PDA

View Full Version : Maybe we should just leave Iraq and all the other countries alone until they attack



Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 03:08 PM
Well, do you agree?

RoD
12-19-2002, 03:10 PM
not to sound ignorant or inhumane, but when the twin towers were hit we should have turned that whole area into a glass mine.

IE A-bomb dat biotch.

MadHatter
12-19-2002, 03:15 PM
or we could.. ya know.. um... stop killing people. it seems like a reasonable enough idea.. maybe i'm just nuts.

and by we, i mean humans.. not just the U.S., but they are included.

*shrugs*

PJYelton
12-19-2002, 03:23 PM
Errr... I'm not saying I agree with all of Bush's policies on the Middle East and his "Axis of Evil", but just waiting around and doing nothing just invites another Sept 11th. In this day and age one can't wait for someone else to attack first anymore, since that first attack can be catastrophic.

BMJ
12-19-2002, 03:55 PM
*looks for "STFU Shadow1234" option*

Hey!

golfinguy4
12-19-2002, 04:16 PM
I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, we should try to avoid the problems altogether. We (Americans) basically cram our society down the throats of other nations. That is not right.

face_master
12-19-2002, 05:39 PM
'Attack or be attacked'

Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 05:41 PM
I don't see any real tactical importance of declaring a war with Iraq. I consider war a very very very serious thing, and behind all of the Political reasons the war on Iraq just seems to show the world who is boss. If, however, Saddam Hussein attacks us, I'm all in favor of taking all of his power away.
EDIT:


'Attack or be attacked'


Explain the difference...there is no 'attempted murder' verdict on the international scale...

I basically just mean waiting for any other country to attack us on a large scale before we go out and wage war. We already went into Afganistan after Sept 11th, so why are we now going into Iraq?

minesweeper
12-19-2002, 06:04 PM
>>If, however, Saddam Hussein attacks us, I'm all in favor of turning his country into a parking lot.<<

See I still think this attitude is wrong. I mean, the civillian population of Iraq are just like us, they go about their daily lives quite peacefully just hoping they can earn enough of a wage to feed their families. They probably don't like half the things that Saddam does in the same way that we don't like half the things that our leaders do. But the difference is that, whereas we can vote our leaders out, they can't. They have no choice and no freedom to express any disapproval. When you speak of using nukes you are simply speaking of mass murder of civillian population. It makes us no better than the barbarians who carried out the 9/11 atrocities. With all the blood that was spilled last century in various wars, shouldn't we, as the wealthy, civilised western society look to set an example to everyone by finding another way?

face_master
12-19-2002, 06:10 PM
shouldn't we, as the wealthy, civilised western society look to set an example to everyone by finding another way?No, becuase as soon as you let your gaurd down they'll strike.

Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 06:14 PM
They have no choice and no freedom to express any disapproval. When you speak of using nukes you are simply speaking of mass murder of civillian population


Obviously I didn't mean kill all of them. In fact i will edit that post to say 'take saddam's power away' instead. I just wanted to point out the fact that I am definitely pro action, but I don't think we should initiate a conflict if there is not clear and present danger, and by all accounts Iraq poses no more clear and present danger than all of the other countries with access to weapons of mass destruction.

minesweeper
12-19-2002, 06:17 PM
>>Obviously I didn't mean kill all of them. In fact i will edit that post to say 'take saddam's power away' instead. I just wanted to point out the fact that I am definitely pro action, but I don't think we should initiate a conflict if there is not clear and present danger, and by all accounts Iraq poses no more clear and present danger than all of the other countries with access to weapons of mass destruction.<<

Ok that's a little clearer. Turning a country into a parking lot implies, in my view, using nukes.

Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 06:50 PM
Ok that's a little clearer. Turning a country into a parking lot implies, in my view, using nukes.

ya you're completely right, kind of a goof up on my part, like i said I just wanted to show im not a total louse, but, guess I went a little too far.

RoD
12-19-2002, 06:58 PM
Attack us once, strong military action.

Attack us TWICE.....glass factory.

KingoftheWorld
12-19-2002, 07:00 PM
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

face_master
12-19-2002, 07:16 PM
Glass factory? I dont get it :o

Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 07:22 PM
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

Eibro
12-19-2002, 07:31 PM
When's the last time someone directly attacked Canada? I can't remember. Maybe it was the US back in the 1800's?

Shadow12345
12-19-2002, 07:43 PM
I don't know. What about Switzerland and Portugal? Those countries are like always neutral.

FillYourBrain
12-19-2002, 08:37 PM
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

novacain
12-19-2002, 08:43 PM
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.' "

golfinguy4
12-19-2002, 08:59 PM
novacain, you really hate the US, don't you?

