<!--QuoteBegin--Catpoker+Jan 21 2003, 06:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Catpoker @ Jan 21 2003, 06:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i have read about 2 pages of this post and most of the anti war posts are:
"sure he killed a bunch of his people, but cant we just let him slide?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm...
No. Nobody in here doubts that Hussein is a criminal - the question is whether the war you support will improve the situation for anyone involved, and face it, it won't:
- You, your friends, thousands of civilians, and the fighters in Iraqs army will risk their death. - The Iraq hasn't got a chance for a better regieme in the case of a successful overthrow. There is just no democratic opposition that deserves the name, which means that the only option would be an UN / American administration. To see how well that works, take a look at the Kosovo. - The image of the 'bad US' in the Middle East will be reinforced even more, thus preparing the ground for further terrorism. - The economy of every country on this planet will be in acute danger. This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of Alan Greenspan. - North Koreas leaders will be able to pursue their plans even further. Face it, the US army isn't up to two wars at the same time.
I don't say that I wouldn't like to see Hussein gone, but as long as there is no alternative, and there is none, we'll have to bear with him. This isn't appeasement politic, BTW.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i am for this war, i am going into the marine corp this summer to defend not only america, but her allies as well
If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The sad thing about this part of your statement is that an Iraqi soldier could have said just the same.
I just hope that Saddam is clever and use some kick-**** oiltower-burning, mine planting, 14-year old kids with Ak16 geurilla tactics. That way George (Satan Himself) Bush will be responsible for throwing thousand of soldiers to their deaths and loosing his precious oil. Yes, we all know that the war is about oil and nothing else, since Bush is satan he doesnt care about lives and since he needs oil to make the living beings of this planet suffer even more (through pollution and noisy american cars) in order to fuel his lifeforce of pure evil and destruction.
<!--QuoteBegin--Evildwarf+Jan 21 2003, 08:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Evildwarf @ Jan 21 2003, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just hope that Saddam is clever and use some kick-**** oiltower-burning, mine planting, 14-year old kids with Ak16 geurilla tactics. That way George (Satan Himself) Bush will be responsible for throwing thousand of soldiers to their deaths and loosing his precious oil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm <i>so</i> close to nuking that.
Nemesis: Feel free to nuke anything I say if you have a good reason to do so. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i am for this war, i am going into the marine corp this summer to defend not only america, but her allies as well If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why is it that when someone talks about going into the military, they speak of it as though they had already given their lives, when in reality they will most likely never even be wounded.
Face it! War is no longer risky! It is no longer immoral! it is no longer "War" in the traditional sense. It's not as if you're fighting a country that is as rich or well equiped as you. this is the third world we're talking about here. When you throw a smart bomb at them, they don't have one to throw back. When you have a high-tehc, top-of-the line tank, and you attack them with it, they have none to fight back with. America hasn't faught a worthy adversary in a very long time, and it shows. As I've said before, the Gulf War(the most over-hyped and over-moralised war in US recent US history) gave the US a grand total of 187 casualties. Am I the only one who finds that atrocious? Think about that! A whole friggin war, and 187 deaths on this side! And it's not as if any of the other "wars" we have been in have been any better. You think that we lost a lot of men in Panama? or Kosovo? or anywhere else we've gone in a great long while? NOPE! Remember all those places Clinton bombed back in the 90's? Remember the coverage that was given to all those little things? I certainly do, and I don't remember seeing a single soldier in any of those. There were a lot of pretty flashing lights and big booms, but no soldiers. What makes you think that this "war" coming up will be anything but that on a larger scale?
WTF is that EvilDwarf? I know your trying to prove a point, but go about it a different way. Don't EVER say you hope American soldiers get killed...
EDIT: For AllUrHive, alot of it will be like that but there will also have to be a signifigant ground force putting themselves in direct danger. People WILL die. For many of those that serve in the Military, they realize this, yet will fight anyway. Please realize that these people may not have to make the ultimate sacrifice so you can live safely and comfortably - but they are ready to.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Hmm. A curiosity is beginning to take hold on me.
Let's say we're back in 1990. Saddam has decided that he wants control of Kuwait. He has begun moving troops across the border.
You are the leader of a nation ( pick one other than Iraq or Kuwait ). Now, war is not the answer. War is not acceptable. Embargos and sanctions only hurt the innocents.
What do you do? Be specific here as blanket statements like "find a peaceful solution" is not only bland but pretty much defines "cop out".
I'm interested to hear what someone who will never use a military force would do in a situation like this.
