Iraqi war

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Do you think there should be a war in Irag? And if there is one, should the rest of the NATO countries participate?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Don't invade.

 

The US's main argument is that what started WW2 was that Europe was peace-loving. As Hitler came to power they just sat and watched, until he set off WW2.

 

The difference between WW2 and the USA-Iraq relationship is that if Iraq tries to claim as much as a condom store outside of Iraq, the USA, unlike Europe, will go to war on him.

 

What Europe did wrong was saying stuff like "fine, we'll give you 1/3 of Chezchkoslovakia and Poland if you stop expanding". The USA won't do that. The day Iraq tries to invade someone, the USA will invade, and Saddam Hussein will probably lose his Empire within the year. This is the difference between the UK in the 40's and the USA today, and Saddam knows it: Which is why he won't go to war.

 

If you were Saddam Houssein, what would you have? A nation-wide dictatorship that made you filthy rich, or a war with the USA and probably some part of N.A.T.O. -a war there was a big probability that you would lose- for a couple of more dictatorships?

 

Saddam does not want a war, which is why he's all by sudden being so 'kind' and 'nice'. I mean, all by sudden he's letting in weapons inspectors, something he never did before. He's just trying to soften up relationships with the USA.

 

You can't invade someone just because you think they are going to invade someone else. Remember the Spanish war, where the USA fought this 16-weeks war with Spain in the Carribean because that battleship, Maine, had been 'hit by a mine?'. Turned out the explosion was caused by an in-board explosion, according to my US History book.

 

Second, I'm not really sure if all this going on is as much about justice and peace as it is about oil. With an American friendly democracy installed in Iraq, American and allied firms will open up Iraq's huge oil reserves to the world, giving themselves cheap crude. This will flood the markets and essentially put OPEC through the wringer, removing the stopper that limits world supplies and so making the rich filthy rich. Nothing that the White House run by a former oil exec would cringe at. I know Bush is telling you Saddam is the new Hitler, but belive me as an European: He's not.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I think Nato should be replaced with UN on that poll.

 

 

I have previosly started a thread about this, and promised not to post in there again until I found this article in a magazine I lost but which had some stuff to back up my case. Then I didn't find it but to remain honorable I still haven't broken my promise.

 

Also I tried (unsuccesfully) to start a flame war with American forummers, but Homer and someone else reasoned me out of it.

[Young David]

Well ... I actuelly keep away from this discussion. I voted for no attack btw.

 

In my eyes, Bush is as bad as Housein is. I don't like that man, he has great millitairy power and thinks he is the most important man on the world. He's arrogant and obsessed in defeating, what he calls, evil.

 

I'm just happy he isn't my president.

 

Instead of that we have a chaotic government and a minister-president who lookes like an adult harry potter ... politicans suck.

[Tie Guy]

I say attack him.

 

He obviously has chemical weapons, and he's trying to get a nuke if he doesn't already have one. He has links to various terrorists organizations. He obviously isn't just collecting these weapons of mass destruction for fun, he plans to use them. We have to go after him before he, or some other terrorist organization, kills alot of people.

 

On top of that, his people are living in poverty and hunger and disease while he lives in a grand palace, built from money taken the people.

 

BTW, he has let inspectors in before, but he led them around by their noses while juggling the weapons behind his back. On top of that, he flat out ignored several other UN resolutions. I don't get why the UN won't act on this, its obvious their resolutions don't scare this guy.

[Darth Homer]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

Also I tried (unsuccesfully) to start a flame war with American forummers, but Homer and someone else reasoned me out of it.

 

Yuppers, maybe I should be a diplomat...imagine that...me sitting at a table, talking to a different country....oohh, scary

 

anywho, I believe that we will invade eventually, but it will be with the backing of the UN after Saddam has stalled for time w/ the weapons inspectors once again...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think Nato should be replaced with UN on that poll.

 

With support, I meant military support; the Norwegian and Danish navy and jægers (Marines), the German Army, the British RAF (Air Force) and so on. I didn't mean 'approval', as in 'attacking without the UN agreeing. UN is a peace organisation, NATO is a military alliance.

 

But yeah, in should have been on there, in hindsight.

 

Yes, I think they should get UN approval before attacking.

 

You're just being hypocratic.

 

He obviously isn't just collecting these weapons of mass destruction for fun, he plans to use them.

