billvon 3,120 #51 February 25, 2003 >what I meant was IF you have to use the nukes, use >them, 'collateral damage' is inevitable, sad but true. Right, I'm just asking if the same rationale applies to the US as well as other countries. If Saddam thought he had to use chemical weapons against rebellious Kurds, had to kill 5000 of them to save the lives of 10,000 of his armed forces, does that mean it's OK? >How many 'civilians' died in Pearl Harbor? hmmm? 68, many of them from US antiaircraft fire (the flak fragments rained down all over the area.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #52 February 25, 2003 QuoteRight, I'm just asking if the same rationale applies to the US as well as other countries. If Saddam thought he had to use chemical weapons against rebellious Kurds, had to kill 5000 of them to save the lives of 10,000 of his armed forces, does that mean it's OK? Well, first of all, we would NEVER do somehting like that, so, that comparison is out of order, but unfortunately the nature of war is very nasty, you can't wipe out just the weed, I wish there was a way to do it. 68 civilians? mmm, I thought were only 59, anyway, no matter the number, those were human lives.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #53 February 25, 2003 QuoteWorked really well for Israel. No one messes with them now! Did you hear about the border defense system they are building? Pretty cool.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #54 February 25, 2003 Quote isn't it peculiar that we the U.S.A. can announce new microwave weapons, or any other weapons we have built of mass destruction to the world erm....last time I checked, microwave weapons are being considered because they cause LESS collateral damage than conventional weapons. Don't believe everything you read in Newsweek or Time... Wait, are you under the impression that microwave weapons will be used to fry PEOPLE to a crisp in one shot? Sorry, microwave weapons are intended to target ELECTRONICS, not people. i.e., frying the enemy's computers so they can't process data or send command and control messages. The whole point is to SAVE lives by shortening a war and killing fewer people when a weapon is used. The term microwave is used to describe a particular section of the electromagnetic spectrum (as in wavelengths of 1 millimeter to 1 meter), not in the sense of the thing that sits on your counter and cooks your TV dinners. Besides, it sounds like its still too far in the future for this war, anyway.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyinryan 0 #55 February 25, 2003 First, let me say that this is great that people are discussing this. The best thing we can do is listen to as many opinions as possible. The U.S would NEVER do that.... We have. What about our use of chemical weapons in Vietnam (Agent Orange)? What about the government testing the effects of radiation on American school children (mentally handicaped children no less). Yes, using nuclear weapons may have shortened WWII, but in that case Japan ATTACKED US. I don't seem to remember Iraq attacking us. We have no proof of their involvement in 9/11...in fact there is a MUCH STRONGER link between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 bombing (funding for their flight school) then there is between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As for showing terrorist that we mean busniess. How? If we vaporize Iraq, does Osama become less likely to attack us? Does a terrorist cell operating out of Detroit become less effective if we turn Iraq into a parking lot? If anything it motivates them. We are setting a dangerous precedent here. Invading a soverign nation because 1) there government is different than our own so we need to liberate there people by killing a bunch of them or 2) they might sorta be linked to terrorists so lets show the other terroists we mean busniness by killing a whole bunch of people...where does it end?BASE 853 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #56 February 25, 2003 QuoteWhy is none of the past 12 years being considered in this stance by anti-war people? A couple of reasons I think. * It hasn't been on the front page for the last twelve years. * Sometime people are so opposed to the idea of war that there just isn't anything that can be used justify war. My $0.02 USD. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #57 February 25, 2003 Quoteit's not Sadaam's fault he never complied, it's the un inspectors fault. You're kidding right? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #58 February 25, 2003 >When does diplomacy really end? When we give up on it and start carpet bombing Baghdad. >Why is none of the past 12 years being considered in this stance by anti-war people? Because hundreds of thousands of people aren't dying. >Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you. Well, we got messed > with. No, Iraq did nothing against the U.S. directly . . . So they're the ones we attack? Thank god our justice system here in the US doesn't work that way. >and they HAVE been shooting at our jets in the no-fly zones. And we have been bombing them continuously for 12 years; we drop about 15 tons of bombs a month on Iraq. (And no, not just missile sites, but also communications centers and fiber-optic line repair trucks.) >So why should we keep sending our sons and daughters into harms > way for a resolution that will never end? It is better to send them to die? We haven't lost anyone in ~10 years in Iraq as a result of Iraqi aggression; once we begin a war we will certainly lose hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops, and those losses will continue for years as we set up a military government in an unstable country. Why do you prefer that? >This needs to come to a head and be finished. Like we "finished" with Bin Laden? How long do you think it will take to 'pacify' Iraq, with its warring factions, Kurds who want a homeland, and dozens of