Iraqi war

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I agreed with the war in Afghanistan (Someone had to clear up after us Soviets, among other reasons;) ), but not here.

 

 

BTW Jatt, I'm sure u're a nice guy and all but it's all talk. Admiral can prove for pro-war better.

 

 

 

 

Why am I giving credit to Admiral?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

[Tie Guy]

What the heck? Why'd you report all those posts?

[Artoo]

Someone delete that! It only restates all the other posts! I read it! It's spam and an eyesore of a spam at that!

 

"Be careful while carving your turkey or you may wind up with a pheasent." - Me

[Dagobahn Eagle]

the taliban is the only part of afganistan that should be attacked. i'm not talking about bin laden nd al quida (or however you spell it), i do think they should be attacked, but the people of afganistan have done nothing wrong, they're just caught in the middle. it's the central power, the government who support terrorism

 

Sorry. Off course I meant the Taliban.

 

About World War 2, well, sure the USA didn't go to war, but the theater was different and I'm not sure if comparing the Nazi regime with Saddam's regime makes for a good analogy. While the Nazis' intentions were too conquer the whole world and create a single "perfect race" of straight, intelligent, non-crippled christian whites, Saddam "merely" wants to invade Israel... or does he? Remember the Red Scare, with everyone believing, even "knowing " that the U.S.S.R. planned to invade and take over Europe, and in the end we realised that no solid evidence was presented for any such plans (although, as a result of incidents caused by both US and USSR, the Cold War eventually started)? I believe we are facing the same thing here; may historians refer to this period, from 9/11 to the end of Saddam, as something like the "Arabic Scare" (from the name of the group of countries, not the people residing in them)?

 

Yes, right now people die in Israel and Iraq thanks to Saddam Hussein. However, even more civilians will die when the NATO alliance countries invade. And after the war, they'll most likely be left with an unstable poppet Democracy like the one Afghanistan is currently having. Conditions may improve, but not by much, and personally, I don't think things will be quiet in Iraq for at least 50 years -which means that we're getting the same result from invading him as we would from waiting him out and have the UN and USA quickly move in delegates and diplomats and try to estabilish a Democratic government when Saddam dies or is assasinated.

 

Admiral:

 

Also think about what Saddam would gain from proving he didn't have these weapons.

 

1. Bush's trustworthiness would be hurt.

2. The UN might consider removing some of the sanctons

3. Saddam would gain some trust in the world community.

4. The US could be made into a war loving country

 

And there are more. What does he face by not proving that he has a these weapons.

 

1. War with the US, and probably other nations.

2. Being removed from power

3. Death

 

 

Actually, the consequences of not showing the USA the weapons would be the same as the ones he face for attacking another nation: War, regime change, and Capture or Death.

 

I agree it's suspicious he does not show us those weapons; after all, he's a dictator in a militant bandit state, and has already opened fire at his neighbouring nations with long-range weapons such as Long Range Scud Missiles. Actually, multiple sources have stated that he has these weapons (something I actually believe).

 

However, I don't believe he's hiding them because he plans to go to war with them. His reason might simply be that he doesn't want to have somebody to force him to remove those weapons, which he knows the U.N. and USA will force him to do they prove he has them. Consider that the USA would most likely also hide our atomic weapons if we knew that somebody would force us to part with them if they found out that we had them.

 

I agree it's a shame that people die in Israel because of Iraq, but think about the fact that Israel is actively oppressing a whole people within Israel -the Palestinians. The only way to stop suicide bombings in Israel is to give the Palestinians their own state ..something that Bush does not realise that he has to do.

 

What we need to consider is that the anti-Israeli suicide bombers are sponsored by... Saddam Hussein. This either means that Saddam wants the Palestinians to have their own state, which is unlikely as he would gain nothing from it, or that he simply uses the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a mean of getting civilians killed in Israel, effectively creating his own little mercenary group on Israeli ground.

 

Thus, if the grounds for suicide bombings stopped, Saddam would no longer be able to indirectly harm the Isrealis. Which means he would have to invade them, something he won't do because the USA will invade him if he does.

