Weigh in on Iraq [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

KoldFusion

2003-01-23, 12:50 PM

Before I say anything, let me say this...... I am 100% for the disarming of saddam in any form.

That being said I believe there is an effective way and ineffective way. First the ineffective: The implementation of new sanctions or the continuing of the old sanctions.... Why ineffective? Well is pretty obvious the world has been there and done that for the last 10-13 years and look what it has accomplished.... Sure Iraq is suffering.... but take a close look at who really is suffering.... it is the normal Joe. Just as in times past Communist's armies were and still continue to be feed well with little affect from the sanctions.
So then what is effective? The forced disarmment of Saddam (this is of course assuming he has these weapons and i'm pretty certain he does). Like Kilngons in the Star Trek Universe he only respects force (please don't get all trekkie on me... I know they respect honor and strength as well). The big question is..... When does this occur? I'm a red blooded American and I back our Armed Forces (I'm even joining them in April) 100%. However, I think we are being too impatient with this situation. Iraq will be there in February just like it will be in next year.... in short... It isn't going anywhere. My personal opinion is get world support by allowing the UN inspectors the time they need to do a complete job (I'm sorry but the time frame in resolution 1441 was WAY too short). Then gather the coalition and attack if he is indeed found in "material breach" of UN resolutions. This time... we take care of Him for good.
Another thing that is crawling under my skin is how Bush and Rumsfeld are turning us against the world. I mean they are literally talking shit to other nations. I say put an F***ing sock in it. Spouting all this stuff about how we will win easily, we can fight a war on two fronts (which is wrong there are 3 Iraq, Terror, and maybe N. Korea if it comes to that.) and win decisively (The shit talking includes the talking down to Germany and France calling them problems).... it would stand to reason that is how we felt when we went into Vietnam and I for one don't want a repeat of that. I want it done right. I believe our cause is just and intentions good..... But man is Washington screwing the pooch on this with their speeches and ill choice of words. I think monkeys could be more diplomatic and patient. I'm done for now.... What do YOU think?

�io

2003-01-23, 01:00 PM

I agree the US is coming off even more arogant than before. The whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing isn't a good image. As for the Iraq situation i dunno, problem is, as you said there isn't really any proof that he has weapons of mass destrution, if we knew beyond a shadow of doubt then yeah sure kick his ass but not knowing makes it more complicated, a war for no reason makes everyone suffer not just the leader.

Oh and sorry Hamma, i know how much you like political threads. :)

Unregistered

2003-01-23, 01:01 PM

I think we need to accidently bomb the tree hugging french pussys on our way over. I fucken hope to God France get's fucked by someone again so the U.S. can tell then to go fuck themselves like they tell us every time we need some support.

I hate the god damn French!

�io

2003-01-23, 01:05 PM

:rolleyes:

Can't we all get along? Where's the :love:?

(and no i'm not french)

mistled

2003-01-23, 01:08 PM

You know better than to start this thread. What is wrong with you?? MrVic, Nav, and Lex are going to each post page long replies. Heaven help us all. ;)

That being said, here's my page long reply. :D

First of all, Saddam has already been given 'one more chance' about thirty times. We've had evidence of his treachery for years and years. The UN agreed to the timeframe this resolution set forth. Why is it that now that crunch time has come, all these countries are being pussies and deciding that they were wrong before and suddenly need more time?? The UN has had years to resolve this issue with Saddam.

The UN gave Saddam 'one last chance' back in '96 if I'm remembering the year correctly. They asked him for information then that he still has not provided. The UN has a history of cowardice and I for one see no reason that we should allow them to dictate America's policy on anything.

You can't honestly believe that the UN will ever give consent to using force against Iraq, no matter what the outcome of these �inspections� is. Never mind that the inspectors are incompetent. Never mind that they give advance warning to where they are going to inspect in most cases (not all, but most). Never mind that they "inspected" one of Saddam's palaces in about an hour even though that palace has over 30 buildings. These things don't matter. Even if the team managed to stumble upon something (they did find some missle components, btw), the UN will never agree to war with the Iraq.

The Iraqi people are starving to death while Saddam's son wears a $100,000 watch. Oh yeah, let's wait another year or three until we have a whole different batch of people to help (probably our own after Saddam manages to get a nuke from Libya). That makes sense.

mistled

Sputty

2003-01-23, 01:11 PM

Dio, if you could vote tehn did you vote yes or no on the Quebec referendum? Not a flame, jsut asking. Also, U.S. should wait a little. Iraq's giving in. They're genuniely scared. Also, France is pretty useless. BTW, Don't use the "french came running to you". It's a little...off...Although I don't like the french. Screwing around in our internal politics...You're roght,.f.f..FUCKING FRENCH...And they haven't doen anything useful or noticeable except lose in 600 years..

mistled

2003-01-23, 01:22 PM

Out of curousity, what's the Quebec referendum?? Sorry, but I pay very little attention to Canada these days :)

Sputty

2003-01-23, 01:23 PM

It happened a few years ago. A vote for Quebec to separate or not. You should know about that....I guess. They separatists loss obviously.

