JJohnson 0 #1 February 7, 2003 Allow me to say some things which are probably going to be unpopular. The saddest thing about war is that people die. Civilians and military. It cannot be avoided unless war is fought with pillows and harsh langauge. Many people now think that war with Iraq is avoidable and it IS.!! All that has to happen, is for Iraq to realize that they are not living up to what they agreed upon when they surrendered. If they did, none of this shit would be happening. Period. None of the sanctions have worked. Iraq is getting all the same products and shit they got before. We are not starving them or depriving them. Threats have not worked. If you remove all the bullshit about oil, money, lies and governent ineptness......Iraq is still not doing what they should be. Short of armed conflict do you really see a solution that has not been tried and failed in the last 10 years? Not looking at the specifics of the situation, but just the principles....Iraq is wrong. Save all the over-intellectual analysis and b.s. and apply common sense and morals. Iraq is wrong. Can anyone defend Iraq's behaivor? Do you see a solution that will really work that does not require violence? I hear lot's of critics against the U.S. out there. But I don't see anyone offering any opinion on a realistic solution. Some of you sound like Saddam should just be left alone to do as he wants. After WWII, would we have left Hitler in power? Would we have given Japan 10 years to live up to it's surrender conditions? I think not. So rather than hearing everybody bitching about every word or action the U.S. politicians do. About how these photos are real theae are not, the news is in cahoots, the painting was covered up...blah blah blah..... how about hearing what you think can really be done. And don't pull any of that U.N. shit out either. The U.N. has not been able to force Iraq to do anything to date yet. The U.N. is a great idea with noble intentions...but as the saying goes: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If someone can show me where Iraq is right and the U.S. is wrong IN principle, I'll listen. If someone has a course of action I'll listen...and gladly. I don't want to see anyone die any more than anyone else.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 February 7, 2003 QuoteIf you remove all the bullshit about oil, money, lies and governent ineptness......Iraq is still not doing what they should be. Short of armed conflict do you really see a solution that has not been tried and failed in the last 10 years? Yep...get the hell out of the region. If we're ignoring oil and all that other bs, what do we need to be there for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #3 February 7, 2003 >It cannot be avoided unless war is fought with pillows and harsh langauge. Well, you've just defined diplomacy. >Iraq is still not doing what they should be. Neither is North Korea, or Venezuela, or Nigeria. I don't argue that Hussein is very bad, but invasion is not always the answer. We can't invade every country that's not doing what they should be doing (according to us, of course) nor should we try. >Can anyone defend Iraq's behaivor? I can't. >Do you see a solution that will really work that does not require violence? Escalate inspections. Put twenty times the number of inspectors in the country. Use our intelligence to help them find and dismantle their biological and chemical weapons infrastructure. Back them up with UN troops. Might that lead to war? Sure. But it also might just avoid the deaths of 50,000, and that's worth the money. And if it does avoid war, it will be far, far cheaper than the resulting war would have been, both in terms of money and american lives. >After WWII, would we have left Hitler in power? Hitler led the axis. Hussein leads a tiny impotent country and everyone thinks he's nuts. Better question - would we have left Castro in power after the Bay of Pigs? We did, you say? Hmm. How many Americans did Castro kill after we made that 'mistake?' >If someone can show me where Iraq is right and the U.S. is wrong >IN principle, I'll listen. If someone has a course of action I'll >listen...and gladly. I don't want to see anyone die any more than >anyone else. Iraq is not right! That's not what is at issue. The issue is whether or not we should kill 50,000 Iraqis because their leader is wrong. I do not dispute that Iraq is far more 'bad' than we are. I do question whether or not war is how we solve our problems with other countries. There are better ways. We may someday exhaust all those ways, and war may be our last option. But today we have inspectors in Iraq. We have Hussein agreeing to most (not all, but most) of the conditions the UN has set for him. We have enough military power to destroy him instantly if he takes action against us, and he knows that. We have some time before we need to take that last, irrevocable step. And as we decide what to do, keep in mind that other countries are watching. We have announced that preemptive attacks are OK in the name of defense; North Korea just announced the same thing. We will see our own policies turned against us at some point, so there is value in making sure we take every possible avenue to peace before we turn to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #4 February 7, 2003 QuoteQuoteIf you remove all the bullshit about oil, money, lies and governent ineptness......Iraq is still not doing what they should be. Short of armed conflict do you really see a solution that has not been tried and failed in the last 10 years? Yep...get the hell out of the region. If we're ignoring oil and all that other bs, what do we need to be there for? Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Why do we need to be there? We're there because we're afraid he's going to make chem/bio attacks on the US? He wants to make attacks on the US because we're there! So leave! What we're doing now is just giving him a reason - 'look at the western pigs! They destroy our country, we are merely fighting back!' So leave. He has no reason. It would be stupid of him to do anything then, because he has no reason! If he just up and attacked the US for no good reason, I'm pretty sure the wrath of half the world would come down on him - not to mention having a "war" that the US people would have no problem getting behind. Hell, his own people might even say "Why the hell did he do that?!" And no one would question us parking a couple aircraft carriers nearby and beating the shit out of him.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #5 February 7, 2003 QuoteShort of armed conflict do you really see a solution that has not been tried and failed in the last 10 years? Yup. Kevin just named one. I'm not saying it would definitely work, just that it hasn't been tried. QuoteNot looking at the specifics of the situation, but just the principles....Iraq is wrong. Save all the over-intellectual analysis and b.s. and apply common sense and morals. Iraq is wrong. A common-sense, moral approach could be summed up as "mind your own business", which can apply to countries as well as individuals. We suck at that. It really doesn't matter how many times in your post you repeat "Iraq is wrong." You are correct, but nobody is arguing that. However, when you start discussing the issue without regard to "oil, money, lies and government ineptness", you've pretty much removed all our reasons for being there. If all we cared about was what was "right", we would step up our security at home, protect our borders, and sit tight until someone asked for our help. Kuwait did last time, and we answered. This time, we are going at it like a big preemptive bully. Take not that none of what I said is in any way defending the government of Iraq. The debate isn't whether they are honest, forthright folks. They aren't. There are lots of other governments that aren't, and we don't lift a finger to interfere. Why? If we are the world's police force, defender of justice, liberator of the opressed and such, why are we so damned selective about it? If it isn't about the oil and stuff, what is it all about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #6 February 7, 2003 QuoteYeah, that's what I'm saying. Why do we need to be there? We're there because we're afraid he's going to make chem/bio attacks on the US? He wants to make attacks on the US because we're there! So leave! What we're doing now is just giving him a reason - Follow the terrorist money trail... Different news organizations are saying we will be sticking our hand in the bee hive if we go after Iraq.. Let me make the first correction. Our beef isn't with Iraq it is with the DICTATOR that is very comparable and potentially 100 times more powerful than Hitler ever was. To finish the statement... Those fuckers flew planes into our buildings and woke up OUR BEE HIVE.. Fuck them! We have to do what we have to do. As far as I am concerned it is them or us. I would rather say HIM or us. The money trail runs right through Saddhams pocket.. He's going down. All the backtracking in the world won't save his ass now.. We are in the #1 seat in the world. With that comes responsibility. We have the money and the technology to fight this fight. Maybe not the money but the technology and the will.. It's a different world. It is a different time than when we did business with these bastards. It's time.. Time to fix the wrongs we have done and mow the path for the future of our country.. Who gives us the right to make such decisions about other countries? It's called national security. Like it or not it won't change and the path has been set. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #7 February 7, 2003 I wouldn't say pre-emptive, we have sat back for too long already. And I agree, we are to damn selective about when we step in. We should do it more often and not quit until we are done. How about a different angle. Do you think Iraq has sponsored or funded terrorists? If so, then that is good enough reason to be there, without the oil. At this point in time, I don't think Saddam would stop his shit even if we did leave him alone. It would only postpone a bigger act against us. Give him time to get better weapons.