 

I believe everyone except George W. Bush understands that the only way of signifficantly decreasing the Israeli death toll is to give the Palestinians their own state. The USA is probably the only country that can force Israel to do this.

 

A war with Iraq is imminent, and my only hope is that by the time our next president is elected, more people in the USA will have changed sides like they did after the Vietnam war and will want the new President to preserve peace in the Arabian nations by means of Diplomacy: Peace created by Peaceful efforts.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Admiral Odin]

Bush was the first president to talk about creating a Palestanian state. All the others wanted Israel to just give up land but have no new country. Also Bush cannot force Israel to do it.

 

Saddam likes terrorist attacks in Israel because it keeps region unstable which suits him. He launched Scud missiles at them only to try an break up the colalition during the Gulf War. He is more interested in taking over countries like Saudi Arabie (oil rich countries).

 

The peace treaty states that Saddam would not create weapons of mass distruction and any he had would be destroyed. He has to prove that he has followed the treaty. It would be a different matter if not treaty existed.

 

I hope Bush is reelected to Office. I think he has done a great job.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You notice that it's only the people against the war who are trying to change the subject every other post to the U.S.'s problems? Even though this is a thread about the war, and not a thread about U.S. domestic problems?

 

Is this a flame or a statement?

 

What we're saying is that Bush should repair the USA before he repairs the Arabian countries and preserve life in the USA before preserving life in Iraq. This is not "changing the subject", but a worthy argument on why we should not go to war. If you think it's a poor argument, you argue against it instead of saying I should not have said it.

 

Admiral:

Saddam likes terrorist attacks in Israel because it keeps region unstable which suits him. He launched Scud missiles at them only to try an break up the colalition during the Gulf War. He is more interested in taking over countries like Saudi Arabie (oil rich countries).

 

You know he would never invade Saudi Arabia for several reasons. First of all, Saudi Arabia exports crude oil to many countries such as the USA. Which means that if he declares war on them, the USA will declare war on him -they'll simply have to because of the need for oil. Granted, if Saudi Arabia is captured, it might not badly hurt the United States, but oil prices would surely go up.

 

The peace treaty states that Saddam would not create weapons of mass distruction and any he had would be destroyed. He has to prove that he has followed the treaty. It would be a different matter if not treaty existed.

 

Yes, because then we would have to spend about a month making one . No matter if there is a treaty, Saddam knows relations would be hurt if he is found with these weapons, and that he eventually would be forced to be stripped of them.

 

I hope Bush is reelected to Office. I think he has done a great job.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you refer to the oncoming war, or to his "accomplishments" in the USA?

 

Jatt13, I looked at the page, and

 

"The compelling insight embraced by the decision to dislodge Saddam is that the war against terrorism cannot be won if the war against weapons of mass destruction is lost." Robert Zelnick 3.18.2002

 

Coming from a nation with mass destruction weapons, and a country that also refuses to throw these away, that sounds like nothing but a subject of ridicule.

 

“We now, after Sept. 11, have a graphic, clear understanding of what commercial airliners can do. We can’t wait until we have a graphic, clear understanding of what biological weapons or nuclear weapons can do before we do something about breaking that connection."

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Feb. 15, 2002

 

I don't see what rock these people have been living under, but we already have a "clear, graphic picture" of what they can do: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And when we invade Iraq, chances are we'll get another one -maybe on a US city.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

 

Coming from a nation with mass destruction weapons, and a country that also refuses to throw these away, that sounds like nothing but a subject of ridicule.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

 

 

Heh, good one.

[Breton]

Though some of you would think so, sniping Saddam will not make things very much better, it may actually make it worse. Because most of the people in Iraq fully supports him, and would give their life for him. This is probably because Saddams propaganda, but if they lose him, the Iraqi people will get mighty pissed, and they will get a new leader who is probably even worse than Saddam. So that option will not really solve much.

 

Dagobahn, about the Israel-Palestine thing: It would be extremely hard to part Israel into two if Palestine will have an own state. They would fight forever about who is going to get Jerusalem, and if they ever get done with that, they will start fighting over other territories both parts means belongs to them. The only solutions there are is that either they have to live in peace (wich we have already seen does not work) or someone have to remove all Israelian and Palestinian to another place, so that none gets the area (wich is not really a realistic suggestion).

