, Saddam will keep killing his own people, and will eventually give someone a toy to kill us with.

people will die no matter what. The question is how can we achieve our "goal" with the least loss of life. And Iraq has no nuclear weapons, and have no way to use them if they did.

mima kake
09-12-2002, 05:30 PM
War is for people who don't have the intelligence to listen to each other,
and try to understand each other.

FatalStrike
09-12-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by XERXES


people will die no matter what. The question is how can we achieve our "goal" with the least loss of life. And Iraq has no nuclear weapons, and have no way to use them if they did.

You are right they have no Nukes...YET!

The best course of action had alwas been to prevent something from happening. He can use them once he gets them because terrorist would be more then happy to strap them on their backs and kill themselves along with a major US city. If you believe that you couldn't get one in the country then you haven't been paying attention. Illegal aliens get in by the THOUSANDS, but you would have me believe that a guy with a suitcase would have no chance of entering the country? Be real.

This guy is a threat to the US, to Israel, to the Middle East, and to his own people.

We waited with Hitler, we let him grow, we allowed him to get stronger by saying "he is no threat." The problem is by the time these wackos become threats they cause millions of deaths before you can stop them.

FatalStrike
09-12-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by mima kake
War is for people who don't have the intelligence to listen to each other,
and try to understand each other.

Please call Saddam today and try to explain to him that what he is doing is wrong. Post again when he agree's to step down and let his people be free.

mima kake
09-12-2002, 05:40 PM
SURE do you got his number?;)

FatalStrike
09-12-2002, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by mima kake
SURE do you got his number?;)

Sure I do! Its even toll free!

1-800-YOU-LIVE-IN-A-DREAM-WORLD

leXX
09-12-2002, 06:17 PM
Who says he doesn't have nukes? US intelligence? :rolleyes: Stop being so naive.

gorganfloss
09-12-2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by gorganfloss
I say blow their fvcl<ing heads off!Muhahahahahha:mob: :explode: :evil3:

I didnt really mean this, I just felt like posting something...um...different for once.:p

mima kake
09-13-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike


Sure I do! Its even toll free!

1-800-YOU-LIVE-IN-A-DREAM-WORLD

Thanx buddy, I will try it right away.:D

ckcsaber
09-13-2002, 03:14 PM
Going to war is the worst thing we can do to ourselves

FatalStrike
09-13-2002, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by ckcsaber
Going to war is the worst thing we can do to ourselves

Of course it is! I mean war is much worse then a state that allows terrorists to train, give them a safe place to plan out attecks, provides them with chemical weapons, provides people to test previously mentioned weapons on, and will one day give them nuclear weapons if they can. Not to mention that it kills its own people, reinforeces the blind hatred of Americans by force, provides incentive to suicide bombers, attacks its neighbors, sponsers legal rapes, and tortures people who think different. Thats much better then war isn't it?! :rolleyes:

Kstar__2
09-13-2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike


Of course it is! I mean war is much worse then a state that allows terrorists to train, give them a safe place to plan out attecks, provides them with chemical weapons, provides people to test previously mentioned weapons on, and will one day give them nuclear weapons if they can. Not to mention that it kills its own people, reinforeces the blind hatred of Americans by force, provides incentive to suicide bombers, attacks its neighbors, sponsers legal rapes, and tortures people who think different. Thats much better then war isn't it?! :rolleyes:

i never looked at it from that POV:( , you got me thinking

Jedi_Monk
09-13-2002, 05:57 PM
Of course it is! I mean war is much worse then a state that allows terrorists to train, give them a safe place to plan out attecks, provides them with chemical weapons, provides people to test previously mentioned weapons on, and will one day give them nuclear weapons if they can.
Do we have evidence that Hussein has done any of these things? It sounds like you're describing Osama bin Ladin's training camps which are not in Iraq.

Some people seem confused, Saddam Hussein is not Osama bin Ladin. We don't know where bin Ladin is now... maybe we should, oh, I don't know... FIND HIM?

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Darth Knight
09-13-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
Some people seem confused, Saddam Hussein is not Osama bin Ladin. We don't know where bin Ladin is now... maybe we should, oh, I don't know... FIND HIM?

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

wtf do you think we are trying to do

and i am not going to vote becasue i disagree with both of the options

i do think we need to go to war to save innocent americans, war is bad but another 9/11 is worse

Tyrion
09-13-2002, 06:07 PM
i do think we need to go to war to save innocent americans, war is bad but another 9/11 is worse

Oh yeah,a innocent american is always better to save than an innocent iraqien...:rolleyes:

um

9-11:3000 kills on us

War on Iraq:about 3 to 4 thosands of innocent iraquins lost...

Darth Knight
09-13-2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Oh yeah,a innocent american is always better to save than an innocent iraqien...:rolleyes:

um

9-11:3000 kills on us

War on Iraq:about 3 to 4 thosands of innocent iraquins lost...

ok..

if he gets nukes or bio-weapons, it will kill more then 3,000, try like 200,000 immeaditly


the citizens of iraq are part of the iraq goverment and are there for part of there enemy...i know it sounds wrong but are we just supposed to stand by and watch?

it may seem narrowminded to you, but it will be neseccary some time

Master Bodle
09-13-2002, 06:19 PM
As said earlier, war will not hurt Saddam it will only hurt more of the people of Iraq. A way must be found to get rid of Saddam. If we got to war with Iraq, more lives than 3000 will be lost, much more. Not just Iraqi
"In the end all sides loose"

Tyrion keep ur racist views to urself. Who are u to decide whos lives are worth more? And u say there were 3000 kills on Us, bul**** there was 2,801 deaths and they were not all Americans !!!

Fatal strike once again gives us his great opinion, u willing to go fight then m8??

Going to war wud be the worst thing to happen and is never the thing to do, many arab nations would join with Iraq plus maybe some african nations, hell u cud start World War III.

Tyrion
09-13-2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Master Bodle
As said earlier, war will not hurt Saddam it will only hurt more of the people of Iraq. A way must be found to get rid of Saddam. If we got to war with Iraq, more lives than 3000 will be lost, much more. Not just Iraqi
"In the end all sides loose"

Tyrion keep ur racist views to urself. Who are u to decide whos lives are worth more? And u say there were 3000 kills on Us, bul**** there was 2,801 deaths and they were not all Americans !!!

Fatal strike once again gives us his great opinion, u willing to go fight then m8??

Going to war wud be the worst thing to happen and is never the thing to do, many arab nations would join with Iraq plus maybe some african nations, hell u cud start World War III.

Um...how the hell am I racist? by saying that an american life is the same as a iraquin?

Darth Knight
09-13-2002, 06:22 PM
i some what agree with you Bodle...


but i do not find what Ty said racist, he is expressing his opinion and you should tell him your opinion and respect his

Agen
09-13-2002, 06:30 PM
I didn't find his opinion racist at all either.

FatalStrike
09-13-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Master Bodle
As said earlier, war will not hurt Saddam it will only hurt more of the people of Iraq. A way must be found to get rid of Saddam. If we got to war with Iraq, more lives than 3000 will be lost, much more. Not just Iraqi
"In the end all sides loose"

War won't hurt Saddam? Um....the whole point is to eliminate Saddam. It isn't over until we do hurt Saddam.

He signed a CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT. He then BROKE that agreement. How hard is that for you to understand?


Originally posted by Master Bodle
Tyrion keep ur racist views to urself. Who are u to decide whos lives are worth more? And u say there were 3000 kills on Us, bul**** there was 2,801 deaths and they were not all Americans !!!

Tyrion was using Sarcasm you fool. He is on your side of the argument.

By the way the duty of a nations government isn't to make sure the death totals are even, its protect its people form further attack. So sorry if you think that Bush should put Iraqis ahead of Americans but in case you haven't heard, THAT'S NOT HIS JOB!

Do you know anything about reality or do you just live in your idealist fantasy land all your life.


Originally posted by Master Bodle
Fatal strike once again gives us his great opinion, u willing to go fight then m8??

I am in the reserves m8 so you bet your ass I am.

Do you not know that Saddam has killed 1.5 MILLION people in his country? Yet you defend him? WTF is wrong with you. The faster he is out the better for his own people.

Originally posted by Master Bodle
Going to war wud be the worst thing to happen and is never the thing to do, many arab nations would join with Iraq plus maybe some african nations, hell u cud start World War III.

NO arab nation would join. Saudia Arabia wouldn't lift a finger to help Saddam, being that in case you don't read wanted to invade them. Iran HATES Saddam more then we do. Iraq has terrorist cells that attack Iran. In case you weren't informed they were in a very long war.

You obviously are speaking thru idealistic views that filter out reality.

thehomicidalegg
09-14-2002, 12:19 AM
isnt it ironical that bush and cheney wants to invade iraq choosing to ignore the UN stance against it, because....wait for it.... Iraq doesnt listen to the UN?

Jedi Spy
09-14-2002, 12:38 AM
I agree that sadamn needs to be taken care of however cant we just overthrow the government? sabotage his weapons? send in the sas and assassinate him? or have i been playing too much civ?

Jedi Spy
09-14-2002, 12:39 AM
oh and btw...

WAR? Huh? what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing :(

XERXES
09-14-2002, 02:26 PM
Bob Dylan - Masters of War(1963)


Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

CenturiOn
09-14-2002, 02:58 PM
diddlediddle saddam is goint to have problems diddle diddle

****ing iraqui gov needs a big blow in their asses then get rid of their biological/chemical/nuclear mass destruction warfare

then with the help off iraqui rebels build a democraty

heheheehehehhe

saddam will die!!!

ShockV1.89
09-14-2002, 03:38 PM
>sigh< You know, people need to know when to distinguish between someone posting a serious argument, and someone posting from mommys computer when they're supposed to be getting their homework done.

I, personally, think that intelligence should look into Saddam and Iraq a bit more closely. They have publicly admitted to doing bioweapons research, which bears scrutiny. And we've seen their chem weapons. It's only logical that he either has nukes already (Russian black market?) or is working on getting them.

However, if he has any of those three, he needs to be taken out. Yes, there are other countrys that have them too. But we have proven ourselves responsible enough to possess them. Hussein and Iraq have not, and it would be a global threat to allow them to possess them at this time.

As for the Iraqi life vs America life stuff... Nobody said war is fair.

XERXES
09-15-2002, 01:19 PM
bump

FatalStrike
09-15-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by thehomicidalegg
isnt it ironical that bush and cheney wants to invade iraq choosing to ignore the UN stance against it, because....wait for it.... Iraq doesnt listen to the UN?

This is an excellent point, The UN makes Saddam sign a cease fire with certain conditions. Saddam breaks ALL of those conditions, and the US is seen as war crazy for wanting to punish him.