 

Hmm.. doesn't the USA have thousands of nukes? Weren't you the only nation REFUSE to sign that deal to remove all nukes? Don't you want China's, N. Korea's, Cuba's, and Iraq's butts? Yes, yes, yes. Are you going to use nukes? No.

 

Just because the USA failed to see a better way to make Japan capitulate than to nuke their civilian homes, doesn't have to mean SH is going to use them -especially not with the threat of a US counterstrike.

 

On top of that, his people are living in poverty and hunger and disease while he lives in a grand palace, built from money taken the people.

 

Well, so does the US president, with money taken from taxes .

 

BTW, he has let inspectors in before, but he led them around by their noses while juggling the weapons behind his back. On top of that, he flat out ignored several other UN resolutions. I don't get why the UN won't act on this, its obvious their resolutions don't scare this guy.

 

No country lets foreign weapons inspectors see all their weapons. You [the Americans] keep fuzzing on how Russia, China, and Iraq won't let you see their weapons, and meanwhile, the USA won't let European inspectors see everything. You still hide stuff, like bases, weapons, new prototypes, and so on.

 

NO NATION lets a foreign nation see ALL PARTS of its' arsenal. Doing so would ruin that country's sovereignity.

 

On top of that, he flat out ignored several other UN resolutions. I don't get why the UN won't act on this, its obvious their resolutions don't scare this guy.

 

The USA also ignores several of the USA's resolutions, such as the one about de-fusing and throwing away your nuclear weapons . Does that make you bad and ruthless?

[darthfergie]

You have a good point about the nukes...but as far as I know we never tested the nukes on one of our cities like Hussein did with his weapons of mass distruction...plus we didn't ever buy PS2s to make missles with! (don't ask me what relivance that has...I just wanted to throw that in there)

[Breton]

I think it would be more dangerous to attack Iraq than to not do it. For IF Saddam has nukes and stuff, then, if he used them, the entire rest of the world will attack him and Iraq, and he will stand no chance. However, if the US attack him now, it would be quite likely that he will use the weapons, if he have any at all, at the US, wich he has no great love for, simply because he knows that he will fall anyway.

 

The US have nukes for "defense" so why can't Hussein have nukes for "defense"? Because he if mad enough to use them, you might say. But so is Bush, I can assure you.

 

Nuclear weapons is probably the most terrible thing that has ever been invented, the person who invented it must have been a terrible, terrible man. Einstein warned a lot against nuclear weapons, and he was much, much smarter than the madass president who produced them and even worse: used them (I am talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you didn't know)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I say that 100,000 people living in poverty, waiting for Democacy, is better than thousands dying for Democracy.

 

About your post, Qui-Gon,I am starting to believe that's exactly what Truman was: Mad. Not to go off-topic, but let me back my view up a bit:

 

I don't know what drove him, but after Pearl Harbour he hated the Japanese. The stereotyped all Japanese as the Enemy, even US citizens, which were put in camps in deserts and mountains, far away from civilization (this is a little-known event of WW2 -if you don't believe me, look up "Manzanar" on the Web). And I'm talking all Japanese, even 4-year old girls. He gave them a choice: Join the US Army to help us fight Japan, or be put away on Relocation Camps for the duration of the war. These camps were not as bad as Hitler's Death Camps, but they consisted up unfinished buildings with insufficient living room, unsanitary bathrooms, and poor food.

 

Also, according to my US History book, by the time of Hiroshima the US navy had captured all Japanese islands in the Pacific and eliminated their Imperial Navy. Now, instead of blockading Japan, which would cause it's surrender because Japan's so resource-poor, or at least publically show the strenght of the A-bomb on a deserted island, Truman went and nuked a major Japanese city. And then, even when he had seen how truly terrible the bomb was, he nuked another city.

 

Now, this may have been justified if this action actually ended World War 2. But by the time of the bombings, World War 2 was already over: The Nazis had surrendered, and Japan had no way of attacking anyone else: Their troops were stranded, and a navy blockade would prevent any aggressive air force attacks on China. Although Japan had not surrendered, they were harmless.

 

So all the nuclear bomb did was to cause the liberation of a couple of thousand US sailors (prisoners of war).

 

So when Truman used the nuke to kick a dead body, I don't doubt that Saddam would use his nuke to counterattack on the USA. Not for a second. The nukes are, as in the Cold War, ironically doing the opposite of what they are built for: Maintaining peace and saving lives. As long as Saddam has them, the US won't invade.

[Tie Guy]

Allow me to disagree, ealge.

 

Iraq and America are apples and oranges. America is a proven ally, Hussein is a proven terrorist. Hussein is not building his weapons for defense, i can assure you of that. If he was, he'd just say so and join the UN or something. The only reason he has weapons at all is to attack others. He's already fired a lot of scuds, uprovoked, and let's not forget that he just attacked Kuwait because he wanted to. The man is a madman, thats clear, and there is nothing to stop him from using a nuke once he gets one. Of course, he won't fire it out of a silo in Bagdad, but he could very well have terrorists use it in more discreet ways.

 

Oh, and so the president makes 250,000 a year, lots of Americans make much more. And its not like the President takes over people's businesses and makes palaces for himself. Taxes are a neccessary part of all goernment, but what Sadam's doing isn't taxation, its exploitation and robbery. And in Iraq there aren't any other wealthy people, save maybe for a few aides to Sadam, at least in America poor people have a chance.

 

About, Hiroshima, that may have been a mistake, though it did end the war quickly and probably save more lives than it killed. But even so, it was a diiferent person in a different period. Hussein has been there a while, and he's still the same, with the same policies.

 

 

Qui-Gon, Bush is definately not going to use a nuke unless one is fired on him first. However, as i stated above, Hussein could deploy a nuke in many ways otehr than launching it. He can use it and the US will never "know" it was him.

[Artoo]

Allow me to say, let's agree to not make any more attack Iraq threads, cause we are so majorly close to a flame war, that t's not funny. Wait for that Qui-Gon guy to poke his head in here, uggg.

 

Also XWing Guy hasn't posted, and you're going to give Tieguy so many finger cramps he won't be able to do his school work.

 

And if you want my opinion. I say attack em anyway, and my reasons have been stated in previous THREADS, plural.

[Clefo]

My take:

 

While I agree that taking out Saddam would be good in the short term of things, its the long term I'm worried about. Are we really prepared to start rebuilding Iraq after a conflict (Assuming the US is successfull)

 

Another concern: Why the urgency right now? Why wasn't it present, say, last year?

[xwing guy]

Do you people even know what Saddam does to his people!?!?!?!???? Like gassing rebel Iraqi villages and things like that, and do you folks even know the horrors of the gassings and what they do to the few who survive and the slow and painful deaths of the majority who don't??? And do yall know when Saddam's people torture someone that their kids are tortured first and their parents are made to watch, that right there is enough to make any humane person want to get rid of Saddam, at least me anyways. So all of you "doves" and anti-war idiots who don't want war with Saddam, yall just need to shut the ****ing hell up.

 

I say that 100,000 people living in poverty, waiting for Democacy, is better than thousands dying for Democracy.

 

Eagle, you are a sad sad person then if you believe that, tell that to the Americans who lived through the Revoltionary War, even though that was a long long time ago and none of them are around. Because the democracy you enjoy now is because of the blood of the many Americans that have fought for our democracy.

 

By the way, we don't need the UNs approval to attack anybody, its within excutive powers to do that, but not to "offcially" declare war. We don't need the UNs support either, the U.S. military could easily handle the Iraqi military because the Iraqi military isn't even half the size it was during the Gulf.

[Admiral Odin]

I'm only going to say this to set facts straight.

 

Einstein was a major advocate of making the atomic bomb, because at the time he saw it necessary. He wrote FDR telling him that the US should prusue the development of the Atomic bomb. He also consulted with the Navy on the development of the bomb.

 

For all that say we shouldn't have used the atomic bombs. Put yourself in Truman's position, then answer that question. He just became president, and when that happened he learned of the atomic bomb. When he was VP he never new the US was developing one. He was faced with an invasion of Japan which would have resulted in many causualties. The Japanese were ready to charge the landing craft with any weapon they had (this includes women and children carrying mabye nothing at all, or simple clubs). He also had the Soviets to worry about and how to deal with them in the peace agreement. Finally the fallout (radiation) was only learned about after the bombs were dropped. The atomic bombs represanted a way to end the war, and a possible way to dampen Soviet ambishion.

 

Now lets look at it this way.

 

Say we didn't drop the two atomic bombs, and invade Japan instead. The invasion caused many deaths on both sides. Now years after it is learned that the US had a weapon that could have ended the war and saved those lives. I'm betting you would be here saying Truman was mad for not using the bombs. Also keep this in mind we didn't just drop both bombs at once, we dropped one and then told the Japanesse to surrender or we drop another. They refused, even though they knew we were capable of it. That and we didn't drop it on Tokoyo, and after the war we helped them rebuild (during Truman's presidency I might add).

 

If you want to read up on this go to these links (it will also show Einsteins involvment in the Atomic bomb).

 

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D35479

 

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D35379

 

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D35022

[idiot00001]

Now, instead of blockading Japan, which would cause it's surrender because Japan's so resource-poor, or at least publically show the strenght of the A-bomb on a deserted island, Truman went and nuked a major Japanese city. And then, even when he had seen how truly terrible the bomb was, he nuked another city.

 

Many civilians would have died from a long term blockade, since Japan has little land and the emperor refused to surrender. Also if the U.S. invaded with ground troops the casualties would have been enormous on both sides.

 

 

The problem with weapons inspectors is that they do not have access to all of Iraq because all of his presidential palaces are off limits and biological weapons can be stored almost anywhere and be next to impossible to find.

 

I voted for attacking with help from NATO.

 

Here is a good article on Saddam's weapon capabilities.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64903,00.html

[Crazy_dog no.3]

xwing guy- I am indeed aware of the slow and painful deaths that chemical weapons can give.

I very much doubt that children are tortured there also.

 

 

Admiral- Why would the fact that the ground was contaiminated stop us (the Soviets)? I will admit our disregard to life was poor then.

 

Tie Guy- How do we know Bush can be trusted?

 

 

 

Even if an attack on Iraq is made, put ourself in the position of the soldiers. What with chemical weapons that he supposedly has, how would u like to be the one sprayed with them?

If he has nukes as u say, it is almost certain your fleet will be nuked before it even arrives.

 

Also, xwing guy, inhumane as it may be, I think Saddam has every right to attack rebel villages. I mean, if Texas broke away from the US again, Bush won't just sit there and wait.

[Admiral Odin]

Why are you so eager to distrust Bush, who hasn't done a thing to show that he can't be trusted, and trust Saddam who has shown he can't be trusted?

----------------------------

 

Who said anything about ground contamination. What would have stopped the Soviets would be the bomb or the threat of the atomic bomb. At the time the USSR did not have it, the US did. By detonating it on Japan Truman had clear evidence of it's destructive power, so did the USSR. Truman then could say to Stalin if you try to advance we will use it against you. Stalin would know that we weren't bluffing about the power either.

-----------------------------

 

US soldiers are trained against chemical weapons (whering gas mask ect.). It is also their job, if they didn't want to be in combat then joining the military was a bad idea.

 

Saddam at this point doesn't have Nuclear weapons yet. He has chemical and biological weapons. He is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. The point is to stop him from getting a Nuke.

 

Yes Saddam has every right to attack rebels but not innocent people. You seem to have forgotten the fact that he didn't just kill the rebels but women and children who did nothing wrong. He didn't care about civilians.

 

If Bush would also go against the rebels, but not civilians. If he did he would be out of office in a blink of the eye.

---------------------------

[bh Jodo Kast]

Why does Crazy_Dog No. 3 show up as banned?

 

He still posts! I could not find anything that answered my question.

[Tie Guy]

He changed it to that himself, kast.

 

 

CDog, Bush can be trusted because he hasn't shown that he can't be trusted, as admiral said. Plus, there's this thing in America called Representative Democracy, it means that if he does anything bad he will be voted out, so it would be political suicide. Sadam is a dictator, so he can do whatever he wants and shoot those who say he can't. Thats not to say that Presidents are beyond reproach, just look at Bill Clinton, but in matters as big as this, they wouldn't do anything stupid, thats suidcide.

 

 

Oh, and i think Lincoln was one of the worst President's we've had. Not only did he fail to keep the union together when Andrew Jackson did, but he attacked the South, which had every right to break away. and i'm sick of all African-Amerians saying he is like a god and society praising him, the emancipation proclamation only freed blacks in the South that hadn't already been captured. It was a war tactic, he wanted all the Blacks to run away and ruin the South's economy. He certainly didn't care about whether it was ethically right or not.

[Breton]

Do you people even know what Saddam does to his people!?!?!?!???? Like gassing rebel Iraqi villages and things like that, and do you folks even know the horrors of the gassings and what they do to the few who survive and the slow and painful deaths of the majority who don't??? And do yall know when Saddam's people torture someone that their kids are tortured first and their parents are made to watch, that right there is enough to make any humane person want to get rid of Saddam, at least me anyways. So all of you "doves" and anti-war idiots who don't want war with Saddam, yall just need to shut the ****ing hell up.

 

And you know what he does to his people???????? Where have you heard all this anyway?? You may say all that you want, but it is worth nothing unless you can prove it!

 

And btw, please watch your words. You are ruining the thread by flaming.

 

Einstein was a major advocate of making the atomic bomb, because at the time he saw it necessary. He wrote FDR telling him that the US should prusue the development of the Atomic bomb. He also consulted with the Navy on the development of the bomb.

 

Einstein was strongly against the creation of an atomic bomb, that's why he warned US that Germany was making one. Einstein warned the world again and again about the dangers of an atomic war.

 

Why are you so eager to distrust Bush, who hasn't done a thing to show that he can't be trusted, and trust Saddam who has shown he can't be trusted?

 

No one here has said that he/she trusts Saddam, and no one here does, I assume. But the point is that Bush can neither be trusted. He has already started like 2 or 3 wars now, hasen't he? I have no idea why this dangerous man is still president.

 

The point is that US had not needed to invade Japan, they had already lost the war.

 

Why does Crazy_Dog No. 3 show up as banned?

 

He still posts! I could not find anything that answered my question.

 

Notice that crazy_dog has over 1000 post, this means that he can have any title he wants, including "banned"

[Tie Guy]

Qui-Gon, i suggest you read the links posted before you say anything else, especially about einstein.

[Breton]

I did read the links before I posted, and there is nothing that says Einstein wanted atomic bombs, wich I know he did not.

[Admiral Odin]

I hate to tell you this but Bush can't start a war. Only Congress can. Fighting to this date has only been in Afghanistan. Although I believe US rangers are helping in the Phillippines, on an advisory role only.

 

About Einstien. Um, he did want the US to make the atomic bomb. Read the links. But I'll post exerpts.

 

"Believing that Germany might successfully develop an atomic bomb, Albert Einstein and other physicists persuaded President Franklin D. Roosevelt to establish a small research program"

 

 

"He consulted for the navy on the Manhattan Project during World War II, an action that went against his pacifist grain but seemed essential at the time because of the war's menace. "

 

"1939, at the request of a group of scientists, he wrote to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to stress the urgency of investigating the possible use of atomic energy in bombs"

 

Here is another link:

 

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D84988

 

During the war, Einstein was an advocate for making the bomb. He was instramental in getting the US to develop atomic bombs. Only afterwards (after world war II) did he believe his actions were a mistake, but it was to late.

[Artoo]

Qui-Gon I've seen horse**** more attractive than those lies you're trying to pass off as facts.

 

And you know what he does to his people???????? Where have you heard all this anyway?? You may say all that you want, but it is worth nothing unless you can prove it!

 

It's called "the news" there are several stations that carry it. You can also read about it in the paper, and if you really can't find it that way, search the internet, you'll find something. Here's one very reliable site.

 

the point is that Bush can neither be trusted. He has already started like 2 or 3 wars now, hasen't he? I have no idea why this dangerous man is still president.

 

You really seem to like ignoring facts don't you? You must live in your own little world, cause if anybody can count Bush has started exactly ONE, and it was against this one person, I don't know if you've heard of him, Osama Bin Laden? You know he was the one who only kinda ordered some of his loyal followers to hijack those jumbo jets and crash them into those buildings, oh what were they called? Oh yeah, The World Trade Center perhaps? Maybe "The Pentagon" rings a bell? Here's a site that will help you on this.

 

The point is that US had not needed to invade Japan, they had already lost the war.

 

Qui-Gon, I'll give you one tiny ounce of credit here. Japan, in all senses, had lost the war, BUT they would not have surrendered. In fact they never actually did surrender to the U.S. they said they would "halt the offensive" and it took the Emporer saying that to get everyone to finally stop. Even after that some islands that we had "hopped" that still had Japanese troops on them, just didn't surrender, and remained hostile. I wish I could link to an article explaining this for you, but this news was before the internet, and is not recorded online to my knowledge. Someone point a link towards me if they can find it.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If someone can find an article saying why Bush specifically shouldn't be "trusted" please put it out there, cause I know Qui-Gon won't even though he insists that we do.

 

In closing I have one simple phrase for you Qui-Gon.