[Artoo]

Is this a flame or a statement?

 

What we're saying is that Bush should repair the USA before he repairs the Arabian countries and preserve life in the USA before preserving life in Iraq. This is not "changing the subject", but a worthy argument on why we should not go to war. If you think it's a poor argument, you argue against it instead of saying I should not have said it.

 

Talk about tunnel vision.

 

I thought the title of this thread was, correct me if I'm blind, Iraqi War, not U.S. domestic problems. Those are the exact tactics democrats use when trying to come up with any reason why we shouldn't go to war. You need to step back and look at the big picture, if we just mind our own business, and try to fix our own domestic problems without checking a power-addict with a bad streak against the U.S., then it won't be that much longer before there's mutually assured destruction, or a massive outbreak of smallpox. This man hates America. He'd much rather attack us, than fix his own country.

 

By the way, that was a statement, and one of the truth at that.

 

You know he would never invade Saudi Arabia for several reasons. First of all, Saudi Arabia exports crude oil to many countries such as the USA. Which means that if he declares war on them, the USA will declare war on him -they'll simply have to because of the need for oil. Granted, if Saudi Arabia is captured, it might not badly hurt the United States, but oil prices would surely go up.

 

We didn't think he'd have the balls to invade Kuwait either, look what he did there, and for what? That's right, the OIL! He didn't think the U.S. had the balls to help Kuwait, but he was wrong.

 

Yes, because then we would have to spend about a month making one . No matter if there is a treaty, Saddam knows relations would be hurt if he is found with these weapons, and that he eventually would be forced to be stripped of them.

 

The point is not that we have as many weapons as them, the point is that he has none. If he has one, he'll launch it at us if we do nothing about it. This man lives on the terror he causes. And he won't be eventually found to have the weapons if he doesn't let anyone search for them!

 

Just out of curiosity, do you refer to the oncoming war, or to his "accomplishments" in the USA?

 

both, he's ousted an organization that finances terror, he helped America through a very tough time, and on top of it all, he's dealing with an economical recession. I'd call that doing a very good job. If he ousts Saddam, then he has done what the immortal democrat Clinton couldn't.

 

I don't see what rock these people have been living under, but we already have a "clear, graphic picture" of what they can do: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And when we invade Iraq, chances are we'll get another one -maybe on a US city.

 

Those nuclear weapons were several times less powerful than the ones that we build now. None of our H-Bombs and Biological/Chemical weapons have ever been used on populated areas. No one really knows exactly what effect they would have, and what reprecussions would unfold. One can guess at what would happen, but no one can really know what it would be like. Just how you could guess what would happen if someone flew a large airliner into the side of a building, but you don't know what would actually happen. And if you haven't heard, we aren't invading Iraq, we are enforcing the UN sanctions that he violated. You remember those, that supposed diplomacy, the peaceful agreement? It's not working with him, therefore the military has to go in and back it up.

 

Coming from a nation with mass destruction weapons, and a country that also refuses to throw these away, that sounds like nothing but a subject of ridicule.

 

OK then what would happen if we threw away our weapons of mass destruction? Anyone would be able to threaten us, that's why we have to make sure they get rid of their's first, and as of now, it aint happening. In fact I don't think it ever will happen, unless something like CIV2 happens and a micro something or other goes in and disarms everyone's nuclear weapons, but I don't think that's happening.

 

You just have to learn to take quotes in full context otherwise they lose their value. It' common practice among the church of christ when they here scripture applied to a lesson, they look up the scripture to make sure it's applied in context.

[Admiral Odin]

Artoo basically said exactly why I support Bush.

 

 

Though some of you would think so, sniping Saddam will not make things very much better, it may actually make it worse. Because most of the people in Iraq fully supports him, and would give their life for him. This is probably because Saddams propaganda, but if they lose him, the Iraqi people will get mighty pissed, and they will get a new leader who is probably even worse than Saddam. So that option will not really solve much.