Fact is no one is ever going to give a hoot what the UN wants if it is shown that you can ignore them and they are too peaceful to do anything about it.

If the UN can't keep Saddam to his word how do they ever expect to stop a real global threat in the future?

Jedi_Monk
09-15-2002, 11:09 PM
So you want to talk about precedent? Israel has broken UN sanctions, as well; what if some other middle-eastern country decides to follow our lead and takes international law into their own hands, attacking Israel?

Saddam might not be a saint (understatement, I know) but his life is not worth the lives it would take to root him out! Iraq is a sovereign nation, it's not ours to take or punish!

Might does not make right!

XERXES, great post, the song really fits this occasion.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Darth Groovy
09-16-2002, 06:48 AM
Suadi Arabia has granted US permission to use land for Air Bases. It's only a matter of time now. I have a very VERY bad feeling about this!

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
So you want to talk about precedent? Israel has broken UN sanctions, as well; what if some other middle-eastern country decides to follow our lead and takes international law into their own hands, attacking Israel?

Two comments on this...

1- When did Isreal sign a peace agreement with the UN that was only broken on their side of the agreement?

2- Isreal is not worried about Middle Eastern countries attacking them. This already happened and Isreal only took 6 days to show the entire Middle East that it is not to be messed with.

Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
Saddam might not be a saint (understatement, I know) but his life is not worth the lives it would take to root him out! Iraq is a sovereign nation, it's not ours to take or punish!

I disagree completely with how you define a "sovereign nation." I do not believe that I can go take a country by force and then tell the world that they can not do anything about it because it 's not their business. He is a Dictator, not an eleceted official, he does not in anyway represent the people of Iraq.

Also you say his life is not worth the people whos lives it would cost to remove him, I disagree. First off if it takes the entire Iraqi Army then so be it. These people have taken up arms to keep a tyrant in power and thus have chosen to side with a monster against thier own people, that is a choice they should pay for. Also the number of innocent lives that would be lost are most likely no different then the number of lives that would be lost by allowing him to stay. He has already killed 1.5 million kurds, how many more must he be allowed to kill before we say, enough is enough.

Also he has broke the conditions of a cease fire he signed with the UN, by doing nothing the UN only makes certain that future dictators ignore them as well. The UN is showing weakness to poeple that only respect power, and that is a grave mistake.

XERXES
09-16-2002, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
[B]
XERXES, great post, the song really fits this occasion.
if you downloaded it somewhere and liked it, or wana hear more there is plenty more Bob Dylan songs against the Vietnam War(and war in general).

Absurd
09-16-2002, 09:41 AM
Unlike video games, people don't respawn in real life.

Welcome to reality.

Absurd
09-16-2002, 09:58 AM
I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough.

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Absurd
I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough.

I guess that into todays education system they are forgetting to teach young people the truths of dictatorships. They don't seem to have a grip on how horrible it is, and how much better off people are when they are gone.

War is never good, but allowing a dictator to grow is far worse. The human race has been taught this lesson many times in history but somehow that part of history is always left out of our childrens lesson plans. Amazing....

rfa_vasquez
09-16-2002, 11:39 AM
by we i mean the USA and the UK.As we always seem to be in the wars together.Eg you guys saved us from getting our asses kicked from hitler.So maybe its time we repaid the US

Jedi_Monk
09-16-2002, 01:35 PM
I found this on Congressman Ron Paul's (R - Texas) congressional website:
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those
who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to
invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US-
and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an
army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up
dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who
overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of
Congress?

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Jedi_Monk
09-16-2002, 01:38 PM
...the number of innocent lives that would be lost are most likely no different then the number of lives that would be lost by allowing him to stay.
Oh yeah, the old "Kill 'em to save 'em" argument. We go in there, kill their fathers and brothers and sons, "accidentally" kill their mothers and sisters and daughters in your bombing raids... and they'll thank us why?

...He has already killed 1.5 million kurds...
Some anti-Catholic "scholars" say that 95 million people were killed in the Inquisition--but not until modern times did the population of all of Europe approach 95 million, so this statistic is obviously untrue. Most experts on the Inquisition, would say that this is an error in the area of something like 2.5 million percent. Statistics can be overblown when you're talking about someone you don't like :rolleyes:

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Jedi_Monk
09-16-2002, 01:45 PM
I disagree completely with how you define a "sovereign nation."
The dictionary describes "sovereign" as
"adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state... Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power... (syn: autonomous, independent, self-governing)"

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk

The dictionary describes "sovereign" as
"adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state... Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power... (syn: autonomous, independent, self-governing)"



How black and white things are to you...its incredible. Did you notice that in the qoute above it read "a state which administers its own government" which is not what is going on in Iraq. In Iraq a man has taken power over a state by force, thus he is a illegal government, since international laws outlaw dictatorships. Thus an attack on a dictatorship could be seen as the freeing of a sovereign state.

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk

Oh yeah, the old "Kill 'em to save 'em" argument. We go in there, kill their fathers and brothers and sons, "accidentally" kill their mothers and sisters and daughters in your bombing raids... and they'll thank us why?

These fathers and brothers that will be killed are acting in defense of a heartless tyrant. If you fight for Saddam then you have earned your fate.

As for innocents that will die, they are a few in a effort to save many. The price of freedom is high in lives lost, but the price of standing by and allowing tyrants to thrive has historically been much higher.


Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
Some anti-Catholic "scholars" say that 95 million people were killed in the Inquisition--but not until modern times did the population of all of Europe approach 95 million, so this statistic is obviously untrue. Most experts on the Inquisition, would say that this is an error in the area of something like 2.5 million percent. Statistics can be overblown when you're talking about someone you don't like :rolleyes:



What is your point? That 1.5 million is an exagerated number? Fine then lets go with 1 million, or even 750,000. Is that any less horrible to you? Does less then 1.5 million mean that he is a good man that should be allowed to slaughter his people?

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 02:34 PM
For you people out there that spend your days and nights pondering and fretting over how many innocent Iraqis may die in a war, I ask you this.

If you were in power and felt that by allowing Iraq to thrive you endangered your own people, and put your cities and economy at risk would you sit and do nothing?

If you knew that terrorists that sought the destruction of your cities and your people, were hiding in the wings of a heartless dictator would you sleep at night knwoing you did nothing?

And when the terrorist attacks come and many of your people die and they turn to you and ask "why didn't you stop this from happening?" will you then tell them that you didn't wish to risk the lives of other in defense of your own?

munik
09-16-2002, 04:36 PM
I'm curious as to what ya'll would define "war against Iraq" as. What is the goal? Total domination? Over throwing and replacing the government? Occupation? Making Iraq the 5th territory? Just saying "War" is somewhat vague.

Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies. If anyone of you haven't noticed, we Americans live in America. Smack dab on the other side of the planet. So, how are the Iraqies and their supposed future allies going to pose a threat to the U.S.? That's one hell of a long swim, and I really don't think the Isrealites are going to charter flights with El Al to help them get here.

I guess you could argue about nuclear attacks, or chemical and biological attacks. Sounds pretty far fectched to me. You can't buy nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart. You don't learn how to make nuclear weapons in college. Even if Iraq purchased nuclear weapons from another country, do you think they also purchased the people necessary for the maintenance of a nuclear weapon? How about buying the facilities for maintaining a nuclear weapon? Maybe they shelled out a few extra bucks and Super-Sized the deal, and also purchased the knowledge of how to maintain and use nuclear weapons.

What about a delivery system? Maybe you thought they would duct-tape a nuclear device to a bottle rocket and point it west? Missile systems are a complicated matter as well, and not something that anyone can obtain. InterContinental Ballistc Missiles (ICBMs) are needed to deliver a nuclear payload from Iraq to the U.S. I reckon you believe that Iraq has a few of them laying around, right next to the big trashbag full of plutonium.

The suitcase nuclear bomb is a fantasy of the media. You need to unplug, and open your eyes. If you had enough nuclear material to fit in a suitcase, how long do you think you could carry it around before your teeth started falling out, sores start popping up all over your body, and blood starts pouring out of your anus? That's called radiation poisioning, and that is what happens when you start tooling around town with a suitcase full of uranium in your hand. Unless you shield the uranium, usually with lead. In which case you no longer have a suitcase bomb, but a compact car sized bomb. Much hard to carry around. Oh, and you gotta figure out a way of attaching some sort of device to start the nuclear reaction. That's the only way to get that big crispy mushroom cloud that all the kids love. You're probaly gonna need something a little more powerful then det cord. A moving truck packed full of ANFO might be enough to bring down a government building, but it sure as **** isn't gonna start a nuclear reaction.

Ok, so, now that the annoying little thing called "reality" has been hashed out, who really thinks the U.S. has anything to fear from the middle east? Christ, Isreal could probaly wipe them all out if they wanted to.

XERXES
09-16-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Absurd
I guess if it were up to "Bob Dylan", Hitler should have taken over Europe - heaven forbid we go to war and fight off tyrants - and forget about the French and American revolutions - they are a part of war and freedom isn't important enough.


that is a VERY VERY IGNORANT statement. YOU obviously dont understand the meaning of the song. We went to war against the Axis because they were threatning to take over the WORLD! And our allies were calling, begging for help. People knew what was happening in world war 2, people knew what they were fighting for, our freedom.

Vietnam was VERY different than world war 2. Nobody knew what the hell vietnam was at the time. People our ages were being sent to fight an unknown enemy, in an unknown land fighting for an unknown reason to them. Or it was just a useless reason. (prevent communism from spreading) We originally had NO business in Vietnam, but no being good ol America we have to stick our noses into everything, and we wonder why there are so many anti-american groups out there.

If you looked at the date on the song (1963 incase your on 56ghey and dont feel like scrolling up there) then you can understand why and what the meaning of the song is.

Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx

rfa_vasquez
09-16-2002, 05:41 PM
come on guys dont flame each other

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by munik
I'm curious as to what ya'll would define "war against Iraq" as. What is the goal? Total domination? Over throwing and replacing the government? Occupation? Making Iraq the 5th territory? Just saying "War" is somewhat vague.

Change in government by forcefully removing the current one. This has been in every newspaper for about two months, I just figured you knew what the US planned since everyone else in the world does.

Originally posted by munik
Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies. If anyone of you haven't noticed, we Americans live in America. Smack dab on the other side of the planet. So, how are the Iraqies and their supposed future allies going to pose a threat to the U.S.? That's one hell of a long swim, and I really don't think the Isrealites are going to charter flights with El Al to help them get here.

Did you not hear of 9/11? Did you think that was a spontaneous action? Do you not realize that their is organization required for such activites. They need a country in which they are able to gather resources and plan such attacks. While sleeper cells can exist in any country, you can't openly fund raise for terrorism in the US as you can in Iraq.