You are in the 1970s. You are leading the US. Do you help a megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly to become the dictator of a nation?
Same thing with Gulf War 1: If you give that man a gun and then ask us whether a shoot-out was inevitable, the answer is surely 'yes'. The true question - why in gods name did you give him the weapon?
Guardian: If you are <span style='color:grey'>Be nice.</span> enough to join the army, if you are <span style='color:grey'>Be nice.</span> enough to fight for a evil **** like George W. Bush sure, go ahead. Knock yourself out. I honestly dont care if America loose a couple of soldiers. USA shouldnt be allowed to force the rest of the world to do their bidding, if you talk against USA the allsmighty god and jesus loves us then you are screwed. That's a plain fact. They will put sanctions on your export and import and maybe even bomb you back to the stoneage until you agree to follow their terms. I cant understand that a total idiot like bush can be elected president, his father was not really a pricecatch either. Cant people learn from the mistakes of history?
Some people remain naive. Thats a fact. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:grey'>Some of our members serve in the army. If you don't like that, OK, but don't insult them.</span>
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Wow, that's a really fun game but it doesn't answer my question.
I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm interested in the non-military actions that would follow that scenario. It doesn't even have to be as specific as Iraq and Kuwait. What do you do if one nation moves into another with the intent of complete control and a removal of their tangible border?
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jan 21 2003, 04:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jan 21 2003, 04:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not as if you're fighting a country that is as rich or well equiped as you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> rofl...you wouldn't say that if you were on the end of an iraqi bayonet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you want to take the generalized case of an unmotivated and uninfluenced act of agression (which neither 1990 nor today are), I agree that a militaric intervention will sadly become necessary.
But if you really want such cases, no country on the 'Axis of Evil' will serve them to you. The last time a country was attacked 'for the heck of it' was 1939.
I'm not gonna argue any of your points in here. I know its useless, and you have a right to think whatever you want. All I ask is that you dont write about how you hope, or don't care, that Military personell will die.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Jim+Jan 21 2003, 05:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Jan 21 2003, 05:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jan 21 2003, 04:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jan 21 2003, 04:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not as if you're fighting a country that is as rich or well equiped as you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> rofl...you wouldn't say that if you were on the end of an iraqi bayonet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I was on the end of an Iraqi bayonet I'd be almost 10% of the US casualties to enemy combatants in the middle East this millenium. And who says that any Us soldier will be on the recieving end of an Iraqi bayonet? If an Iraqi charges you with a bayonet(or anything for that matter) wouldn't you just call in a guided missile strike before he got anywhere near you?
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jan 21 2003, 06:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jan 21 2003, 06:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->wouldn't you just call in a guided missile strike before he got anywhere near you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and (knowing the US's poor record at aiming those things) it would probably land on your head.
Guardian: I wont argue either, the point being that all human beings have a choice. If you choose to fight for USA that's up to you. Arguing that you dont have a choice is just stupid. You will have to take the consequenses for whatever choice you make though. If some stupid american join the army and end up dying he will face my endless taunting and death itself. He is the fool for standing up for false ideals and a country that has no right in the world to meddle in everything that can make theam earn some couple of million dollars extra - even if this means taking it to a war. In my opinion USA is the most egoistic and selfrighteous land in the world. The most sad thing is that USA only cry when their own people die, when they whack the crap out of some poor country they thank god that the evil **** are dead.
Interesting Article <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Iraq: The disputed evidence</b> <i>By Paul Reynolds - BBC News Online world affairs correspondent</i>
What is the nature of the evidence against Iraq? US Secretary of State Colin Powell says it is "persuasive". Iraq says it is non-existent. Before going into the detail, the general point has to be made that the case against Iraq does not depend on weapons of mass destruction, or a "smoking gun", being found.
What is required under Security Council Resolution 1441 is simply a finding that Iraq has not "fully co-operated" with the weapons inspectors.
This may not be regarded as adequate by opponents of any war but it is the line strongly pursued by the United States and Britain.
The case that Iraq is not fully "co-operating" was laid out by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, to the Security Council on 9 January.
News Online has seen copies of their written statements.
They followed this up with a visit to Baghdad to raise the specific points of complaint and will report back to the Council on 27 January.
As they left Baghdad they reported that Iraq had agreed to be more helpful. Mr Blix said that "a number of practical issues" had been resolved but "not all".