Manitou

2003-01-23, 01:56 PM

It all boils down to responsibility.

The world is obviously not a perfect place, we all know that. There are bad people who want to do bad things. That is a cold hard fact of our existence here.

So what to do? The concerned nations around the world some time in the past attempted to build an organization that would in some way try to prevent bad nations from doing bad things through peaceful mediation or other non-combat methods. This organization, the United Nations, has the mandated responsibility for seeing to the peace of mind of the world. That is a tall order. I won't say they haven't tried, because they have.

But I will say this: Up to this point on the subject of Iraq, they have failed. The Persian Gulf war ended on a treaty that delineated certain conditions Iraq was to follow to prevent any further hostilities against them. For the past 10-11 years they have failed to meet these conditions. It was the UN's responsibility to enforce this or correct it. They have not. We have seen the related results of not dealing with the rising tide of terrorism. When nobody leads and nobody enforces, anarchy reigns.

So who should stand and "man the wall" as it were? Germany? France? Israel? The United Kingdom? Canada? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? I dare say that none of these nations, on their own, could do this nor do they choose to. So who? That country who has the capability, the power, the global reach and the "covered fist" mentality to do it. The United States is uniquely able to do it.

I end with this question to ponder:
If Iraq had the same power that the United States possesses today, do you think for an instant that they would not hesitate to turn every one of their perceived enemies into a smoking, radioactive blasted wasteland?

Sputty

2003-01-23, 02:00 PM

Well, probably not but, the point is because of our "advance culture" we feel bad about destroying and attacking others. We always want peace when we can get it. Also, we've recently participated in the largest wars in the history of the world. That could be a factor. War weariness over a century almost. Passifism isn't the answer, you're right, but I think Bush should give inspectors some more time. BTW, right now Iraw's army is a pieve of shit. Canada could overcome them. It's just that we have a different view on wars. Same for the rest of the world. Actually, it;s a manner of money. We hve the mapower but we couldn't relly afford to send a large force and build it up. Much like most western nations. It comes down to an economical issue. Also,we don't need the oil as much, sorry, but it's surely one of the large reasons they want to attack Iraq. Also, the threat of weapons but if so why not attack Korea? The gulf war left a formerly large army in shambles.

Tobias

2003-01-23, 02:27 PM

We have thousands of nucular weapons, so why not use a few....

Sputty

2003-01-23, 02:29 PM

:lol:

mistled

2003-01-23, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Sputty
It happened a few years ago. A vote for Quebec to separate or not. You should know about that....I guess. They separatists loss obviously.
Oh, ok. I thought you meant something that was currently happening. I remember that one, just wondering if it had come back. :)

Yuyi

2003-01-23, 02:48 PM

They barely lost too:tear:

Sputty

2003-01-23, 02:56 PM

They also cheated. They wouldn't count many english voters votes and often wouldn't even allow them to vote. They were also try to get together a coup but that didn't work.

�io

2003-01-23, 03:30 PM

I voted no. I find it ridiculous to believe all the economical problems of Quebec will be solved by leaving Canada.

Unregistered

2003-01-23, 04:04 PM

Just another reason to hate the French if you ask me.

KoldFusion

2003-01-23, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Dio
...As for the Iraq situation i dunno, problem is, as you said there isn't really any proof that he has weapons of mass destruction...
The Inspectors found missles last week although they were empty.... They were taken away for testing of chemical traces. They were found in the basement of one of their scientists (If I'm not mistaken)
Originally posted by Unregistered
I think we need to accidently bomb the tree hugging french pussys on our way over. I fucken hope to God France get's fucked by someone again so the U.S. can tell then to go fuck themselves like they tell us every time we need some support.
I hate the god damn French!
Not that I'm defending the French (believe me I'm as frustrated with them as much as you are) but, part of their additude toward us could stem back from as early as the French American War.... However it is most likely in my mind to root from the early years of Vietnam. I will spare the details and get straight to the point (or else there would be a 10 reply).... The battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 the French were soundly defeated by the N. Vietmaniese in a battle the French Tried to stage (in other words we will make them come out and fight like men) The siege lasted 76 days ended in May 1954. Before the end to that battle the French asked us to directly support them with Air Raids at that location (up to that point we were quietly supporting them because of our containment policy toward communism) to help them win the battle. Our joint Chiefs drew up plans and were ready to go but Eisenhower was unwilling to do anything without congressional approval.... Congress wanted an allied intervention but no allies would help and they also wanted France to give up control of Vietnam to the natives if we were to help.... Since no allies would help and France did not agree to giving up their territory we refused and THOUSANDS of French troops were slaughtered..... and they have been a pain since (short answer J )
<>

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
You know better than to start this thread. What is wrong with you?? MrVic, Nav, and Lex are going to each post page long replies. Heaven help us all. ;)

That being said, here's my page long reply. :D

First of all, Saddam has already been given 'one more chance' about thirty times. We've had evidence of his treachery for years and years. The UN agreed to the timeframe this resolution set forth. Why is it that now that crunch time has come, all these countries are being pussies and deciding that they were wrong before and suddenly need more time?? The UN has had years to resolve this issue with Saddam.