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mindcake 0 #9 February 7, 2003 I think you are confusing Iraq and its people with S. Hussein....lets face it he is a bad man, but you don't invade a country to get rid of one bad man. We have other means for getting rid of him (special forces) and we choose not to use them because that does not insure us a place in Iraq's oil market. Jim Don´t belive the hype Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #10 February 7, 2003 QuoteI think you are confusing Iraq and its people with S. Hussein....lets face it he is a bad man, but you don't invade a country to get rid of one bad man. We have other means for getting rid of him (special forces) and we choose not to use them because that does not insure us a place in Iraq's oil market. It's not just him and it isn't that easy.. IT's his top 100 officers, his son and the 30 EXACT look alikes that would surely cost the lives of hundreds of special forces people to find.,., Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #11 February 7, 2003 Hence "Regime Change" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #12 February 7, 2003 I'll bring up the terroist angle for what its worth. What makes it effective? Because we have no country to punish for it. They hide behind their religous cause and the government that funds them gets to see us attacked with no strings attached. We leave, the same shit that happened 10 years ago or two years ago happens again. If we don't make a stand and live up to what we say we are going to do, then every radical tyrant is going to think he can take pot shots at us. "Oh, it will take the U.S 15 years to find evidence another 10 to do anything about it" HAHAHAH. We look like a joke. Most countries think we are either over active and stick our noses where it don't belong, or they think we are a fucking joke and don't do anything. We can't win! We are not going to make any other country 100% happy with us so we should at least make sure our asses are covered. Our foreign policy should be something like: Screw with us once, we will negotiate, screw with us twice we'll hurt you. Third time you need to make peace with your God.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #13 February 7, 2003 QuoteHow about a different angle. Do you think Iraq has sponsored or funded terrorists? If so, then that is good enough reason to be there, without the oil. Is that sufficient justification? If so, then there are plenty of countries justified in attacking us, because we've done the same thing. We have to be ready to receive what we dish out, because there are plenty of skeletons in our closet too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mindcake 0 #14 February 7, 2003 I will take the losses to keep from deploying 250,000 Americans into a pontentalially (sp) catastrophic situation... If Hussein does have WMD I am quite sure our front line will be the first target. Jim Don´t belive the hype Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #15 February 7, 2003 QuoteIs that sufficient justification? If so, then there are plenty of countries justified in attacking us, because we've done the same thing. We have to be ready to receive what we dish out, because there are plenty of skeletons in our closet too. Plenty of countries already are. What we are doing now is putting a stop to it.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #16 February 7, 2003 If he uses them you will see a MASSIVE US pullout then a REALLY BIG BRIGHT LITE.. He has already been warned and it is already in writing.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #17 February 7, 2003 QuoteIf he uses them you will see a MASSIVE US pullout then a REALLY BIG BRIGHT LITE.. He has already been warned and it is already in writing.. Rhino Yeah, and that's what's really stupid about this whole escalation. Don't call me a tree-huggin' hippy or anything, but do that many people really need to die (on both sides) because we *think* he *might* have WMD and *might* use them? Quotethat would surely cost the lives of hundreds of special forces people to find So, if that's really our intent - to rid the world of Saddam Hussien (don't get me started on how irritating it is for everyone to be calling him Saddam) - you're saying the lives of a few hundred special forces are worth more than 10,000 civies in Iraq, and a couple thousand proud young Americans? I won't even count the Iraqi soldiers, we'll just pretend they're worthless.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #18 February 7, 2003 Quote Follow the terrorist money trail... Or follow the oil money trail. Quote Different news organizations are saying we will be sticking our hand in the bee hive if we go after Iraq.. Let me make the first correction. Our beef isn't with Iraq it is with the DICTATOR that is very comparable and potentially 100 times more powerful than Hitler ever was. Don't be silly. Quote To finish the statement... Those fuckers flew planes into our buildings and woke up OUR BEE HIVE.. Fuck them! Rhino Ummm... the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, not Iraqis. A link between Al Quaeda and Iraq is not established any better than a link between the US government and the terrorist IRA. Given the record of administrations since Kennedy's (and probably before) of lying to the American people, I'd expect to see some independent verification of these claims.