<i><b>Missing items</b></i>
The first area in dispute concerns Iraq's explanation about what happened to unaccounted-for material:
<b>Anthrax</b>: Mr Blix told the Security Council that Iraq's declaration did not account for missing amounts (some 26,000 litres) of anthrax and that "Iraq's account of its production and unilateral destruction of anthrax... may not be accurate." After the talks in Baghdad, Mr Blix said this issue remained unaddressed.
<b>VX nerve agen</b>t: Mr Blix said to the Council that "we have found no additional information in the declaration that would help resolve this issue". The UN says that 1.5 tonnes are missing. This is also unresolved after the Baghdad talks.
<b>Biological growth media</b>: Iraq imported more than it declared. Mr Blix told the Council no explanation had been given. Iraq has argued that it destroyed the VX, and that the anthrax and growth media were either destroyed or are no longer of any use. Mr Blix says that documents, witnesses and other evidence should be produced to support that.
<b>Ballistic missiles</b>: Mr Blix said after the talks in Baghdad that a question about unaccounted-for Scud missiles (believed to number about 12) had not been resolved.
<i><b>Suspicious finds</b></i>
Other issues in dispute relate to unlisted materials actually found, such as missile engines and empty warheads, as well as the question of access to Iraqi scientists:
<b>Missiles</b>: the Council was told that Iraq had admitted that its new al-Samoud rocket had reached 183 kilometres in a test firing - beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN. Mr Blix also said that "inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002". These were "illegal imports". Their significance was being examined.
<b>16 chemical warfare warheads</b>: Twelve were found by the inspectors, Iraq volunteered four more. Had they been forgotten or was it evidence of deception?
<b>Nuclear papers</b>: Inspectors found some technical papers in the house of a leading nuclear scientist. He says they were notes for a previously declared programme for enriching uranium. The inspectors' verdict is awaited.
On interviews with Iraqi scientists, which are regarded as potentially the only way to get a clear picture of Iraqi operations, Mr Blix told the Security Council: "We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request [for names] we made."
This issue came up again in the Baghdad talks and Iraq promised to be more forthcoming. This will be a key test.
Mr ElBaradei of the IAEA reported to the Council that while Iraq had produced two nuclear scientists asked for, they had both "requested the presence of an Iraqi Government inspector" which was not "optimum".
<b>Proving a negative</b>
There was better news for Iraq on the mystery of its attempted import of thousands of aluminium tubes.
The suspicion was that it wanted these for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb but Mr ElBaradei's report to the Council said that the IAEA analysis "indicated that the... tubes sought by Iraq... appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets" as Iraq had asserted.
The UN inspectors formally report their findings on 27 January. However, Mr ElBaradei added that the importing of such tubes was banned anyway.
It can be seen that the United States and Britain could make much of the missing material.
They could argue that Iraq has shown a pattern of limited co-operation which is designed to deceive.
Iraq, on the other hand, complains that it is being asked to prove a negative and that in the circumstances, this is an impossible task.
The assessment of the UN teams will be given to the Security Council on 27 January.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2677315.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2677315.stm</a>
You are in the 1970s. You are leading the US. Do you help a megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly to become the dictator of a nation?
Same thing with Gulf War 1: If you give that man a gun and then ask us whether a shoot-out was inevitable, the answer is surely 'yes'. The true question - why in gods name did you give him the weapon?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah but, it's <i>never</i> that simple is it?
If I am in the 1970s and leading the US, it is also the height of the Cold War and extreme Islamic elements have probably just taken control of a key U.S. ally, <i>Iran</i>, by revolution... The only local opponent available to stop this happening region-wide is that megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly, who <i>already</i> happens to be the dictator of a nation. Perhaps (as it's easier with 20/20 hindsight,) you'd rather I should ignore it all and watch Islamic extremists take control of the Middle East's oil fields, and hence the world economy? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>The enemy of my enemy is my friend.</i> - Arabian proverb.
uh, I was watching some Fox News this morning.. Nothing like catching up on the "countdown iraq" (countdown to what? I think we all know.) Ah yes, they found evidence that Saddam has been withholding info, or something like that. Or maybe there was a missile or two extra in their cache, or maybe something was missing. BUT THEY BROKE THE TREATY OMG NUKE'EM NUKE'EM.. *sigh* it went something like that on Fox News. Not exactly a happy stance to make when you're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people that will suffer and die.
