Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 The baby thing had nothing to do with Iraq, TIE Guy, it just was an argument against spanking . I think you're right on the whole inspector thing, though. We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The United States' goal is to disarm Iraq. What we need to do is find a way the United Nations can do this without military or para-military actions. Normally, people should do as the UN say. However, Iraq does not -which is, by the way, what that whole bandit state thing is about. The United Nations needs more power. Not temporary power, but permanent power to tell countries what do to. Right now, it's too weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle The baby thing had nothing to do with Iraq, TIE Guy, it just was an argument against spanking . Oh, ok. Oops. Well then i partially agree. Anyways. I don't think there is a way to do it without fighting. I mean, if there were, we'd be doing it. Iraq isn't going to disarm peacefully, the past 10 years have proven that. The only thing left is war, and thats why we are pushing for it. Why give Saddam any more time to prepare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I mostly agree. YOu want to avoid war but if you don't back up policy then you are doing nothing more than premoting deaths of innocent people. War is serious but oppresion is more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Anyways. I don't think there is a way to do it without fighting. I mean, if there were, we'd be doing it. Iraq isn't going to disarm peacefully, the past 10 years have proven that. The only thing left is war, and thats why we are pushing for it. Why give Saddam any more time to prepare? Going along with what Tie Guy said, people at the rallies and anti-war people in general don't seem to be suggesting an alternative. What's a president to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Fergie THis "ruling body" seems more like the Articles of Confederation where the states controlled all the power and Congress couldn't do squat. They couldn't enfoce anything. If you can't rule yourself no one will respect you. In other words if the UN can get its own people to do anything how will they get others do obey them? Now that's a strange idea. Making one government over the entire world with the Senate and House being world leaders...thing is would it be a democratic government? If it is...you can bet the whole thing would fall apart within days. I just don't see how this would ever happen unless we became more aware of the galaxy at large so that we focus on an intergalactic enemy more than on a human and Earthly enemy. I don't see the governments of the world uniting in the way the US did at all. The US had a distinct factor that the UN would not have...that is that they were prevalently Anglo-Saxon and Christian and almost all spoke one language. Those are incredible barriers to hurdle before any kind of world-wide unity can be achieved. (BTW, totally theoretical post...just an interesting concept really...who knows...in a thousand years Earth could be united...or it could just be floating as a dead rock in space because it was raked with war...*sci-fi music plays in background*) ----------------------------------- I wonder how this conflict would be viewed if it were the Democrats doing this. To me if Al Gore had won the election, I see the situation to be almost exactly the same. What little choices have presented themselves? Not many, other than the state of the economy. You must remember that the Democrats and Clinton were very active in military affairs too. They were involved in many conflict throughout the 8 years including an extended bombing of Iraq after the refusal to let inspectors in. The Democrats would have made much the same decisions as the Republicans have, but they wouldn't have had the Bush connection at their forefront and the thought of a personal vendetta would not be so prevalent. Thus I think the republicans have been unfairly judged by the public. True they have not done much with the economy, but in foreign affairs they have done the best they could with all of the events of late. I'd rather see Bush taken out of office for fumbling the economy rather than being accused of fumbling foreign affairs. The first arguement has merrit, the second is a pathet attempt at mudslinging and is grossly untrue. All of that said I do think Bush should not win the next election because of his mishandling of the economy (relying on war economy WAY too much)...but I'd be tempted to back him depending on the Democratic Candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Exactly, inspections are working, and they are gettting closer to finding out what Iraq has, WMDs. Look, it would make absolutely no sense for Iraq to be hiding its proof of compliance with 1441. If they had any proof, they would have fully cooperated and shown it by now. I think I'll use the great Nute Gunray/Padme Amidala quote from ep1 here: "You assume too much". The weapon inspectors job isn't to find out where Iraq has WoMDs, it is to find out whether or not they have them at all. And as I said earlier, they haven't found anything yet. Ok, so the inspecters are making progress, great. That means when they finally succeed, then we go to war. So what does that gain us? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! No. When they finally have suceeded, then we make them disarm (if that is nessisary). Saddam has been shown much more cooperative when a certain pressure has been put against him. We need to maintain that pressure. I don't want war, but i can see clearly enough that it is neccessary at this point. Inspecters are worthless, merely a ploy by the UN to stall the decision of war and ultimately and unintentionally help Iraq. You assume that Iraq has WoMDs. You assume that there is no other way than war. You assume that Saddam's intension is to use WoMDs. You assume that your president gives you all the facts. Oh, and Eagle, you're slapping a baby analogy doesn't fit. A baby doesn't know what it is doing is wrong, and it can't fully comprehend and learn that what it is doing is bad (which crying isn't even neccessarily so). Saddam, on the other hand, has been warned fully, and given time to come forward. He hasn't. He has continued for over 10 years to disobey the UN and hide his weapons and/or proof of their destruction. He knows what he is doing is wrong, and he has done it before. Therefore he should be punished. There is no right. There is no wrong. There are only opinions. Going along with what Tie Guy said, people at the rallies and anti-war people in general don't seem to be suggesting an alternative. What's a president to do? You want an alternative? Increase the number of inspections while maintaining the military pressure on Iraq by getting a UN peace force in there. Increase diplomatic contact with Iraq, remove the sanctions that only harms the civillians to decrease Iraqian people's hate against the west. Then it might very well come to a peaceful solution. This is mostly what France proposed too, but then US media yells on about France and Germany siding with Saddam, and Bush calls them traitors. This naive black-white thinking makes me sick. Loads of people all over Europe has today demonstrated against the US warmongering (750 000 only in London). To say it this way: Take a hint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn I think I'll use the great Nute Gunray/Padme Amidala quote from ep1 here: "You assume too much". The weapon inspectors job isn't to find out where Iraq has WoMDs, it is to find out whether or not they have them at all. And as I said earlier, they haven't found anything yet. No. When they finally have suceeded, then we make them disarm (if that is nessisary). Saddam has been shown much more cooperative when a certain pressure has been put against him. We need to maintain that pressure. You assume that Iraq has WoMDs. You assume that there is no other way than war. You assume that Saddam's intension is to use WoMDs. You assume that your president gives you all the facts. Alright. First, let's get things straight. Whether Iraq has WMDs right now, he had them. That's why we needed a resolution to disarm him. Its beyond discussion, he had them. Now, you are the one assuming he has gotten rid of them. He had them, he hasn't shown he's destroyed them, so who's the one assuming more here? Its you, and yours is much more deadly. Second, you are being duped by Saddam, and so is much of the World. In case you haven't noticed, Saddam gives only enough to keep the inspections going, to make them seem like they are making progress when he hasn't shown us anything. That way he buys more time to hide his weapons and prepare for an attack. I must applaud him for doing it so subtly, but it needs to be stopped. The inspecters are there to prove two things. First, the destruction of Saddam wepaons. If they could prove this then ntire thing would be over, but its not, because they can't. Second, to prove that Iraq does not fully comply with Inspecters, which he hasn't. Sure, he's made minor concessions to keep things stalled, but he hasn't given anything substantial, and he certainly hasn't given any proof of destruction of weapons. Therefore, if we increase inspections then that can lead to only one thing, finding the weapons, which is the goal, no? So, then what? We hope Saddam doesn't make a fit and attack us first? He's not going to give up his weapons, and he's not going show us any proof he doesn't have any. Our only choice is war. Its sad, but true. As long as the inspecters are still there, Iraq is free to act however it pleases. Saddam now knows that the UN doesn't want to do anything, and that's why he can stop and delay inspecters whereever he pleases with only the slight shifting of position in the UN diplomat's chairs. And how does increased diplomacy do anything for us? Iraqi envoys deny everything but can prove nothing otherwise. They aren't straightforward with us, and they answer to Saddam and his execution squads. He clearly doesn't want to negotiate with us or he would have by now. Instead he mocks us with the blatently fake weapons declaration that mostly consisted of old reports known to be false. And i hate to say this, but if half the world told you to jump off a cliff, would you? Just because lots of people disagree with you, doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean, the Christian church started with 120 people, and everyone else said they were wrong. Should they have given up? What about when all the scientists but one said the World was flat, were they right? Just because part of London or what not doesn't agree with us doesn't mean we are wrong. It means they disagree, nothing more. The average European (or American for that matter), knows nothing about this war and the reasons behind it except that it is war, it is Bush, and it is the US. That is enough for them to protest. and they can call it warmongering if they want, i like to call is protecting the rest of the world's butt from a despotic leader who kills his own citizens with biological and chemical weapons. Maybe you like to base your opinion on what 750000 people in London say, but personally, i like to think for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 i have two points... they may have been brought up before cuz i refuse to read liberal BS without being able to swear... they also must have IQ's equal to half of mine *i dont argue with many liberals* 1... we dont care what europe thinks... this isnt their war... and we have nukes... lets see what they do to us ... btw... our constitution gives us the power to attack whoever, we dont hafta wait on the stupid UN to honor their own agreements with sadam and attack when he violates them. 2... anybody still on AOL is a dumbass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Fergie Different countries are reponsible for different things. I don't remember which country that is responsible for helicopters, but they are using them so the inspectors have to drive in these hummers with UN painted on the side, so that they lose all sprise and when they get to a factory they have to wait an hour to get in. THis "ruling body" seems more like the Articles of Confederation where the states controlled all the power and Congress couldn't do squat. They couldn't enfoce anything. If you can't rule yourself no one will respect you. In other words if the UN can get its own people to do anything how will they get others do obey them? i just got to this... why do we want global government anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Frankly, I'm not too excited about a war with Iraq, anymore than the next guy, but let's seriously look at this information. Supposedly this poll is of EUROPEAN members of AOL (a big ISP for sure.. but just one of many, and its called something different in Europe, isn't it? Since it's "America" online). The sampling skews the views. So it doesn't necessarily represent the views of all Europeans, and for all we know it only represents the views of 13 year old boys living at home (sorry for the obvious AOL joke!). Next, the questions are extremes.. the wording of the questions in a poll always matter. Either the US is perfect, evil, or means well. Not a lot of choices there. Why not ask: do you support the United States desire to go to war with Iraq? Yes. No. Not sure. That would be a much better poll. Asking a judgement of the entire country would then reveal a "glass houses" mentality.. because all of those countries have been involved in wars and victims of terrorist actions within their borders in the last 50 years, if not more recently. Heck, didn't all three have troops in Afgahnistan? Now I'm not saying the two situations are identical, but its another factor to consider. Frankly, I think a lot of people DO stereotype countries based on leaders (and not just during a big war like WW2). I'm sure people look at the US and think everyone is a little Bush, or at Iraq and see everyone as a little Saddam. That's not fair. Recall that 98-100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam (though he's a dictator, so go figure what happens if you vote against him!), and only about 25% of Americans voted for Bush (and only half of eligable Americans even voted in the presidential election). Even voting for somebody doesn't guarentee you agree with all of their views. People constantly complain about politicians "breaking their campaign promises." They're free agents, capable of changing their minds, and they make mistakes like everyone else, and have their own personal biases and weaknesses. That's why we have checks and balances and the ability to vote in new people in the US, because corruption is inevitable... sadly. I would suggest as much effort be put forth as possible to resolve the situation with Iraq without blood shed. If it comes to war though, I suggest those involved do it right.. get the job done. Don't screw it up like last time and accomplish nothing but kill a bunch of random people. Frankly, I think a one world government (as envisioned by the highly naive, or extremely power-mad) would be unweildy and undesirable for the primary reason that corruption would have even more long-reaching consequences. Just imagine a corrupt world president... can you say "dictatorship"? Getting due process would be even more difficult, considering the burecratic deadlock and nonsense most of us already go through in big government countries. Either that, or we have a weak, mostly advisorly council like the UN which isn't perfect either. I'm all for people dialouging, but having one central body controlling the entire world isn't going to end up in utopia, as long as human nature stays the same. Sorry for repeating anything others have said, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong (to quote Dennis Miller)... ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterEd Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Ok Jedi_Masta, we do NOT have nukes. After the Cold War, we disassembled them all after a treaty that if Russia disarms, we would too. Other countries shouldn't base America on our leaders, but the freedoms of the people. Quoting my World Civ. teacher, "The only way to tell if a country is good, are two questions. How well are the children treated, and how well are the elderly treated." People sterio-type us, viewing us as brutes, and war like characters, but that is not all true. Sure we are one of the strongest countries on the planet, but that's all they see, a power hungry monster (in their eyes). What some American's see is a new form of world peace. Besides, what America is doing is protecting future generations from things like this. If things have been repeated in my reply, or do not make sense then I apoligize. Been focusing on the storm heading towards my way. For me, as long as they give freedoms to the people, especially the black population and the Native Americans (Proud to be a Native American!), America is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA i have two points... they may have been brought up before cuz i refuse to read liberal BS without being able to swear... they also must have IQ's equal to half of mine *i dont argue with many liberals* I just want to ignore such idiotic and baseless statements about "I'm smarter than you, I'm right and you're just stupid". Please argue instead of acting like a jerk. 1... we dont care what europe thinks... this isnt their war... and we have nukes... lets see what they do to us ... btw... our constitution gives us the power to attack whoever, we dont hafta wait on the stupid UN to honor their own agreements with sadam and attack when he violates them. If all americans thought as you do, US will be attacked and beaten by the rest of the world within the next 20 years. I'm not going to say any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Do I want a worldwide government? HELL YES!!!!! It would bring us closer to the Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by JediMasterEd Ok Jedi_Masta, we do NOT have nukes. After the Cold War, we disassembled them all after a treaty that if Russia disarms, we would too. THe United States does have nuclear weapons. We have a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons. Some are being disarmed but not every single one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 We don't care what Eurasia thinks... this isn't their war... Bull. If it's the USA's war, let the USA fight it. Right now Bush and Rumsfield is trying to pull the entire NATO alliance into it and promise to cast holy Hell on the NATO nations that say they don't want to be involved. The nations in the defensive alliance of NATO have all right to say no to participation in a pre-emptive invasion. If Iraq suddenly invaded Turkey, the whole NATO alliance would have to attack Iraq to protect Turkey. Ok Jedi_Masta, we do NOT have nukes.(...)Other countries shouldn't base America on our leaders, but the freedoms of the people. Quoting my World Civ. teacher, "The only way to tell if a country is good, are two questions. How well are the children treated, and how well are the elderly treated." Not on leaders, but on freedoms? I think you're as way off as you can be, as they're practically the same thing. You are right in a way, though; you should not judge the people by the decisions of their leaders (otherwise, I'd hate all Iraqis, Chechens, and Afghans). The USA doesn't have nuclear weapons? Then what are those silos in North Dakota filled with? Wheat, rice, and corn? Kids and elderly: Search for my thread on American elementary schools. A minority legally does some really nasty things to the students. Spanking has to go to, in my opinion. Point is, Eurasians in general treat their children more mildly than the Americans. Which means that if we really should judge you by the way you treat your children, we have the right to judge you a harsh nation (by our standards). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn If all americans thought as you do, US will be attacked and beaten by the rest of the world within the next 20 years. I'm not going to say any more. why do we have to listen to the UN anyway... Iraq dosent lsten to the un... and the UN isnt out attacking them... they want to sit there and let iraq build up before we take them... much like germany did... NATO should be all over this as well as the UN. Im a conservative... i dont feel or take pity on anything... i tell you it like it is... if you want to have a long hard discussion on this instead of sitting here and insulting my methods... please talk to me on MSN as Jedimasta1217@hotmail.com or on AIM as afishineverypnut i love a good debate read the rest of my post... the main reason we are attempting to keep these people from getting Nukes is because we dont want to hafto deal with them purely diplomatically. we have nuclear weopons... if the russians think we dont they must be blind... the only day the US will ever be invaded now is when there is a really good global nuke defence system that can blow up all nukes above the stratosphere ore we are defeated by a terrorist state... propose other ideas if you have any ill prove them wrong the IQ thing simply comes from the fact that I think the liberal ideas are completely false and allmost hippocritical as in... we want big government, but a strong UN wont work because its too big I challenge any of you to bash bush here... because I will shoot your points down so bring it on. ... qui gon... im serious... if u want a debate contact me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.