would-be contenders for leadership of the government? Our best estimates call for 12-18 months of occupation and military rule before we hand off to anyone else; that's probably optimistic. >Then we can focus all of our attention on North Korea which needs to >be dealt with for sure. True; by that time, perhaps we can bargain them down from 12 nukes to 6 and call it a good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #59 February 25, 2003 QuoteLike we "finished" with Bin Laden? Just because it's not front page is no reason to assume that we're finished with Bin Laden. Hopefully we're dealing with him and his merry band of terrorists the same way that the Egyptions dealt with the Palestinian terrorists who killed 11 of their coaches and athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #60 February 25, 2003 >Hopefully we're dealing with him and his merry band of terrorists the > same way that the Egyptions dealt with the Palestinian terrorists . . . I hope so too, but I fear that any hope that Iraq (and Hussein) will be dealt with quickly may be based on the same sort of hopes that we had that Bin Laden would be dealt with quickly. It may take years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #61 February 26, 2003 Quoteand they HAVE been shooting at our jets in the no-fly zones. Isn't thats what you are supposed to do???? Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #62 February 26, 2003 QuoteFirst, let me say that this is great that people are discussing this. The best thing we can do is listen to as many opinions as possible. And why is that my friend? because we live in a democracy and we can FREELY express our opinions, did we FIGHT for that right? YES WE DID, as I mentioned before, Freedom is not free. Is true that there is no (at least to our knowledge) direct attack from Iraq, but we have also consider we are 'the people', what I mean by that is that if our government (and very few allies) think we need to strike, in my opinion is because there is a reason, otherwise all the intelligence offices would have no sense to exist.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #63 February 26, 2003 QuotePresidential candidate debates draw millions of viewers, even though they're useless Not me. QuoteSome people actually like hearing both sides of an argument I like hearing both sides of the argument. I then take information gathered from the display and go research it from several sources. Then I think about what I've seen/read/heard, and make up my mind as to how I feel about a certain subject. And honestly, I think many more people do that then don't. As for this topic, I cannot see how, after a decade, there is all that much new information. Point me to the independent source, and I'll read it. What's happening is simply people are mistaking a debate for negotiations and diplomacy. It is not the same thing. As a matter of fact, a public debate can be very polarizing, as there are "sides" taken and positions adhered to, with an ultimate goal of convincing an audience of something they were not convinced of in the first place. Acrimonious and adversarial stances are adopted, to make a point. Negotiations are a whole different ball of wax, as is diplomacy. Negotiations are both sides come to a middle ground, neither one getting everything they want...and diplomacy is the art of saying the right thing at the right time, with good results (and in this case, disarming him is the "good result"...) While I agree that diplomacy and negotiations have a predominant place on the world stage, a debate will do nothing more than separate and divide. It is counter productive at best, as the sides will entrench themselves into positions from where there is no reconciliation. That's what a debate is about. I would think that the UN would be a great place for Saddam Hussein to plead for additional time, inspectors, whatever. Why he hasn't chosen that venue is interesting, and telling...at least to me. The US has gone before them several times, and made their case. I am sure that if Saddam made even the slightest indication he wanted to do that, he would be given the time and place...but instead, he makes a statement to Dan Rather and plays the PR game. Just my opinion. As always, ymmv... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #64 February 26, 2003 QuoteWe have. What about our use of chemical weapons in Vietnam (Agent Orange)? What about the government testing the effects of radiation on American school children (mentally handicaped children no less). Just to piggy back this train of thought. Letting Black men with syphilis go untreated just to see what happens. Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #65 February 26, 2003 QuoteNukeing Iraq and all the terrorist on Earth PRICELESS!!! How irresponsible. There are 23 million people in living in Iraq. They want the same thing you and I do. Clean water to drink. Decent education for their children. Access to medical treatment. An evil man has robbed them of these basic services. What good is starting a war gonna do? It's only going to make the humanitarian situation MUCH worse. Millions of people fleeing war. Ulready overwhelmed infrastructure will be destroyed. Epidemic of disease will break out. Tens of thousands of people will get sick and die. How is this gonna make American safe from the boogeyman??? War is NOT the answer. It's just a toy for a bunch of American Generals. Much of the world believes that George Bush is a bigger threat to international security than Saddam Hussein. And now America says France must comply with the USA or they will be viewed as "unfriendly". Where the hell does the USA get off telling soverign countries how to think and act. The government of the USA has no business telling anyone else on the planet how to act. Now I am no fan of the Iraqi leadership, but I believe there is absolutely no justification war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