Oooh, another fun sidenote about FNN--A lady was interviewing an Iraqi Exile about the marshlands that Saddam "DESTROYED (big letters because they put big emphasis on things that SADDAM DESTROYS and DESERVES PUNISHMENT, etc... I don't hear about how our lax pollution policy killing stuff except off of European News sites)" Anyways, so she shows us a map. She points to an area and says "this is the area where water was in 1990" The iraqi man goes "um, I believe" The women interrupts him and shows her next picture "now this is what Saddam has done to it by 1994, look at all that marshland he destroyed" (paraphrased, I was too busy laughing because I knew what the educated man was about to say). The iraqi Exile then interrupts her again and says "Actually that's a vegetation map, showing where plant growth was in the region."
*sigh* the blind leading the blind, we Americans should start looking before we cross streets.
<!--QuoteBegin--FatboyTim+Jan 21 2003, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FatboyTim @ Jan 21 2003, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah but, it's <i>never</i> that simple is it?
If I am in the 1970s and leading the US, it is also the height of the Cold War and extreme Islamic elements have probably just taken control of a key U.S. ally, <i>Iran</i>, by revolution... The only local opponent available to stop this happening region-wide is that megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly, who <i>already</i> happens to be the dictator of a nation. Perhaps (as it's easier with 20/20 hindsight,) you'd rather I should ignore it all and watch Islamic extremists take control of the Middle East's oil fields, and hence the world economy? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>The enemy of my enemy is my friend.</i> - Arabian proverb.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you ask me, the enemy of my enemy is just another guy with a gun.
Anyway...
Your statement is deeply routed in the logic of the Cold War, which was in my opinion dysfunctional from the very beginning.
Yes, there were strong islamistic (I'm reluctant to calling them 'fundamentalistic' because that term changed drastically during the last 30 years) tendencies in the Middle East. So what? Is the Middle East American land, which includes Alaska and a fair share of oil that hasn't even been touched yet?
I'm repeating myself, but explaining this with the oil is in my opinion relatively short sighted. In reality, it was simply a part of the Cold War - a fight between the governments of the UdSSR and the USA that was fought over 'champions' because a direct confrontation was too risky for either side. This fight was foolish from the very beginning, and we'll be haunted by its results for much longer. What I question is whether it's wise to use the very same strategies that led to our todays problems again. The next Bin Laden might very well currently be trained by the CIA in an Hungarian village.
The article you posted <i>is</i> really interesting. I'm starting to ask myself, though - if the Pentagon was told to lay the quantities (not the locations or other security-relevant data) of their weapons of mass destruction open to the (American) public - would they present a report that was more or less accurate than the one that came out of the Iraq?
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 21 2003, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 21 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The article you posted <i>is</i> really interesting. I'm starting to ask myself, though - if the Pentagon was told to lay the quantities (not the locations or other security-relevant data) of their weapons of mass destruction open to the (American) public - would they present a report that was more or less accurate than the one that came out of the Iraq?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm almost 100 percent sure that those numbers are available; though specific weapons types are most likely kept classified. Just FYI the U.S., Russia, and other Western Nations with WOMD are monitored by the U.N.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
If by monitored, you mean Kofi Anon looks toward the direction he believes them to be in every once in a while, then yes they are, but if by monitored, you mean searched with anywhere near the scrutiny we want to search Iraq with(even though if they have weapons, they could never have nearly as many as us), then no, they are not.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jan 22 2003, 05:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jan 22 2003, 05:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If by monitored, you mean Kofi Anon looks toward the direction he believes them to be in every once in a while, then yes they are, but if by monitored, you mean searched with anywhere near the scrutiny we want to search Iraq with(even though if they have weapons, they could never have nearly as many as us), then no, they are not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure how it is in other Western nations but in Russia there are agencies routinly monitoring our WOMD because some government officals had the bright idea of moving our WOMD from several dozen secure instillations to several HUNDRED run down bases; I mean there are nuclear artillery shells in helo mini-bases which house 100 men and no artillery pieces. And of course Western nations wouldn't be as closely monitored as Iraq, but as far as I know they have reported their full WOMD capabilities and allow inspectors to visit any instillation if they so request.
I think we ought to take Hussein out of power and remove his fascist government. We should have taken those dirtbags out 12 years ago after the Gulf War, it would have probably saved us many casualties and resources (you never know what the future will bring so I say probably). We learned a hard lesson back in the 1930's. Hitler took power and began his militant phase, and the sissy European order of appeasement led ultimately to six years of the harshest warfare ever known to man, along with 50 million dead to make us remember it forever. Today: tactics are far different, warfare is much different, but the ideals are the same. If we don't stop them now then they will eventually get out of hand causing a far worse war than we could imagine.