The UN gave Saddam 'one last chance' back in '96 if I'm remembering the year correctly. They asked him for information then that he still has not provided. The UN has a history of cowardice and I for one see no reason that we should allow them to dictate America's policy on anything.

Good points can't argue with you there. Infact I agree with you.

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled

You can't honestly believe that the UN will ever give consent to using force against Iraq, no matter what the outcome of these �inspections� is. Never mind that the inspectors are incompetent. Never mind that they give advance warning to where they are going to inspect in most cases (not all, but most). Never mind that they "inspected" one of Saddam's palaces in about an hour even though that palace has over 30 buildings. These things don't matter. Even if the team managed to stumble upon something (they did find some missle components, btw), the UN will never agree to war with the Iraq.

The Iraqi people are starving to death while Saddam's son wears a $100,000 watch. Oh yeah, let's wait another year or three until we have a whole different batch of people to help (probably our own after Saddam manages to get a nuke from Libya). That makes sense.

I don't think I said that the UN will consent.... I just think it be alot smoother if the UN gets all their pansy yapping out of the way. However, I do see your point.... With opposition in the UN it is highly unlikely that the UN will authorize an attack. I am in agreement with you.... there is horrendous in competence in the UN inspection team. I wasn't saying we should wait 3 years to attack.... All i was saying is this is not something we should run into so quickly. Like I said he needs to be disarmed no matter how it is accomplished and if we do attack tomorrow i'll be behind our troops... make no mistake about that.

Unregistered

2003-01-23, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Dio
I agree the US is coming off even more arogant than before. The whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing isn't a good image.

How many more American lives need to be lost? How many Canadian lives? How many Kurds, or Kuwaiti's? The simple fact is that if your not with us, then you are against us.

As for the Iraq situation i dunno, problem is, as you said there isn't really any proof that he has weapons of mass destrution, if we knew beyond a shadow of doubt then yeah sure kick his ass but not knowing makes it more complicated, a war for no reason makes everyone suffer not just the leader.

The burdon of proof is not on the world. It's on Iraq. They have to prove to the world they do not have WMD, not the other way around.

Read this article about other countrys that have dissarmed in comparison to Iraq and then tell me if you honestly beleave they aren't hiding something.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76427,00.html

Remember that Evil wins only when good men do nothing. That's how the Nazi's almost took over the world. They were supposed to dissarm, but didn't. Instead they built newer, more powerful weapons and used them to lay waste to europe. History really does repeat it's self and if Saddam is allowed to continue building arms because a soft U.N. and Candy Ass French Cock Mongers want to wait until they are fucked to do anything we'll all be sorry.

Call it arogance if you want, but face the Fact that the only thing standing between the Madmen of the world, and Peace is the United States.

MrVicchio

2003-01-23, 05:04 PM

My Long Reply:

If you wanna wait to oust Saddam.. you condem the people of Iraq to Starvation

IF you wanna wait till the inspectors are done.. you don't understand why they are there. They are NOT there disarm Saddam, but rather tot ensure he HAS. If he HAD, his doors would be wide open, and there would be very little for the inspectors to do. The fact of the matter is, Saddam MUST prove he has disarmed, not the inspectors proving that he hasnt... sigh.

If TRULY, you are for peace, then go start a march to oust Saddam not Washington DC.

If truly ye have a clue, tell me who the International ANSWER Group really is... cmon tell me who they are. What group is thier core? Ahh yes the answer = Workers World Party! Bet the Peacniks dont know that.. ah well, they probably would cheer, commies suk

Hamma

2003-01-23, 05:33 PM

I think its time for the US to stop dabbling around fixing everyoene elses problems and raise our gates for several hundred years. :p

Unregistered

2003-01-23, 05:43 PM

The fucking bastards still wouldn't be happy. I'm all for pulling out of the U.N. and letting the world rot in it's own phesis, but the first time some jack ass nuked someone the wolrd would blame us for not helping.

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't.

�io

2003-01-23, 07:09 PM

:rolleyes:

Doobz

2003-01-23, 07:46 PM

yeah, the inspector's found long range missiles of the same type that would be used to deliver chem/bio weps. iraqi statement was "we forgot about them"
:rolleyes: right............

