War

[XERXES]

Originally posted by Absurd

 

The song never mentioned Vietnam so far as anyone knows he's talking about all wars in general. And doing so in a very whiney format at best. You can't interpret a writing based on a time period if the writing itself is making general attacks on an entire concept.

 

http://worldwar2.military.com/

If you know about Bob Dylan, you know that he made songs that protested against the Vietnam War. And this happens to be one of them.

 

We are not flaming, we are arguing on our opinions. Just like a debate class. Come on.

 

However preventing the spread of communism was not a "useless reason." Please study the Cold War in more depth then and you will realize how critical this was. That said I still believe that Vietnam was a stupid mistake made by stupid people.

i know the concept wasnt useless. But many people did not understand it at the time, and figured that.

[munik]

FatalStrike, I do not know what the US has planned, and I doubt that everyone else in the world knows too. I hear some stuff here, I read some stuff there, maybe see something on T.V. But I don't really buy into the whole information force feeding. I don't get my "news" from the same place you do I guess. In fact, I don't really get any "news", 'cause most of it is selfserving horse****. Believe whatever you want.

 

Anyways, I don't purport to know alot about nuclear weapons, but aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium? Combustion engines can be cut out of aluminum blocks, and I use sheets of aluminum in my house all the time. It's aluminum fer christs sake. But I'll take your word on it, buying aluminum rods = owning weapons grade plutonium. Or your word saying that it's the UN's word. Or something like that.

 

I did see the Sum of All Fears. I also saw Star Wars. I do not believe Iraq will build a Death Star and destroy the planet just because the Empire could do it. My reason? Because it is just a "movie". I understand the concept of "entertainment", and that sometimes a movie is "fiction", and that the things that happen during this "movie" don't all have to be "real". I have a firm grasp on the aforementioned "reality".

 

Comparing a human being sneaking across the border to a Coke machine containing a nuclear weapon being snuck across the border is ludicrous. You want to know why thousands of illegals run the border daily? It's because if they get caught, they just get sent back home. Not much for punishment. But if you start killing them, I assure you the rate of illegals crossing into the States will drop dramatically. Because getting killed will be a guarentee if you get caught trying to sneak a nuclear weapon into the States.

 

I don't believe the suitcase bomb statement. Maybe you could get your KGB friend to give a source, and I could decide for myself. I already conceded to the Reynolds Wrap = Bomb thing, I would never be able to forgive myself if I blindly accepted two wild statements with questionable sources.

 

Now, on to shielding. No, in fact I do not know how shielding works. Maybe you could enlighten me instead of mocking me with knowledge. Unless you like that sort of thing. I just pulled that whole statement out of my ass. It's my best guess, and I believed it to be right. I don't think you know any better either, or else you would have said something better.

 

My whole reasoning for that statement comes from my experience with the most powerful radiation I have ever come in contact with. X-Rays. When ever I get an X-Ray, lets say a dental X-Ray, the technician has me wear a large, lead apron. It is placed over my body in such a way as to be in between myself and the device that is emitting the X-Rays. And it's a pretty heavy apron. Maybe 20lbs I'd say. So anyways, on the door to all the chambers in which X-Rays take place, there is a warning sign. It is aimed towards pregnant women. Urging them to notify the technician about their physical state. Because (and this is my guess, as I have never been pregnant, or a woman, or both of those at the same time of an X-Ray visit) the technician must take special care to either use more shielding for the X-Ray, or to deny the pregnant lady the X-Rays. Because the lead apron isn't sufficient enough to protect a fetus from controlled, directed X-Ray radiation.

 

Irradiated pellets are used in Chemotherapy, and Chemothrerapy is radiation poisoning, on a very small and regulated scale. All it is is radiation used to kill cancerous cells before it kills you. It's like drinking chlorine to cure a throat infection. It'll kill the infection, but it'll also kill you. You just hope you want to live more then the infection.

 

Now what about undirected radiation emitted from Plutonium, or Uranium? Radiation that isn't focused onto a "6x"6 board for a picture, or given in small pellet doses, but just flowing about, or doing whatever radiation does? What kind of shielding is used for that? I imagine that any sort of radiation exposure from Plutonium or Uranium is very detrimental to your health. Now, here is the crux of it all: If a 20lbs lead apron isn't sufficient enough to protect against relatively harmless X-Ray radiation, what kind of suit would be used to protect you from radiation emitted from a nuclear element?