Sure I'm a biased American capitalist but I do know what I'm talking about. I've studied history - we can't let it repeat itself and make no progress - if we learn from prior mistakes we can reach our ultimate goals much more swiftly rather than looping in a vortex of time and death.
Here's another nice lil' quote for everyone <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. --Sir Winston Churchill <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally believe that there are other ways around this conflict than going in and forcibly ousting Saddam. The last thing that I want is another war. I dont mean to sound all hippy and stuff, but i cant stand the thought of war, unless all options have been exhausted. It seems to me that Bush has been pushing this war with Iraq far to hard to me. Usually when the "oficial" national polls show that the majority of the populus are against the war, most people without ulterior motives would seek other options. But not Bush, and his "gun cabinet." They instead decreed that they would convince the people that it war would be best. The same goes for the case in which all but a handfull of our allies openly protest war.
Besides, what is it that gives the United States more power than the UN. Immediatly after Germany and France stopped the Security Council (for lack of a better phrase: its 3:00 am). Bush basically declared that he knew what was best for the world, and that the US would go about waving its fist at anyone it wanted, concequences be damned.
I am going to finish my thoughts tomorrow. Its late (or early) and i still have a paper to write.
Where are these polls that show the majority of U.S. citizens against military involvment? All the ones I checked reported that most people support Bush's actions. It has been repeated throughout this topic that the American people don't support Bush. I would like to see this verified.
This isn't meant as a flame to you Feyd, I would really like to know.
The statistics have been drastically fluctuating, so somehow, both sides are right, but it usually orbits around about 55% being against a war without UN backing. I understand there is currently a majority for the assault, so feel free to prove me wrong, just be prepared that I'll return the favor in a week.
[edit]Onuma:
I said it numerous times in this topic already, and I'll say it again: Comparing someone to Hitler is just another way of telling the other side to shut op or be called either "sissy" or "fascist". You studied history, so you surely know the tremendous differences between Europe in 1939 and the Middle East in 2003 as well as the big differences between Hitler and Hussein. As for quotes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No war ever helped prevent the end of humanity, but many helped making it possible. -- J. F. Kennedy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
"sure he killed a bunch of his people, but cant we just let him slide?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm...
No. Nobody in here doubts that Hussein is a criminal - the question is whether the war you support will improve the situation for anyone involved, and face it, it won't:
- You, your friends, thousands of civilians, and the fighters in Iraqs army will risk their death.
- The Iraq hasn't got a chance for a better regieme in the case of a successful overthrow. There is just no democratic opposition that deserves the name, which means that the only option would be an UN / American administration. To see how well that works, take a look at the Kosovo.
- The image of the 'bad US' in the Middle East will be reinforced even more, thus preparing the ground for further terrorism.
- The economy of every country on this planet will be in acute danger. This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of Alan Greenspan.
- North Koreas leaders will be able to pursue their plans even further. Face it, the US army isn't up to two wars at the same time.
I don't say that I wouldn't like to see Hussein gone, but as long as there is no alternative, and there is none, we'll have to bear with him. This isn't appeasement politic, BTW.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i am for this war, i am going into the marine corp this summer to defend not only america, but her allies as well
If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The sad thing about this part of your statement is that an Iraqi soldier could have said just the same.
That way George (Satan Himself) Bush will be responsible for throwing thousand of soldiers to their deaths and loosing his precious
oil. Yes, we all know that the war is about oil and nothing else, since Bush is satan he doesnt care about lives and since he needs
oil to make the living beings of this planet suffer even more (through pollution and noisy american cars) in order to fuel his lifeforce of
pure evil and destruction.
That way George (Satan Himself) Bush will be responsible for throwing thousand of soldiers to their deaths and loosing his precious
oil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm <i>so</i> close to nuking that.
If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it that when someone talks about going into the military, they speak of it as though they had already given their lives, when in reality they will most likely never even be wounded.
Face it! War is no longer risky! It is no longer immoral! it is no longer "War" in the traditional sense. It's not as if you're fighting a country that is as rich or well equiped as you. this is the third world we're talking about here. When you throw a smart bomb at them, they don't have one to throw back. When you have a high-tehc, top-of-the line tank, and you attack them with it, they have none to fight back with. America hasn't faught a worthy adversary in a very long time, and it shows. As I've said before, the Gulf War(the most over-hyped and over-moralised war in US recent US history) gave the US a grand total of 187 casualties. Am I the only one who finds that atrocious? Think about that! A whole friggin war, and 187 deaths on this side! And it's not as if any of the other "wars" we have been in have been any better. You think that we lost a lot of men in Panama? or Kosovo? or anywhere else we've gone in a great long while? NOPE! Remember all those places Clinton bombed back in the 90's? Remember the coverage that was given to all those little things? I certainly do, and I don't remember seeing a single soldier in any of those. There were a lot of pretty flashing lights and big booms, but no soldiers. What makes you think that this "war" coming up will be anything but that on a larger scale?