Originally posted by munik
I guess you could argue about nuclear attacks, or chemical and biological attacks. Sounds pretty far fectched to me. You can't buy nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart. You don't learn how to make nuclear weapons in college. Even if Iraq purchased nuclear weapons from another country, do you think they also purchased the people necessary for the maintenance of a nuclear weapon? How about buying the facilities for maintaining a nuclear weapon? Maybe they shelled out a few extra bucks and Super-Sized the deal, and also purchased the knowledge of how to maintain and use nuclear weapons.

Being that it is a UN accepted fact that Iraq has attempted to buy aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium, it is to be assumed that they currently have some place to put the rods. It would be rather pointless to buy rods you have no use for, correct?

Originally posted by munik
What about a delivery system? Maybe you thought they would duct-tape a nuclear device to a bottle rocket and point it west? Missile systems are a complicated matter as well, and not something that anyone can obtain. InterContinental Ballistc Missiles (ICBMs) are needed to deliver a nuclear payload from Iraq to the U.S. I reckon you believe that Iraq has a few of them laying around, right next to the big trashbag full of plutonium.

No one thinks that Iraq will have ICBM's any time soon. If you want to talk missle their current missle can be modified to hit Isreal with a nuke.

The main threat is not from a ICBM but from a Nuke delivered thru unconventional methods. If you saw the sum of all fear you would realize that a nukle can come in any package the human mind can think of.

Considering THOUSANDS of illegal aliens get into the country DAILY, you can't tell me someone couldn't sneak a coke machine size nuke on the back of the same truck used to sneak in people.

Originally posted by munik
The suitcase nuclear bomb is a fantasy of the media. You need to unplug, and open your eyes. If you had enough nuclear material to fit in a suitcase, how long do you think you could carry it around before your teeth started falling out, sores start popping up all over your body, and blood starts pouring out of your anus? That's called radiation poisioning, and that is what happens when you start tooling around town with a suitcase full of uranium in your hand. Unless you shield the uranium, usually with lead. In which case you no longer have a suitcase bomb, but a compact car sized bomb. Much hard to carry around. Oh, and you gotta figure out a way of attaching some sort of device to start the nuclear reaction. That's the only way to get that big crispy mushroom cloud that all the kids love. You're probaly gonna need something a little more powerful then det cord. A moving truck packed full of ANFO might be enough to bring down a government building, but it sure as **** isn't gonna start a nuclear reaction.

Regardless of what you may believe a suitcase size nuke is not only a reality but many were built by the soviet union. They do not carry enough nuclear material to vaporize a large city, but they could EASILY wipe out 20 city blocks or more.

As for the sheilding -
You can wear a suit that sheild you, but some how you think it is beyond reasoning that you could shield a large suitcase? Have you no idea how sheilding works?

Originally posted by munik
Ok, so, now that the annoying little thing called "reality" has been hashed out, who really thinks the U.S. has anything to fear from the middle east? Christ, Isreal could probaly wipe them all out if they wanted to.

My reality has been hashed out? The only thing you have shown is that you lack the ability to think creatively enough to find ways to sneak in a nuke. The men who designed the plan that led to 3000 deaths on 9/11 obviously do not suffer from the same "in the box" thinking that you do.

While you are right that they pose no military threat, 9/11 and everyday Isreal life have shown us that there are many ways to hurt your enemy that do not require a military.

Please think before you post comments.

FatalStrike
09-16-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by XERXES



that is a VERY VERY IGNORANT statement. YOU obviously dont understand the meaning of the song. We went to war against the Axis because they were threatning to take over the WORLD! And our allies were calling, begging for help. People knew what was happening in world war 2, people knew what they were fighting for, our freedom.

Vietnam was VERY different than world war 2. Nobody knew what the hell vietnam was at the time. People our ages were being sent to fight an unknown enemy, in an unknown land fighting for an unknown reason to them. Or it was just a useless reason. (prevent communism from spreading) We originally had NO business in Vietnam, but no being good ol America we have to stick our noses into everything, and we wonder why there are so many anti-american groups out there.

If you looked at the date on the song (1963 incase your on 56ghey and dont feel like scrolling up there) then you can understand why and what the meaning of the song is.

Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx

I agree with the fact that Vietnam was a pointless war that we should have never been involved in.

However preventing the spread of communism was not a "useless reason." Please study the Cold War in more depth then and you will realize how critical this was. That said I still believe that Vietnam was a stupid mistake made by stupid people.

Absurd
09-16-2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by XERXES

Next time dont go making random statements about things you dont know about. k thx

The song never mentioned Vietnam so far as anyone knows he's talking about all wars in general. And doing so in a very whiney format at best. You can't interpret a writing based on a time period if the writing itself is making general attacks on an entire concept.

And if you want to be picky about the song - why do the lyrics say:

"A world war can be won
You want me to believe"

WW2 was a world war (and we did win), Vietnam was not.

BTW: There was a large isolationist movement in the USA during WW2.

"When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the United States of America was forced to emerge from years of isolationism and enter the worst conflict in the history of the world."

http://worldwar2.military.com/

Absurd
09-16-2002, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by FatalStrike
I agree with the fact that Vietnam was a pointless war that we should have never been involved in.


If we won, the war may have had a point.

War is always historically interpreted differently by the winners and the losers.

I'm sure if we lost to the Japanese or Germans, WW2 would have been seen as pointless as well.

Absurd
09-16-2002, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by XERXES

if you downloaded it somewhere and liked it, or wana hear more there is plenty more Bob Dylan songs against the Vietnam War(and war in general).

War in general? Oh you mean Dylan is against war completely - hence supporting my original statement?

:rolleyes:

Jedi_Monk
09-16-2002, 11:44 PM
You're obviously getting Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein confused yet again. They're not the same guy, nor is Afghanistan the same place as Iraq. Stop making generalized statements about the middle east :rolleyes: There's nothing, absolutely nothing that connects Hussein with September 11th... the CIA has found nothing, and you know they've been looking--the administration is grasping at anything to get at Iraq and their oil fields!

And now Hussein has sent a letter to the UN, offering to let the weapons inspectors back in--unconditionally. There should be no more war planning, or threats... there should be no more talk of killing thousands of people!

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

acdcfanbill
09-17-2002, 12:29 AM
I agree, if the UN is allowed to search everywhere w/o any run around like they have been getting, then we dont have reason to attack, but if saddaam slips up on his promise, then I say we should defently think about it.

XERXES
09-17-2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Absurd


The song never mentioned Vietnam so far as anyone knows he's talking about all wars in general. And doing so in a very whiney format at best. You can't interpret a writing based on a time period if the writing itself is making general attacks on an entire concept.

http://worldwar2.military.com/
If you know about Bob Dylan, you know that he made songs that protested against the Vietnam War. And this happens to be one of them.

We are not flaming, we are arguing on our opinions. Just like a debate class. Come on.

However preventing the spread of communism was not a "useless reason." Please study the Cold War in more depth then and you will realize how critical this was. That said I still believe that Vietnam was a stupid mistake made by stupid people.
i know the concept wasnt useless. But many people did not understand it at the time, and figured that.

munik
09-17-2002, 04:12 AM
FatalStrike, I do not know what the US has planned, and I doubt that everyone else in the world knows too. I hear some stuff here, I read some stuff there, maybe see something on T.V. But I don't really buy into the whole information force feeding. I don't get my "news" from the same place you do I guess. In fact, I don't really get any "news", 'cause most of it is selfserving horse****. Believe whatever you want.

Anyways, I don't purport to know alot about nuclear weapons, but aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium? Combustion engines can be cut out of aluminum blocks, and I use sheets of aluminum in my house all the time. It's aluminum fer christs sake. But I'll take your word on it, buying aluminum rods = owning weapons grade plutonium. Or your word saying that it's the UN's word. Or something like that.

I did see the Sum of All Fears. I also saw Star Wars. I do not believe Iraq will build a Death Star and destroy the planet just because the Empire could do it. My reason? Because it is just a "movie". I understand the concept of "entertainment", and that sometimes a movie is "fiction", and that the things that happen during this "movie" don't all have to be "real". I have a firm grasp on the aforementioned "reality".

Comparing a human being sneaking across the border to a Coke machine containing a nuclear weapon being snuck across the border is ludicrous. You want to know why thousands of illegals run the border daily? It's because if they get caught, they just get sent back home. Not much for punishment. But if you start killing them, I assure you the rate of illegals crossing into the States will drop dramatically. Because getting killed will be a guarentee if you get caught trying to sneak a nuclear weapon into the States.

I don't believe the suitcase bomb statement. Maybe you could get your KGB friend to give a source, and I could decide for myself. I already conceded to the Reynolds Wrap = Bomb thing, I would never be able to forgive myself if I blindly accepted two wild statements with questionable sources.

Now, on to shielding. No, in fact I do not know how shielding works. Maybe you could enlighten me instead of mocking me with knowledge. Unless you like that sort of thing. I just pulled that whole statement out of my ass. It's my best guess, and I believed it to be right. I don't think you know any better either, or else you would have said something better.

My whole reasoning for that statement comes from my experience with the most powerful radiation I have ever come in contact with. X-Rays. When ever I get an X-Ray, lets say a dental X-Ray, the technician has me wear a large, lead apron. It is placed over my body in such a way as to be in between myself and the device that is emitting the X-Rays. And it's a pretty heavy apron. Maybe 20lbs I'd say. So anyways, on the door to all the chambers in which X-Rays take place, there is a warning sign. It is aimed towards pregnant women. Urging them to notify the technician about their physical state. Because (and this is my guess, as I have never been pregnant, or a woman, or both of those at the same time of an X-Ray visit) the technician must take special care to either use more shielding for the X-Ray, or to deny the pregnant lady the X-Rays. Because the lead apron isn't sufficient enough to protect a fetus from controlled, directed X-Ray radiation.

Irradiated pellets are used in Chemotherapy, and Chemothrerapy is radiation poisoning, on a very small and regulated scale. All it is is radiation used to kill cancerous cells before it kills you. It's like drinking chlorine to cure a throat infection. It'll kill the infection, but it'll also kill you. You just hope you want to live more then the infection.

Now what about undirected radiation emitted from Plutonium, or Uranium? Radiation that isn't focused onto a "6x"6 board for a picture, or given in small pellet doses, but just flowing about, or doing whatever radiation does? What kind of shielding is used for that? I imagine that any sort of radiation exposure from Plutonium or Uranium is very detrimental to your health. Now, here is the crux of it all: If a 20lbs lead apron isn't sufficient enough to protect against relatively harmless X-Ray radiation, what kind of suit would be used to protect you from radiation emitted from a nuclear element?

A made up suit that only the people in FatalStrikes head wear, that's what kind of suit.

Of course September 11th showed that the U.S. isn't invulnerable. But that was a terrorist attack, used to generate terror. Hence the name. But I'm a little curious about why you would write an entire post, criticizing all my points, points that support my initial statement:Originally posted by munik
Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies.And then finish your huge scathing retort with this line: Originally posted by FatalStrike
While you are right that they pose no military threat...Are you just trying to make me look foolish of something?

BCanr2d2
09-17-2002, 06:21 AM
Contrary to what has been aired in this forum, Iraq has no problem with the UN, it just has a problem with the US contingent or domination of UNSCOM, or it's equivalent. They just want to not let the US on the weapons inspections teams, since they have such a distrust of them. After all, the Australian Richard Butler had to report back to the US about what he found, even though supposedly part of a neutral inspection team.
Ever since he was kicked out of Iraq, and UNSCOM basically disbanded, he has been a vocal critic of the way the US is trying to do things, and why he can understand the Iraq point of view.

Fatalstrike, once again you are taking things out of context, a soveriegn nation does not need to have a democratically elected leader, as Iraq's neighbours, Saudi Arabia and the UAE still are run by sovereigns, who are in no way elected by their people....
Talk about taking a narrow view on the word government or sovereign nation, you even took out legitimate royal succession, they are the sovereigns, that the phrase "sovereign nation" came from. But then again, I might jut be ignorant.....

So far we have a lot of evidence, or news reports stating this MAY be possible, or is the link, but where is the follow up report to say that it isn't the case? Lead story on every newspaper and TV channel when they MIGHT have found a link, but barely rates a three line write up when the CIA pronounce there is no solid evidence showing..........................

As far as I am concerned, there is no place in the world EVER, for a pre-emptive strike, without absolute proof. All we have so far is heresay and innuendo about what he might be able to do.

00M-187
09-17-2002, 02:08 PM
YES WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAQ. - A regime change is needed.

By we I mean you, I am Canadian and no one hates us yet. so we are safe.


Saddam needs to be removed because he is a terrorist, he kills innocent people on purpose. that is the thing that seperates us, we attack in order to remove military targets, civilians are never attacked on purpose. he\they\muslims have no respect for life and kill people as if they are animals. This evil needs to be removed from the world or our freedom is lost...


YES, US foreign policy is to blame for the breeding of terrorists, but its to late to turn back now. If Israel pulled out of Gaza and the US removed sanctions in Iraq, there would still be Al Qaida and others who wish to do us harm.

We must show these terrorists that we will not allow this activity, We must do something to remove this evil from the world.

If only we had some Jedi to help us out... lol.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! (From a friendly Canadian neighbor)

FatalStrike
09-17-2002, 02:17 PM
As I seem to have my finger on the pulse of the news keep watching for this in the papers.

Iraq has changed its "unconditional" to "only military bases" it was established the FIRST TIME that he made chemical and biological weapons below hospitals and schools.

Why? Because we can't bomb hospitals and schools.

When this whole thing started his first order to his troops was that in the event of a US attack that all troops asre to move into cities and populated areas to avoid US air strikes, you really think he would put his most valuable weapons where we can hit them today? He's not that stupid.

PS for the guy buggin about aluminum rods, they are high strength aluminum rods, cut, made, and used for weapons design and manfacture. Its not the stuff you wrap your sandwich in.

FatalStrike
09-17-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2


As far as I am concerned, there is no place in the world EVER, for a pre-emptive strike, without absolute proof. All we have so far is heresay and innuendo about what he might be able to do.

How do you get absolute proof if you can't get into the country? If we had an informant that told us about weapons would you believe him? No you wouldn't.

The thing is he signed an agreement to allow weapons inspectors free access to ALL OF HIS COUNTRY, not just to areas which he decides are acceptable. You see HE LOST THE WAR thus he does not get to make the rules.

If you think he will allow people to see his weapons and tell the world you are an idiot.

munik
09-17-2002, 02:36 PM
I said I would believe you about the aluminum rods thingy, you don't have to explain it anymore.




You could explain the magic suits that protect you from radiation, I'm pretty curious about those. Maybe you could list the movie they were in, so I could watch it myself.

FatalStrike
09-17-2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by munik

You could explain the magic suits that protect you from radiation, I'm pretty curious about those. Maybe you could list the movie they were in, so I could watch it myself.

I am looking for a link to the facts about the small nukes but haven't had time to find it yet.

As for the movie thing, you do realize that a nuke is only a very small part of a missle, thus it could easily be placed inside another object.

Also please keep in mind that when I said people sneak over I meant the people that sneak over the border in trucks. If a truck can come thru, with people on, then it stands to logic that it could come thru with a more dangerous cargo. The movie was only an example.


Edit: here is a link that has a picture of a suticase nuke

http://www.techtv.com/news/politicsandlaw/story/0,24195,3352308,00.html

So stop pretending that they are fantasy.

Jed
09-17-2002, 08:06 PM
I accidentally voted for kill them all....there should be more options. In ne event, it really doesn't matter how many deaths that have been caused by each side, the only thing that matters is that no war is started. Not only will innocent lives be lost, but we will have accomplished nothing.

Jedi220

Jedi_Monk
09-17-2002, 10:46 PM
I accidentally voted for kill them all....
Hey, no problem Jedi220; so just to let everyone know, this poll should now read 12 to 21.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Jedi_Monk
09-17-2002, 11:18 PM
Alright... first of all, let's challenge the assertion that Saddam Hussein has obtained these "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium". The only way we know this so far is that "we" intercepted a shipment of these rods that were heading Saddam's way... so Saddam doesn't have those rods. Are there others? Possibly, but then... they're not telling us who "we" are, so how is the international community supposed to know that "we" wouldn't intecerpt all such shipments of these "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium".

Here's an excerpt from an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
(And just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new “evidence” of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone.)

The aluminum tubing story—and others to come—may be taken at face value by an insufficiently skeptical press, but the decision to go to war is simply too important to let the administration “wing it” in presenting its rationale. As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show asked recently about the administration’s attitude toward the American public, “Do they think we’re retarded?”
And a link to the entire article: You Call That Evidence? (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/wo/0909rothstein.html). The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, btw, is the orginazation that keeps the Doomsday Clock (according to which, it's 7 minutes to midnight).


And as to Saddam's supposed new "conditions"... I saw the report on Fox News. All I saw was that they're nitpicking something in the Iraqi letter to the UN. Here's the offending paragraph:
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all member states of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and Article II of the Charter of the United Nations.
In the past, according to the Fox report, the Iraqis have used the excuse of Iraq's sovereignty to keep inspectors from its palaces. However, that's in the past. Weapons inspectors met with Iraqi officials only today to discuss terms--no terms have been set. From what I've heard, information in the Fox report comes from the White House. Call me a hopeless skeptic, but I call it "spin control".

The letter, from Dr. Naji Sabri (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq) contains this paragraph:
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

munik
09-18-2002, 06:57 AM
Good work on the link FatalStrike. Lets me know you're trying to prove a point, instead of spouting bs. But in your link it says the bombs are capable of destroying about 2 city blocks. Your previous post said they could "EASILY wipe out 20 city blocks or more.". A technicality I'd guess. 2 blocks is big, but 20 blocks is damn near the size of some towns. Also, a nuclear device that can destroy a couple of blocks is hardly a weapon to fear from a nation that posseses a military and military weapons. A three minute barrage from an artillery unit could do the same thing.

Those bombs were made for demolition, not for tactical nuclear strikes. The only added danger from them is fallout, which would be minimal because of their size. Probaly no EMP, but that's just my guess, as your article didn't mention it, and I figure if there was EMP it wouldn't be much, considering the bombs size.

The tactical use of a "suitcase nuke" would be if it was a fusion bomb, instead of a fission bomb, or thermonuclear. And with further modifications of the thermonculear bomb, you could use less atomic fission and more fussion particles, you would transform it into a neutron bomb. A bomb that goes "boom", but kills living things instead of inert things. Now that is a terrorist weapon. But, you could take it one step further, and replace the tamper (the outer coating, or "wrap", of the bomb which keeps it together to create additional force) with cobalt, which would create an assload of radioactive particles with a very short half-life, which means they would emit much more gamma rays at a much faster rate then a normal A-bomb. Which means much more dead people.

But, as you haven't stated that the UN says that Iraq posseses fusion bombs, only fission, and for the fact that I don't believe a neutron bomb has been made and tested (hey, I'm not in the NSA), we can safely assume Mr. Hussien only posses those nasty A-bombs.


A nuclear device is only a small part of a missile. An ICBM, the Titan II, is 103 feet long and 10 feet in diameter. About ten times as long as an agerage SUV, and about twice as big in diameter. (That works out to over 1,000 square feet of surface area if the missile was cut in half. Measuring just the surface area alone. I'm sitting in a room right now that's maybe '10 x '10, that's 100 square feet, and I could spit from one wall to the other with ease. That's big) The re-entry vehicle that contains the warhead is 14 feet long, a little bit bigger then the size of an SUV. The actual size of the warhead inside it, I don't know. Not much smaller then the vehicle, I don't imagine, as the re-entry vehicle was just a sheild against the heat caused by friction from re-entry. So, a nuclear bomb is a pretty big thing. Very small compared to the missile that is carrying it, but not a small thing in itself. Doesn't matter much anyhow, as the States decomissioned the Titan sites, and rely on nuclear submarines to deliver nuclear missiles now. A much smarter choice.

So, on to my next point. A re-iteration of the fact that Iraq is no threat to the States. You are comparing terrorists acts to a military retaliation. Far fetched. You accused me of "thinking inside the box" because I wouldn't entertain the idea of Iraq using a terrorist attack against a civilian target in the US. Yes, that may be a possibility, but Saddam unleashing his hordes of genetically altered gorrillas with the sole intent of brutally beating the retaraded dyslexics of North America is also a possiblity. And maybe there is a contingency plan for that, as unlikely as it seems. My point is, the U.S. has limited resources, so it must devote them to legitement threats. A terrorist attack on U.S. soil with a "suitcase bomb" by Iraq is not a legitimate threat.

Seriously, you should think about it. I by no means am a military strategist, nor have I ever been trained in it, but I do posses common sense. And common sense tells me that a nation under attack by a foriegn army would not send a nuclear device to the opposite side of the planet by means of land/sea travel to destroy a civilian target. What kind of retardedness would make you belive such a thing? First thing, an attack against a civilian target only has two out comes:
1) Your enemy becomes demoralized and ceases fighting (the desired outcome) or
2) Your enemy becomes enraged, and fights much more viciously (as your September 11th Holy Grail would demonstrated)

So, two outcomes to an attack such as the one you describe, yet only one possible outcome, considering all the available evidence. The people become angrier and more violent. The people of the invading army, the army on your soil, become more aggresive then they already are. Hey, good strategy, maybe you should be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lets just assume that you, Mr. FatalStrike the all holy, were in Sadam Hussiens shoes. What would you do with fifty nuclear warheads with about 10 megatons worth of explosives each? Do you think you would risk trying to send them to the U.S.? And what if you do send them there, what sort of targets would you choose? And how many of them do you think would actually reach U.S. Soil? How about using those tactical nukes (big far fetched guess here) against the invading army? Doesn't that sound much more reasonable? Maybe utilize any remaining SCUDS, and launch an areial barrage of about 10-20 missiles per invading quadrant, set to burst about 10-15 miles above ground, that way you can avoid any interception missiles, and utilize the EMP so your inept and inferior ground forces might stand a chance against the invading army.

To me, the above paragraph sounds like a reasonbale counter-attack strategy, much more realistic then bombing some office building thousands of miles away from the actual threat.

But maybe I'm the only one here posting who doesn't have a wet nurse, or spend my time playing with dolls.

FatalStrike
09-18-2002, 10:16 AM
I was going to write another long post pointing out how many flaws you all have in your arguments, but I will just ask a few questions.



Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?

Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?

Please answer these when you get a chance.

Thanks

00M-187
09-18-2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by FatalStrike
I was going to write another long post pointing out how many flaws you all have in your arguments, but I will just ask a few questions.



Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?

Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?

Please answer these when you get a chance.

Thanks

1) If a dictatorship works for the people, then there is no reason to remove it.

2)How do you define terrorists? there are many definitions, in the US case yes, finding murderers is that killed 3000 innocent cititzens is nessesary. But, what if India attacks Pakistan (for harbouring terrorists) This war on terror will give the green light to tensions among neightbors, this " war on terror " is going to turn out much like the wild west, China will Invade Taiwan, Nkorea will invade Skorea and so on. Things could get very ugly.

3) Saddam needs to be removed, he should have been removed long ago, he is a proven murderer and a direct threat to our freedom, The Butcher of Baghdam must be removed at once.

FatalStrike
09-18-2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by 00M-187


1) If a dictatorship works for the people, then there is no reason to remove it.

There are very few cases were a dictator has "worked for the people" but I agree with your answer. If in fact the dictator is working out well for the country then, I would have no problems with him/her remaining in power.


Originally posted by 00M-187
2)How do you define terrorists? there are many definitions, in the US case yes, finding murderers is that killed 3000 innocent cititzens is nessesary. But, what if India attacks Pakistan (for harbouring terrorists) This war on terror will give the green light to tensions among neightbors, this " war on terror " is going to turn out much like the wild west, China will Invade Taiwan, Nkorea will invade Skorea and so on. Things could get very ugly.

I understand that this could get ugly, however perhaps this is an ugly the world needs. The solution to many problems is worse in the short tem but better in the long term.

If a solution can be reached without war then we are all better for it. However when the stakes get to high to risk lengthy political solutions, a country does have every right to defend itself.

An India - Pakistan conflict would be the worst of all those you listed. However theirs is a problem that could be solved diplomatically, simply because the main point of contention between the two sides is land. Land disagreements are easier to solve then idealogical differences.


Originally posted by 00M-187
3) Saddam needs to be removed, he should have been removed long ago, he is a proven murderer and a direct threat to our freedom, The Butcher of Baghdam must be removed at once.

Agreed


Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions I hope that everyone who post on this forum would do the same. That would allow us all to see where they stand on issues that are at the core of this debate.

ShockV1.89
09-18-2002, 11:40 AM
Lets just assume that you, Mr. FatalStrike the all holy, were in Sadam Hussiens shoes. What would you do with fifty nuclear warheads with about 10 megatons worth of explosives each? Do you think you would risk trying to send them to the U.S.? And what if you do send them there, what sort of targets would you choose? And how many of them do you think would actually reach U.S. Soil? How about using those tactical nukes (big far fetched guess here) against the invading army? Doesn't that sound much more reasonable? Maybe utilize any remaining SCUDS, and launch an areial barrage of about 10-20 missiles per invading quadrant, set to burst about 10-15 miles above ground, that way you can avoid any interception missiles, and utilize the EMP so your inept and inferior ground forces might stand a chance against the invading army.

Hmm...two or three nukes in NYC...five in the Capital (better chance of sneaking one or two in, since some would probably be caught). One at Fort Knox. One to each (or several) of the American military bases around the world. One to Camp David (demoralizing). One in Chicago, one in the Florida Keys, two in LA.

The rest used against the advancing army. (if only half the nukes sent to the USA made it, the attack would be succesfull)

rfa_vasquez
09-18-2002, 12:12 PM
But why start a nuclear war.Why not just fight with guns.Nukes are there to end the war at the push of a button.But the enemy cant push the button if u disable his hand

FatalStrike
09-18-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89


Hmm...two or three nukes in NYC...five in the Capital (better chance of sneaking one or two in, since some would probably be caught). One at Fort Knox. One to each (or several) of the American military bases around the world. One to Camp David (demoralizing). One in Chicago, one in the Florida Keys, two in LA.

The rest used against the advancing army. (if only half the nukes sent to the USA made it, the attack would be succesfull)

Wouldn't even need that, 1 nuke at a redskins game. Stadium seat 85,000+. They have sold out every game for the last 10+ years. Even if the nuke was small, it would kill just about everyone in the stadium.

Death toll would be 85,000 spectators + stadium employees + teams + team employess + owners. They would die instantly. Add to that the number of fireman, police, and surrounding areas that would get lethel radiation amounts.

1 nuke 100,000 dead. So you see even 1 small nuke is too high a risk.

ShockV1.89
09-18-2002, 12:40 PM
Oh, thats true. But I'm talking about if Saddam had 50 nukes at his disposal. If I were him, thats how I'd use them...

00M-187
09-18-2002, 02:13 PM
Saddam would never launch a tactical Nuke at the US, for fear of being obliterated by a retaliatory attack which could destroy his entire country. What he would do is provide third party terrorists with the nukes so they can disperse them internally in the US, then he doesn't get blamed and makes both Iraq and the terrorists happy.


---WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND--- about this whole Muslim holy war, is, first off, I know the sanctions against Iraq and US foreign policy and the Israely occupation of Palestine, blah blah blah has caused unrest in the muslim community, (anti US\Sematic) hatred and what not, BUT.... We\Israel DO NOT kill innocent people ON PURPOSE... I guess you could say the US is responsible for Iraqi' deaths due to sanctions in some regard. Israel is responsible for Innocent Palestinians being killed in the line of fire. But WE ARE NOT MURDERERS... That does not justify killing innocent people by walking into a crowded market place and blowing yourself up, or flying a plane into a building....


---MARTYRDOM--- They think they are doing gods work, YEA RIGHT- More like the DEVILS work - Do you really think Allah - needs to send a band of two bit terrorists in a plane to destroy a building because he thinks Americans are Evil. NO! if god thought it was right to remove the "Evil Infidel" dont you think he would unleash an Earthquake or Tidal wave or something, the ignorance of these people infuriates me!


---BOTTOM LINE--- Not all muslims are Evil, Most are violent and ignorant, but not all of them are Evil. There are good and bad people of every race\religion.


Alqaida\Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade\etc etc etc. work directly for Satan and have no allegiance to god... They think they will reach paradise when they blow themselves up, little do they know they're going straight to hell.


GOD BLESS AMERICA! and freedom to all.

FatalStrike
09-18-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by 00M-187
Saddam would never launch a tactical Nuke at the US, for fear of being obliterated by a retaliatory attack which could destroy his entire country. What he would do is provide third party terrorists with the nukes so they can disperse them internally in the US, then he doesn't get blamed and makes both Iraq and the terrorists happy.

Exactly! What people are missing here is that Saddam and Osama have similar goals. Both want to make it an "us v them" scenerio.

In the Gulf War Saddam fired scud missles into Isreal. He did this in an attempt to generate an Isreali response. If Isreal was attacking Iraq then the entire Middle East would be forced to cut ties with the allies. With no bases from which to launch attacks then they would have a much tougher time launching strong attacks against him. This is why to this day he promotes attacking Isreal, in order to force the US to become more active in defence of Isreal.

Osama wants this to be a "us v them" scenerio, because he needs Muslim backing in order to plan, train, and fund raise for future attacks onthe US. He also wants to get rid of Western influence in the Middle East.

So you see these two madmen have very good reasons to aid each other.


Originally posted by 00M-187
---WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND--- about this whole Muslim holy war, is, first off, I know the sanctions against Iraq and US foreign policy and the Israely occupation of Palestine, blah blah blah has caused unrest in the muslim community, (anti US\Sematic) hatred and what not, BUT.... We\Israel DO NOT kill innocent people ON PURPOSE... I guess you could say the US is responsible for Iraqi' deaths due to sanctions in some regard. Israel is responsible for Innocent Palestinians being killed in the line of fire. But WE ARE NOT MURDERERS... That does not justify killing innocent people by walking into a crowded market place and blowing yourself up, or flying a plane into a building....

They see things this way for many reasons these are two main reason I can think of.

-Their facts come thru anti-american state influenced news sources

-They hate the people who rule over them and believe the US dollar is keeping them in power


Originally posted by 00M-187
---MARTYRDOM--- They think they are doing gods work, YEA RIGHT- More like the DEVILS work - Do you really think Allah - needs to send a band of two bit terrorists in a plane to destroy a building because he thinks Americans are Evil. NO! if god thought it was right to remove the "Evil Infidel" dont you think he would unleash an Earthquake or Tidal wave or something, the ignorance of these people infuriates me!

Anyone who thinks for a second these people are actually doing the work of God are morons. No Creator would ask his followers to kill themselves in fruitless actions that only bring more death upon their own people. If that is the word of God then they should start to wonder if maybe they are following the wrong God and enroll in Catholic schools, were we can teach them how to feel bad about everything you do :)

Originally posted by 00M-187
---BOTTOM LINE--- Not all muslims are Evil, Most are violent and ignorant, but not all of them are Evil. There are good and bad people of every race\religion.

Many would disagree with your generalized statement about violence and ignorance but if you look deep you will see that this statement is true.

They are ignorant because they have no means by which to seek out truth. Their governments have full control of what info reaches their ears at all times.

They are violent because their lives are very poor, hard, and without reward. They are oppressed and thus have much anger inside. They are very easily convinced of who is to blame, because they want so much to find the cause of their suffering.



