Andy867 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Ok, to start of the trial period, what is everyone's thoughts about Iraq/Saddam and the idea of ALSO the possible threat of war in N. Korea? I think its ridiculous that Saddam is still in power, and the idea of going to war on 2 different fronts. The whole N Korea topic could easily be silenced by just sending in diplomats to negotiate an agreement to where the US would have some presense in the Nuclear Plant at all times to prevent any kind of discrepensies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 After reviewing everything that is happening I have come to realize that Bush is kinda power hungry or just trying to make everything safe in the world. I still cannot decide which for sometimes he seems to be leaning to power hungry and then back again. I DO NOT think that there will be a war in N. Korea anytime soon. N. Korea is actually not near the top of our concern list because we are not near the top of their "htred and who we would try to blow up first list". The top countries on that are actually places like S. Korea. Bush has already tried to send in diplomats but now he has just decided to let N. Korea decide if they really want to do this and possibly get in a war with the world because N. Korea has very little allies (even if one of them is a huge country *China*) I think that Bush is doing the right thing for the N. Korea situation because it is not the Us's main concern at the moment. I do however think that Bush is pushing the envelope with Iraq. Just becuase there is the ASSUMPTION of nuclear weapons in Iraq does not mean send a "ton of troops with enough firepower to blow up Iraq" there. I wonder if he has any idea how many people he worries nearly to death everyday for fear of their husband, daughter, son, brother, wife etc. getting in a war and getting killed. Although I see no war on the horizen, or anytime soon because of the no show of the nuclear weapons, people still worry themselves to death over things like that. Saddam, in my opinion, has just hidden the nuclear weapons in that month time perios where he would not allow inspectors in even when the UN told him to. They will be found someday (cannot say whether soon or very far away) but lets just hope its not to late because we ARE on the top of Iraq's "hated" list along with Isreal. Now about Saddam, the ONLY reason he is still in power is because of his command of fear over his people. He executes people, burns houses... stuff like that to keep them under his control... most DON'T like him but there are some who are willing to die for him just like there were many who were willing to die for Bin Laden. The only way that we are going to get Saddam out of power is if we start a war and finish it with the "creation" of a new government like we did in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Is Iraq not another country that the US gave weapons to in the 80's and is now having some form of trouble with them? It seems eerily close to Executive Orders by Tom Clancy, a conflict in the Middle East and Asia. It never wonders to amaze me how the US voted him President.... Anyway, I don't see the US being able to sustain conflicts, of a major kind anyway, on two fronts. It is the easiest way for the US to fail in one of the theatres. The only way to remove people like Saddam, and to completely change the regime, is to kill them. It isn't overly accepted in the Geneva convention that Heads of State are legitimate targets for assassination to change regimes. It is definitely a position of wait and see for me, as I have no idea when Dubya will change his mind and do something stupid that sets the ball rolling..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 And what about Bush? That guy is a loon. He wants to be the good guy and get rid of all evil ... wich he can't. America has weapons of mass destruction. Maybe not a nuclear bomb, but Bush has the power to lay Bagdad into ashes. Bush will not end a regime, but he will start a worldwide war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 yes - if i wish he would stop threatening war. "do or do not - there is no try" He would be smarter to shut up. I'm not saying you know that North Korea isn't doing anything bad to warrant a war or iraq for that matter - but...I'm getting sick of Bush saying all these speaches about Axis's of Evil etc it is like he is trying to prove to us why he is justified in doing this. That only makes me loose confidence in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 N.Korea has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq has the same. We know that Korea has nukes. We're most certainly sure that Iraq does not (though they have biochemical weapons). Korea has given US the finger, ashave Iraq. Il Jong is just as much a tyrant as Saddam, and does just as bad things to him as he. Yet USA is using the kid gloves on him. Saddam HAS to go, even though he doesn't even have nukes. I'm wondering... Attacking Korea might entice them to throw nukes on American soldiers. Not good. Also, the terrain is unfavourable as well. And I guess the US don't like to piss in China's backyard either. An attack on Iraq will be a pushover for USA. Korea has a much larger army and as well trained and equipped as they can financially allow - attacking Korea will be huge risk in terms of an effective victory. Saddam is ignoring UN imposed regulations. Il Jung is not, but that's because UN hasn't imposed any on him yet. Both have to change their rule for a better world, but war is not always the best solution. If the US attacks Iraq (which they most likely will), they're going to get even more civil unrest down there. If they insert a US enforced rule in the place of Saddam, it'll likely create chaos over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 Obviously, there is no point to War anyways. I mean, fighting each other for rock and the compound h2o. Not exactly impressive to those "little green men." No wonder why they barely make their appearances. They don't see Earth as a promising force. They will just wait till we Nuke ourselves 3 times over before needing to land publically, and by that time, we won't have ANY armies or weapons to defend. But anyways, you all have made fine points, from saying that Bush is a loon, even if I may disagree, to saddam not following UN inspections, even though Blix from the UN has said that the inspections teams have yet to find any evidence of Iraq possessing any "smoking gun". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais Attacking Korea might entice them to throw nukes on American soldiers. Not good. Also, the terrain is unfavourable as well. And I guess the US don't like to piss in China's backyard either. An attack on Iraq will be a pushover for USA. Korea has a much larger army and as well trained and equipped as they can financially allow - attacking Korea will be huge risk in terms of an effective victory. That's why I said that the US is not going to attack N Korea because they are NOT our main concern at the moment. We are not going to attack unless they do something drastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast That's why I said that the US is not going to attack N Korea because they are NOT our main concern at the moment. We are not going to attack unless they do something drastic. But don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of the US? Bush is trying to remove Saddam from power because he's a brutal dictator, and because he has very dangerous weapons. Well, NK has just as bad a dicatator and even more dangerous weapons (nukes). If NK wanted to launch an attack on USA, it'd be far easier for them than for Iraq. Spy satellites can pick up any kind of military build up in the middle east, but with NK's terrain and underground tunnels, it's not very easy. Bush attacking Saddam instead of Il Jung only shows his ability to use the UN as a bogeyman for more oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkum Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I live in America and I wonder the same thing the whole world wonders: what the hell is he doing in office? lol. Amyways, on the whole Iraq issue: I think it's all right if Bush goes into Iraq to REMOVE Saddam from his position. That's good. Saddam is oppressive against his people and should be removed, so i dont have a problem with Bush attempting to remove Saddam. On the North Korea issue: I think we should NEGOTIATE first. Why the hell does anyone want to go t war first? No one likes war, no one. We should try to negotiate with North Korea, It wont be a good idea that we have to fight a war on 2 fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XWING5 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 President Bush is only taking measures right now that suggests to Saddam that we mean business. It's almost like he is daring Hussein to do something stupid. He isn't going to attack without provocation, but rather with intimidation on all fronts. If not effective in weakening his regime :, it should certainly work on his citizens - the same citizens that threw their hands up in the air at the first sign of a US troop during Desert Storm. This guy Hussein needs to be removed. He is an awful person to his own people and even if he doesn't have WMD aimed directly at us. But geez, North Korea is far more scarier to me than the Mid East. Those Taliban radicals attacked us for a terribly stupid, awful reason. But at least it was a reason. NK seems like the kind of place that would just like to screw everyone just because they could. Hope I am wrong though. But given the circumstances, what would you do? I think he is doing what he thinks is right and I will support him. Though I, like everyone else, have my questions. I just believe that he will do what he truly thinks is best. I have way more faith in his character than clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais But don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of the US? Well, NK has just as bad a dicatator and even more dangerous weapons (nukes). If NK wanted to launch an attack on USA, it'd be far easier for them than for Iraq. I don't understand how the US is being hypocritical. The US is not on the top list for NK and their "nukes". Yes it is a very big concern but the US is facing a country that very likely has nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction and would use them in less than a heartbeat on the US if they had the chance. (Iraq) NK has actually stated that they would not use the weapons on the US unless we started a war which is why Bush and everyone is taking it VERY slow. That's why there is no movement of troops to NK for fear of provoking them to use nukes that we KNOW they have or can make very quickly. The US is more concerned with Saddam because of that 2 month time period when he firmly would not allow UN inspectors to come in. That gave him loads of time to hide anything that would provoke the US to action. And the fact that we are #1 on their list along with Isreal to destroy... then yes it makes it the main concern. Yes I agree with you that oil is also a factor in the Iraq situation, but why wouldn't it be? That area of the world has the largest deposits of oil in the world by a long shot and it would nearly destroy the economy if we were to lose that. Alaska does have oil but the environmentalists have firmly stated that it would destroy wildlife if we were to excavate it and a law has been passed I think in which it says that we can't get oil from Alaska which is why we don't. So yes I agree that oil is a big factor. Originally posted by Arkum I live in America and I wonder the same thing the whole world wonders: what the hell is he doing in office? lol. I live in America and I don't wonder that. He is in office at one of the roughest times in American history and he's doing a very good job of it. Could you please go into more detail about why you don't like Bush and why the "whole world" doesn't like him? And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkum Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Response to Reborn Outcast: I don't hate Bush. When I said: 'what the hell is this guy doing in office?' I meant that I was surprised that he still has support form Congress, I didn't think people would support his decision to remove Saddam. I guess I chose a wrong choice of words. Forget I said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Arkum Response to Reborn Outcast: I don't hate Bush. When I said: 'what the hell is this guy doing in office?' I meant that I was surprised that he still has support form Congress, I didn't think people would support his decision to remove Saddam. I guess I chose a wrong choice of words. Forget I said that. No no no its my fault because I misunderstood you, my bad. Now that I get what your saying I have to agree with you becasue he has been doing some strange things lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by razorace We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again. Yes I agree completely and that's why we should just let things run in NK while taking a diplomatic stance and see what happens. NK will not attack us if we don't attack them because they have said that thye want to finish this diplomatically. Besides, as my Social Studies teacher once joked, "China's army is so big that it could walk across the sea to us." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakin_Solo Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Okay im a bit stuck with this one. Do you think the World, or more importantly Asian countries like China, Japan and russia have to deal with north Korea? And what do Americans think of NK threatening to go to war with the USA if sanctions are put in place... Im pretty sure if we do go to war with them, this could turn to nuclear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Iraq: War necessary? NK is more likely to attack than Iraq. They have significantly more destructive weapons than Iraq. They could be massing for an attack right now without us knowing. Their president is just as much a tyrant as Saddam. I fail to see why Bush wants to war with Iraq so much, but still haven't taken off the kid gloves when dealing with Il Jung. War is sometimes necessary to ensure peace. Especially when talking peace on a global scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Young David Bush will not end a regime, but he will start a worldwide war. "You are either with us or against us." - G. W. Bush Is that a world war I hear? I think that it is... I have way more faith in his character than clinton. WTF? Clinton was a great el Presidenté, by US standards. If they hadn't been so thick in the Middle East, he could have ensured peace down there. In short: I don't give a blessed thing about his character (of course if he "relieved" the US of money for his "retirement fund", matters would be different). What I find troubleing in an el Presidenté is not lack of character, but lack of brains, which GWB unfortunately seems to suffer from. And the fact that we are #1 on their list along with Isreal to destroy... then yes it makes it the main concern. Well, Israel is not exactly worthy of our protection. Note that "Israel does not equal Israeli". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by razorace We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again. And China became a superpower when? Sure, they have nukes and a big army, but I don't believe that they have the economic or technological capacity to survive a war. That area of the world has the largest deposits of oil in the world by a long shot and it would nearly destroy the economy if we were to lose that. I don't think that the oil flow will stop anytime soon. Why? Because the OPEC can't afford it half as well as the West can. a law has been passed I think in which it says that we can't get oil from Alaska which is why we don't. I don't think that you are right about that. Last thing I heard (from sciam (I don't really get much other news on that part of US policy, since the European media have a habit of focusing on how WWIII is going)) was that a limited, but no less damaging drilling had been allowed, or was about to be allowed. But maybe I don't remember right? And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea. Gee, since when did it become unnormal to try to negotiate with someone who actually has a chance of beating you. Even Christianity does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais I fail to see why Bush wants to war with Iraq so much, but still haven't taken off the kid gloves when dealing with Il Jung. Saddam: Oil. Il Jung: Plutonium. Hmmm... Wonder why, wonder why... Seriously, though, Old man Saddam can't win and can't break even. While I don't think that NK has a real chance of winning, it just may have a chance of breaking even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar And China became a superpower when? Sure, they have nukes and a big army, but I don't believe that they have the economic or technological capacity to survive a war. Well, it depends on how you define a superpower. I think it counts when the particular country has kicked the US's ass in two seperate "wars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Saddam: Oil. Il Jung: Plutonium. Hmmm... Wonder why, wonder why... Yes. But at least he should be honest about his "best intentions" instead of stating that he's taking actions against Saddam because "he has very dangerous weapons and he's a loonie". Why not just admit that he's using the UN for his corporation's interests Knows it's not going to happen - Jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by razorace Well, it depends on how you define a superpower. I think it counts when the particular country has kicked the US's ass in two seperate "wars". And which "wars" would this be? Enlighten me here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar I don't think that you are right about that. Last thing I heard (from sciam (I don't really get much other news on that part of US policy, since the European media have a habit of focusing on how WWIII is going)) was that a limited, but no less damaging drilling had been allowed, or was about to be allowed. But maybe I don't remember right? Gee, since when did it become unnormal to try to negotiate with someone who actually has a chance of beating you. Even Christianity does that. I stand corrected on the oil from Alaska. But not much oil is being taken out there so... Ah I see you left out my grin face (which implies a joke) when you quoted me in saying... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.