EDIT: For AllUrHive, alot of it will be like that but there will also have to be a signifigant ground force putting themselves in direct danger. People WILL die. For many of those that serve in the Military, they realize this, yet will fight anyway. Please realize that these people may not have to make the ultimate sacrifice so you can live safely and comfortably - but they are ready to.
Let's say we're back in 1990. Saddam has decided that he wants control of Kuwait. He has begun moving troops across the border.
You are the leader of a nation ( pick one other than Iraq or Kuwait ). Now, war is not the answer. War is not acceptable. Embargos and sanctions only hurt the innocents.
What do you do? Be specific here as blanket statements like "find a peaceful solution" is not only bland but pretty much defines "cop out".
I'm interested to hear what someone who will never use a military force would do in a situation like this.
You are in the 1970s. You are leading the US. Do you help a megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly to become the dictator of a nation?
Same thing with Gulf War 1: If you give that man a gun and then ask us whether a shoot-out was inevitable, the answer is surely 'yes'.
The true question - why in gods name did you give him the weapon?
They will put sanctions on your export and import and maybe even bomb you back to the stoneage until you agree to follow their terms.
I cant understand that a total idiot like bush can be elected president, his father was not really a pricecatch either. Cant people learn from
the mistakes of history?
Some people remain naive. Thats a fact. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:grey'>Some of our members serve in the army. If you don't like that, OK, but don't insult them.</span>
I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm interested in the non-military actions that would follow that scenario. It doesn't even have to be as specific as Iraq and Kuwait. What do you do if one nation moves into another with the intent of complete control and a removal of their tangible border?
For example: One option would be - Do nothing.
What are the other possibilities?
rofl...you wouldn't say that if you were on the end of an iraqi bayonet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But if you really want such cases, no country on the 'Axis of Evil' will serve them to you. The last time a country was attacked 'for the heck of it' was 1939.
edit: sorry, this post was to EvilDwarf
rofl...you wouldn't say that if you were on the end of an iraqi bayonet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I was on the end of an Iraqi bayonet I'd be almost 10% of the US casualties to enemy combatants in the middle East this millenium.
And who says that any Us soldier will be on the recieving end of an Iraqi bayonet? If an Iraqi charges you with a bayonet(or anything for that matter) wouldn't you just call in a guided missile strike before he got anywhere near you?
and (knowing the US's poor record at aiming those things) it would probably land on your head.
In my opinion USA is the most egoistic and selfrighteous land in the world.
The most sad thing is that USA only cry when their own people die, when they whack the crap out of some poor country they thank god that the evil **** are dead.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Iraq: The disputed evidence</b>
<i>By Paul Reynolds - BBC News Online world affairs correspondent</i>
What is the nature of the evidence against Iraq? US Secretary of State Colin Powell says it is "persuasive". Iraq says it is non-existent. Before going into the detail, the general point has to be made that the case against Iraq does not depend on weapons of mass destruction, or a "smoking gun", being found.
What is required under Security Council Resolution 1441 is simply a finding that Iraq has not "fully co-operated" with the weapons inspectors.
This may not be regarded as adequate by opponents of any war but it is the line strongly pursued by the United States and Britain.
The case that Iraq is not fully "co-operating" was laid out by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, to the Security Council on 9 January.
News Online has seen copies of their written statements.
They followed this up with a visit to Baghdad to raise the specific points of complaint and will report back to the Council on 27 January.
As they left Baghdad they reported that Iraq had agreed to be more helpful. Mr Blix said that "a number of practical issues" had been resolved but "not all".
<i><b>Missing items</b></i>
The first area in dispute concerns Iraq's explanation about what happened to unaccounted-for material:
<b>Anthrax</b>: Mr Blix told the Security Council that Iraq's declaration did not account for missing amounts (some 26,000 litres) of anthrax and that "Iraq's account of its production and unilateral destruction of anthrax... may not be accurate." After the talks in Baghdad, Mr Blix said this issue remained unaddressed.
