Hussein info.... - Page 7

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:16 PM

Why the clever remark about dates?

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 07:18 PM

Someone needs to argue the antiwar side. If not me than who?

(btw, the correct question to ask me, was how long is enough time

)

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 07:19 PM

"Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US. "

My point was that by our ridding the country of him, less Iraqis would die in the next 10 years - and that's counting the causulties of war.

Plus you also have to take into account the number of weapons he would give to terrorist organizations all over the world and their consequent strikes and fall out.

"One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future"

We won't intentionally kill them. We will kill MANY MANY less than we did in the first war due to highly superior technology. But the phrase for the good of the many, a few must suffer applies now. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. However, the US will do everything in it's power to minimize causualties - and is even talking of dropping pamphlets before attacks begin to tell people to run.

"Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time?"

Those few Iraqi civillians who will die are miniscule compared to the terror and greater number of deaths all around the world and in his direct region the next time he goes bankrupt.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:20 PM

No; I asked if you agreed to my statement preceeding the question. Which is correct; because that's what I wanted to know.

Your for the war; yet you argue against it. Why? Do you like to keep this thread going?

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 07:20 PM

Lex is one of PSU's master debators.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:21 PM

I know. He is very good at what he does.

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 07:26 PM

I have to say, if it weren't for lex, I would have no real opposition here in the forums. I really like Lex, and even though we often disagree, we have a very ''sparing'' relationship.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:29 PM

Lex does give one an interesting read.

Headrattle · 2003-03-10, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US. "

My point was that by our ridding the country of him, less Iraqis would die in the next 10 years - and that's counting the causulties of war.

I think the actual act of war will kill more civilians then he will kill in the next ten years.
We will be invading him, and he will do anything to keep Bagdad. This includes bombing his own people just because Americans are in that area.

Plus you also have to take into account the number of weapons he would give to terrorist organizations all over the world and their consequent strikes and fall out.

You do have a point here, I won't lie.

"One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future"

We won't intentionally kill them. We will kill MANY MANY less than we did in the first war due to highly superior technology. But the phrase for the good of the many, a few must suffer applies now. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. However, the US will do everything in it's power to minimize causualties - and is even talking of dropping pamphlets before attacks begin to tell people to run.

This is debateable. Remember Afganistan, How many bombs hit incorrect targets there? Quite a few. These weapons aren't as great as most would think. They are still guided by humans. There is still a very large margin of error.

"Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time?"

Those few Iraqi civillians who will die are miniscule compared to the terror and greater number of deaths all around the world and in his direct region the next time he goes bankrupt.

I disagree once again. Saddam is going to drag down as many people as he can when he falls. He is going to kill many more people then if he was just left to stew in his own juices. When we attack he WILL shoot missiles at Isreal. He WILL use what ever he has to hit any allies or bases of america.

And if he doesn't then he wasn't able to anyway.

Why do I say this? Because he is an evil man. People just aren't giving him enough credit on how evil and messed up he is. Didn't he kill his first person when he was in his teens? Imagine a LA gang member becoming a leader of a country. It is that level of evil.

And once this does happen. The occurances of violence in the middle east will once again increase.
We might be going there to liberate Iraq, but they see it as conquest.

I had to intervene, Lex. I am not defending you, just putting my opinion outthere.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 10:34 PM

Awww guys, your making me blush. :o

to all of you (especially to Confecterix and Nav).

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 11:04 PM

Headrattle:

SMART weapons are just that. Laser guided weapons are quite efficent. In Afganastan it was a waste [of money and the manpower to deploy them] simply because if you miss you hit a mountain. If you miss in Iraq you chance hitting a hospital. Consequently, laser guided munitions will be used much more in this conflict. Thereby reducing loss of unintended casualties.

Saddam may want to bring down everyone once he knows it is over; however will his generals carry out his orders knowing they will be charged with war crimes? Furthermore, Saddam knows that if he sends anything to Isreal; Isreal will turn Iraq into swiss cheese; and rightly so.