 

If they love him so much then why during the Gulf War did Saddams loyal soldiers who would "give their life for him" surrender in to any US soldier they could find. They even surrendered to Journalist.

 

Or is it because in a recent election Saddam won? Lets forget that he was the only name on the ballet, and people were forced to vote for him.

 

Outside the republican guard most of Saddam's soldiers would rather surrender then die for him. Proof is the Gulf War.

 

As far as the rest of the people go I'm betting they don't like Saddam but are to afraid to say it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Havoc:

Who has once before invaded a neighboring country for Financial gain and greater influence and power within the global Oil market.

 

Didn't the USA fight this war with Spain/Cuba during the Spanish-American war over finances, oil, and territory?

 

I thought the title of this thread was, correct me if I'm blind, Iraqi War, not U.S. domestic problems. Those are the exact tactics democrats use when trying to come up with any reason why we shouldn't go to war.

 

You need to step back and look at the big picture, if we just mind our own business, and try to fix our own domestic problems without checking a power-addict with a bad streak against the U.S., then it won't be that much longer before there's mutually assured destruction, or a massive outbreak of smallpox. This man hates America. He'd much rather attack us, than fix his own country.

 

Yeah, that's the topic, and it translates into "should we go to war against Iraq or not". Being the one who posted the thread, I should know . Iraqi war just sounded shorter than "hey, let's list all the arguments we have regarding wheter or not the USA should go to war, then we'll have a big debate" -which would also be too long for the headline .

 

That we should concentrate on our own affairs is a wortyh argument, but if you want me to back it up, off course I will:

 

The USA needs money. Right now we've got all these people who are homeless because EnRon and all those other companies went broke. They are the ones who need money, and yet Bush spends millions of bucks on mobilizing our military.

 

Second, even if we topple Saddam, will that eradicate terrorism? Even if we do, there'll still be more terrorists and terrorist leaders out there, won't it? Even after we toppled Bin Laden and his regime, Al-Queida lives on, doesn't it? It's just so much more angry at us.

 

Oh, and I'm not a Democrat, but a loyal supporter of the Scandinavian/British/Canadian Constitutional Monarchy (not to be picky or anything ).

 

We didn't think he'd have the balls to invade Kuwait either, look what he did there, and for what? That's right, the OIL! He didn't think the U.S. had the balls to help Kuwait, but he was wrong.

 

Do eagles have balls (joking)?

 

The point is not that we have as many weapons as them, the point is that he has none. If he has one, he'll launch it at us if we do nothing about it. This man lives on the terror he causes. And he won't be eventually found to have the weapons if he doesn't let anyone search for them!

 

Even if we had a million nuclear weapons, he'd still be able to launch that single bomb at us. Also because everyone knows that the USA cannot use their nuclear weapons without creating a massive international outrage, which could even result in trade embagos and other forms of protest against the USA. Everyone would hate us. Simple as that. They cannot be used, even if somebody fires one at us, therefore they are obselete. Killing 1,000,000 innocents in the USA just does not justify killing 1,000,000 innocents in Iraq.

 

Invading the USA would just make him even more angry and towards the end of his regime, he will attempt to use it on the USA as a last effort to hurt us.

 

both, he's ousted an organization that finances terror, he helped America through a very tough time, and on top of it all, he's dealing with an economical recession. I'd call that doing a very good job. If he ousts Saddam, then he has done what the immortal democrat Clinton couldn't.

 

Couldn't do? Maybe he just didn't want to.

 

Those nuclear weapons were several times less powerful than the ones that we build now. None of our H-Bombs and Biological/Chemical weapons have ever been used on populated areas. No one really knows exactly what effect they would have, and what reprecussions would unfold. One can guess at what would happen, but no one can really know what it would be like. Just how you could guess what would happen if someone flew a large airliner into the side of a building, but you don't know what would actually happen. And if you haven't heard, we aren't invading Iraq, we are enforcing the UN sanctions that he violated. You remember those, that supposed diplomacy, the peaceful agreement? It's not working with him, therefore the military has to go in and back it up.