<b>VX nerve agen</b>t: Mr Blix said to the Council that "we have found no additional information in the declaration that would help resolve this issue". The UN says that 1.5 tonnes are missing. This is also unresolved after the Baghdad talks.
<b>Biological growth media</b>: Iraq imported more than it declared. Mr Blix told the Council no explanation had been given.
Iraq has argued that it destroyed the VX, and that the anthrax and growth media were either destroyed or are no longer of any use. Mr Blix says that documents, witnesses and other evidence should be produced to support that.
<b>Ballistic missiles</b>: Mr Blix said after the talks in Baghdad that a question about unaccounted-for Scud missiles (believed to number about 12) had not been resolved.
<i><b>Suspicious finds</b></i>
Other issues in dispute relate to unlisted materials actually found, such as missile engines and empty warheads, as well as the question of access to Iraqi scientists:
<b>Missiles</b>: the Council was told that Iraq had admitted that its new al-Samoud rocket had reached 183 kilometres in a test firing - beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN.
Mr Blix also said that "inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002". These were "illegal imports". Their significance was being examined.
<b>16 chemical warfare warheads</b>: Twelve were found by the inspectors, Iraq volunteered four more. Had they been forgotten or was it evidence of deception?
<b>Nuclear papers</b>: Inspectors found some technical papers in the house of a leading nuclear scientist. He says they were notes for a previously declared programme for enriching uranium. The inspectors' verdict is awaited.
On interviews with Iraqi scientists, which are regarded as potentially the only way to get a clear picture of Iraqi operations, Mr Blix told the Security Council:
"We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request [for names] we made."
This issue came up again in the Baghdad talks and Iraq promised to be more forthcoming. This will be a key test.
Mr ElBaradei of the IAEA reported to the Council that while Iraq had produced two nuclear scientists asked for, they had both "requested the presence of an Iraqi Government inspector" which was not "optimum".
<b>Proving a negative</b>
There was better news for Iraq on the mystery of its attempted import of thousands of aluminium tubes.
The suspicion was that it wanted these for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb but Mr ElBaradei's report to the Council said that the IAEA analysis "indicated that the... tubes sought by Iraq... appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets" as Iraq had asserted.
The UN inspectors formally report their findings on 27 January. However, Mr ElBaradei added that the importing of such tubes was banned anyway.
It can be seen that the United States and Britain could make much of the missing material.
They could argue that Iraq has shown a pattern of limited co-operation which is designed to deceive.
Iraq, on the other hand, complains that it is being asked to prove a negative and that in the circumstances, this is an impossible task.
The assessment of the UN teams will be given to the Security Council on 27 January.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2677315.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2677315.stm</a>
You are in the 1970s. You are leading the US. Do you help a megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly to become the dictator of a nation?
Same thing with Gulf War 1: If you give that man a gun and then ask us whether a shoot-out was inevitable, the answer is surely 'yes'.
The true question - why in gods name did you give him the weapon?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah but, it's <i>never</i> that simple is it?
If I am in the 1970s and leading the US, it is also the height of the Cold War and extreme Islamic elements have probably just taken control of a key U.S. ally, <i>Iran</i>, by revolution... The only local opponent available to stop this happening region-wide is that megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly, who <i>already</i> happens to be the dictator of a nation. Perhaps (as it's easier with 20/20 hindsight,) you'd rather I should ignore it all and watch Islamic extremists take control of the Middle East's oil fields, and hence the world economy? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>The enemy of my enemy is my friend.</i> - Arabian proverb.
Oooh, another fun sidenote about FNN--A lady was interviewing an Iraqi Exile about the marshlands that Saddam "DESTROYED (big letters because they put big emphasis on things that SADDAM DESTROYS and DESERVES PUNISHMENT, etc... I don't hear about how our lax pollution policy killing stuff except off of European News sites)"
Anyways, so she shows us a map. She points to an area and says "this is the area where water was in 1990" The iraqi man goes "um, I believe" The women interrupts him and shows her next picture "now this is what Saddam has done to it by 1994, look at all that marshland he destroyed" (paraphrased, I was too busy laughing because I knew what the educated man was about to say). The iraqi Exile then interrupts her again and says "Actually that's a vegetation map, showing where plant growth was in the region."
*sigh* the blind leading the blind, we Americans should start looking before we cross streets.
