General Hawley's speech - Page 20

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 11:12 PM

A few million that were willing to leave their homes and take to the streets, although it's not like they actually took a head count. There's more against the war than just those that walked around outside. Entire governments have opposed the actions too, such as Canada, France, and Germany. In that same aspect, there are also those who support it. No one LIKES war, and so there'll always be someone to oppose it.

Like I've said before, the UN said there wasn't enough evidence, and some countries have said they should send in more inspectors. America doesn't want this, they want to act. If they're just going to go in no matter what, then I say they do it. I'm just opposed to it because I still see Korea as a bigger threat, and I don't see why they've stopped the hunt for Osama.

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A) I think it's wrong to tell a country they can't develop weapons. Especially the US who always preaches the right to bear arms. Telling him to disarm such weapons as VX and Anthrax I agree with, but I don't agree witht he fact that the U.S. IS allowed to have these weapons themselves.

Have you noticed that we've only told him that he can't have weapons of mass destruction after he began using chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens?? The US doesn't test it's weapons on random citizens. That's the difference. Another difference is that in the US, one man is not in complete power over the entire country and the military and all of the weapons programs. The US has a system of checks and balances which Iraq does not have.

Confectrix · 2003-02-21, 11:14 PM

Korea will be next. However, we must convince China that it [Korea] is a threat to their national security. After all, all China needs is a nuclear equiped Taiwan or Japan.

Confectrix · 2003-02-21, 11:15 PM

Mist, we keep saying the same thing.

Hop to it now.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 11:18 PM

meh, might have been me. If so I posted it this morning and forgot about it. Sorry, but I feel if you get more than 50% of the votes, that should mean you become president. Bush won more areas, Gore won more people. The government is run by the people not the states, is it not?

Confectrix · 2003-02-21, 11:18 PM

And the states are run by?

Towns and Cities??!!!

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 11:21 PM

Yes, and I agree that he should have his weapons disabled, but I still don't think it's right for the U.S. to have them either. I don't think VX, anthrax, or the A-Bomb should even have been invented, but unfortunately they have.

As for their government regime, although we don't agree with it, that's how they chose to run it. If the monarchy was still in charge in England, would we attack them? Cuba is communist, so we don't trust them (sure there's more to it than that, but that's a big reason). We seem to give people the right to live their life the way they choose, as long as they do it our way.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Confectrix
And the states are run by?

Towns and Cities??!!!

And the towns and cities are run by? People???

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A few million that were willing to leave their homes and take to the streets, although it's not like they actually took a head count. There's more against the war than just those that walked around outside. Entire governments have opposed the actions too, such as Canada, France, and Germany. In that same aspect, there are also those who support it. No one LIKES war, and so there'll always be someone to oppose it.

Like I've said before, the UN said there wasn't enough evidence, and some countries have said they should send in more inspectors. America doesn't want this, they want to act. If they're just going to go in no matter what, then I say they do it. I'm just opposed to it because I still see Korea as a bigger threat, and I don't see why they've stopped the hunt for Osama.

I think you underestimate the reach of the US if you think that they can only do one thing at a time. I see no evidence that the hunt for Bin Laden has ceased.

Japan, China, and Russian have all promised pre-emptive strikes on North Korea if they get out of hand. I certainly believe that three countries can hold them at bay without the US just fine. Why is it that the US has to be the world's policeman all the time??

"some countries have said they should send in more inspectors" This is true, but pointless. The inspectors' job is not to find the weapons. They are inspectors, not a search and destroy team. The UN resolution requires that Saddam produce evidence to the inspectors that he is destroying all of his weapons. The inspectors should not have to go find the weapons, nor are they trained to do so. I believe it was even Hans Blitz who said that the number of inspectors is not the problem, but that the problem is the lack of cooperation that they are receiving from Iraq. He said that he could do the job with half the number of inspectors if he could get Saddam's cooperation in the matter.

Confectrix · 2003-02-21, 11:24 PM

THEY choose to run it. Who? Saddam. His people do not choice. The elction choices are Saddam or this guy. If you vote for him, you and your family is dead. He's totured his own family.

The USA is dismantling WMD steadily. We just signed a pact with the Russian Federation which will decrease both our stockpiles considerably. I think as of current we have 7200 nuclear warheads. Russia has more.

Regarding Anthrax and VX gas. They are extremly secure and will never be used. They are there for intimidation; as most weapons of mass destruction are.

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Confectrix
Mist, we keep saying the same thing.

Hop to it now.

I just want to make sure I don't miss any point that someone can bring up to try and trip me up later.

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
And the towns and cities are run by? People???

I think you just inadvertently made his point.

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
meh, might have been me. If so I posted it this morning and forgot about it. Sorry, but I feel if you get more than 50% of the votes, that should mean you become president. Bush won more areas, Gore won more people. The government is run by the people not the states, is it not?

That's nice. Go back to your other thread and reply to this topic there. I'm not addressing it here. Just know that the popular vote has nothing to do with the way people are elected to Presidential office in the United States. Go read up on their election laws.

mistled · 2003-02-21, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
As for their government regime, although we don't agree with it, that's how they chose to run it. If the monarchy was still in charge in England, would we attack them? Cuba is communist, so we don't trust them (sure there's more to it than that, but that's a big reason). We seem to give people the right to live their life the way they choose, as long as they do it our way.

I think if the UK was a Monarchy and started testing chemical weapons on its citizens and the US believed that the UK would someday attack them with those weapons, then yes, the US would attack the UK.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 11:31 PM

I agree, more inspectors is not the answer, they're inspectors, not detectives. As I've said, the US plans to attack regardless, and they have all this classified info (or they're doctoring it in some hollywood lab and can't reveal it till it's perfected, and no it's not inconceivable), so I think they should just go if they're going to.

Weapons of intimidation, I hate the term. Why have something if you're not going to use it? Hell, why aren't I allowed to walk around with a shotgun then? if it's just for intimidation.

As for the US not searching for Osama anymore, I'm sure they are, but they don't seem to be as focused on it anymore, and he has ACTUALLY attacked the USA already. I know that Canada has sent over 2000 troops repeatedly, although I wouldn't help the states there after that FF incident (I think your pilots should fry for that).

As for US being the police of the world, I don't think they should be, nor do I think anyone elected them to stick their noses in everywhere. I think 'Nam was a big mistake too (which is another place where the States have used biological weapons).