 

The USA also violates UN resolutions, such as the ones which makes us throw away nuclear weapons at a slow pace. That's as justified to us as breaking those resolutions are to Iraq: I agree with you that the US resolutions are there for a reason, but you cannot really say we should force someone else into following them

 

OK then what would happen if we threw away our weapons of mass destruction? Anyone would be able to threaten us, that's why we have to make sure they get rid of their's first, and as of now, it aint happening. In fact I don't think it ever will happen, unless something like CIV2 happens and a micro something or other goes in and disarms everyone's nuclear weapons, but I don't think that's happening.

 

That's a rather weak argument a year after the largest and most devastating terrorist attack took place on US soil... your nukes failed to protect the Twin Towers, the airliners, and the Pentagon. They also failed to protect the terrorist attack on the WTC 1 basement and the Oklahoma bombing.

 

Ps: Stop flaming me, everyone.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Artoo]

Heehee I wonder if Eagles have balls.

Oh and about the democrat thing, you have the views of an extreme liberal, which is basically where the democrat party is, also you're ideas you stated are those of the democrats, but you are even more extreme than them, they are passing the act to let the president go in with force to inspect for weapons. Read thosewords carefully, Go in with force to inspect the weapons, not invade. Just uphold the UN sanctions. That's what it's all about, we are not going "to war" as you call it.

 

Even if we had a million nuclear weapons, he'd still be able to launch that single bomb at us. Also because everyone knows that the USA cannot use their nuclear weapons without creating a massive international outrage, which could even result in trade embagos and other forms of protest against the USA. Everyone would hate us. Simple as that. They cannot be used, even if somebody fires one at us, therefore they are obselete. Killing 1,000,000 innocents in the USA just does not justify killing 1,000,000 innocents in Iraq.

 

And why couldn't they be used if someone fired one at us. We're a country too ya know, we got the right to wage war on countries that do things like openly attack us with nuclear warheads. Anyway, it's this ability to wipe them out which is keeping them from attacking us. It is our "big stick".

 

Our nuclear weapons are our muscles that everyone is able to see from far away. It's these muscles which make them think twice about attacking us. Otherwise they would come in and attack if they couldn't see these muscles. And only when they got in and had attack would they see our other muscles that are not so visible. Our Army, Navy, and Air Force. But then it's too late, they've already swung their fist (nuclear warhead). And they can't draw it away in time.

 

That is why it's important that the US maintane a nuclear arsenal.

 

Couldn't do? Maybe he just didn't want to.

 

And why wouldn't he want to? He's had his priorities messed up ever since he got his tally wacked! Saddam hasn't just started violating these UN sanctions, he has been for some time, Clinton just ignored it and got himself screwed!

 

The USA also violates UN resolutions, such as the ones which makes us throw away nuclear weapons at a slow pace. That's as justified to us as breaking those resolutions are to Iraq: I agree with you that the US resolutions are there for a reason, but you cannot really say we should force someone else into following them

 

OK, this is like comparing bats to blue whales cause they are both mammals! These are 2 completely different resolutions! The U.S. does not have a history of using weapons like these and invading neighboring countries. Iraq does. Therefore the UN wants to inspect to make sure he is disarming, but oh, we can't get in, what a shame oh well, let's go home.

 

This is not the way to handle the situation, this man will get his stockpile back, and he'll go after someone else! That's what the UN is trying to prevent, but they can't. So you support the UN, but you don't support us supporting the UN by going in and inspecting those sites. That is where your fault is.

 

That's a rather weak argument a year after the largest and most devastating terrorist attack took place on US soil... your nukes failed to protect the Twin Towers, the airliners, and the Pentagon. They also failed to protect the terrorist attack on the WTC 1 basement and the Oklahoma bombing.

 

Well, duh. What they did was called, for all respects suicide! We went in and we took them out as was our right after those attacks. And if you don't think holding nuclear weapons is a way to keep people from attacking you, look at the cold war.

 

That and the Oklahoma Bombing wasn't an act of terror, it was a criminal act by an american citizen. Big difference there.

[Jatt13]

The USA needs money. Right now we've got all these people who are homeless because EnRon and all those other companies went broke. They are the ones who need money, and yet Bush spends millions of bucks on mobilizing our military.