If I am in the 1970s and leading the US, it is also the height of the Cold War and extreme Islamic elements have probably just taken control of a key U.S. ally, <i>Iran</i>, by revolution... The only local opponent available to stop this happening region-wide is that megalomaniac multi-murderer with the morale of a housefly, who <i>already</i> happens to be the dictator of a nation. Perhaps (as it's easier with 20/20 hindsight,) you'd rather I should ignore it all and watch Islamic extremists take control of the Middle East's oil fields, and hence the world economy? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>The enemy of my enemy is my friend.</i> - Arabian proverb.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you ask me, the enemy of my enemy is just another guy with a gun.
Anyway...
Your statement is deeply routed in the logic of the Cold War, which was in my opinion dysfunctional from the very beginning.
Yes, there were strong islamistic (I'm reluctant to calling them 'fundamentalistic' because that term changed drastically during the last 30 years) tendencies in the Middle East.
So what? Is the Middle East American land, which includes Alaska and a fair share of oil that hasn't even been touched yet?
I'm repeating myself, but explaining this with the oil is in my opinion relatively short sighted. In reality, it was simply a part of the Cold War - a fight between the governments of the UdSSR and the USA that was fought over 'champions' because a direct confrontation was too risky for either side. This fight was foolish from the very beginning, and we'll be haunted by its results for much longer. What I question is whether it's wise to use the very same strategies that led to our todays problems again.
The next Bin Laden might very well currently be trained by the CIA in an Hungarian village.
The article you posted <i>is</i> really interesting.
I'm starting to ask myself, though - if the Pentagon was told to lay the quantities (not the locations or other security-relevant data) of their weapons of mass destruction open to the (American) public - would they present a report that was more or less accurate than the one that came out of the Iraq?
The article you posted <i>is</i> really interesting.
I'm starting to ask myself, though - if the Pentagon was told to lay the quantities (not the locations or other security-relevant data) of their weapons of mass destruction open to the (American) public - would they present a report that was more or less accurate than the one that came out of the Iraq?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm almost 100 percent sure that those numbers are available; though specific weapons types are most likely kept classified. Just FYI the U.S., Russia, and other Western Nations with WOMD are monitored by the U.N.
I'm not sure how it is in other Western nations but in Russia there are agencies routinly monitoring our WOMD because some government officals had the bright idea of moving our WOMD from several dozen secure instillations to several HUNDRED run down bases; I mean there are nuclear artillery shells in helo mini-bases which house 100 men and no artillery pieces. And of course Western nations wouldn't be as closely monitored as Iraq, but as far as I know they have reported their full WOMD capabilities and allow inspectors to visit any instillation if they so request.
<a href='http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/27/tomo/index1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/2...omo/index1.html</a>
<a href='http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/13/tomo/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/1...tomo/index.html</a>
Today: tactics are far different, warfare is much different, but the ideals are the same. If we don't stop them now then they will eventually get out of hand causing a far worse war than we could imagine.
Sure I'm a biased American capitalist but I do know what I'm talking about. I've studied history - we can't let it repeat itself and make no progress - if we learn from prior mistakes we can reach our ultimate goals much more swiftly rather than looping in a vortex of time and death.
Here's another nice lil' quote for everyone
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.
--Sir Winston Churchill <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally believe that there are other ways around this conflict than going in and forcibly ousting Saddam. The last thing that I want is another war. I dont mean to sound all hippy and stuff, but i cant stand the thought of war, unless all options have been exhausted. It seems to me that Bush has been pushing this war with Iraq far to hard to me. Usually when the "oficial" national polls show that the majority of the populus are against the war, most people without ulterior motives would seek other options. But not Bush, and his "gun cabinet." They instead decreed that they would convince the people that it war would be best. The same goes for the case in which all but a handfull of our allies openly protest war.
Besides, what is it that gives the United States more power than the UN. Immediatly after Germany and France stopped the Security Council (for lack of a better phrase: its 3:00 am). Bush basically declared that he knew what was best for the world, and that the US would go about waving its fist at anyone it wanted, concequences be damned.
I am going to finish my thoughts tomorrow. Its late (or early) and i still have a paper to write.
This isn't meant as a flame to you Feyd, I would really like to know.
I understand there is currently a majority for the assault, so feel free to prove me wrong, just be prepared that I'll return the favor in a week.
[edit]Onuma:
I said it numerous times in this topic already, and I'll say it again: Comparing someone to Hitler is just another way of telling the other side to shut op or be called either "sissy" or "fascist".
You studied history, so you surely know the tremendous differences between Europe in 1939 and the Middle East in 2003 as well as the big differences between Hitler and Hussein.
As for quotes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No war ever helped prevent the end of humanity, but many helped making it possible.
-- J. F. Kennedy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[/edit]