Eigenvalue
12-19-2002, 09:33 PM
[hysterical rant]
Glass 'em!! Glass 'em all!!! Especially Canada! They attacked us by sending over Tom Green!!! Arrgghh!!
[/end rant]
:D :D :D

Seriously ( if I can :p ) 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****

novacain
12-19-2002, 10:43 PM
>>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?

OneStiffRod
12-19-2002, 10:58 PM
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.:D

RoD
12-20-2002, 05:02 AM
Glass factory, parking lot, the point is we were attacked once, if it happens again glass em. No chance for a third time.

...
12-20-2002, 08:21 AM
'the best defense is a good offense.'

--my philosophy in life.

salvelinus
12-20-2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
Attack us once, strong military action.

Attack us TWICE.....glass factory.
When has Iraq ever attacked us?

Shadow12345
12-20-2002, 09:12 AM
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.

...
12-20-2002, 09:18 AM
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.

Shadow12345
12-20-2002, 09:39 AM
Short of the total fall and demise of the united states do you think there is anyway to get on the good sides of these middle eastern countries that hate us so much?

...
12-20-2002, 10:33 AM
make islam the national religion.

see, i normally dont have a problem with religion, but all this jihad crap and people worrying constantly about the end of the world are some of the worst things about the world today and both of them are products of religion. The end of the world will be a self fulfilling prophecy. why cant people see that there is a way around it, and its a simple matter of STOP KILLING EVERYONE!!

I wish there was a way for religion and peace to coexist, but i guess im just dreaming...

OneStiffRod
12-20-2002, 11:31 AM
For NOVACAIN,

Unfortunately the Middle East and Saddam have a major impact on your country(Australia). Europe and probably Australia gets around 70% of it's OIL from this region so your government and the others have a vested interest in what happens there. In fact Europe relies much more heavily on OIL from this region than does the US - the US gets around 25% or less of it's OIL from this region - For that reason I don't understand why these European ppl don't take a more active role in containing Saddam and giving ultimatums for Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. Instead they rely on the US/UK to spend the money and deploy the forces needed to do this.

All of the worlds problems can be solved by MONEY, plain and simple - it's the lack of it that cuases these problems.



--DEATH TO ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!-----

RoD
12-20-2002, 01:09 PM
I showed this to my history teacher and he said "Glass em till i can see my reflection"

golfinguy4
12-20-2002, 01:18 PM
>>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? <<

Because all that I ever see you say about the US is that we suck in some way.

>>Why is it the second someone says anything silghtly anti US all you Americans are shouting?
Can't you take any criticism?<<

Criticism implies that there is also something good. However, I cannot remember a time you said the US was good. Maybe someone is overly critical?

>>Or don't you think it is true that the US and UK sold Iraq all its arms?<<

I'm not going to get into the lesser of two evils argument again.


>>But as in WW1 (and WW2) when asked, 26% of the male population volunteered to go to a war that would never touch Australia.<<

But you sure would have cared if the US and other Allied nations didn't support the nations who were actually "touch"ed by the war. Many of the nations who fought were not "touch"ed by the war. No US state was attacked during WWII. We still came in and helped. The same is true of many South American nations. Now, if these nations hadn't come in and helped out and Australia was attacked by Japan, you might have cared then. I think you fail to realize that it was the actions of the heroic Australian soldiers whose land hadn't been "touch"ed yet that made sure their land wasn't "touch"ed.

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

Couldn't agree with you more.


>>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?<<

Well, as you know, the world revolves around money, and North Korea isn't exactly an oil tycoon of a nation. A calm/nonagressive Middle East would be a lot more profitable to the world than a North Korea.

minesweeper
12-20-2002, 01:24 PM
>>I showed this to my history teacher and he said "Glass em till i can see my reflection"<<

hmmmm...for a history teacher to say that, I think is quite a sorry state of affairs.

zahid
12-22-2002, 01:09 AM
"We should leave all the other countries alone until they attack first". This is stright plain answer.

But is there everything that straight and plain? I would suggest to keep an open eye.

If that question is a statement on straight war, the answer is YES. We should not attack untill some attacks. Else just Chaos and incase of judgement that will be against the first attackers.

the Wookie
12-23-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by OneStiffRod
--DEATH TO ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!-----


wow, you're ignorant

OneStiffRod
12-23-2002, 10:53 AM
DEATH TO IRAQ
DEATH TO IRAN
DEATH TO NORTH KOREA

--DEATH TO ISLAM--

I am a psychic, these predictions will come TRUE.

sean
12-23-2002, 10:53 AM
It isn't Islam, it's the extremists, many of whom just happen to be Muslims. O.J. Simpson was a catholic and I don't see people saying much about that.