�io

2003-01-23, 07:48 PM

:lol::lol::lol:

Well at least they didn't say "Oops sorry, it's our first day." like Homer. :p

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-23, 08:09 PM

I, and most of us on this forum, are not privy to the exact details of the military intelligence regarding Iraq or exactly what all the international players are doing in this affair.

I feel that something needs to be done about Saddam, but I don't feel I have the information to decide if, when, and or what. If we do go in I am sure it will be for very good reason. My biggest concern is that I have not heard much about what kind of post Saddam plans we have.

I have heard something about the Russians having some kind of operation in Iraq to oust Saddam and prop someone else up (someone who would be make sure that Russia does not lose the investments they have made in Iraq). I have heard that this had had something to do with Russia's opposing a US invasion at this time and is a reason that we have waited.

I do feel that Bush is an idiot and a moron, however I also feel he has some decent people around him. I don't think our government would so haphazardly toss around our military power unless there was real reason for it.

MrVicchio

2003-01-23, 08:29 PM

I love thta line about Bush being an idiot.. lets list some other Republican Presidents that were idiots shall we?

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan...

Why are Republicans that get in the White House idiots and morons?

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-23, 08:38 PM

I don't really think Reagan was an idiot (atleast not the way I think that Bush is an idiot). I credit Reagan with having alot to do with ending the Cold war. I don't know enough about Eisenhower to cast him as an Idiot.

MrVicchio

2003-01-23, 09:30 PM

Not you, but the Left did... amazing...

Warborn

2003-01-23, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Doobz
yeah, the inspector's found long range missiles of the same type that would be used to deliver chem/bio weps. iraqi statement was "we forgot about them"
:rolleyes: right............

As Ben "Greasnin" Platt at Something Awful (http://www.somethingawful.com) put it:

Can you imagine history if America considered "we forgot" to be a useable diplomatic strategy?

Franklin Roosevelt: "Say, Adolf, I heard something about you killing six million ****. You don't have any death camps, do you?"
Hitler: "Uh... no."
Roosevelt: "What about those camps over there?"
Hitler: "Oh, those death camps! Yeah, sorry, I forgot."
Roosevelt: "Hey, don't worry about it. It's cool."

John F. Kennedy: "Khrushchev, my guys are telling me there are some crazy silo-looking things in Cuba."
Khrushchev: "Dude, there totally aren't. I don't know what your guys are talking about.".
Kennedy: "Look, I have these pictures that show missile silos and I think.... yep, they're in Cuba."
Khrushchev: "Oh, snap! Yeah, we do have silos there. I forgot. My bad."
Kennedy: "Hey, no biggie."

KoldFusion

2003-01-23, 10:50 PM

Lot of good points coming out here.... remember no one is wrong.... you believe what you do for your own reasons. BTW thanks for being civil... I almost didn't start this thread for fear it would become a flame fest. :)

Sputty

2003-01-24, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Dio
I voted no. I find it ridiculous to believe all the economical problems of Quebec will be solved by leaving Canada.
You're right Dio. Also, most of Canada would become very indifferent to whatever happened to Quebec after that. So if Quebec's economy crashed that wouldn't be good. No one would really help.

�io

2003-01-24, 10:53 AM

The only thing i would like to see is Quebec leaving Canada and getting "drafted" by the US. :p

Then maybe i could finally get some decent stuff way up here. (Lac-St-Jean sucks) :D

Bighoss

2003-01-24, 03:32 PM

I hate foriegn policy and has anyone noticed this because its kind bugging me

When America first was founded and about 150 years afterward The government was something you could actually see and imagine. They didn't lie because the government were just people at the time. Now its all weird

I feel like the government is my king my lord. What they say goes it doesn't matter I can't make a difference and I am in a never ending search to posses things. Does anyone feel like this is democracy. I think it would be kinda nice if the Americans got to vote on the major spending stuff like how many people here agree that we need to spend 400 billion a year. DOES ANYONE HERE EVEN SUPPORT ISRAEL??? everyone I know says its retarded why do we give them money !

The people say NO I don't want that. The government says I don't care. No one runs for president or office out of good will. Its always about personal gain. I don't get it. This just doesn't seem right to me like somethings wrong. Its to hard to say it in words.

Who here agree's that since the money is collect from the public that they should choose where the money is spent ? I think it would be better if we added more aspects of Athenian democracy to ours so its more direct.

Navaron

2003-01-24, 03:53 PM

1) "They didn't lie because the government were just people at the time"

-You're wrong. Read any old newspaper or history book.

2) "I feel like the government is my king my lord. What they say goes it doesn't matter I can't make a difference "

Do you vote? If you don't like the turn out, run for office. You can change it your way then if the people like it.

3) "Does anyone feel like this is democracy"

I sure hope not, since we live in a Republic. Yet again, read.