 

but if we concentrate all our efforts in helping all the homeless people get homes, then saddam nukes them all, what good will that do? i'm not saying it's a bad idea to help the poor, i'm all for it, i'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument.

 

And why couldn't they be used if someone fired one at us. We're a country too ya know, we got the right to wage war on countries that do things like openly attack us with nuclear warheads. Anyway, it's this ability to wipe them out which is keeping them from attacking us. It is our "big stick".

 

Our nuclear weapons are our muscles that everyone is able to see from far away. It's these muscles which make them think twice about attacking us. Otherwise they would come in and attack if they couldn't see these muscles. And only when they got in and had attack would they see our other muscles that are not so visible. Our Army, Navy, and Air Force. But then it's too late, they've already swung their fist (nuclear warhead). And they can't draw it away in time.

 

That is why it's important that the US maintane a nuclear arsenal.

 

i agree. if we get rid of all our weapons, then what's gonna stop people from attacking us left and right? from countries like iraq to people or groups like bin laden and al-quieda, there are plenty of people who hate us and wouldn't hesitate to drop a nuke on us if they could get one. but if we have nukes too, if they fire theirs then their mutual destruction is assured, and no matter how much they hate us they don't want that. sure, bin laden used kamikazees, but he didn't load his whole orginization into a plane to do it. they might be willing to sacrifice their own lives, but if everyone dies, who will continue the work?

 

Couldn't do? Maybe he just didn't want to.

 

then bush would still be a better president than clinton. if clinton didn't want to get an insane man who threatans the U.S.'s secruty out of a position of power, he's stupider than i thought he was.

 

That's a rather weak argument a year after the largest and most devastating terrorist attack took place on US soil... your nukes failed to protect the Twin Towers, the airliners, and the Pentagon. They also failed to protect the terrorist attack on the WTC 1 basement and the Oklahoma bombing.

 

What were we supposed to do? nuke the planes as they flew in? Al-Quieda is a terrorist group, not a country. we don't know where all their basses and comand centers are. we can't just nuke them. same with the wtc basement. and like artoo said, OK city was a crime commited by an american. what were we supposed to do there? nuke our own country? take out his house, along with everyone else's withen 10 or more miles? (i don't know exactly how big a nukes blast is, so i thought 10 miles was a reasonable guess. also, you must consider fallout, so that would kill a lot more people. )

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Artoo

And why couldn't they be used if someone fired one at us. We're a country too ya know, we got the right to wage war on countries that do things like openly attack us with nuclear warheads. Anyway, it's this ability to wipe them out which is keeping them from attacking us. It is our "big stick".

 

Our nuclear weapons are our muscles that everyone is able to see from far away. It's these muscles which make them think twice about attacking us. Otherwise they would come in and attack if they couldn't see these muscles. And only when they got in and had attack would they see our other muscles that are not so visible. Our Army, Navy, and Air Force. But then it's too late, they've already swung their fist (nuclear warhead). And they can't draw it away in time.

 

 

And why wouldn't he want to? He's had his priorities messed up ever since he got his tally wacked! Saddam hasn't just started violating these UN sanctions, he has been for some time, Clinton just ignored it and got himself screwed!

 

 

 

Basically that's degenerating to the attackers level. Thousands of civilians died, that doesn't mean that thousands more should die as an act of vengeance.

[duder]

A bandito is causing havoc in town, scaring the innocent hard working locals, stealing whatever he wants. A cowboy struts into town.

 

He squares up to the moustached bandito and shoots him in the heart.

 

The cowboy struts out of town.

 

Civilization is saved once again. Woo hoo.

 

 

 

The short version is the truth. The long version also makes for a good read.

 

 

 

Two scruffy looking mexicans are quarrelling over a bottle of whiskey. They are sat a table. In steps a lone cowboy.

 

Cowboy - Take this gun, and shoot the bandito sitting next to you.

 

Man - Why sir?

 

Cowboy - Take the gun and shoot him.

 

Man - Okay sir, I didn't like him anyway.