 

A made up suit that only the people in FatalStrikes head wear, that's what kind of suit.

 

Of course September 11th showed that the U.S. isn't invulnerable. But that was a terrorist attack, used to generate terror. Hence the name. But I'm a little curious about why you would write an entire post, criticizing all my points, points that support my initial statement:

Originally posted by munik

Anyways, I personally don't believe there is much to fear from Iraq, or any would be allies.

And then finish your huge scathing retort with this line:

Originally posted by FatalStrike

While you are right that they pose no military threat...

Are you just trying to make me look foolish of something?

[BCanr2d2]

Contrary to what has been aired in this forum, Iraq has no problem with the UN, it just has a problem with the US contingent or domination of UNSCOM, or it's equivalent. They just want to not let the US on the weapons inspections teams, since they have such a distrust of them. After all, the Australian Richard Butler had to report back to the US about what he found, even though supposedly part of a neutral inspection team.

Ever since he was kicked out of Iraq, and UNSCOM basically disbanded, he has been a vocal critic of the way the US is trying to do things, and why he can understand the Iraq point of view.

 

Fatalstrike, once again you are taking things out of context, a soveriegn nation does not need to have a democratically elected leader, as Iraq's neighbours, Saudi Arabia and the UAE still are run by sovereigns, who are in no way elected by their people....

Talk about taking a narrow view on the word government or sovereign nation, you even took out legitimate royal succession, they are the sovereigns, that the phrase "sovereign nation" came from. But then again, I might jut be ignorant.....

 

So far we have a lot of evidence, or news reports stating this MAY be possible, or is the link, but where is the follow up report to say that it isn't the case? Lead story on every newspaper and TV channel when they MIGHT have found a link, but barely rates a three line write up when the CIA pronounce there is no solid evidence showing..........................

 

As far as I am concerned, there is no place in the world EVER, for a pre-emptive strike, without absolute proof. All we have so far is heresay and innuendo about what he might be able to do.

[00M-187]

YES WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAQ. - A regime change is needed.

 

By we I mean you, I am Canadian and no one hates us yet. so we are safe.

 

 

Saddam needs to be removed because he is a terrorist, he kills innocent people on purpose. that is the thing that seperates us, we attack in order to remove military targets, civilians are never attacked on purpose. he\they\muslims have no respect for life and kill people as if they are animals. This evil needs to be removed from the world or our freedom is lost...

 

 

YES, US foreign policy is to blame for the breeding of terrorists, but its to late to turn back now. If Israel pulled out of Gaza and the US removed sanctions in Iraq, there would still be Al Qaida and others who wish to do us harm.

 

We must show these terrorists that we will not allow this activity, We must do something to remove this evil from the world.

 

If only we had some Jedi to help us out... lol.

 

 

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! (From a friendly Canadian neighbor)

[FatalStrike]

As I seem to have my finger on the pulse of the news keep watching for this in the papers.

 

Iraq has changed its "unconditional" to "only military bases" it was established the FIRST TIME that he made chemical and biological weapons below hospitals and schools.

 

Why? Because we can't bomb hospitals and schools.

 

When this whole thing started his first order to his troops was that in the event of a US attack that all troops asre to move into cities and populated areas to avoid US air strikes, you really think he would put his most valuable weapons where we can hit them today? He's not that stupid.

 

PS for the guy buggin about aluminum rods, they are high strength aluminum rods, cut, made, and used for weapons design and manfacture. Its not the stuff you wrap your sandwich in.

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by BCanr2d2

 

As far as I am concerned, there is no place in the world EVER, for a pre-emptive strike, without absolute proof. All we have so far is heresay and innuendo about what he might be able to do.

 

How do you get absolute proof if you can't get into the country? If we had an informant that told us about weapons would you believe him? No you wouldn't.

 

The thing is he signed an agreement to allow weapons inspectors free access to ALL OF HIS COUNTRY, not just to areas which he decides are acceptable. You see HE LOST THE WAR thus he does not get to make the rules.

 

If you think he will allow people to see his weapons and tell the world you are an idiot.

[munik]

I said I would believe you about the aluminum rods thingy, you don't have to explain it anymore.

 

 

 

 

You could explain the magic suits that protect you from radiation, I'm pretty curious about those. Maybe you could list the movie they were in, so I could watch it myself.

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by munik

You could explain the magic suits that protect you from radiation, I'm pretty curious about those. Maybe you could list the movie they were in, so I could watch it myself.

 

I am looking for a link to the facts about the small nukes but haven't had time to find it yet.

 

As for the movie thing, you do realize that a nuke is only a very small part of a missle, thus it could easily be placed inside another object.

 

Also please keep in mind that when I said people sneak over I meant the people that sneak over the border in trucks. If a truck can come thru, with people on, then it stands to logic that it could come thru with a more dangerous cargo. The movie was only an example.

 

 

Edit: here is a link that has a picture of a suticase nuke

 

http://www.techtv.com/news/politicsandlaw/story/0,24195,3352308,00.html

 

So stop pretending that they are fantasy.

[Guest Jed]

I accidentally voted for kill them all....there should be more options. In ne event, it really doesn't matter how many deaths that have been caused by each side, the only thing that matters is that no war is started. Not only will innocent lives be lost, but we will have accomplished nothing.

 

Jedi220

[Jedi_Monk]

I accidentally voted for kill them all....

Hey, no problem Jedi220; so just to let everyone know, this poll should now read 12 to 21.

 

[Jedi_Monk]

Alright... first of all, let's challenge the assertion that Saddam Hussein has obtained these "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium". The only way we know this so far is that "we" intercepted a shipment of these rods that were heading Saddam's way... so Saddam doesn't have those rods. Are there others? Possibly, but then... they're not telling us who "we" are, so how is the international community supposed to know that "we" wouldn't intecerpt all such shipments of these "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium".

 

Here's an excerpt from an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

(And just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new “evidence” of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone.)

 

The aluminum tubing story—and others to come—may be taken at face value by an insufficiently skeptical press, but the decision to go to war is simply too important to let the administration “wing it” in presenting its rationale. As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show asked recently about the administration’s attitude toward the American public, “Do they think we’re retarded?”

And a link to the entire article: You Call That Evidence?. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, btw, is the orginazation that keeps the Doomsday Clock (according to which, it's 7 minutes to midnight).

 

 

And as to Saddam's supposed new "conditions"... I saw the report on Fox News. All I saw was that they're nitpicking something in the Iraqi letter to the UN. Here's the offending paragraph:

In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all member states of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and Article II of the Charter of the United Nations.

In the past, according to the Fox report, the Iraqis have used the excuse of Iraq's sovereignty to keep inspectors from its palaces. However, that's in the past. Weapons inspectors met with Iraqi officials only today to discuss terms--no terms have been set. From what I've heard, information in the Fox report comes from the White House. Call me a hopeless skeptic, but I call it "spin control".

 

The letter, from Dr. Naji Sabri (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq) contains this paragraph:

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

 

[munik]

Good work on the link FatalStrike. Lets me know you're trying to prove a point, instead of spouting bs. But in your link it says the bombs are capable of destroying about 2 city blocks. Your previous post said they could "EASILY wipe out 20 city blocks or more.". A technicality I'd guess. 2 blocks is big, but 20 blocks is damn near the size of some towns. Also, a nuclear device that can destroy a couple of blocks is hardly a weapon to fear from a nation that posseses a military and military weapons. A three minute barrage from an artillery unit could do the same thing.

 

Those bombs were made for demolition, not for tactical nuclear strikes. The only added danger from them is fallout, which would be minimal because of their size. Probaly no EMP, but that's just my guess, as your article didn't mention it, and I figure if there was EMP it wouldn't be much, considering the bombs size.

 

The tactical use of a "suitcase nuke" would be if it was a fusion bomb, instead of a fission bomb, or thermonuclear. And with further modifications of the thermonculear bomb, you could use less atomic fission and more fussion particles, you would transform it into a neutron bomb. A bomb that goes "boom", but kills living things instead of inert things. Now that is a terrorist weapon. But, you could take it one step further, and replace the tamper (the outer coating, or "wrap", of the bomb which keeps it together to create additional force) with cobalt, which would create an assload of radioactive particles with a very short half-life, which means they would emit much more gamma rays at a much faster rate then a normal A-bomb. Which means much more dead people.

 

But, as you haven't stated that the UN says that Iraq posseses fusion bombs, only fission, and for the fact that I don't believe a neutron bomb has been made and tested (hey, I'm not in the NSA), we can safely assume Mr. Hussien only posses those nasty A-bombs.

 

 

A nuclear device is only a small part of a missile. An ICBM, the Titan II, is 103 feet long and 10 feet in diameter. About ten times as long as an agerage SUV, and about twice as big in diameter. (That works out to over 1,000 square feet of surface area if the missile was cut in half. Measuring just the surface area alone. I'm sitting in a room right now that's maybe '10 x '10, that's 100 square feet, and I could spit from one wall to the other with ease. That's big) The re-entry vehicle that contains the warhead is 14 feet long, a little bit bigger then the size of an SUV. The actual size of the warhead inside it, I don't know. Not much smaller then the vehicle, I don't imagine, as the re-entry vehicle was just a sheild against the heat caused by friction from re-entry. So, a nuclear bomb is a pretty big thing. Very small compared to the missile that is carrying it, but not a small thing in itself. Doesn't matter much anyhow, as the States decomissioned the Titan sites, and rely on nuclear submarines to deliver nuclear missiles now. A much smarter choice.

 

So, on to my next point. A re-iteration of the fact that Iraq is no threat to the States. You are comparing terrorists acts to a military retaliation. Far fetched. You accused me of "thinking inside the box" because I wouldn't entertain the idea of Iraq using a terrorist attack against a civilian target in the US. Yes, that may be a possibility, but Saddam unleashing his hordes of genetically altered gorrillas with the sole intent of brutally beating the retaraded dyslexics of North America is also a possiblity. And maybe there is a contingency plan for that, as unlikely as it seems. My point is, the U.S. has limited resources, so it must devote them to legitement threats. A terrorist attack on U.S. soil with a "suitcase bomb" by Iraq is not a legitimate threat.

 

Seriously, you should think about it. I by no means am a military strategist, nor have I ever been trained in it, but I do posses common sense. And common sense tells me that a nation under attack by a foriegn army would not send a nuclear device to the opposite side of the planet by means of land/sea travel to destroy a civilian target. What kind of retardedness would make you belive such a thing? First thing, an attack against a civilian target only has two out comes:

1) Your enemy becomes demoralized and ceases fighting (the desired outcome) or

2) Your enemy becomes enraged, and fights much more viciously (as your September 11th Holy Grail would demonstrated)

 

So, two outcomes to an attack such as the one you describe, yet only one possible outcome, considering all the available evidence. The people become angrier and more violent. The people of the invading army, the army on your soil, become more aggresive then they already are. Hey, good strategy, maybe you should be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

Lets just assume that you, Mr. FatalStrike the all holy, were in Sadam Hussiens shoes. What would you do with fifty nuclear warheads with about 10 megatons worth of explosives each? Do you think you would risk trying to send them to the U.S.? And what if you do send them there, what sort of targets would you choose? And how many of them do you think would actually reach U.S. Soil? How about using those tactical nukes (big far fetched guess here) against the invading army? Doesn't that sound much more reasonable? Maybe utilize any remaining SCUDS, and launch an areial barrage of about 10-20 missiles per invading quadrant, set to burst about 10-15 miles above ground, that way you can avoid any interception missiles, and utilize the EMP so your inept and inferior ground forces might stand a chance against the invading army.

 

To me, the above paragraph sounds like a reasonbale counter-attack strategy, much more realistic then bombing some office building thousands of miles away from the actual threat.

 

But maybe I'm the only one here posting who doesn't have a wet nurse, or spend my time playing with dolls.

[FatalStrike]

I was going to write another long post pointing out how many flaws you all have in your arguments, but I will just ask a few questions.

 

 

 

Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?

 

Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?

 

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?

 

Please answer these when you get a chance.

 

Thanks

[00M-187]

Originally posted by FatalStrike

I was going to write another long post pointing out how many flaws you all have in your arguments, but I will just ask a few questions.

 

 

 

Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?

 

Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?

 

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?

 

Please answer these when you get a chance.

 

Thanks

 

1) If a dictatorship works for the people, then there is no reason to remove it.

 

2)How do you define terrorists? there are many definitions, in the US case yes, finding murderers is that killed 3000 innocent cititzens is nessesary. But, what if India attacks Pakistan (for harbouring terrorists) This war on terror will give the green light to tensions among neightbors, this " war on terror " is going to turn out much like the wild west, China will Invade Taiwan, Nkorea will invade Skorea and so on. Things could get very ugly.

 

3) Saddam needs to be removed, he should have been removed long ago, he is a proven murderer and a direct threat to our freedom, The Butcher of Baghdam must be removed at once.

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by 00M-187

 

1) If a dictatorship works for the people, then there is no reason to remove it.

 

There are very few cases were a dictator has "worked for the people" but I agree with your answer. If in fact the dictator is working out well for the country then, I would have no problems with him/her remaining in power.

 

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

2)How do you define terrorists? there are many definitions, in the US case yes, finding murderers is that killed 3000 innocent cititzens is nessesary. But, what if India attacks Pakistan (for harbouring terrorists) This war on terror will give the green light to tensions among neightbors, this " war on terror " is going to turn out much like the wild west, China will Invade Taiwan, Nkorea will invade Skorea and so on. Things could get very ugly.

 

I understand that this could get ugly, however perhaps this is an ugly the world needs. The solution to many problems is worse in the short tem but better in the long term.

 

If a solution can be reached without war then we are all better for it. However when the stakes get to high to risk lengthy political solutions, a country does have every right to defend itself.

 

An India - Pakistan conflict would be the worst of all those you listed. However theirs is a problem that could be solved diplomatically, simply because the main point of contention between the two sides is land. Land disagreements are easier to solve then idealogical differences.

 

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

3) Saddam needs to be removed, he should have been removed long ago, he is a proven murderer and a direct threat to our freedom, The Butcher of Baghdam must be removed at once.

 

Agreed

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions I hope that everyone who post on this forum would do the same. That would allow us all to see where they stand on issues that are at the core of this debate.

[ShockV1.89]

Lets just assume that you, Mr. FatalStrike the all holy, were in Sadam Hussiens shoes. What would you do with fifty nuclear warheads with about 10 megatons worth of explosives each? Do you think you would risk trying to send them to the U.S.? And what if you do send them there, what sort of targets would you choose? And how many of them do you think would actually reach U.S. Soil? How about using those tactical nukes (big far fetched guess here) against the invading army? Doesn't that sound much more reasonable? Maybe utilize any remaining SCUDS, and launch an areial barrage of about 10-20 missiles per invading quadrant, set to burst about 10-15 miles above ground, that way you can avoid any interception missiles, and utilize the EMP so your inept and inferior ground forces might stand a chance against the invading army.

 

Hmm...two or three nukes in NYC...five in the Capital (better chance of sneaking one or two in, since some would probably be caught). One at Fort Knox. One to each (or several) of the American military bases around the world. One to Camp David (demoralizing). One in Chicago, one in the Florida Keys, two in LA.

 

The rest used against the advancing army. (if only half the nukes sent to the USA made it, the attack would be succesfull)

[rfa_vasquez]

But why start a nuclear war.Why not just fight with guns.Nukes are there to end the war at the push of a button.But the enemy cant push the button if u disable his hand

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

 

Hmm...two or three nukes in NYC...five in the Capital (better chance of sneaking one or two in, since some would probably be caught). One at Fort Knox. One to each (or several) of the American military bases around the world. One to Camp David (demoralizing). One in Chicago, one in the Florida Keys, two in LA.

 

The rest used against the advancing army. (if only half the nukes sent to the USA made it, the attack would be succesfull)

 

Wouldn't even need that, 1 nuke at a redskins game. Stadium seat 85,000+. They have sold out every game for the last 10+ years. Even if the nuke was small, it would kill just about everyone in the stadium.

 

Death toll would be 85,000 spectators + stadium employees + teams + team employess + owners. They would die instantly. Add to that the number of fireman, police, and surrounding areas that would get lethel radiation amounts.

 

1 nuke 100,000 dead. So you see even 1 small nuke is too high a risk.

[ShockV1.89]

Oh, thats true. But I'm talking about if Saddam had 50 nukes at his disposal. If I were him, thats how I'd use them...

[00M-187]

Saddam would never launch a tactical Nuke at the US, for fear of being obliterated by a retaliatory attack which could destroy his entire country. What he would do is provide third party terrorists with the nukes so they can disperse them internally in the US, then he doesn't get blamed and makes both Iraq and the terrorists happy.

 

 

---WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND--- about this whole Muslim holy war, is, first off, I know the sanctions against Iraq and US foreign policy and the Israely occupation of Palestine, blah blah blah has caused unrest in the muslim community, (anti US\Sematic) hatred and what not, BUT.... We\Israel DO NOT kill innocent people ON PURPOSE... I guess you could say the US is responsible for Iraqi' deaths due to sanctions in some regard. Israel is responsible for Innocent Palestinians being killed in the line of fire. But WE ARE NOT MURDERERS... That does not justify killing innocent people by walking into a crowded market place and blowing yourself up, or flying a plane into a building....

 

 

---MARTYRDOM--- They think they are doing gods work, YEA RIGHT- More like the DEVILS work - Do you really think Allah - needs to send a band of two bit terrorists in a plane to destroy a building because he thinks Americans are Evil. NO! if god thought it was right to remove the "Evil Infidel" dont you think he would unleash an Earthquake or Tidal wave or something, the ignorance of these people infuriates me!

 

 

---BOTTOM LINE--- Not all muslims are Evil, Most are violent and ignorant, but not all of them are Evil. There are good and bad people of every race\religion.

 

 

Alqaida\Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade\etc etc etc. work directly for Satan and have no allegiance to god... They think they will reach paradise when they blow themselves up, little do they know they're going straight to hell.

 

 

GOD BLESS AMERICA! and freedom to all.

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by 00M-187

Saddam would never launch a tactical Nuke at the US, for fear of being obliterated by a retaliatory attack which could destroy his entire country. What he would do is provide third party terrorists with the nukes so they can disperse them internally in the US, then he doesn't get blamed and makes both Iraq and the terrorists happy.

 

Exactly! What people are missing here is that Saddam and Osama have similar goals. Both want to make it an "us v them" scenerio.

 

In the Gulf War Saddam fired scud missles into Isreal. He did this in an attempt to generate an Isreali response. If Isreal was attacking Iraq then the entire Middle East would be forced to cut ties with the allies. With no bases from which to launch attacks then they would have a much tougher time launching strong attacks against him. This is why to this day he promotes attacking Isreal, in order to force the US to become more active in defence of Isreal.

 

Osama wants this to be a "us v them" scenerio, because he needs Muslim backing in order to plan, train, and fund raise for future attacks onthe US. He also wants to get rid of Western influence in the Middle East.

 

So you see these two madmen have very good reasons to aid each other.

 

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

---WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND--- about this whole Muslim holy war, is, first off, I know the sanctions against Iraq and US foreign policy and the Israely occupation of Palestine, blah blah blah has caused unrest in the muslim community, (anti US\Sematic) hatred and what not, BUT.... We\Israel DO NOT kill innocent people ON PURPOSE... I guess you could say the US is responsible for Iraqi' deaths due to sanctions in some regard. Israel is responsible for Innocent Palestinians being killed in the line of fire. But WE ARE NOT MURDERERS... That does not justify killing innocent people by walking into a crowded market place and blowing yourself up, or flying a plane into a building....

 

They see things this way for many reasons these are two main reason I can think of.

 

-Their facts come thru anti-american state influenced news sources

 

-They hate the people who rule over them and believe the US dollar is keeping them in power

 

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

---MARTYRDOM--- They think they are doing gods work, YEA RIGHT- More like the DEVILS work - Do you really think Allah - needs to send a band of two bit terrorists in a plane to destroy a building because he thinks Americans are Evil. NO! if god thought it was right to remove the "Evil Infidel" dont you think he would unleash an Earthquake or Tidal wave or something, the ignorance of these people infuriates me!

 

Anyone who thinks for a second these people are actually doing the work of God are morons. No Creator would ask his followers to kill themselves in fruitless actions that only bring more death upon their own people. If that is the word of God then they should start to wonder if maybe they are following the wrong God and enroll in Catholic schools, were we can teach them how to feel bad about everything you do

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

---BOTTOM LINE--- Not all muslims are Evil, Most are violent and ignorant, but not all of them are Evil. There are good and bad people of every race\religion.

 

Many would disagree with your generalized statement about violence and ignorance but if you look deep you will see that this statement is true.

 

They are ignorant because they have no means by which to seek out truth. Their governments have full control of what info reaches their ears at all times.

 

They are violent because their lives are very poor, hard, and without reward. They are oppressed and thus have much anger inside. They are very easily convinced of who is to blame, because they want so much to find the cause of their suffering.

 

 

 

Originally posted by 00M-187

Alqaida\Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade\etc etc etc. work directly for Satan and have no allegiance to god... They think they will reach paradise when they blow themselves up, little do they know they're going straight to hell.

 

 

GOD BLESS AMERICA! and freedom to all.

 

If they are indeed doing the work of a supreme being then there is only one being who would ask this for this sort of work to be done. Satan.

[00M-187]

I enjoy your responses Fatalstrike, you have much knowledge about you. If only we could send a Jedi task force to take out Sadam and Osama... lol! These problems would be solved much faster....

[thehomicidalegg]

then there's the issue of the US not having the control of oil fields in the middleeast, which is a extremely valuable commodity in the hand of someone deemed to be the 'enemy'

[munik]

In all those targets listed for nukes, I think Chicago is the only one that might be worth it. NYC, D.C., LA, those three cities are population centers. No reason to bomb them. Military bases would be empty except for a skeleton staff during time of war, and Fort Knox only has gold, which wouldn't be destroyed by a nuclear blast. There's no way you could get a nuke inside or very near it, and Fort Knox would be able to withstand a nuclear blast that isn't on top of it. I don't know what Camp David is, and I'm not sure what is in the Florida Keys that would be worth destroying. Chicago has a naval base, so I guess it would be an alright target.

 

In my previous post, I pointed out how nuking non-military targets just to get a body count was not a wise move. The invading army isn't gonna stop because of that, they will only fight harder. If I had to pick targets other then the invading army, they would be:

 

--A couple of nukes to both the NORAD sites, Colorado and Ontario.

--One sub-suface detonation of a nuke for each of the 7 Fleets.

--Any naval base that currently has, or can support, submarines.

--One nuke to Diego Garcia

--One nuke to Okinawa

--One nuke to Ramstien

--One nuke to each town that has a Lockheed-Martin or Boeing factory

--A nuke to any city with large steel production facilities.

 

I'd do them all in that order. Then use the remaining nukes on the invading army. That is a tactical attack, one that will really hurt your enemy, instead of an attack used to kill civilians and anger, not hurt or weaken, your enemy. Killing everybody at a football stadium has no tactical advantage whatsoever. I don't understand why you keep insisting that Saddam would try and kill civilians in the US if a war was to occur. NO ONE WOULD DO THAT.

 

rfa_vasquez, you ask why not just fight with guns? why not just fight with knives then, or with fists? Why limit yourself to weak weapons when you posses powerful ones? Nukes aren't there to end a war, they are just really powerful bombs. They by no means will end a war. They will just destroy and kill alot more then regular explosives. And you if you can disable your enemies hand with a gun, then you most definately could do it with a nuclear bomb.

 

 

Here's the answer to your questions FatalStrike:

 

1)Is it better to allow a dictator to stay in power or remove him, in your opinion? why or why not?

A dictatorship must be good for some people of the country, or else they wouldn't stand for it. One man alone could not sway the will of an entire country. He has others that want him to stay in power, because they benefit from it. He must have alot of people that want him to stay in power, or else the country would have removed him. So, if a country is so inclined to meddle into another countries affairs, I say remove the dictator. The only motive for one country to change the government of another is for the benefit of the changer. Maybe money, or resources, or land. So yeah, if you can, force another country into accepting a leader that is more favorable to you.

 

2)Should nations be allowed to attack nations that aid terrorists? Why or why not?

I don't think there is any sort of rule for something like this. If you can do it, do it. If someone can stop you, and they feel like stopping you, then they will. If no one can stop you, then you can do whatever you damn well please.

 

What more would Saddam have to do, in order to justify a US strike in your opinion?

It doesn't matter to me either way whether the US attacks Saddam or not. I don't really see a reason to attack now, as I don't believe he poses a threat to the US. But, refering to my first answer, Saddam is unfavorable to the US, and there must be something good in Iraq that the US wants, so the US is looking for any reason to remove him. I think the only reason the US hasn't done it yet is because of a nation of pacifist pansies, all over 18 and with knowledge of how to fill out a voting ballot.

[rfa_vasquez]

Ok you say why not fight with fists and they will just kill a lot more.

 

Think of it this way.

 

The blast itself will kill lots of civilians.

Then comes the shockwave.

Then the radiation.

Plants and food get contaminated.

Then there is another Ice Age.