JJohnson 0
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>We just have to rember to help the people of Irak afther we have won the war..
I hope we do, but I have a feeling we wil forget them as quickly as we have forgotten the people of Afghanistan.
I hope we do, but I have a feeling we wil forget them as quickly as we have forgotten the people of Afghanistan.
billvon 3,116
>Saddam is worse than Hitler. Hitler did not have Bio weapons. Those
> scare me more than nukes.
Why? We killed 350,000 with nukes; an anthrax attack on the US recently killed around 5. And it was from a US source!
>More so than Pat Robertson to be sure.
Pat Robertson gave 15 million to Charles Taylor, the dictator of Liberia, who provided sanctuary for Al Quaeda before and after 9/11.
>If I recall correctly, was there not also rumor/evidence that the
> Saudi's were backing terrorists also?
Most of the 9/11 terrorists WERE saudis, and there has been plenty of money traced from the saud family to Al Quaeda via various channels (i.e. someone's sister sends money to someone's brother etc.)
>At this point I don't think we are acting the bully.
Up until this point, I agree. And as long as we proceed with inspections, which we agreed to when we brought the matter up to the UN, then we're doing exactly the right thing, I believe.
>Any numbnuts can smuggle a bio weapon into the U.S. with little real effort.
Yes. In the future, we should concentrate on not creating more terrorists, rather than invading other countries that are unrelated to the single most deadly terrorist attack in US history. Do you honestly believe that Hussein is a bigger threat to US security than Bin Laden? Or North Korea, who is making nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and has told us they're not afraid to use them?
>How much more time do you think we should give negotitions and
> inspectors? Until Iraq makes the first move against us?
Until they are disarmed. Yes, even if it takes 10 years. It's better to take 10 years to disarm someone and not kill anyone than take 60 days and kill 50,000. Even if it's not as cool.
>Here is something else I don't understand. They call us the Great
> Satan. Why? Are we not paying enough for the oil?
Because we kill them and their families. Pretty simple really. I think that, if Chinese jets bombed the US regularly, and had killed some of your friends, you'd hate the Chinese too. And, like us, the Chinese would sit at home and say "those americans have this unreasoning hatred towards us, for no good reason. They must be evil madmen."
Most americans cannot conceive of being on the receiving end of a projection of power, though, which is too bad.
> scare me more than nukes.
Why? We killed 350,000 with nukes; an anthrax attack on the US recently killed around 5. And it was from a US source!
>More so than Pat Robertson to be sure.
Pat Robertson gave 15 million to Charles Taylor, the dictator of Liberia, who provided sanctuary for Al Quaeda before and after 9/11.
>If I recall correctly, was there not also rumor/evidence that the
> Saudi's were backing terrorists also?
Most of the 9/11 terrorists WERE saudis, and there has been plenty of money traced from the saud family to Al Quaeda via various channels (i.e. someone's sister sends money to someone's brother etc.)
>At this point I don't think we are acting the bully.
Up until this point, I agree. And as long as we proceed with inspections, which we agreed to when we brought the matter up to the UN, then we're doing exactly the right thing, I believe.
>Any numbnuts can smuggle a bio weapon into the U.S. with little real effort.
Yes. In the future, we should concentrate on not creating more terrorists, rather than invading other countries that are unrelated to the single most deadly terrorist attack in US history. Do you honestly believe that Hussein is a bigger threat to US security than Bin Laden? Or North Korea, who is making nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and has told us they're not afraid to use them?
>How much more time do you think we should give negotitions and
> inspectors? Until Iraq makes the first move against us?
Until they are disarmed. Yes, even if it takes 10 years. It's better to take 10 years to disarm someone and not kill anyone than take 60 days and kill 50,000. Even if it's not as cool.
>Here is something else I don't understand. They call us the Great
> Satan. Why? Are we not paying enough for the oil?
Because we kill them and their families. Pretty simple really. I think that, if Chinese jets bombed the US regularly, and had killed some of your friends, you'd hate the Chinese too. And, like us, the Chinese would sit at home and say "those americans have this unreasoning hatred towards us, for no good reason. They must be evil madmen."
Most americans cannot conceive of being on the receiving end of a projection of power, though, which is too bad.
billvon 3,116
>And where am I saying killing tens of thousands??
If you call for war and think that it will not involve mass killings you are unclear as to the concept of war.
>How many Iraq soldiers and civilains did we kill 12 years ago?
Around 100,000.
>Obviously a couple too few or we would not be here again today.
Ah, so hopefully we can kill, say, a quarter million this time? Will that end it? And then of course we'll have to kill everyone who hates us for killing their families. There are around 24 million civilians in Iraq. Would half of them be enough to "do a good job?"
>The U.S. is not a war mongering country.