Wait until we're attacked? Let me explain a few things to you.

When somebody hijacks a plane and rams it into an office building, that's an attack. We waited until we were attacked in World War II and now we have Pearl Harbor Day. If somebody with a gun points it at your face and says they're going to kill you, do you wait until they shoot? No, you kick his manhood, grab the gun and shoot him first!

Nuclear weapons aren't exactly something you don't want to take easily. When the Twin Towers went down, it did less damage then a Hydrogen bomb the size of computer monitor would do. The blast would be a lot smaller, but there's also this little thing called radiation, which has an annoying little tendency of being able to mutilate and kill people thousands of years later.

So why don't we all just shut up? Whether you agree with Bushes plan or not, he was voted in by us, he's done nothing contrary to the constitution, and this thread accomplishes very little more than ........ing me off.

joshdick
12-23-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Sean
It isn't Islam, it's the extremists, many of whom just happen to be Muslims. O.J. Simpson was a catholic and I don't see people saying much about that.
Exactly. OneStiffRod is an absolute idiot if he thinks that Islam is to blame.



So why don't we all just shut up? Whether you agree with Bushes plan or not, he was voted in by us, he's done nothing contrary to the constitution, and this thread accomplishes very little more than ........ing me off.

No, Bush was not voted in by us. He did not, I repeat did not, win the popular vote. He only won thanks to an antiquated voting system thought up before the existence of political parties and mass communication.

Yes, his administration has done things contrary to the Constitution. Just take a look at all of the rights that Ashcroft has stripped citizens of. It's sad and astonishing how much they're getting away with.

If you're getting ........ed off, don't read this thread or go post in another forum. No one is forcing you to participate in this discussion. In this country we have this little thing called free speech. If you don't like that, Iraq or another member of the Axis of Evil might be willing to take you in.

sean
12-23-2002, 11:06 AM
Fireproof rock... heh heh heh...

Problem? Mistakes? US?

Polymorphic OOP
12-23-2002, 11:21 AM
I don't have much faith in Bush and it kind of frightens me that he's our president (well, those of us here that are in the US that is). It scares me that he calls them the "axis of evil" and that he referred to the terrorists as "the evil-do'ers" all the time after 9/11. What is this, a comic a book? Who put Bush in charge of the Justice League!?

the Wookie
12-23-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by OneStiffRod
DEATH TO IRAQ
DEATH TO IRAN
DEATH TO NORTH KOREA

--DEATH TO ISLAM--

I am a psychic, these predictions will come TRUE. well your name suits you well

Polymorphic OOP
12-23-2002, 11:30 AM
Hahaha, wookie, you really have to change your avatar. The brightness on my monitor is kinda low and that looks very dirty :rolleyes:

... I'm not even that big :D

RoD
12-23-2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Polymorphic OOP
Hahaha, wookie, you really have to change your avatar. The brightness on my monitor is kinda low and that looks very dirty :rolleyes:

... I'm not even that big :D

ok thats just disturb'n :P

I say nuke that whole area, one big glass mine.

LordVirusXXP
12-24-2002, 01:47 AM
Iraq sucks.

Nuff said.

foniks munkee
12-24-2002, 03:02 AM
Iraq sucks.

Nuff said.

A slightly naive view - if there is a problem with Iraq it rests solely with its leadership, not the people.

joshdick
12-24-2002, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
I say nuke that whole area, one big glass mine.

Argh!! How can people be so ignorant?! The U.S. currently only has a major problem with one person from Iraq——Saddam Hussein. The common people of Iraq are peaceful citizens trying to eek out a living without getting gassed by their dictator.

What you are suggesting is the total anihilation of an entire country because of a single person. That's not unlike the 9/11 terrorists who killed 3,000 civilians because they didn't like the leadership of the U.S. Do you want this nation to stoop to the level of the terrorists?

The last thing our military should do is conduct indiscriminate attacks. In the past, American forces have bombed places thinking that they were weapons facilities only to find out much too late that they were aspirin factories or hospitals. This nation must exercise extreme caution when using lethal force. Killing innocent civilians is one of the most detestable things we could do. I'd like to remind all of the American taxpayers that you are financially supporting out military, and whenever innocent civilians die, part of their blood is on your hands. That is why it is imperitive that we send the message to Washington to exercise extreme caution when using lethal force. This whole "bomb 'em all" mentality must stop.