4) "I think it would be kinda nice if the Americans got to vote on the major spending stuff like how many people here agree that we need to spend 400 billion a year"

a) you want mass rule - here's some good examples of mass rule, Civil war, Execution of Jesus, France's demand for reparations which led to WW2.
b) People agree with silence. If you don't think we should spend that much, then think up a solution, and call a Senator. They don't think up all those nifty ideas themselves.

5) DOES ANYONE HERE EVEN SUPPORT ISRAEL??? everyone I know says its retarded why do we give them money !
a) I do. In fact, if war comes, I am registered with them to enter the Israeli Air Force.
b) They are the most loyal, strongest, and only ally we have in the middle east.
c) Your friends are ignorant. Not stupid, ignorant.
d) Where do you think they spend their money, we give it on condition that they spend 90% of the money here with us, and the other 10% domestically.
e) Read a book.

6) "The people say NO I don't want that. The government says I don't care."

Not true. Simple as that. Find me 1 example of that conversation.

7) "No one runs for president or office out of good will."

So you're clairvoyant?

8) "Who here agree's that since the money is collect from the public that they should choose where the money is spent?"

ummm. We do. Haven't you ever voted? Also, politicians spend money the way their constituents want them too, if they don't, they are unemployed pretty damn fast.

9) "I think it would be better if we added more aspects of Athenian democracy to ours so its more direct."

It worked so well for them. Hey, let's just go with every man gets one vote.... mob rule works great.

Sputty

2003-01-24, 03:54 PM

It's alos impossible on a large scale. Athenian democracy was basically a forum where maybe a samll town could gert some people to talk about issues.

Zanzibar

2003-01-24, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered
Just another reason to hate the French if you ask me.

sorry but..we need a reason? you n=know the french currently have 380 seperate cases against them n the EU coarts!!!!!
380!!!!
oh n does anyone smell another leage of nations here?

america- lets make a group of countries that police the world and make sure there are no more kaisers
rest of the world- yeah thats a great idea <rest of the world joins

leage of nations- hey america ure the only one left we want to join and the only only one that will make this work

america- nah

about 20 or 30 years later...

america- lets make a group of countries that police the world and make sure there are no more Hitlers

R O T W- yeah thats a great idea

70 odd years later

UN- we will not go to war with iraq without proper evidence

america - nah

notyice any simarlarities?

Flashingfish

2003-01-24, 04:01 PM

Bighoss, when you vote, you vote for the government whose ideals appeal to you most. Therefore you do have a decision in what happens with your money. Of course, parties change policies, lie, and so on, but when you vote you have to hope they say what they say they will do.

But I agree, on big things there should be a vote, and it has happened for things such as the Euro, although many countries such as France did not have a choice. Denmark did however, and we voted no ;D. Unfourtunately they'll keep having votes until we say yes.

As for Saddam, he himself is the problem, not the people of Iraq. It enrages me when I hear people say bomb iraq, kill the arabs etc., because for the most part they haven't done anything wrong themselves. But what can they do? Just leave their country? That's something hard to do. And if other countries were threatening to go to war, I would defend my country. You have to look at it from both perspectives.

I have no doubts however that Saddam is a madman, and he needs to be stopped. You can't just take away the weapons because, hey, we could consider the US a threat because of all its weapons. What's to stop the US nuking everyone tommorow? Nothing. The same goes for Saddam. I think there needs to be a war on Saddam, not a war on Iraq. War is always bad, no matter how you look at it.

A solution? It's hard to think of one, but I really think war would be a bad idea. It would just cause more tension between the "east" and the "west" which is bad enough already. But on the other hand, I don't think Saddam should be left to his own devices. We did that after the gulf war and he still has weapons (or so we believe). But then again I do think America sees itself as the "police of the world". Personally, I think some sort of SAS team should be sent in to capture Saddam, or at the most assassinate him. Killing him would be bad for east-west relations, but it may be necessary. Doing it this way would avoid unncessary deaths. Straight away a new leader would have to be found, in the same way as Afghanistan.

War on Saddam, not War on Iraq.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 03:09 AM

I think some of u are a littly bit blind.....

The greatest reason for the USA to attack the Iraq is, that they want Oil.
Only Oil.

The US-Tv spreads out to much Lies.
3 Days ago i read an article... in this article i read that over 50 % of the US-American folks thinks that Saddam is/was one of the Leaders which are the reason for the September 11. .
But thats not true.

And u think the Iraq has ABC-Weapons...... could be, but u and all Governments all over the World don�t KNOW. The US-Government and England have no proofs, that Iraq has A-,B-, or still having C-Weapons.

If u want to get clever read the 35 Questions for Bush from the repulicain-politician from Texas!

Or read this interview from M.J. Fox:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,229373-2,00.html
(it is in German)

Greetz
Gortha

TGF NightHawk

2003-02-02, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Gortha
I think some of u are a littly bit blind.....

The greatest reason for the USA to attack the Iraq is, that they want Oil.
Only Oil.