Once Saddam is gone and a democratic government is installed; Isreal won't be alone. I think tensions might even subside for a time. Besides; no one wants to be next on the list of American targets for terrorism.

Headrattle · 2003-03-10, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Confectrix
Headrattle:

1: SMART weapons are just that. Laser guided weapons are quite efficent. In Afganastan it was a waste [of money and the manpower to deploy them] simply because if you miss you hit a mountain. If you miss in Iraq you chance hitting a hospital. Consequently, laser guided munitions will be used much more in this conflict. Thereby reducing loss of unintended casualties.

2: Saddam may want to bring down everyone once he knows it is over; however will his generals carry out his orders knowing they will be charged with war crimes? Furthermore, Saddam knows that if he sends anything to Isreal; Isreal will turn Iraq into swiss cheese; and rightly so.

3: Once Saddam is gone and a democratic government is installed; Isreal won't be alone. I think tensions might even subside for a time. Besides; no one wants to be next on the list of American targets for terrorism.

1: You forget we don't really have anything BUT smart bombs.
But we still mark the wrong target.
In afganistan they still hit buildings that weren't the targets. Sometimes by miles. This is somehting that happens during war. The fact that Saddam has been basing legit targets next to schools and hosbitals only compounds this fact. I hate it when people believe that we can hit with precision 100% of the time. We are accuarate, but we WILL miss. We will kill civilians. This is just something that is bound to happen. Even with the new satalite guided bombs.

2: The followers that have survived thus far are fanatics. They are going to do what ever he says. Because if they didn't he would have killed them. They HAVE gassed, killed, and tortured his own people. The "Republican Guard" are the guys that will do anything he says, and that means take down as many as they can. Think of the SS only more fanatical. These guys have everything to lose if they don't to these things.

3: I am not talking about other countries. in that reguard nothing will change. Not really. The civilians of all of the arab countries will still hate us. The only difference is now the ones that weren't going to do anything about it will feel a little more threatened and decide to strike back. We are doing the thing that the extremists have been accusing us of for 20 years. We are trying to colonize every arab nation in an attempt to stamp out the islamic way of life. That is what they think they are doing. read any manifesto.

I am not for the war. But I am not against it. I would rather have more allies behind us, but that isn't going to happen. I would rather have more time, but if we go back on our threats then fewer nations will take us seriously. We have painted ourself into a corner. We have rattled our sabre too long. We have to pull it out of the scabbard.

And a large part of me wants to get it over with.

Gortha · 2003-03-11, 04:56 AM

And again: This War is not for HumanRights or WMD... It is to controll Iraqi Oil.... and take control of middle East.... .

Try to find out something about the PNAC - Plans ....
and think about them.

Keep USA big, hold all the others down.
Imperialistic Plans.
Thats the main reasons.

U can�t establish a democracy in Iraq.... it wont work.

In the north of Iraq there will start a War between Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis plus other gruops becouse of the Oilfields there.

And to those who are always saying : Gortha u always say the same.... blabla *wine* f.e Navaron or MrV ..... to you:

U are always saying the same too.

Greetz
Gortha

Navaron · 2003-03-11, 05:03 AM

See Gortha, you're wrong. I always posts facts, with documented support. You always post hate mail or conspiracy theories. Simple fact is, I don't think you have an arguement that you can base on fact. If you did, you would have made it long ago. You really aren't as keen on facts as you say.

Gortha · 2003-03-11, 05:33 AM

*zzz*

Navaron u must be one of Bush�s INet-Propaganda-Man.

Navaron i posted enough facts, but u say that are no facts... the same i do to your "facts"..... blabla .... Saddam had 12 years... too long....blabla... lets kill him.... not many civil casaulties....he kills his whole population if we don�t kill him within 10 years....blabla

Then u post some articles as i did also, but your articles are all good, my articles are all fakes.
Try to open your eyes... War is no solution.