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mindcake 0 #19 February 7, 2003 Yes I know... but how many innocent people on both sides must die .......this is likely to happen and I am sure it will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of people....this is not necessary... small groups working within the country make it much harder for him to use WMD without killing many of his officals etc....we have the technology to beat his armies without sending a quarter million people to do it. Jim Don´t belive the hype Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #20 February 7, 2003 Your a smart man Bill. I think you know that no matter what we try, it will lead to war at this point. More inspectors will just be accused of being more spys. No matter what we do, Saddam will just put his own spin on it. It is tragic that people suffer for their leaders. But the only solution is for the Iraq people to stage a revolution. Our policies are already being turned against us. "The U.S. has great might but don't do anything, so lets screw with them."JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #21 February 7, 2003 I don't think the terrorists claim a country, they claim religous war. Thus protecting their homes. Its a pretty smart move really. I don't doubt that there are quite a few governments that support terrorists against the U.S.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #22 February 7, 2003 Well now we are back to might makes right and who can enforce their will. In which case we are. Which is obvious as the only strikes against us are terrorist actions, that we find the hardest to retaliate against.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #23 February 7, 2003 The repercussions of ignoring Iraq might very well be another plane into a building or something like it.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #24 February 7, 2003 QuoteOr follow the oil money trail. If it was just about oil Saddham wouldn't have WMD's to begin with.. It's about right and wrong. QuoteDon't be silly. I'm not don't worry.. Saddham unstopped Quotewould be 100 times the dictator Hitler ever was. Ummm... the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, not Iraqis. A link between Al Quaeda and Iraq is not established any better than a link between the US government and the terrorist IRA. Given the record of administrations since Kennedy's (and probably before) of lying to the American people, I'd expect to see some independent verification of these claims. Quote Again the money trail says otherwise.. Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up innocent people. Saddham gives the families of these people massive amounts of money as a reward. This is ONE example of Saddham financing terrorism... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #25 February 7, 2003 QuoteSo, if that's really our intent - to rid the world of Saddam Hussien (don't get me started on how irritating it is for everyone to be calling him Saddam) - you're saying the lives of a few hundred special forces are worth more than 10,000 civies in Iraq, and a couple thousand proud young Americans? I won't even count the Iraqi soldiers, we'll just pretend they're worthless. Not Just Saddham but the Regime. QuoteYeah, and that's what's really stupid about this whole escalation. Don't call me a tree-huggin' hippy or anything, but do that many people really need to die (on both sides) because we *think* he *might* have WMD and *might* use them? The use of Tactical Nukes have been authorized if WMD's are used. At that point it would be them or us. Casualties of war. Like it or not that is the price to be payed for going in the first place.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rhino 0 #25 February 7, 2003 QuoteSo, if that's really our intent - to rid the world of Saddam Hussien (don't get me started on how irritating it is for everyone to be calling him Saddam) - you're saying the lives of a few hundred special forces are worth more than 10,000 civies in Iraq, and a couple thousand proud young Americans? I won't even count the Iraqi soldiers, we'll just pretend they're worthless. Not Just Saddham but the Regime. QuoteYeah, and that's what's really stupid about this whole escalation. Don't call me a tree-huggin' hippy or anything, but do that many people really need to die (on both sides) because we *think* he *might* have WMD and *might* use them? The use of Tactical Nukes have been authorized if WMD's are used. At that point it would be them or us. Casualties of war. Like it or not that is the price to be payed for going in the first place.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
