View Poll Results: Should we leave all the other countries alone until they attack first

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes!

    12 36.36%
  • No!

    21 63.64%

Maybe we should just leave Iraq and all the other countries alone until they attack

This is a discussion on Maybe we should just leave Iraq and all the other countries alone until they attack within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Glass factory? I dont get it...

  1. #16
    Refugee face_master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,052
    Glass factory? I dont get it

  2. #17
    Shadow12345
    Guest
    If Iraq want and concern about living peaceful together with other countries in this World, then this country must be willing by itseft to destroy its mass destruction weapons volunteerly without the necessary of UN's pressure. If this country try to lie and fool the world in order to play the political game, then this country must face severe consequences of mass of destruction on its own people. I dont think the whole world united together, not only USA, can't beat this unwanting-peace country.
    To me, WAR is always at last resort if there is no solution exist for a problem. Imagine War will cause many innocent people and children will get killed by ammunition just because of
    a leader or government with some barbaric and immoral ideology
    and politic and dont care the lives of its people and human being
    sourround.
    In short, if you want peace, I will bring peace to you.
    if you want WAR, then you go head to prepare a grave
    for your own first.

    KingoftheWorld
    I don't really think you are wrong, but I'd like to point out two things:
    1) - The United Nations cannot find any weapons of mass destruction
    2) - War is almost Imminent, I just heard on the news yesterday we are preparing to attack in the middle of January.

    Glass factory? I dont get it
    Glass is made using extremely high temperatures, nuclear reactions produce extremely high temperatures

  3. #18
    I lurk
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,361
    When's the last time someone directly attacked Canada? I can't remember. Maybe it was the US back in the 1800's?

  4. #19
    Shadow12345
    Guest
    I don't know. What about Switzerland and Portugal? Those countries are like always neutral.

  5. #20
    pronounced 'fib' FillYourBrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,297
    here's a site that should explain all you need to know about this (as well as sum up the run of stupid threads lately)

    http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf
    "You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter

  6. #21
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    How does the US and UK know Sadam has these weapons of Mass destruction UN inspectors can't find?

    Because the US and UK sold them to Iraq.

    How can GWB and Blair use the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 as a reason to attack NOW when it was not enough of a reason to stop selling Iraq chemical weapons THEN?

    We are going to war with Iraq in March. (the UN dead line is on Feb27)

    Austrailan SAS troops are already moving inside Iraq.


    Before you get too gung-ho read this newspaper article.

    "Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

    Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

    The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

    One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

    The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

    The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

    This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chem ical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

    Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.'

    Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

    It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

    However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq's wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

    According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

    Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

    Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

    He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

    The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme.

    Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

    'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.' "
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  7. #22
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    novacain, you really hate the US, don't you?

  8. #23
    Registered User Eigenvalue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    21
    [hysterical rant]
    Glass 'em!! Glass 'em all!!! Especially Canada! They attacked us by sending over Tom Green!!! Arrgghh!!
    [/end rant]


    Seriously ( if I can ) though, we had a discussion similar (sp?) to this in my 20th Century Humanities class. There is no way Iraq would attack the U.S. directly. They would probably give a "dirty bomb" to a terrorist group and have them blow up some part of a U.S. city.

    Would WWII have happened if France and Great Britain had invaded Germany before Hitler had built up his military to such a dangerous level?

    Also, if we ( the U.S. ) created the problem, shouldn't it be our responsibility to correct our mistakes?

    ****crawls back under flameproof rock and waits for the firestorm to pass****
    "I'm not responsible for what other people think I am able to do." -- Richard Feynman

  9. #24
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>novacain, you really hate the US, don't you?

    If you read my post I say it was the US and UK. I say it was Blair and GWB. Why do you pick only the US?

    Why is it the second someone says anything silghtly anti US all you Americans are shouting?
    Can't you take any criticism?
    Or don't you think it is true that the US and UK sold Iraq all its arms?




    I hate war. I hate that Australians will die in some far field to ensure profits of overseas corporations remain intact. I think Australia should leave it up to those that CREATED and profited the problem to clean it up.
    I hate that it will cost Australians billions to fight a war that has nothing to do with us. Our schools and hospitals could do with that cash.

    But as in WW1 (and WW2) when asked, 26% of the male population volunteered to go to a war that would never touch Australia. Galipolli and Isurava (Kokoda Track) helped to forge Australia into the nation it is today.

    But it is time we stood back and said no more, and found some other method.

    I don't understand the hypocracy.
    North Korea has admitted it has nuke program. It is in the 'Axis of Evil'.
    Why are we not planning to get them before they use them?

    A cynic would say it was because there was no oil there.
    Or because North Korea never tried to assasinate the presidents dad.

    Why do you think?
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  10. #25
    UNBANNED OneStiffRod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    669
    Saddam is going to go very soon one way or the other - The US is tired of keeping thousands of troops and spending billions of dollars to contain this maniac. And what we've gotten for all of our efforts is Saddam...
    1) shooting at our planes
    2) probably reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction programs
    3) supporting Arab terror against Israelis
    4) blaming the US for the starvation of his ppl when it is him funneling/preventing AID and money from going to his ppl
    5) European Butt-munchers calling for Saddam and Iraq to be 'left alone' by the big bad US
    6) Fueling Arab anger at the WEST with propoganda and support for Alqueda
    7) Rebuilding his armed forces to the levels they were at before Gulf War

    It's just gonna take one of our planes being shot down, or Saddam threatening action against Israel (Israel will strike and launch war), or the fact the US will now actively support rebel factions that will cuase a long and bloody civil conflict - that'll start the war and end saddam's regime.

    OR we can just declare him as in material breach and within 100hrs kick his ass outta IRAQ and give the ppl a democracy. Our solution seems to be the one that will save the most lives as it will be the quickest otherwise we can have a long bloody conflict or let Saddam continue to mass murder his ppl until he has a weapon he can use to mass-murder US/EUROPEAN/ISREALI citizens or our friends.

    BTW, the reason we are going after Saddam now is b/c he is the weakest of the 'Axis of Evil' you don't attack your enemy at the strongest point. Next is gonna be North Korea and Iran, might not be in that order.
    My Avatar says: "Stay in School"

    Rocco is the Boy!
    "SHUT YOUR LIPS..."

  11. #26
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    Glass factory, parking lot, the point is we were attacked once, if it happens again glass em. No chance for a third time.

  12. #27
    ...
    ... is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    465
    'the best defense is a good offense.'

    --my philosophy in life.
    I came up with a cool phrase to put down here, but i forgot it...

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
    Attack us once, strong military action.

    Attack us TWICE.....glass factory.
    When has Iraq ever attacked us?
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  14. #29
    Shadow12345
    Guest
    This thread is already going out of control as I feared it would. All I care about is not initiating a war unless it is unavoidable.

  15. #30
    ...
    ... is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    465
    Originally posted by salvelinus
    When has Iraq ever attacked us?
    Iraq attacked Kuwait which holds a lot of key oil fields.

    american capitolists (which, as we all know, are the ones really in charge) have a thing for oil.
    I came up with a cool phrase to put down here, but i forgot it...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21