Originally posted by 00M-187
Alqaida\Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade\etc etc etc. work directly for Satan and have no allegiance to god... They think they will reach paradise when they blow themselves up, little do they know they're going straight to hell.


GOD BLESS AMERICA! and freedom to all.

If they are indeed doing the work of a supreme being then there is only one being who would ask this for this sort of work to be done. Satan.

00M-187
09-18-2002, 04:29 PM
I enjoy your responses Fatalstrike, you have much knowledge about you. If only we could send a Jedi task force to take out Sadam and Osama... lol! These problems would be solved much faster....

thehomicidalegg
09-19-2002, 02:43 AM
then there's the issue of the US not having the control of oil fields in the middleeast, which is a extremely valuable commodity in the hand of someone deemed to be the 'enemy'

munik
09-19-2002, 03:01 AM
In all those targets listed for nukes, I think Chicago is the only one that might be worth it. NYC, D.C., LA, those three cities are population centers. No reason to bomb them. Military bases would be empty except for a skeleton staff during time of war, and Fort Knox only has gold, which wouldn't be destroyed by a nuclear blast. There's no way you could get a nuke inside or very near it, and Fort Knox would be able to withstand a nuclear blast that isn't on top of it. I don't know what Camp David is, and I'm not sure what is in the Florida Keys that would be worth destroying. Chicago has a naval base, so I guess it would be an alright target.

In my previous post, I pointed out how nuking non-military targets just to get a body count was not a wise move. The invading army isn't gonna stop because of that, they will only fight harder. If I had to pick targets other then the invading army, they would be:

--A couple of nukes to both the NORAD sites, Colorado and Ontario.
--One sub-suface detonation of a nuke for each of the 7 Fleets.
--Any naval base that currently has, or can support, submarines.
--One nuke to Diego Garcia
--One nuke to Okinawa
--One nuke to Ramstien
--One nuke to each town that has a Lockheed-Martin or Boeing factory
--A nuke to any city with large steel production facilities.

I'd do them all in that order. Then use the remaining nukes on the invading army. That is a tactical attack, one that will really hurt your enemy, instead of an attack used to kill civilians and anger, not hurt or weaken, your enemy. Killing everybody at a football stadium has no tactical advantage whatsoever. I don't understand why you keep insisting that Saddam would try and kill civilians in the US if a war was to occur. NO ONE WOULD DO THAT.

rfa_vasquez, you ask why not just fight with guns? why not just fight with knives then, or with fists? Why limit yourself to weak weapons when you posses powerful ones? Nukes aren't there to end a war, they are just really powerful bombs. They by no means will end a war. They will just destroy and kill alot more then regular explosives. And you if you can disable your enemies hand with a gun, then you most definately could do it with a nuclear bomb.


Here's the answer to your questions FatalStrike:

1)Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?
A dictatorship must be good for some people of the country, or else they wouldn't stand for it. One man alone could not sway the will of an entire country. He has others that want him to stay in power, because they benefit from it. He must have alot of people that want him to stay in power, or else the country would have removed him. So, if a country is so inclined to meddle into another countries affairs, I say remove the dictator. The only motive for one country to change the government of another is for the benefit of the changer. Maybe money, or resources, or land. So yeah, if you can, force another country into accepting a leader that is more favorable to you.

2)Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?
I don't think there is any sort of rule for something like this. If you can do it, do it. If someone can stop you, and they feel like stopping you, then they will. If no one can stop you, then you can do whatever you damn well please.

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?
It doesn't matter to me either way whether the US attacks Saddam or not. I don't really see a reason to attack now, as I don't believe he poses a threat to the US. But, refering to my first answer, Saddam is unfavorable to the US, and there must be something good in Iraq that the US wants, so the US is looking for any reason to remove him. I think the only reason the US hasn't done it yet is because of a nation of pacifist pansies, all over 18 and with knowledge of how to fill out a voting ballot.

rfa_vasquez
09-19-2002, 03:19 AM
Ok you say why not fight with fists and they will just kill a lot more.

Think of it this way.

The blast itself will kill lots of civilians.
Then comes the shockwave.
Then the radiation.
Plants and food get contaminated.
Then there is another Ice Age.

BigTeddyPaul
09-19-2002, 03:58 AM
Question: Should we go to war?

Answer: NO!

BigTeddyPaul

munik
09-19-2002, 04:02 AM
The blast will kill people, yes, but it's the shockwave that does all the damage and makes a fission/fussion bomb so destructive. In fact, with the nuclear devices that may be used the shockwave will be so desctructive, and so big, that you won't have to worry about radiation. If you were close enough to get burned by the radiation, the shockwave would have flattened you.

Food won't get contanimated, it just needs to be washed off to ensure that you don't ingest radioactive particles. Plants can get contanimated, but that doesn't mean they all will. Also, they can and will filter out the contanimation, to the point of being normal, depending on the radioactive isotopes that are absorbed by the plant.

I don't know why you think an Ice Age would occur, especially if you believe there will be radiation around. Heat usually doesn't promote ice, so radiation would prevent an Ice Age.

BCanr2d2
09-19-2002, 06:23 AM
One fact about nuclear waste is that for about 3-4 years Formula One teams used a form of nulcear waste as ballast in their cars, whilst not emitting a dangerous amount of radiation, even sports have uses for nulcear products. They did ban it after all, if the teams wanted to venture into more dense metals....


As for the mention of Allah, and the Koran, it is different interpretations of the same words that people use as their justification for what they do. Like The Bible, and other "religious" documents, there are plenty of pieces of text that contradict each other, so one group sees it one way, another sees it another way.......

Are we, as a western, and basically christian ruled society, do we go back and stop to think that the Inquisition and the Crusades are a lot worse, not in raw numbers, but in acts, than what has happened now?

FatalStrike
09-19-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2

Are we, as a western, and basically christian ruled society, do we go back and stop to think that the Inquisition and the Crusades are a lot worse, not in raw numbers, but in acts, than what has happened now?

Whats the point? Yeah it was bad and so what? You want us in the US to take blame for what happened in Spain hundreds of years ago?

Should the Italians feel bad every time they see the Coliseum? After all Chirsitians were fed to Lions there, right?

No one wants to torture the Muslims. No one is planning on forcing them into Christianity. We only wish to take a cruel tyrant off there hands. Thats it, nothing else.

As for the targets that would be attacked with nuclear weapons. Someone mentioned that large population center would be bad target? WRONG. They are the soft, high impact targets. Which is to say, easy to hit, and they generate the largest amount of attention.

If I were to pick targets they would be

NYSE - New York Stock Exchange
Nasdaq - The other stock exchange
World Bank - Think about the global message
SEC- Securities and Exchange Commision
National Department of the Treasurey


You manage to hit these and you send the US into an instant depression. Also they happen to be in major population centers.

Luckily these targets would be very difficult to hit.

00M-187
09-19-2002, 10:42 AM
I hope to God none of these scenarios happen. What are your thoughts on the biblical aspect of whats going on... Do you think this could be the beginning to the end? Do you think Bin Laden is the antichrist. Will Jesus return and save us?

FatalStrike
09-19-2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by 00M-187
I hope to God none of these scenarios happen. What are your thoughts on the biblical aspect of whats going on... Do you think this could be the beginning to the end? Do you think Bin Laden is the antichrist. Will Jesus return and save us?

Let me answer this before the Athiest's show up and flame you.

No, Osama is not the Anti-Christ. It is said that the Anti-Christ will be loved by all and will be viewed as a man who brings peace to the world. Only after the world has let down its guard does the anti-christ show his true face to the world.


Being that most of the world would love to see images of a dead Osama with a Marine boot print on has @ss, we must conclude he does not fit the description. Also anyone who see's Osama as peaceful is just not paying attention.

munik
09-19-2002, 02:23 PM
It was me who said population centers would be bad targets. ME! I've said it quite a few times, and I've explained why. You just don't want to acknowledge that I'm right. Instead you insist on an opposing view, regardless of the logic against it. Destroying the stock exchange buildings will only accomplish one thing. Killing the stockbrokers who were on the floor that day trading. That's it. Destroying the SEC building won't destroy the SEC, same with the Dept. of the Treasurey. Don't know much about the world bank.

There were hundreds of stockbrokers in the WTC when it was destroyed, entire firms and all their employees died. Did not cause a depression. Because the money is still there, and the businesses are still there. Just becuase you eliminate the trading floor, and whoever was on it, does not mean those other things will dissappear. It just means that other stockbrokers will find a new building to trade in.

That's like saying the worlds oil supply, and all the vehicles and machines that use oil or oil products will vanish if you kill some gas station attendants. Not much of a correlation.

Jedi_Monk
09-19-2002, 02:49 PM
More information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" (note all of the use of such phrases as "may have been" and "could suggest").
VIENNA, Austria Sept. 18 — Aluminum tubing sent from China to Jordan may have been destined for Iraq to be used in enriching uranium for atomic weapons, international nuclear officials and a former U.N. weapons inspector say.

The reports could suggest that contrary to its denials, Iraq harbors nuclear ambitions but hasn't been able to buy the uranium it needs on the open market. On the other hand, some experts say the data isn't complete enough to make a definite judgment of Iraq's intentions...

<snip>

...The centrifuges are high-speed rotating drums that take raw uranium and separate it into different varieties of the element. A heavier form, which is not useful in nuclear weapons, accumulates toward the outside of the spinning drum and is siphoned off. The lighter form, which is used in nuclear bombs, tends to stay in the middle.

Because the process is highly inefficient, it requires hundreds or thousands of linked centrifuges to concentrate the light form of uranium sufficiently to be used in an atomic bomb.

In the past, Iraq has used heavy-gauge aluminum tubing to build centrifuges for refining raw uranium into fuel for a nuclear weapon. Those devices were destroyed during the 1990s by U.N. weapons inspectors.

If Iraq is seeking to rebuild centrifuges for a nuclear program, it could indicate it lacks an outside source of weapons-grade nuclear fuel...
And the link to the entire article: Reports: Parts Meant for Iraq Nukes (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20020918_2194.html).

If this information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" is real, and they really were heading for Iraq, all it proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

FatalStrike
09-19-2002, 03:00 PM
tsk tsk

You haven't thought things thru again! You are assuming that the intent of those attacks would be to eliminate exchange but you are wrong.

The point of those attacks is to make investors nervous. Post 9/11 there was one thing that was grossly aparent in US thinking. Everytime the Justice department issued an alert, stocks tumbled. Investors got nervous. They didn't know what was happening to the financial district.

So if you eliminate the two greatest financial centers in the US, as well as making the surroungd area, offices, buildings, research, and resources untouchable, you will shake the the investors. Add to that the fact that the SEC is in shambles, and is not monitoring the stock market, but is instead trying to rebuild itself after you destroyed its resources and murdered their top officials. Then after you are done ensuring a slow recovery to the exchanges of the united states, you give them a political headace by wiping out the World Bank, a place thaat handles foreign monies coming in to the country, as well as much of the Embassy business in Washington.

You won't have a depression (I went to far with that) but you have scared invenstors, that fear the terrorists will strike the financial centers again and start to sell their stock. The Fed's can't comfort them because both of their agencies are struggling. And you add to that the political climate that a attack on the World bank creates, and you have finger pointing in Washington, and all the sudden you have a country that is not anywhere near as sure of itself as it was prior to your attack.

Thus you scare the US in the only place where they can be scared....their pocketbooks.

FatalStrike
09-19-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk


If this information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" is real, and they really were heading for Iraq, all it proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs.



What do we do if Saddam does what he did last time? What if he limits them to military facilities and does not permit them to go to warhouses and hospitals where he has made Biological weapons? What if he stops inspectors from going to schools where he would be smart to store weapons, knowing that the US won't bomb a school? Basically what will be your excuse when he does what the entire world knows he will do, which is to delay the inspectors everytime they wish to go somewhere he would not like them enter.

By the way your Aluminum rod article only shows that he is in fact attempting to make Nuclear Weapons, which is in DIRECT violation with the cease fire agreement.

Does this agreement mean nothing to you? Do you think it a good thing that he is able to ignore the UN?

Jedi_Monk
09-19-2002, 03:22 PM
What if... presupositions, prejudiced judgements. Let the UN Inspectors go in and see what happens.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

FatalStrike
09-19-2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
What if... presupositions, prejudiced judgements. Let the UN Inspectors go in and see what happens.


Prejudiced judgements is the right course of action. You judge people based on their past actions, and Saddam has NEVER given anyone a reason to trust him.

In fact the very idea of not preparing for what to do after Saddam screws the UN again would be naive.

I will word it differently so as not to offend your "always give a known liar another chance" sense of justice....

BASED ON HIS TRACK RECORD WITH THE UN, what will be your reason to allow him to go on doing his thing when he sidetracks the inspectors?

Jedi_Monk
09-19-2002, 04:07 PM
If he interferes with the inspectors, then maybe the international community will get behind us. But you're not clairvoyant, you can't see into the future, and neither can the administration. The UN weapons inspectors should go in, and in the words of Scott Ritter, "The UN Inspectors are the best damn crime-scene investigators in the world".

You talk about Saddam interfering with the UN's resolutions--well the UN is resolved on sending in Inspectors, and if the US launches an attack before those Inspectors can do their job, then what is the US doing? The US would be interfering with UN resolutions!

There is no evidence of "clear and present danger" which would give the US the right to attack Iraq. What we would be doing would be a first strike, something the US has never done before. But you know who did carry out a first strike? Japan, December 7th 1941. And what we would do to Baghdad would be a hundred times worse, in pure loss of life, than anything the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

And the article on "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" might mean what you implied--but it also means what I said, which was:
proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs.
Again, there is no clear and present danger which would ethically or morally justify a first strike.

If the UN Inspectors find out that the Iraqis are in "violation with the cease fire agreement", then let the UN do its job. There is time to work within the system, which is my whole point.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

rfa_vasquez
09-19-2002, 07:26 PM
my only point here is that this will happen 1 day.wether it is soon when im alive.Or later when im dead.But 1 day these scenarios will happen.

munik
09-20-2002, 12:34 AM
FatalStrike, are you even a U.S. citizen? Or do you really live here and still just get your information from the television? Just because the stock exchange report on CNN says things are bad, it doesn't really mean things are bad. Maybe bad for daytraders, or people ready to turn 65 years of age, or those who rely on the exchange for their income, but for everyone else it's inconsequential. The stock exchange is not a measurement of the U.S. economy, no matter what anyone tells you. I have never been personnally effected by the stock exchange in a bad way ever since I've been alive.

If an attack like the one you described caused fear in investors like you described, I would be doing great. That's because my only interest in the stock market is a 401(k), with a regular flow of cash of into it. And because I'm 24 years old. That means if people are scared and start selling stock, I buy more of it. Hey, good for me. More money for when I retire. So a scenario such as the one you described would be good for me. And I doubt I'm the only young person in the States with a 401(k). But CNN would still be saying that the market is bad, and still try to instill fear and doubt into my mind. But, I have some reasonable foresight and I'm not un-educated about my money. Oh, and I can think for myself.

What if he stops inspectors from going to schools where he would be smart to store weapons, knowing that the US won't bomb a school? Yep, I'm pretty certain you aren't from the States. Why the hell wouldn't they bomb a school that is storing weapons? Because it's a school? Are you that naive? What if Saddam put all his weapons and forces inside schools and hospitals? President Bush gets on the news and says, "Sorry folks, I'm calling the war off, Saddam put all his forces inside schools, and we can't touch him." You have no concept of war, no idea at all.

Just because the Geneva convention says not to attack anything with Red Lions, Sickles and Stars, or Crosses, do you think our armed forces would just stand there and die if a vehicle with those symbols was shooting at them? No, they would shoot back. What about the POW's in tiger cages 35 years ago in Vietnam? Should they have just remained there, and not try to escape, and get killed, just because they are non-combatants and removed from the war because the Convention says so? The only people who the Geneva Convention applies to are the losers of a conflict. That's because it's only the losers of a conflict who are tried for war crimes. The winners prosecute the losers, not the other way around.

FatalStrike
09-20-2002, 10:04 AM
Munik you are starting to get too easy to pick apart!


Originally posted by munik
FatalStrike, are you even a U.S. citizen? Or do you really live here and still just get your information from the television? Just because the stock exchange report on CNN says things are bad, it doesn't really mean things are bad. Maybe bad for daytraders, or people ready to turn 65 years of age, or those who rely on the exchange for their income, but for everyone else it's inconsequential. The stock exchange is not a measurement of the U.S. economy, no matter what anyone tells you. I have never been personnally effected by the stock exchange in a bad way ever since I've been alive.

Yes I am a citizen.

While the stock exchange is not a measure f the US economy it does effect the US economy. The stock market can be dragged down by a bad economy, or the economy can be dragged down by a bad stock market. It is all a question of consumer confidence.

Originally posted by munik
If an attack like the one you described caused fear in investors like you described, I would be doing great. That's because my only interest in the stock market is a 401(k), with a regular flow of cash of into it. And because I'm 24 years old. That means if people are scared and start selling stock, I buy more of it. Hey, good for me. More money for when I retire. So a scenario such as the one you described would be good for me. And I doubt I'm the only young person in the States with a 401(k). But CNN would still be saying that the market is bad, and still try to instill fear and doubt into my mind. But, I have some reasonable foresight and I'm not un-educated about my money. Oh, and I can think for myself.

While you may buy more stocks as prices go down, as I do myself, most large buyers of stocks do not. Me and you are drops in the bucket, I assume by your 401k comment that you do not make 150,000 share transactions weekly.

When these guys decide to sell, and no buyers are readily available, the companies to which these stocks belong have to buy back their own stocks. This drops the usable cash this company has, and makes CEO's nervous. As their stocks continue to drop, more and more sell. Less and less buy, and the company has to shell out more and more of its cash. If this effect lasts too long then the company is forced to cut back production, or staff in order to stay in the black.

With a vast attack on financial districts this effect to sweep thru a vast number of US companies and slow down the US economy as a whole.

Originally posted by munik
Yep, I'm pretty certain you aren't from the States. Why the hell wouldn't they bomb a school that is storing weapons? Because it's a school? Are you that naive? What if Saddam put all his weapons and forces inside schools and hospitals? President Bush gets on the news and says, "Sorry folks, I'm calling the war off, Saddam put all his forces inside schools, and we can't touch him." You have no concept of war, no idea at all.

Yes I am from the states and I know war pretty well. While we both know much of war you have a childs grasp of politics. You can't bomb a school during peacetime because it causes folks in the UN to go crazy! We have bombed many radar stations, and anti arcraft guns since the cease fire and no one gives a damn. If we bombed a school tomorrow the world would go nuts. That is why he would hide it under schools.

Look how crazied everyone got when a bomb hit a wedding in afghanistan! Do you think it would be any less if we hit a school? Get your nose out of the war room and realize this country is run by politicians not generals!

Originally posted by munik
Just because the Geneva convention says not to attack anything with Red Lions, Sickles and Stars, or Crosses, do you think our armed forces would just stand there and die if a vehicle with those symbols was shooting at them? No, they would shoot back. What about the POW's in tiger cages 35 years ago in Vietnam? Should they have just remained there, and not try to escape, and get killed, just because they are non-combatants and removed from the war because the Convention says so? The only people who the Geneva Convention applies to are the losers of a conflict. That's because it's only the losers of a conflict who are tried for war crimes. The winners prosecute the losers, not the other way around.

There is a difference between a marked vehicle that is shooting at you, and a school full of children that is acting as a warehouse. If you don't see the difference then you have no heart at all.

By the way our defense secretary said we COULD NOT bomb schools, and I take his word more then yours.

FatalStrike
09-20-2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk
If he interferes with the inspectors, then maybe the international community will get behind us. But you're not clairvoyant, you can't see into the future, and neither can the administration. The UN weapons inspectors should go in, and in the words of Scott Ritter, "The UN Inspectors are the best damn crime-scene investigators in the world".

You talk about Saddam interfering with the UN's resolutions--well the UN is resolved on sending in Inspectors, and if the US launches an attack before those Inspectors can do their job, then what is the US doing? The US would be interfering with UN resolutions!

There is no evidence of "clear and present danger" which would give the US the right to attack Iraq. What we would be doing would be a first strike, something the US has never done before. But you know who did carry out a first strike? Japan, December 7th 1941. And what we would do to Baghdad would be a hundred times worse, in pure loss of life, than anything the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

And the article on "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" might mean what you implied--but it also means what I said, which was:

Again, there is no clear and present danger which would ethically or morally justify a first strike.

If the UN Inspectors find out that the Iraqis are in "violation with the cease fire agreement", then let the UN do its job. There is time to work within the system, which is my whole point.




I agree with you on one thing, I agree that we should wait and see what happens with inspectors. In fact I think that Pres. Bush is more interested in this war as a political boost then as a needed self defense measure.

I do believe that we should get ready to go to war right now, because I don't believe anything Saddam says. I think that regardless as to why Bush really wants this war, it is a good thing because Saddam is a monster that has no right live.