The US-Tv spreads out to much Lies.
3 Days ago i read an article... in this article i read that over 50 % of the US-American folks thinks that Saddam is/was one of the Leaders which are the reason for the September 11. .
But thats not true.

And u think the Iraq has ABC-Weapons...... could be, but u and all Governments all over the World don�t KNOW. The US-Government and England have no proofs, that Iraq has A-,B-, or still having C-Weapons.

If u want to get clever read the 35 Questions for Bush from the repulicain-politician from Texas!

Or read this interview from M.J. Fox:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,229373-2,00.html
(it is in German)

Greetz
Gortha
what?!! You serious!:eek:

SandTrout

2003-02-02, 03:30 AM

Why the hell was this thread made? There was allready one along these lines.

Saddomizer of Iraq has chem and bio weapons, and is trying to get nukes. Can you honest-to-god say that you don't believe Saddam has and is willing to use WMDs? We know that they have had them, and we know they havent shown any evedence that they have destroyed them.

We are not looking for beyond a reasonable doubt here. We do know that he has them, saying otherwise is lieing to yourself.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 03:32 AM

ohh ja... this is the truth....

try to find it too.

BASTA

Gr�sse
Gortha

Warborn

2003-02-02, 04:21 AM

Can you honest-to-god say that you don't believe Saddam has and is willing to use WMDs?

He's used chemical weapons or Kurdish villages in the past (to strike back at the Kurish rebels in the north and inspire a good deal of fear as well). He also used them against the Iranians, which helped to turn the tide of the Iran - Iraq war. Anyone who thinks Saddam would hesitate to use them is an idiot.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 10:30 AM

Who cares what Germany thinks anyway? 8 other EU Nations all said "Go to hell, we're with the USA" Mostly because they havent forgotten the lessons of the past.. Can we say Hitler anybody?

War for oil.. what an ignorant argurment.. easily passed on to the masses... Lets see.. we could much more simply go Drill ANWR and open up off shore drilling..

We could do what GERMANY and FRANCE did.. make back door deals with Saddam for his oil... thats the real reason they are against war... they would lose thier cheap oil from him.

As for the CBR weapons (Thats Chemical, Biological and radiological) Go do a search for Kurdish vicitims on the web. I found some rather grisly pics of an entire villiage hit by Chem weapons... this guy WILL use them. And they are not pretty. But I guess Germany and some other countries are willing to risk such then lose thier oil deals with Saddam....

Gortha

2003-02-02, 11:11 AM

@MrVicchio....blablalba.

We have and no other country have hidden oil deals with the Iraq.

Your Oil-Industry and War-Industry is pretty interested in this war. This is one of the big causes for the War the Bush-Government wantsxs to start.

Nobody says that Saddam isn�t dangerous, but if i has no more B and C - Weapons he can�t really by dangerous.

PLease just have a look at this from Septembre:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

(Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ)

Gortha

Gortha

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by MrVicchio

War for oil.. what an ignorant argurment.. easily passed on to the masses... Lets see.. we could much more simply go Drill ANWR and open up off shore drilling..

Not an ignorant argument.

Read this article and tell me that that the US has no interest in Iraqi Oil.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html

Mr. Vicchio, there is no need to call someone elses argument ignorant just because you don't agree with it. It makes me think you are not trying to duscuss an issue, but "win" an argument.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 12:39 PM

First off, thats from the Guardian.. thats a tad biased but..

Yeah, of course the US could use that oil... so could the rest of the world. More oil, lower oil prices pay less at the pump.. duh.

Besides that, do you anti war types care about what is going on in Iraq? Do you care abou tall the death, the torture, the inhumane conditions there? Okay, so you don't agree with our motives, what ever your reasons.. don't you agree a free Iraq would be better for the people of Iraq then under the current regime there?

Hamma

2003-02-02, 12:39 PM

/me bans all politcal threads

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
First off, thats from the Guardian.. thats a tad biased but..

Yeah, of course the US could use that oil... so could the rest of the world. More oil, lower oil prices pay less at the pump.. duh.

Besides that, do you anti war types care about what is going on in Iraq? Do you care abou tall the death, the torture, the inhumane conditions there? Okay, so you don't agree with our motives, what ever your reasons.. don't you agree a free Iraq would be better for the people of Iraq then under the current regime there?

I am for going into Iraq for the reason that it benefits America econmically and addresses security issues.

We are not going to be creating a free Iraq, I can guarentee you that. We are going to create an Iraq that is more willing to do bussiness with America. How do you know that a post Saddam Iraq will be better for the Iraqi people?

I care about inhumane conditions all over the world, but we are not going to war all over the world. Why are you so interested in human rights violations in Iraq and not elsewhere?

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 01:56 PM

Because Iraq is the msot pressing probelm amaybe? Maybe cause saddam, if he could, would park WMD in US cities and laugh as we died?

If you think, the one and only reason we are going into Iraq is for economic gain.. you are mistaken, you cannot accept there are other options, and well.. to be perfectly honest, I wish we'd pull out, barracade America in isolation, and laugh as the rest of the world fall into chao. What would you do if Al-Queada released a WMD in say.. downtown London tomorrow? What if Saddam got a nuke and launched into Isreal? How about we just leave him alone, and he takes out Saudi Arabia? That would be okay.. because it wouldn't be the USA after economic gains right?

archaic1128

2003-02-02, 02:53 PM

Gortha,
You continue to indulge me w/ your ignorance. Take a step back and look at the entire picture.

War for oil.
This war for oil rhetoric is getting stale. If oil is Americas only concern then why are many european countries starting to side w/ us? Let me guess.....they want Iraq's oil too. Hell, every nation except France and Germany want Iraq's oil, right?

"Nobody says that Saddam isn�t dangerous, but if i has no more B and C - Weapons he can�t really by dangerous."

If this is your base for a debate, please explain:

Why hasn't Iraq fully disclosed or shown inspectors, what, where and how he destroyed the missing weapons from a previously stated amount?

Why would Saddam threaten to kill the families of any scientist that gives a private testimony to the inspectors?

Why did the Iraq government have military officials posing as scientists during interviews?

How could have Iraq possibly "forgot" about the found missles?
Let alone not include any of the sort in their recent report which was claimed in a report from the after the gulf war?

Why is Iraq continuing to thwart the inspectors as much as possible?

If you feel so strongly that Saddam doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons then head on over to Iraq and become a human shield. I'll buy the ticket.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Because Iraq is the msot pressing probelm amaybe? Maybe cause saddam, if he could, would park WMD in US cities and laugh as we died?

If you think, the one and only reason we are going into Iraq is for economic gain.. you are mistaken, you cannot accept there are other options, and well.. to be perfectly honest, I wish we'd pull out, barracade America in isolation, and laugh as the rest of the world fall into chao. What would you do if Al-Queada released a WMD in say.. downtown London tomorrow? What if Saddam got a nuke and launched into Isreal? How about we just leave him alone, and he takes out Saudi Arabia? That would be okay.. because it wouldn't be the USA after economic gains right?
But what separates Iraq from other countries that have WMD and human rights violations. Why haven't we singled anyone else out?

When we were doing better economically, we were not beating the war stick on our chests.

If Saddam starts acting against countries outside of Iraq the US and many other countries will be all over him because the US will have their international justification for going into Iraq, just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It no longer become an issue of Soverignty.

You know, you keep forgetting that I am for going into Iraq.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 04:37 PM

All those who try to convince Lexington_Steele and me haven�t read the Article and the Congressman-Questions that we posted.

If u had read the two Links u wouldn�t try to convince us, cause u know we are correct.

http://www.observer.co.uk/internati...,882512,00.html

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/c...02/cr091002.htm

But perhaps u don�t understand what is written there. May it be?

Greetz
Gortha

PS: Sorry for my bad english.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 04:46 PM

Gortha, I read them, and I have read many other articles that slam your articles... whatever. Believe what you will, we will go in, kill Saddam, and free the Iraqi People, and they can move on with thier lives. And you will look stupid when its all over.

SandTrout

2003-02-02, 04:54 PM

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?

The reason we are going to attack Saddam is not because he curently has the ability to directly retaliate against us, but rather that the will in the future, and can indirectly retaliate against us by atacking our allies in the region. He did launch scud missles into Isreal after all.

Saddam could develop an atomic weapon if left to his own devises, and while he couldn't retaliate against us to the level that the Soviets could, we could still do massive damage.

This is the nature of a preemptive stike. To remove the threat before it becomes a worse threat. Other contries in the world that also have WMDs and are commiting humman-rights violations are not poseing as immediate of a threat as Saddam. These other counties know that they will stay allive as long as they are not openly aggressive, but Saddam is oppenly aggresive, and an asshole to boot.

Bighoss

2003-02-02, 05:13 PM

this is funny everyone is like your ignorant and then u say no u are and then another person says no your ignorant.

I AM IGNORANT AND I AM PROUD

WAR IS PEACE
HATE IS LOVE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Gortha

2003-02-02, 05:29 PM

No MrVicchio.... u will look stupid if u try to take over Iraq... Vietnam u know what i mean...
if u run in there ALONE...the US are breaking conditions...

they�ll loose their freinds and convert them to foes.

Especially the Islamish world... think about your Soldiers who are stationed in several muslimish countries...
they will be attacked perhaps they can flee or get slobber.

I grant you that it exasperates me that the US want War for Oil...not only for Oil.

But i think of that what happens after this War or during.

The USA will get in heavy trouble and i do not want his, because then the North-American and the Europe economy will get heavy damage. For example nowadays i have to pay for 1 Liter diesel-gas 90 Euro-Cents... when u start this War we�ll have to pay at least the dubble price. And this is just an example... .