 

The man shoots the bandito, and looks back to the cowboy to give the gun back

 

The cowboy shoots him, and turns to the frightened onlookers

 

Cowboy - Well you all saw he had a gun!

 

The cowboy picks up the bottle of whiskey and leaves unrestricted

 

Civilization is saved. Woo hoo. But from who?

 

 

 

Tis a sad affair.

 

 

 

I'll leave you with a quote from Dr Karl Popper;

 

'For Democracy to defend itself it must adopt tolatarian attitudes.'

 

[Havoc Stryphe]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Havoc:

 

 

Didn't the USA fight this war with Spain/Cuba during the Spanish-American war over finances, oil, and territory?

 

Yes, only after the bombing of The Maine (and by the way, oil was yet unknown to be in texas at that time)

 

After my above concession, I'd like to ask a question of you: What is your point?

 

So has England, France, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain, Mongolia, The Vikings, Babylon, Macedonia, Egypt, Persians, Romans and the Greeks.

 

The key is simply this, it is not recent history, and none of the above listed offenders are being governed by the same people who commited those acts.

 

England and The U.S. have agreed to cease and desist all colonizing and annexing of neighboring lands (or distant for that matter) This is why Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remain as territories and not U.S States.

 

Your argument, though valid, is simply irrelevant and only serves to detract from our main argument of what to do with Saddam and Iraq.

 

Again, let me say this, Iraq is still governed by the parties that were directly involved in the un-provoked invasion of a neighboring country for financial gain and power in the global economy. Iraq is still governed by the parties responsible for firing long range missles into large civilian populated cities of a foreign country.

 

Your point is well said, but is irrelevant because the parties involved in the Spanish - American war are dead and gone. Likewise Napolean, Hitler, George the III, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Ghengis Khan, Eric the Red, Nebechenezzar, Ramses etc... are all gone. We cannot hold France, Germany, England, Russia, Rome, Mongolia, The vikings, Babylon, Egypt accountable for those acts, though wrong and unprovoked, nor can we hold a prejudice against those countries for their pasts.

[Admiral Odin]

England and The U.S. have agreed to cease and desist all colonizing and annexing of neighboring lands (or distant for that matter) This is why Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remain as territories and not U.S States.

 

Just for information purposese Puerto Rico, THe Virgin Islands and hell even Midway could become states, if they meat the requirements. Population size ect. The petition congress to be Annexed as a state and it could happen. Puerto Rico has voted in the past whether or not to petition for statehood. For this matter any country/province ect could in theory petition the US for statehood. New Foundland was actually considering doing this. Don't know if they still are.

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

 

Saddam already has tried to get Saudi Arabia. Before the Gulf War he told that country to give him money or they would be attacked. The US then sent in troops to protect Saudi Arabie. This was known as Desert Shield.

 

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

As far as the UN Resolutions concerning the US go; our stockpile is being lowered at a very slow rate. Mainly they are to stop testing and making new weapons.

 

If a country attacked the US with Nuclear weapons then we would launch our nukes in retalitation. We would have every right to do so.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

But like I said before, there is no need for further thousands of civilians deaths. Nuking back, tho u indeed have a right, would be reducing urself to thier level.

[Artoo]

Here is the smackdown argument for you. A "people's elbow" if you will.

 

But like I said before, there is no need for further thousands of civilians deaths. Nuking back, tho u indeed have a right, would be reducing urself to thier level.

 

OK, then why don't we invite them to nuke us by lowering our nuclear arsenal to nothing? Would you like it if anyone with "the bomb" could threaten the U.S. with assured destruction, and get anything they want from us? I like it a whole lot better with nobody threatening anyone thanks to mutually assured destruction. We use they're fear of death against them by showing them that if they choose to destroy us, then they shall be destroyed as well.

 

Personally I like not being threatened by any little country that has a nuclear warhead, but I don't know about you.

 

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

 

P.S. Eagle - I thought of another reason why you're not a democrat. All the common street democrats they interview on the news are against the war, but they don't know why. You however have half-reasons. I applaud you for being politically sound.

[Jatt13]

Just for information purposese Puerto Rico, THe Virgin Islands and hell even Midway could become states, if they meat the requirements. Population size ect. The petition congress to be Annexed as a state and it could happen. Puerto Rico has voted in the past whether or not to petition for statehood. For this matter any country/province ect could in theory petition the US for statehood. New Foundland was actually considering doing this. Don't know if they still are.

 

not to be arguing, really, but that's not the same as attacking and taking over somewhere, fighting a war for more territory, or even going and claiming more territory. that's just if someone wants to be part of the US, not if we want them to be part of the US.

 

But like I said before, there is no need for further thousands of civilians deaths. Nuking back, tho u indeed have a right, would be reducing urself to thier level.

 

we don't necissarily have plan to use it, just the threat of a nuklear weapon could be enough to dissuade any enemy. we don't have to use it. but if we get rid of it, we get rid of the fear factor.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes, only after the bombing of The Maine (and by the way, oil was yet unknown to be in texas at that time)

 

Actually, my US History textbook states that the USS Maine's hull war breached by an interior explosion.

 

[quot]Your argument, though valid, is simply irrelevant and only serves to detract from our main argument of what to do with Saddam and Iraq.

 

Yes, I guess so. Pulling back the argument.

 

If a country attacked the US with Nuclear weapons then we would launch our nukes in retalitation. We would have every right to do so.

 

Well, the scenario is:

 

1. The military governmnet of a bandit state launches a warhead at NYC, killing 1,000,000 civilians.

 

2. In retaliation, the military of the USA fires a nuke at the bandit state, killing 1,000,000 of their civilians ...instead of attempting to knock out their military installations and "bandit government".

 

"Okay, you killed my brother by shooting him, but instead of fighting you hand-to-hand for you to stop I shoot your innocent brother in retaliation."

 

we don't necissarily have plan to use it, just the threat of a nuklear weapon could be enough to dissuade any enemy. we don't have to use it. but if we get rid of it, we get rid of the fear factor.

 

I totally agree. My problem, though, is that we're not sure if the bandit states believe the the civilized, hi-tech, peaceful western world or the US people will let us use them. Also, most dictators do not care for a split second about their people suffering and dying -case of point, Saddam Hussein.

 

Let's just let our army be the Fear Factor, as it can actually wipe out their governmnet. If somebody knew we were going to hit the red button, they'd hide their whole government in some civilian city, cave, etc. like the Taliban and it'd either be impossible to find them, or we couldn't nuke them because then perhaps 1,000,000+ people would die.

 

P.S. Eagle - I thought of another reason why you're not a democrat. All the common street democrats they interview on the news are against the war, but they don't know why. You however have half-reasons. I applaud you for being politically sound.

 

Uh... okay... uh.. Thank you??

[Admiral Odin]

Jatt: I know. I was just throwing that tid pit of info out there since you brought up the subject.

 

As Far at the USS Maine is concerned this is what happened and what people thought happened.

 

"

Sending the battleship Maine on an ostensibly friendly visit to Cuba in January 1898 was part of this strategy. But the battleship blew up in Havana harbor at the cost of 266 lives, the consequence, it now seems clear, of spontaneous combustion in one of its magazines, not because of a Spanish or Cuban mine. The resulting domestic outcry probably made war inevitable"

 

Rest of the article:

 

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D35698

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

The US wouldn't attack civilian populations directly. First they would attack military installations to prevant any additional strikes. The government probably would be next. Civilian causalties would be an unfortunate side affect. Also our strike would be worse.

 

Currently the world (perhaps the US alone) has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth. The Worse thing that could happen now is for the nuclear arsenals to be made smaller. When the arsenals are small enough the threat of M.A.D. no longer exist, it would be possible to survive a nuclear stike. Countries would then be able to once again think about using nukes on each other again.

 

Now what is needed is to stop Nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of madmen like Saddam who would use them. This one of the reason for attacking Iraq.

 

As far as proof that the US would use such weapons, Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve that purpose.

[Raith_Seinar]

The USA seems to get its own way anyway so why dont we just blast the b@st@rds out of there?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Hey Raith, welcome to GB.com, I also live in the UK.

 

 

 

Rhett should be coming soon...