However the fact that he is TRYING to get nuclear weapons is a violation of the cease fire agreement. He doesn't have to HAVE them, he only has to TRY, in order to violate the cease fire.

munik
09-20-2002, 05:08 PM
I'm getting easy to pick apart because you ignore any valid points I make in my posts.

I said the stockmarket doesn't matter to me. Or others like me. You go on to state that people like me don't matter to the stockmarket, and it only effects those people or companies with money falling out of their asses. They will lose money. Boo-frickin-hoo. Capatilism bites them in the ass. Tough luck. The stock market is only public companies, not all the companies in the US. It does not effect me in any form. I could care less if these companies dissappear off the face of the planet. I just have to buy my toilet paper from somewhere else. And the economy to buy toilet paper will still be there. That is my point, and that is what you did not reply too.

The bombing school thing was apparently taken out of context. I was mislead by the name of this thread. I just assumed that since this thread is called "War", and I know I've been discussing war, that maybe that's what you were refering too. I don't think it would matter too much anyways. You compare it to a bombing of a wedding in Afghanistan that everyone got "crazied" over. I've never heard of it before, and I've never seen anyone "crazied" over it. So blanket statements about other peoples reactions to something that most people don't care about aren't really supporting points.

Also, the U.S. does not care about the UN. In the local paper here the other day, there was a quote from Pres. Bush, I can't quite remember exact words. But, he was refering to the congress waiting for the UN to make a decision about Iraq, and he says something to the effect of "why would the US wait for a decision from the UN about a situation that concerns the US". While this was the president saying that, and it was some congressmen waiting for the UN, I think that would show the US sentiments concernng the UN.

FatalStrike
09-20-2002, 10:39 PM
Once again you fail to see the big picture. *sigh*


Originally posted by munik
I'm getting easy to pick apart because you ignore any valid points I make in my posts.

I said the stockmarket doesn't matter to me. Or others like me. You go on to state that people like me don't matter to the stockmarket, and it only effects those people or companies with money falling out of their asses. They will lose money. Boo-frickin-hoo. Capatilism bites them in the ass. Tough luck. The stock market is only public companies, not all the companies in the US. It does not effect me in any form. I could care less if these companies dissappear off the face of the planet. I just have to buy my toilet paper from somewhere else. And the economy to buy toilet paper will still be there. That is my point, and that is what you did not reply too.

It does not effect YOU but it does effect the economy and thus it hurts the US in the eyes of the world. Also this doesn't simple effect the rich, another fact that you missed.

When companies take a hit in cash, they lay off a large amount of workers. In other words lots of regular Joes like you and me.

Not all companies are on the stock exchanges but the largest ones are. Thus the companies that have the highest chance of dropping the GDP. If the GDP goes down, unemployment goes up, and the stock markets go down....what do you have? Yup a recession.

Considering the US is seen as all powerful a hit of this kind on a economy would be seen a victory.


Originally posted by munik
The bombing school thing was apparently taken out of context. I was mislead by the name of this thread. I just assumed that since this thread is called "War", and I know I've been discussing war, that maybe that's what you were refering too. I don't think it would matter too much anyways. You compare it to a bombing of a wedding in Afghanistan that everyone got "crazied" over. I've never heard of it before, and I've never seen anyone "crazied" over it. So blanket statements about other peoples reactions to something that most people don't care about aren't really supporting points.

I don't have a clue where you live but I live in Washington DC. All I here about is what the people on the hill go crazy about. Also the people on the hill are the people that decide what this country does. So if they care, it doesn't matter if you care or not.

Even in War people would go crazy if you bombed a school. If you don't realize that fact then you aren't paying enough attention.

Ask Jedi_Monk what he feels about the US bombing a school in war time.

Originally posted by munik
Also, the U.S. does not care about the UN. In the local paper here the other day, there was a quote from Pres. Bush, I can't quite remember exact words. But, he was refering to the congress waiting for the UN to make a decision about Iraq, and he says something to the effect of "why would the US wait for a decision from the UN about a situation that concerns the US". While this was the president saying that, and it was some congressmen waiting for the UN, I think that would show the US sentiments concernng the UN.

Don't believe the hype. If the US didn't care about the UN then why is Bush on the phone with Putin tonight according to the Washington Post trying to get his country to support a resolution on UN action against Iraq? Why did Bush speak before the UN?

You see that stuff Bush is spouting about Democrats letting the UN decide US policy is a way of influencing a Dem controlled senate of passing a resolution allowing Bush full control of the war effort. Its an election year and the Dems will be scared of looking weak to the voters. Thus they are going to pass the resolution tonight or tomorrow.

I think you need to understand the way US politics work. You seem to lack insight on to how Conservatives and Liberals influence eachother. You see it doesn't matter if its true or even makes sense, it all about what spin you can put on it to win majority in the houses of Congress.

Darklighter
09-20-2002, 10:43 PM
We should not go to war, simply because it would be morally wrong...Iraq right now have done nothing to provoke us...we are simply going to eradicate them because they are a possible threat to other countries...but aren't all countries with weapons of mass destruction a threat?...I agree, that if Iraq attacks us, we will retaliate, and we will fight to beat them.

munik
09-21-2002, 04:20 AM
Yes, your description of a declining economy is correct. BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU KILL BROKERS ON THE TRADING FLOOR! That is what I'm saying for christs sake. You are jumping to the conclusion that destroying the building that houses the Exchange and the one that houses its regulating body will directly effect the economy. It will not. Either way, it would not greatly effect me in a negative way, presumed recession or not.

If you could give me an example, maybe from the 1900's to the present, of any conflict between any two countries, where one country decided to use it's powerful weapons of war against buildings and civilians that influence that countries economy, instead of using those weapons against the military or it's support, both military and civilian support, I will accept your idea. As it stands I still think it's a retarded idea.
I don't have a clue where you live but I live in Washington DC. All I here about is what the people on the hill go crazy about. Also the people on the hill are the people that decide what this country does. So if they care, it doesn't matter if you care or not I don't quite understand that one. Are you saying that my opinion regarding something you posted here in this forum doesn't matter, unless it coincides with politicians opinions in D.C., because they run the country? I don't know what to say to that. I don't know if you're serious or not.

And that quote that I pulled from the paper doesn't mean "I believe the hype". I bought that paper because you seemed so intent on the fact that everybody knows everything about Iraq, and it's 'cause of the news. So I wanted to see if that was true or not. So I comment on it and you spout some more. Good choice on my part. I made no opinion about politics, or politicians. I made no statements about politics at all. You seem to be wrapped up in it. Good for you. I don't care. But that probaly doesn't matter, 'cause some of your politican neighbors do care, which makes my opinion void.

NerfYoda
09-21-2002, 04:47 AM
Theres an interesting petition floating around the historian circles right now which will examines our latest presidences' lack of consulting congress before wanting to declare war, much less than letting congress declare war. The system of checks and balances provided by the consitutionwas made to ensure that if one nut case (Like our current president, who is a dumb motherf*cker) doesnt go off an declare war on another conuntry w/o cause* or do other drastic things. I'm a little sick of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft running amuck making manifestos and talking hard and getting nothing out it but resentment from the rest of the world. But hey if you criticize the President you're obviously a terrorist, right? Can't have a congress full of terrorists. No sir. The petiton's so far been signed by roughly 1,300 historians at various high colleges around the country.

* Cause = we get attacked. That's it. Period. We're America. We're (supposed to be) the good guys. Good guys dont shoot first and ask questions later. Good guys dont launch pre-emptive strikes. We don't have hard evidence that Iraq controls a nuclear weapon. Hell even if we did we shouldnt do anything about it until we get attacked. Will a great many people die? Most liekly. But until that point we should be the better man and keep a cool head. If we attack first all we'll be seen as are agressors.

Jedi_Monk
09-24-2002, 11:32 PM
I agree with you on one thing, I agree that we should wait and see what happens with inspectors. In fact I think that Pres. Bush is more interested in this war as a political boost then as a needed self defense measure.
Well... it's a start... :D

Ask Jedi_Monk what he feels about the US bombing a school in war time.
If it was in wartime, I doubt we'd hesitate to raze a school to the ground. We firebombed Dresden (and most of the other population-centers of Germany) to ashes in WW2, and of course we annhilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nukes... there must have been a few schools in these places, and there had to have been thousands of children who died in each of these attacks.

Now I believe that WW2 was one of the few just wars in human history, and that winning was vital to the entire free world. But the loss of life was just staggering. That's why I pray to God that this war will not come about, because if it does, schools will be destroyed and children will die... churches will be destroyed, hospitals and homes will be destroyed... no place will be safe in Baghdad if we go in to take Saddam. In this day and age, you can not wage a war against one person... every weapon in our arsenal is a weapon of mass destruction, relative to what we had in WW2.

Just a few days ago, I saw photos of dozens of children in body-bags who were killed in recent US bombing raids against Iraq.


http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Jedi_Monk
09-24-2002, 11:36 PM
Consider this, now: there are roughly 20,000,000 people in Iraq (and 3 to 4 million in Baghdad). I've read that 1/20th of the people in Iraq are Christians. Tariq Aziz, Iraqi foreign minister, is Christian. Pope John Paul II wanted to go to Iraq, to Ur in particular (the birthplace of Abraham), during his Jubilee pilgrimage. He also wanted to visit the faithful in Iraq. Both the US and Britain discouraged his visit, and reluctantly the Iraqis were forced to advise him not to come since Ur is in the no fly zone and they could not guarantee his safety--from us. I'm Catholic and the fact that the US and its allies prevented the Pope from visiting his flock in Iraq is incredibly offensive.

In Iraq, the condition for women is much better than it was in Afghanistan, and in many other places in the middle-east. Women are not forced to wear burquas, and they can go to school, two things which would either get a woman beat or killed under the Taliban.

The question I'm leading to--which Ex-Vice President Gore brought up in his recent speech--is what would happen if we do go to Iraq and annhilate their present form of government? It is a stated policy of the Bush Administration not to practice nation building, to "leave it to the natives", so to speak. What would happen to those Christians and those women if a group like the Taliban were to take over? Well, the Christians would have to flee (where?), convert, or be killed. The women would go back to being forced to wear burquas and be subservient, or they would die, as well.

And what would happen to our national security if we waltzed out of a war-zone with Iraq in ashes, and a Taliban-like group took over? There's no evidence that Saddam is in league with Al Queda (in fact, because of the things I've above mentioned, Al Queda would see Saddam as a heritic, and would more likely than not, shun him)... but we know that the Taliban and other such extreme Muslim groups do aid Al Queda terrorists. What would happen to our national security if they got a hold of the supposed weapons Saddam supposedly has stowed away?

I believe that we would do more harm than good in taking Saddam out of power by force.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg