BigTeddyPaul Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Question: Should we go to war? Answer: NO! BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 The blast will kill people, yes, but it's the shockwave that does all the damage and makes a fission/fussion bomb so destructive. In fact, with the nuclear devices that may be used the shockwave will be so desctructive, and so big, that you won't have to worry about radiation. If you were close enough to get burned by the radiation, the shockwave would have flattened you. Food won't get contanimated, it just needs to be washed off to ensure that you don't ingest radioactive particles. Plants can get contanimated, but that doesn't mean they all will. Also, they can and will filter out the contanimation, to the point of being normal, depending on the radioactive isotopes that are absorbed by the plant. I don't know why you think an Ice Age would occur, especially if you believe there will be radiation around. Heat usually doesn't promote ice, so radiation would prevent an Ice Age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 One fact about nuclear waste is that for about 3-4 years Formula One teams used a form of nulcear waste as ballast in their cars, whilst not emitting a dangerous amount of radiation, even sports have uses for nulcear products. They did ban it after all, if the teams wanted to venture into more dense metals.... As for the mention of Allah, and the Koran, it is different interpretations of the same words that people use as their justification for what they do. Like The Bible, and other "religious" documents, there are plenty of pieces of text that contradict each other, so one group sees it one way, another sees it another way....... Are we, as a western, and basically christian ruled society, do we go back and stop to think that the Inquisition and the Crusades are a lot worse, not in raw numbers, but in acts, than what has happened now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Originally posted by BCanr2d2 Are we, as a western, and basically christian ruled society, do we go back and stop to think that the Inquisition and the Crusades are a lot worse, not in raw numbers, but in acts, than what has happened now? Whats the point? Yeah it was bad and so what? You want us in the US to take blame for what happened in Spain hundreds of years ago? Should the Italians feel bad every time they see the Coliseum? After all Chirsitians were fed to Lions there, right? No one wants to torture the Muslims. No one is planning on forcing them into Christianity. We only wish to take a cruel tyrant off there hands. Thats it, nothing else. As for the targets that would be attacked with nuclear weapons. Someone mentioned that large population center would be bad target? WRONG. They are the soft, high impact targets. Which is to say, easy to hit, and they generate the largest amount of attention. If I were to pick targets they would be NYSE - New York Stock Exchange Nasdaq - The other stock exchange World Bank - Think about the global message SEC- Securities and Exchange Commision National Department of the Treasurey You manage to hit these and you send the US into an instant depression. Also they happen to be in major population centers. Luckily these targets would be very difficult to hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00M-187 Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 I hope to God none of these scenarios happen. What are your thoughts on the biblical aspect of whats going on... Do you think this could be the beginning to the end? Do you think Bin Laden is the antichrist. Will Jesus return and save us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Originally posted by 00M-187 I hope to God none of these scenarios happen. What are your thoughts on the biblical aspect of whats going on... Do you think this could be the beginning to the end? Do you think Bin Laden is the antichrist. Will Jesus return and save us? Let me answer this before the Athiest's show up and flame you. No, Osama is not the Anti-Christ. It is said that the Anti-Christ will be loved by all and will be viewed as a man who brings peace to the world. Only after the world has let down its guard does the anti-christ show his true face to the world. Being that most of the world would love to see images of a dead Osama with a Marine boot print on has @ss, we must conclude he does not fit the description. Also anyone who see's Osama as peaceful is just not paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 It was me who said population centers would be bad targets. ME! I've said it quite a few times, and I've explained why. You just don't want to acknowledge that I'm right. Instead you insist on an opposing view, regardless of the logic against it. Destroying the stock exchange buildings will only accomplish one thing. Killing the stockbrokers who were on the floor that day trading. That's it. Destroying the SEC building won't destroy the SEC, same with the Dept. of the Treasurey. Don't know much about the world bank. There were hundreds of stockbrokers in the WTC when it was destroyed, entire firms and all their employees died. Did not cause a depression. Because the money is still there, and the businesses are still there. Just becuase you eliminate the trading floor, and whoever was on it, does not mean those other things will dissappear. It just means that other stockbrokers will find a new building to trade in. That's like saying the worlds oil supply, and all the vehicles and machines that use oil or oil products will vanish if you kill some gas station attendants. Not much of a correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 More information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" (note all of the use of such phrases as "may have been" and "could suggest"). VIENNA, Austria Sept. 18 — Aluminum tubing sent from China to Jordan may have been destined for Iraq to be used in enriching uranium for atomic weapons, international nuclear officials and a former U.N. weapons inspector say. The reports could suggest that contrary to its denials, Iraq harbors nuclear ambitions but hasn't been able to buy the uranium it needs on the open market. On the other hand, some experts say the data isn't complete enough to make a definite judgment of Iraq's intentions... <snip> ...The centrifuges are high-speed rotating drums that take raw uranium and separate it into different varieties of the element. A heavier form, which is not useful in nuclear weapons, accumulates toward the outside of the spinning drum and is siphoned off. The lighter form, which is used in nuclear bombs, tends to stay in the middle. Because the process is highly inefficient, it requires hundreds or thousands of linked centrifuges to concentrate the light form of uranium sufficiently to be used in an atomic bomb. In the past, Iraq has used heavy-gauge aluminum tubing to build centrifuges for refining raw uranium into fuel for a nuclear weapon. Those devices were destroyed during the 1990s by U.N. weapons inspectors. If Iraq is seeking to rebuild centrifuges for a nuclear program, it could indicate it lacks an outside source of weapons-grade nuclear fuel... And the link to the entire article: Reports: Parts Meant for Iraq Nukes. If this information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" is real, and they really were heading for Iraq, all it proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 tsk tsk You haven't thought things thru again! You are assuming that the intent of those attacks would be to eliminate exchange but you are wrong. The point of those attacks is to make investors nervous. Post 9/11 there was one thing that was grossly aparent in US thinking. Everytime the Justice department issued an alert, stocks tumbled. Investors got nervous. They didn't know what was happening to the financial district. So if you eliminate the two greatest financial centers in the US, as well as making the surroungd area, offices, buildings, research, and resources untouchable, you will shake the the investors. Add to that the fact that the SEC is in shambles, and is not monitoring the stock market, but is instead trying to rebuild itself after you destroyed its resources and murdered their top officials. Then after you are done ensuring a slow recovery to the exchanges of the united states, you give them a political headace by wiping out the World Bank, a place thaat handles foreign monies coming in to the country, as well as much of the Embassy business in Washington. You won't have a depression (I went to far with that) but you have scared invenstors, that fear the terrorists will strike the financial centers again and start to sell their stock. The Fed's can't comfort them because both of their agencies are struggling. And you add to that the political climate that a attack on the World bank creates, and you have finger pointing in Washington, and all the sudden you have a country that is not anywhere near as sure of itself as it was prior to your attack. Thus you scare the US in the only place where they can be scared....their pocketbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk If this information on the "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" is real, and they really were heading for Iraq, all it proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs. What do we do if Saddam does what he did last time? What if he limits them to military facilities and does not permit them to go to warhouses and hospitals where he has made Biological weapons? What if he stops inspectors from going to schools where he would be smart to store weapons, knowing that the US won't bomb a school? Basically what will be your excuse when he does what the entire world knows he will do, which is to delay the inspectors everytime they wish to go somewhere he would not like them enter. By the way your Aluminum rod article only shows that he is in fact attempting to make Nuclear Weapons, which is in DIRECT violation with the cease fire agreement. Does this agreement mean nothing to you? Do you think it a good thing that he is able to ignore the UN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 What if... presupositions, prejudiced judgements. Let the UN Inspectors go in and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk What if... presupositions, prejudiced judgements. Let the UN Inspectors go in and see what happens. Prejudiced judgements is the right course of action. You judge people based on their past actions, and Saddam has NEVER given anyone a reason to trust him. In fact the very idea of not preparing for what to do after Saddam screws the UN again would be naive. I will word it differently so as not to offend your "always give a known liar another chance" sense of justice.... BASED ON HIS TRACK RECORD WITH THE UN, what will be your reason to allow him to go on doing his thing when he sidetracks the inspectors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 If he interferes with the inspectors, then maybe the international community will get behind us. But you're not clairvoyant, you can't see into the future, and neither can the administration. The UN weapons inspectors should go in, and in the words of Scott Ritter, "The UN Inspectors are the best damn crime-scene investigators in the world". You talk about Saddam interfering with the UN's resolutions--well the UN is resolved on sending in Inspectors, and if the US launches an attack before those Inspectors can do their job, then what is the US doing? The US would be interfering with UN resolutions! There is no evidence of "clear and present danger" which would give the US the right to attack Iraq. What we would be doing would be a first strike, something the US has never done before. But you know who did carry out a first strike? Japan, December 7th 1941. And what we would do to Baghdad would be a hundred times worse, in pure loss of life, than anything the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. And the article on "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" might mean what you implied--but it also means what I said, which was: proves is that Iraq hasn't been able to get nuclear material, and have had to start from scratch. They never got these centrifuges working right in the first place (see the article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists I cited in my last post). There is no urgency, and definately no excuse for us to rush off to war before the UN Inspectors are able to do their jobs. Again, there is no clear and present danger which would ethically or morally justify a first strike. If the UN Inspectors find out that the Iraqis are in "violation with the cease fire agreement", then let the UN do its job. There is time to work within the system, which is my whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfa_vasquez Posted September 19, 2002 Author Share Posted September 19, 2002 my only point here is that this will happen 1 day.wether it is soon when im alive.Or later when im dead.But 1 day these scenarios will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 FatalStrike, are you even a U.S. citizen? Or do you really live here and still just get your information from the television? Just because the stock exchange report on CNN says things are bad, it doesn't really mean things are bad. Maybe bad for daytraders, or people ready to turn 65 years of age, or those who rely on the exchange for their income, but for everyone else it's inconsequential. The stock exchange is not a measurement of the U.S. economy, no matter what anyone tells you. I have never been personnally effected by the stock exchange in a bad way ever since I've been alive. If an attack like the one you described caused fear in investors like you described, I would be doing great. That's because my only interest in the stock market is a 401(k), with a regular flow of cash of into it. And because I'm 24 years old. That means if people are scared and start selling stock, I buy more of it. Hey, good for me. More money for when I retire. So a scenario such as the one you described would be good for me. And I doubt I'm the only young person in the States with a 401(k). But CNN would still be saying that the market is bad, and still try to instill fear and doubt into my mind. But, I have some reasonable foresight and I'm not un-educated about my money. Oh, and I can think for myself. What if he stops inspectors from going to schools where he would be smart to store weapons, knowing that the US won't bomb a school? Yep, I'm pretty certain you aren't from the States. Why the hell wouldn't they bomb a school that is storing weapons? Because it's a school? Are you that naive? What if Saddam put all his weapons and forces inside schools and hospitals? President Bush gets on the news and says, "Sorry folks, I'm calling the war off, Saddam put all his forces inside schools, and we can't touch him." You have no concept of war, no idea at all. Just because the Geneva convention says not to attack anything with Red Lions, Sickles and Stars, or Crosses, do you think our armed forces would just stand there and die if a vehicle with those symbols was shooting at them? No, they would shoot back. What about the POW's in tiger cages 35 years ago in Vietnam? Should they have just remained there, and not try to escape, and get killed, just because they are non-combatants and removed from the war because the Convention says so? The only people who the Geneva Convention applies to are the losers of a conflict. That's because it's only the losers of a conflict who are tried for war crimes. The winners prosecute the losers, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Munik you are starting to get too easy to pick apart! Originally posted by munik FatalStrike, are you even a U.S. citizen? Or do you really live here and still just get your information from the television? Just because the stock exchange report on CNN says things are bad, it doesn't really mean things are bad. Maybe bad for daytraders, or people ready to turn 65 years of age, or those who rely on the exchange for their income, but for everyone else it's inconsequential. The stock exchange is not a measurement of the U.S. economy, no matter what anyone tells you. I have never been personnally effected by the stock exchange in a bad way ever since I've been alive. Yes I am a citizen. While the stock exchange is not a measure f the US economy it does effect the US economy. The stock market can be dragged down by a bad economy, or the economy can be dragged down by a bad stock market. It is all a question of consumer confidence. Originally posted by munik If an attack like the one you described caused fear in investors like you described, I would be doing great. That's because my only interest in the stock market is a 401(k), with a regular flow of cash of into it. And because I'm 24 years old. That means if people are scared and start selling stock, I buy more of it. Hey, good for me. More money for when I retire. So a scenario such as the one you described would be good for me. And I doubt I'm the only young person in the States with a 401(k). But CNN would still be saying that the market is bad, and still try to instill fear and doubt into my mind. But, I have some reasonable foresight and I'm not un-educated about my money. Oh, and I can think for myself. While you may buy more stocks as prices go down, as I do myself, most large buyers of stocks do not. Me and you are drops in the bucket, I assume by your 401k comment that you do not make 150,000 share transactions weekly. When these guys decide to sell, and no buyers are readily available, the companies to which these stocks belong have to buy back their own stocks. This drops the usable cash this company has, and makes CEO's nervous. As their stocks continue to drop, more and more sell. Less and less buy, and the company has to shell out more and more of its cash. If this effect lasts too long then the company is forced to cut back production, or staff in order to stay in the black. With a vast attack on financial districts this effect to sweep thru a vast number of US companies and slow down the US economy as a whole. Originally posted by munik Yep, I'm pretty certain you aren't from the States. Why the hell wouldn't they bomb a school that is storing weapons? Because it's a school? Are you that naive? What if Saddam put all his weapons and forces inside schools and hospitals? President Bush gets on the news and says, "Sorry folks, I'm calling the war off, Saddam put all his forces inside schools, and we can't touch him." You have no concept of war, no idea at all. Yes I am from the states and I know war pretty well. While we both know much of war you have a childs grasp of politics. You can't bomb a school during peacetime because it causes folks in the UN to go crazy! We have bombed many radar stations, and anti arcraft guns since the cease fire and no one gives a damn. If we bombed a school tomorrow the world would go nuts. That is why he would hide it under schools. Look how crazied everyone got when a bomb hit a wedding in afghanistan! Do you think it would be any less if we hit a school? Get your nose out of the war room and realize this country is run by politicians not generals! Originally posted by munik Just because the Geneva convention says not to attack anything with Red Lions, Sickles and Stars, or Crosses, do you think our armed forces would just stand there and die if a vehicle with those symbols was shooting at them? No, they would shoot back. What about the POW's in tiger cages 35 years ago in Vietnam? Should they have just remained there, and not try to escape, and get killed, just because they are non-combatants and removed from the war because the Convention says so? The only people who the Geneva Convention applies to are the losers of a conflict. That's because it's only the losers of a conflict who are tried for war crimes. The winners prosecute the losers, not the other way around. There is a difference between a marked vehicle that is shooting at you, and a school full of children that is acting as a warehouse. If you don't see the difference then you have no heart at all. By the way our defense secretary said we COULD NOT bomb schools, and I take his word more then yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk If he interferes with the inspectors, then maybe the international community will get behind us. But you're not clairvoyant, you can't see into the future, and neither can the administration. The UN weapons inspectors should go in, and in the words of Scott Ritter, "The UN Inspectors are the best damn crime-scene investigators in the world". You talk about Saddam interfering with the UN's resolutions--well the UN is resolved on sending in Inspectors, and if the US launches an attack before those Inspectors can do their job, then what is the US doing? The US would be interfering with UN resolutions! There is no evidence of "clear and present danger" which would give the US the right to attack Iraq. What we would be doing would be a first strike, something the US has never done before. But you know who did carry out a first strike? Japan, December 7th 1941. And what we would do to Baghdad would be a hundred times worse, in pure loss of life, than anything the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. And the article on "aluminum rods used specifically to enrich weapons grade plutonium" might mean what you implied--but it also means what I said, which was: Again, there is no clear and present danger which would ethically or morally justify a first strike. If the UN Inspectors find out that the Iraqis are in "violation with the cease fire agreement", then let the UN do its job. There is time to work within the system, which is my whole point. I agree with you on one thing, I agree that we should wait and see what happens with inspectors. In fact I think that Pres. Bush is more interested in this war as a political boost then as a needed self defense measure. I do believe that we should get ready to go to war right now, because I don't believe anything Saddam says. I think that regardless as to why Bush really wants this war, it is a good thing because Saddam is a monster that has no right live. However the fact that he is TRYING to get nuclear weapons is a violation of the cease fire agreement. He doesn't have to HAVE them, he only has to TRY, in order to violate the cease fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 I'm getting easy to pick apart because you ignore any valid points I make in my posts. I said the stockmarket doesn't matter to me. Or others like me. You go on to state that people like me don't matter to the stockmarket, and it only effects those people or companies with money falling out of their asses. They will lose money. Boo-frickin-hoo. Capatilism bites them in the ass. Tough luck. The stock market is only public companies, not all the companies in the US. It does not effect me in any form. I could care less if these companies dissappear off the face of the planet. I just have to buy my toilet paper from somewhere else. And the economy to buy toilet paper will still be there. That is my point, and that is what you did not reply too. The bombing school thing was apparently taken out of context. I was mislead by the name of this thread. I just assumed that since this thread is called "War", and I know I've been discussing war, that maybe that's what you were refering too. I don't think it would matter too much anyways. You compare it to a bombing of a wedding in Afghanistan that everyone got "crazied" over. I've never heard of it before, and I've never seen anyone "crazied" over it. So blanket statements about other peoples reactions to something that most people don't care about aren't really supporting points. Also, the U.S. does not care about the UN. In the local paper here the other day, there was a quote from Pres. Bush, I can't quite remember exact words. But, he was refering to the congress waiting for the UN to make a decision about Iraq, and he says something to the effect of "why would the US wait for a decision from the UN about a situation that concerns the US". While this was the president saying that, and it was some congressmen waiting for the UN, I think that would show the US sentiments concernng the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Once again you fail to see the big picture. *sigh* Originally posted by munik I'm getting easy to pick apart because you ignore any valid points I make in my posts. I said the stockmarket doesn't matter to me. Or others like me. You go on to state that people like me don't matter to the stockmarket, and it only effects those people or companies with money falling out of their asses. They will lose money. Boo-frickin-hoo. Capatilism bites them in the ass. Tough luck. The stock market is only public companies, not all the companies in the US. It does not effect me in any form. I could care less if these companies dissappear off the face of the planet. I just have to buy my toilet paper from somewhere else. And the economy to buy toilet paper will still be there. That is my point, and that is what you did not reply too. It does not effect YOU but it does effect the economy and thus it hurts the US in the eyes of the world. Also this doesn't simple effect the rich, another fact that you missed. When companies take a hit in cash, they lay off a large amount of workers. In other words lots of regular Joes like you and me. Not all companies are on the stock exchanges but the largest ones are. Thus the companies that have the highest chance of dropping the GDP. If the GDP goes down, unemployment goes up, and the stock markets go down....what do you have? Yup a recession. Considering the US is seen as all powerful a hit of this kind on a economy would be seen a victory. Originally posted by munik The bombing school thing was apparently taken out of context. I was mislead by the name of this thread. I just assumed that since this thread is called "War", and I know I've been discussing war, that maybe that's what you were refering too. I don't think it would matter too much anyways. You compare it to a bombing of a wedding in Afghanistan that everyone got "crazied" over. I've never heard of it before, and I've never seen anyone "crazied" over it. So blanket statements about other peoples reactions to something that most people don't care about aren't really supporting points. I don't have a clue where you live but I live in Washington DC. All I here about is what the people on the hill go crazy about. Also the people on the hill are the people that decide what this country does. So if they care, it doesn't matter if you care or not. Even in War people would go crazy if you bombed a school. If you don't realize that fact then you aren't paying enough attention. Ask Jedi_Monk what he feels about the US bombing a school in war time. Originally posted by munik Also, the U.S. does not care about the UN. In the local paper here the other day, there was a quote from Pres. Bush, I can't quite remember exact words. But, he was refering to the congress waiting for the UN to make a decision about Iraq, and he says something to the effect of "why would the US wait for a decision from the UN about a situation that concerns the US". While this was the president saying that, and it was some congressmen waiting for the UN, I think that would show the US sentiments concernng the UN. Don't believe the hype. If the US didn't care about the UN then why is Bush on the phone with Putin tonight according to the Washington Post trying to get his country to support a resolution on UN action against Iraq? Why did Bush speak before the UN? You see that stuff Bush is spouting about Democrats letting the UN decide US policy is a way of influencing a Dem controlled senate of passing a resolution allowing Bush full control of the war effort. Its an election year and the Dems will be scared of looking weak to the voters. Thus they are going to pass the resolution tonight or tomorrow. I think you need to understand the way US politics work. You seem to lack insight on to how Conservatives and Liberals influence eachother. You see it doesn't matter if its true or even makes sense, it all about what spin you can put on it to win majority in the houses of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 We should not go to war, simply because it would be morally wrong...Iraq right now have done nothing to provoke us...we are simply going to eradicate them because they are a possible threat to other countries...but aren't all countries with weapons of mass destruction a threat?...I agree, that if Iraq attacks us, we will retaliate, and we will fight to beat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Yes, your description of a declining economy is correct. BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU KILL BROKERS ON THE TRADING FLOOR! That is what I'm saying for christs sake. You are jumping to the conclusion that destroying the building that houses the Exchange and the one that houses its regulating body will directly effect the economy. It will not. Either way, it would not greatly effect me in a negative way, presumed recession or not. If you could give me an example, maybe from the 1900's to the present, of any conflict between any two countries, where one country decided to use it's powerful weapons of war against buildings and civilians that influence that countries economy, instead of using those weapons against the military or it's support, both military and civilian support, I will accept your idea. As it stands I still think it's a retarded idea. I don't have a clue where you live but I live in Washington DC. All I here about is what the people on the hill go crazy about. Also the people on the hill are the people that decide what this country does. So if they care, it doesn't matter if you care or not I don't quite understand that one. Are you saying that my opinion regarding something you posted here in this forum doesn't matter, unless it coincides with politicians opinions in D.C., because they run the country? I don't know what to say to that. I don't know if you're serious or not. And that quote that I pulled from the paper doesn't mean "I believe the hype". I bought that paper because you seemed so intent on the fact that everybody knows everything about Iraq, and it's 'cause of the news. So I wanted to see if that was true or not. So I comment on it and you spout some more. Good choice on my part. I made no opinion about politics, or politicians. I made no statements about politics at all. You seem to be wrapped up in it. Good for you. I don't care. But that probaly doesn't matter, 'cause some of your politican neighbors do care, which makes my opinion void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NerfYoda Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Theres an interesting petition floating around the historian circles right now which will examines our latest presidences' lack of consulting congress before wanting to declare war, much less than letting congress declare war. The system of checks and balances provided by the consitutionwas made to ensure that if one nut case (Like our current president, who is a dumb motherf*cker) doesnt go off an declare war on another conuntry w/o cause* or do other drastic things. I'm a little sick of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft running amuck making manifestos and talking hard and getting nothing out it but resentment from the rest of the world. But hey if you criticize the President you're obviously a terrorist, right? Can't have a congress full of terrorists. No sir. The petiton's so far been signed by roughly 1,300 historians at various high colleges around the country. * Cause = we get attacked. That's it. Period. We're America. We're (supposed to be) the good guys. Good guys dont shoot first and ask questions later. Good guys dont launch pre-emptive strikes. We don't have hard evidence that Iraq controls a nuclear weapon. Hell even if we did we shouldnt do anything about it until we get attacked. Will a great many people die? Most liekly. But until that point we should be the better man and keep a cool head. If we attack first all we'll be seen as are agressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 I agree with you on one thing, I agree that we should wait and see what happens with inspectors. In fact I think that Pres. Bush is more interested in this war as a political boost then as a needed self defense measure. Well... it's a start... Ask Jedi_Monk what he feels about the US bombing a school in war time. If it was in wartime, I doubt we'd hesitate to raze a school to the ground. We firebombed Dresden (and most of the other population-centers of Germany) to ashes in WW2, and of course we annhilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nukes... there must have been a few schools in these places, and there had to have been thousands of children who died in each of these attacks. Now I believe that WW2 was one of the few just wars in human history, and that winning was vital to the entire free world. But the loss of life was just staggering. That's why I pray to God that this war will not come about, because if it does, schools will be destroyed and children will die... churches will be destroyed, hospitals and homes will be destroyed... no place will be safe in Baghdad if we go in to take Saddam. In this day and age, you can not wage a war against one person... every weapon in our arsenal is a weapon of mass destruction, relative to what we had in WW2. Just a few days ago, I saw photos of dozens of children in body-bags who were killed in recent US bombing raids against Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 Consider this, now: there are roughly 20,000,000 people in Iraq (and 3 to 4 million in Baghdad). I've read that 1/20th of the people in Iraq are Christians. Tariq Aziz, Iraqi foreign minister, is Christian. Pope John Paul II wanted to go to Iraq, to Ur in particular (the birthplace of Abraham), during his Jubilee pilgrimage. He also wanted to visit the faithful in Iraq. Both the US and Britain discouraged his visit, and reluctantly the Iraqis were forced to advise him not to come since Ur is in the no fly zone and they could not guarantee his safety--from us. I'm Catholic and the fact that the US and its allies prevented the Pope from visiting his flock in Iraq is incredibly offensive. In Iraq, the condition for women is much better than it was in Afghanistan, and in many other places in the middle-east. Women are not forced to wear burquas, and they can go to school, two things which would either get a woman beat or killed under the Taliban. The question I'm leading to--which Ex-Vice President Gore brought up in his recent speech--is what would happen if we do go to Iraq and annhilate their present form of government? It is a stated policy of the Bush Administration not to practice nation building, to "leave it to the natives", so to speak. What would happen to those Christians and those women if a group like the Taliban were to take over? Well, the Christians would have to flee (where?), convert, or be killed. The women would go back to being forced to wear burquas and be subservient, or they would die, as well. And what would happen to our national security if we waltzed out of a war-zone with Iraq in ashes, and a Taliban-like group took over? There's no evidence that Saddam is in league with Al Queda (in fact, because of the things I've above mentioned, Al Queda would see Saddam as a heritic, and would more likely than not, shun him)... but we know that the Taliban and other such extreme Muslim groups do aid Al Queda terrorists. What would happen to our national security if they got a hold of the supposed weapons Saddam supposedly has stowed away? I believe that we would do more harm than good in taking Saddam out of power by force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.