The iraqi Vice-President Taha Jassin Ramadan (a general) said in a interview that if u overtake their land they�ll use Suicide-Killers(don�t know the right word) called "Istischhadijun" against u and not only in the Iraq....

U know what happens in Israel.... so u know what i mean.

Greetz
Gortha

Greetz
Gortha

chopstickz

2003-02-02, 05:42 PM

The govornments seem to be overlooking the situation in North Korea. There are even pictures of WMD, solid evidence and yet little is being done to address the issue.

We seem to be going after the "soft target" here with possible motives being for Oil and not just to "free the Iraqi people"

Also polititians seem to be trying to link Iraq and al-Qaeda when infact Saddam and al-Qaeda have very different political and religous views.

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 05:45 PM

Gortha, The fighting will end in less then 30 days, this will not be another Veitnam.

Chop, see N.Korea, they have nukes, and could possibly hit CAlifornia, they for damn sure could devistate S.Korea and Japan to an extent. Thus dealing with them is different. If we were to just say, "Thats it, your regime wwill fall" Then they would send thier million man army across the border, launch nukes fire rockets, all sorts of nasty things killing millions. That is bad. That is what we DON'T want to happen.

Lexington_Steele

2003-02-02, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Gortha, I read them, and I have read many other articles that slam your articles... whatever. Believe what you will, we will go in, kill Saddam, and free the Iraqi People, and they can move on with thier lives. And you will look stupid when its all over.
In the last 10 years, where has the US gone in and set an entire nations people free? I am sorry, but that is just not the bussiness that the US is in.

Mr Vicchio, can you give me a concrete plan that the US has for setting the Iraqi people free? Merely deposing Saddam is not going to set them free. If freeing the Iraqi peope is our primary interest goal, where is this plan for post Saddam?

Without plan for post Saddam, how can you claim that we are therer to free the people?

chopstickz

2003-02-02, 05:52 PM

Chop, see N.Korea, they have nukes, and could possibly hit CAlifornia, they for damn sure could devistate S.Korea and Japan to an extent. Thus dealing with them is different. If we were to just say, "Thats it, your regime wwill fall" Then they would send thier million man army across the border, launch nukes fire rockets, all sorts of nasty things killing millions. That is bad. That is what we DON'T want to happen.

I never said anything about war with N.Korea, that would be suicide:D i just feel that the US, UK and the rest of the EU could pour more resources into diplomatic answer.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 05:52 PM

Gortha, The fighting will end in less then 30 days, this will not be another Veitnam.

^^^^^^^^^
LoooooooooL

How arogant to belive that!!!

U really think this would be a easy 30 days or 8 weeks War?!??!?

Ohh Man! Use your head. Please!

But i still hope there will be no War. *prey*

Greetz
Gortha

chopstickz

2003-02-02, 05:55 PM

This aint going to be another vietnam. For starters theres no dense jungle to hide in. Iraq is mainly very flat. In fact the iraqi forces pose a smaller threat than they did in 1990. Saddam has less support from his people than ever before.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 06:02 PM

U know in a War there is no real Winner.

Not directly a 2nd vietnam in Ireq but in the Region.... the whole near-east will get the Hell for Americans.

In Iraq not as heavy as vietnam but hard to take.

After the first hundret dead US-GI�s got back to the USA, the folks of the US will revolt.

Gortha

Warborn

2003-02-02, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
After the first hundret dead US-GI�s got back to the USA, the folks of the US will revolt.

I doubt a few hundred Americans will die. Iraq had a much stronger military 12 years ago, and even then they were annihilated by the Americans. Now, their military is weaker, and again, they're going to be annihilated. Hell, more casualties were caused by friendly fire than by enemy attacks. Even if by some twist of fate though the US did suffer several hundred dead, people wouldn't revolt. There'll be protestors, sure, but people always protest about everything under the sun, so it's no big deal.

Gortha

2003-02-02, 06:27 PM

U can doubt but i think it would be heavy, i am still hoping no one of us Warbon becomes his adoption approved. To find an other way than War to kill/fall Saddam is the better Way.

Gortha

MrVicchio

2003-02-02, 06:56 PM

Saddam's Glorius Past, and wht he wants fo rhis future, a brief glance:

I Was big enough to read your links, read these.

http://www.knn.u-net.com/chemical.htm

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38282000/jpg/_38282955_halabjah_visnews150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2286537.stm&h=180&w=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2B%2BHalabjah%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002_files/image006.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/images/gasbomb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/crimes2.htm&h=212&w=400&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2B%2BHalabjah%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Click only if you wanna see what happens when you use CBR

http://www.dhushara.com/book/death/gen/kurd.jpg

http://www.krds.net/images/kurd50.jpg

On the debate:

(long but not a bad coverage of it)http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/FAD/iraq.htm