Then we should stop using war, and preemptive strikes, as a replacement for diplomacy. Warmongering is as warmongering does.
If you call for war and think that it will not involve mass killings you are unclear as to the concept of war.
>How many Iraq soldiers and civilains did we kill 12 years ago?
Around 100,000.
>Obviously a couple too few or we would not be here again today.
Ah, so hopefully we can kill, say, a quarter million this time? Will that end it? And then of course we'll have to kill everyone who hates us for killing their families. There are around 24 million civilians in Iraq. Would half of them be enough to "do a good job?"
>The U.S. is not a war mongering country.
Then we should stop using war, and preemptive strikes, as a replacement for diplomacy. Warmongering is as warmongering does.
JJohnson 0
The few we missed are Saddam and his ruling tribe, perhaps my sarcasm was not clear.
If we target him, we can spare quite a few. Maybe keep it under tens of thousands.
However, the worst wars we have ever been involved in were screwed up by diplomats and dimplomacy. Once the armed forces are unleashed, don't strangle them like we always do and prevent them from finishing what has begun. We have a history of that.
If we target him, we can spare quite a few. Maybe keep it under tens of thousands.
However, the worst wars we have ever been involved in were screwed up by diplomats and dimplomacy. Once the armed forces are unleashed, don't strangle them like we always do and prevent them from finishing what has begun. We have a history of that.
JJ
"Call me Darth Balls"
"Call me Darth Balls"
JJohnson 0
Anthrax is the least of our worries. And yes it was of a U.S. source. The ingredients for bio weapons can be had pretty easily.
What Saddam has access to could wipe out way more than 350,000. And be a lot easier to use on us than a nuke.
Pat Robertson did not give the cash over to be used against us. More of that good intentions shit.
Saddam, you can rest assured intends on the money he spends being used against us. Saddam is a bigger threat to us than Bin Laden. Saddam is a bigger source of potential attack than Bin Laden. He has more resources.
I goota go...more on this later.......
What Saddam has access to could wipe out way more than 350,000. And be a lot easier to use on us than a nuke.
Pat Robertson did not give the cash over to be used against us. More of that good intentions shit.
Saddam, you can rest assured intends on the money he spends being used against us. Saddam is a bigger threat to us than Bin Laden. Saddam is a bigger source of potential attack than Bin Laden. He has more resources.
I goota go...more on this later.......
JJ
"Call me Darth Balls"
"Call me Darth Balls"
12bhi 0
How many american did Saddam kill?
How many did Bin Laden kill?
How many did Bin Laden kill?
billvon 3,116
>Once the armed forces are unleashed, don't strangle them like we
> always do and prevent them from finishing what has begun. We
> have a history of that.
Right, but they are 'strangled' by people saying:
"we can spare quite a few. Maybe keep it under tens of thousands."
If you want a war, you kill as many as possible and destroy as much as possible. That's what war is - mass killing. That's what it's always been. Hoping that it will be a nice clean war is self-delusion, and hoping we only kill bad guys is a hollywood fantasy. Make sure that what we desire is so important that you are willing to condone the mass slaughter of 13 year old girls, pregnant women, 70 year old men and whole families who hate Hussein as much as you do. Once you're OK with that, war makes sense.
To me, that is so bad and so evil that it is only a last resort when everything else fails. And everything else has not failed yet; we are still looking at options. Is it somewhat risky to wait? Yes, because people may die if he tries something in the meantime. But the war alternative is a way to guarantee that tens of thousands die, and that's a fool's bargain.
> always do and prevent them from finishing what has begun. We
> have a history of that.
Right, but they are 'strangled' by people saying:
"we can spare quite a few. Maybe keep it under tens of thousands."
If you want a war, you kill as many as possible and destroy as much as possible. That's what war is - mass killing. That's what it's always been. Hoping that it will be a nice clean war is self-delusion, and hoping we only kill bad guys is a hollywood fantasy. Make sure that what we desire is so important that you are willing to condone the mass slaughter of 13 year old girls, pregnant women, 70 year old men and whole families who hate Hussein as much as you do. Once you're OK with that, war makes sense.
To me, that is so bad and so evil that it is only a last resort when everything else fails. And everything else has not failed yet; we are still looking at options. Is it somewhat risky to wait? Yes, because people may die if he tries something in the meantime. But the war alternative is a way to guarantee that tens of thousands die, and that's a fool's bargain.
billvon 3,116
>What Saddam has access to could wipe out way more than 350,000.
>And be a lot easier to use on us than a nuke.
Ask yourself which is the greater threat - a man who cannot move out of his country, a man who knows that he will be utterly destroyed if any trace of a terrorist activity is shown to be his doing, or a man who has proven he can take out buildings, who can evade the best the US can throw at him, and who is completely invisible?
>Saddam is a bigger threat to us than Bin Laden.
Which 2500 did Hussein kill? Or are you just afraid he will maybe perhaps will kill that many if he has 20 years, no oversight, a good weapons programs and a lot more US assistance? And how many do you think a North Korean 150 kiloton bomb in LA would kill?
Saddam is a threat to the US, but in terms of magnitude, he doesn't even make the top 5.
>And be a lot easier to use on us than a nuke.
Ask yourself which is the greater threat - a man who cannot move out of his country, a man who knows that he will be utterly destroyed if any trace of a terrorist activity is shown to be his doing, or a man who has proven he can take out buildings, who can evade the best the US can throw at him, and who is completely invisible?
>Saddam is a bigger threat to us than Bin Laden.
Which 2500 did Hussein kill? Or are you just afraid he will maybe perhaps will kill that many if he has 20 years, no oversight, a good weapons programs and a lot more US assistance? And how many do you think a North Korean 150 kiloton bomb in LA would kill?
Saddam is a threat to the US, but in terms of magnitude, he doesn't even make the top 5.
Gawain 0
Quote>We just have to rember to help the people of Irak afther we have won the war..
I hope we do, but I have a feeling we wil forget them as quickly as we have forgotten the people of Afghanistan.
Where do you get your news Bill? We just lost four servicemen in Afghanistan. Our forces are protecting the leadership in Kabul. People are in school again. Radios are playing music again. We are reestablishing the Afghan currency. It was this new layer of somewhat-stability (I know, it's not stable) that allowed the plans for the oil pipeline to move forward (which by the way, Unocal is not a part of). This creates jobs, which fosters peace, fostering greater stability.
I am fully aware that life is not perfect. However based on the information us mere mortals have access to, where exactly have we forgotten?
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 3,116
>Where do you get your news Bill? We just lost four servicemen in
> Afghanistan. Our forces are protecting the leadership in Kabul.
Yes, we still have a military presence there, and there will be fighting for quite some time. But to think that we have 'liberated' the country makes no sense; we've barely 'liberated' the capital. Most of the country is still under control of local warlords, and women still get acid thrown in their faces if they're seen without a burqua. (story here.)
>People are in school again. Radios are playing music again
"But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play."
"There has been opposition to girls' schooling. Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls."
"Outside the capital, private militias impose the will of powerbrokers, in contradiction of the wishes of the central government, and the president."
"These men do their masters' work, by looting, imposing duties on trade, and 'protecting' and taxing the people. "
Are things better than they were? For some (i.e. those in Kabul) certainly. But the popular image of a country that we quickly liberated, so that people could show their faces, play music and see women in school is largely a fantasy. Time will tell if we keep trying to make this a better place, but I have a feeling we will simply hurtle into the next crisis, and the one after that, without a glance backwards at that place. We will have more important people to kill.
> Afghanistan. Our forces are protecting the leadership in Kabul.
Yes, we still have a military presence there, and there will be fighting for quite some time. But to think that we have 'liberated' the country makes no sense; we've barely 'liberated' the capital. Most of the country is still under control of local warlords, and women still get acid thrown in their faces if they're seen without a burqua. (story here.)
>People are in school again. Radios are playing music again
"But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play."
"There has been opposition to girls' schooling. Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls."
"Outside the capital, private militias impose the will of powerbrokers, in contradiction of the wishes of the central government, and the president."
"These men do their masters' work, by looting, imposing duties on trade, and 'protecting' and taxing the people. "
Are things better than they were? For some (i.e. those in Kabul) certainly. But the popular image of a country that we quickly liberated, so that people could show their faces, play music and see women in school is largely a fantasy. Time will tell if we keep trying to make this a better place, but I have a feeling we will simply hurtle into the next crisis, and the one after that, without a glance backwards at that place. We will have more important people to kill.
rhino 0
QuoteSaddam Hussein couldn't even win the Iran/Iraq war
Believe me.. At the rate he was building his weapons program he would have used WMD's more and won.. Why do you think he sought themto begin with? To start killing Kurds? Kurds are Iranians mostly..
And I didn't say he IS 100 times more powerful I said if allowed to continue he will perfect the making and the delivery methods of WMD's and THEM he will be AT LEAST 100 times the danger Hitler EVER was..
Rhino
And where am I saying killing tens of thousands?? I'll take whatever course of action saves U.S. lives the most and protects our civilians from radical ruthless dickheads. How many Iraq soldiers and civilains did we kill 12 years ago? Obviously a couple too few or we would not be here again today.
Invading Kuwait was one. Not abiding to the terms of surrender is two. He is on three now.
The U.S. is not a war mongering country. We are pretty damn patient with threats to us. But our own welfare is our prime job.
"Call me Darth Balls"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites