Do you think Iraq or North Korea will attack us?

[swphreak]

You know what? What happened to the Monroe Doctirne?

 

Didn't it basically say leave us alone, and we leave you alone? I'm sure there are a few times when we didn't abaide by that......

 

P.S. I just learned about the Doctrine today in American History. i learned something!!!!

[Cmdr. Cracken]

I'm guessing was phased out after the end of the Second World War, which proved that the US couldn't just let the world do whatever it wants. Hence, the U.N. with our involvment with the UN, we couldn't really DO that.

[Kuuki]

Yeah, I think that this is BS

 

someone start killing people in some war, cus all this 'peace' **** is going for too long.

yeah it'll be nice to have peace, and not bombs droping on us (which isnt a ncie thing ), but countries are just going to keep having anti-american rallies and creating missles to point at any country that doesn agree with theirs, including ours

 

 

ITS BULLFRIKEN****!!

[Nute Gunray]

How about you talk to the Iraqis themselves. At the big london protest, a ton of Iraqi nationals wanted to address the crowd and weren't allowed. Why? because they want the war bad. One of them was quoted as saying "When you're being tortured, you're not fussy about who comes to your rescue."

I don't care about weapons or oil or anything. Slap the Baath party now. Saddam needs dead. This should have been done in 1998. Destroy Iraq's dictatorship now before it's another North Korea. Anything the US installs is going to better than what Iraq has, even if it sucks.

Nations that the US put a US general in charge of before turning over to the natives have a good track record, I might add. We've done it twice. Those countries were Germany and Japan.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

not only that, but now UN credibility is up for grabs. if the UN backs down on the resolution passed in Sept. 2002, the UN will llse what credibility it had, and nations like N. Korea will push forward with it's intents on weapons of mass destruction. WHich, if sold to terrorists, could spell terrible consequences to those on the recieving end. it's something we couldn't allow. what if a British city was nuked?

or Japanese?

Or German?

Or Greek?

Or Isreali?

Or the USA?

 

What would you do then? hindsight would be a full 20/20.

[Deac]

This should have been done in 1998

 

This should have been done in Desert Storm. Yes, Saddam is an evil man. Perhaps war is what should be done. I don't know. But Iraq is not the only dangerous nation in the world. If you want to go to war with them over weapons of mass destruction, not that they broke a treaty, then you have to do the same to N. Korea and China, but not just them. You would have to remove Russia's nukes, France's and perhaps even the U.K's. What if one of those nations was taken over by a far right Anti-American party (in which case, I am dead.)

[Nute Gunray]

The possession of nuclear weapons is a curious beast. Unless you came up with them on your own (or mostly on your own, I'M LOOKING AT YOU RUSSIA!), like the US, UK, France, Russia, China, South Africa, and questionably Israel did, then there's no real complaints from the international community. Sure there was a lot of hubbub about Pakistan and India getting weapons, but they did it legitimately. They were products of very long, self-contained projects. Nor does Pakistan or India have a track record of exporting arms like North Korea does. It really seems to me, at least, that unless you had nuclear capability by 1975, you missed the boat.

You also have to think about the character of the nations involved. Sure, you can think the US is this horrible Imperial monster, but if you look at the US itself, we're a remarkably stable nation. We're also a very predictable nation. Somehow over course of Clinton's term the rest of the world forgot the US spews fire in every direction when we get our collective mind set on something. If Bush I or Reagan the Glorious had to deal with this particular situation, things would be exactly as they are now: the US would want blood. Look at the other countries with nuclear arms. Very stable, except Israel, but Israel's fairly predictable so it's not like they are going to just one day start flailing around launching nukes at everyone. Iraq or North Korea might though. They're insane enough to do it.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

Nute's gotta good point. it's now a matter of prevention. why just sit around, wait for saddam to get a nuke to use, when we can stop him right now?

I think the president is doing the right thing. all these pacifists don't realize the true consequences of doing NOTHING.

 

and diplomacy isn't working. saddam still won't comply, no matter what. he'll just starve his own people more to get these weapons he has a fixation on.

[CorranSec]

Scarface: You have got to be joking. You think peace should be destroyed and the US should go on a killing spree because countries other than themselves have some shred of military power, and have been holding anti-American rallies? I went to an anti-war rally a little while ago, and there were many anti-American sentiments expressed there. Should I be 'slapped down' now, as a 'preventative measure'?

 

And as for the rest of you..... come on. Preventative? Saddam may be evil, and he may be cruel, but right now, he hasn't declared war on anybody, and is right now destroying banned missiles and attempting to comply with the UN. And you think that right now, the US should just up and destroy Baghdad?

[Nute Gunray]

Saddam may be evil, and he may be cruel

 

Not may. IS.

 

Anti-war types are so stupid. No, the US is not going to level Baghdad. The US doesn't raze cities anymore, no matter how much I yell at the TV demanding such. NO, the US isn't going to intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

If anyone does, it'll be Iraq. Saddam said months ago that the Iraqi republican guard will kill iraqis and blame the US just to make the US look bad. plus you know, there's that whole gassing the kurds thing that kinda set the precedent for iraq doing that kind of thing.

 

It's not the US slapping people around for having military power. It's countries that openly threaten to use that power for conquest or other zany evils. You don't see the US getting in Britian or France or China or Mexico's faces for having a military. If Mexico suddenly had the bomb and kept yelling that if Belize looked the wrong way that they'd risk a nuclear holocaust on the Yucantuan, then there'd be the US telling both sides they're idiots.

I got a huge kick out of the Iraqi diplomat calling that Kuwaiti diplomat a stupid monkey or whatever. That was high-larious. Great way to make friends there Iraq.

[Deac]

There are good points here. The real problem in England is: Why does Britain need to go to war? If the US did, then there's nothing we can really do about it (The revolution put a stop to that ) but I think that Saddam isn't really a danger with all these troops sitting on his borders and spy planes watching his every move. If the US thinks it is a problem, they should deal with it as they feel is best. England does not really have a place in this.

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by Deac

Why does Britain need to go to war?

 

Britain's position is the one reason that proves to me that there IS a reason to go to war. Here's a country that, despite massive popular dislike, is ready to go to war. The government of Britain knows something and they're not telling anyone. Just listen to Straw (i think that's the dude's name). Yesterday at the UN the guy was a second away from jumping up and yelling "Guys, we can't tell you why but you've GOT to believe us on ths one!"

The US and Britain and a few others know stuff that no one else does. They're not telling and probably for good reason. My bet, as it has been for the last...three months, is it's a truckload of French nuclear materials purchased in the last four years.

[swphreak]

Wow..... if I ever have a debate like this in history class, I'm gonna quote you Nute.

[CorranSec]

Why does Britian want to go to war? Well, if they DO know something that everyone else doesn't (as Nute is telling us), this something obviously means that the US couldn't go it alone. Now, we all know that the US could probably go it alone against evil invaders from the fiery pits of Hell itself, so it is entirely unlikely that anything Britain knows and isn't telling would warrant anyone but the US's participation in this war without UN sanctions.

 

Deac is right. The UK does not need to go to war. Nobody actually needs to go to war, but if the US does go to war, they do not need Britain.

 

Why is the leader of Britain (note that it's not all of Britain itself) want to go to war? Who knows. Trade benefits, increased friendship with the US, whatever. It's probably the same for our own John Howard. But the point is that nobody needs to go to war, but if the US is intent on going, nobody needs to go with them.

[Jared]

Originally posted by CorranSec

Scarface: You have got to be joking. You think peace should be destroyed and the US should go on a killing spree because countries other than themselves have some shred of military power, and have been holding anti-American rallies? I went to an anti-war rally a little while ago, and there were many anti-American sentiments expressed there. Should I be 'slapped down' now, as a 'preventative measure'?

 

And as for the rest of you..... come on. Preventative? Saddam may be evil, and he may be cruel, but right now, he hasn't declared war on anybody, and is right now destroying banned missiles and attempting to comply with the UN. And you think that right now, the US should just up and destroy Baghdad?

 

ummm......If people are a threat to us, I assure you we will not just stand by and be terrorized like other countries. Alot of people hate America because we are the free-est country in the world. Well guess what. Measures have to be taken to keep it that way. Saddam is a direct threat to the US, and so is North Korea. People who protest war in other countries arent even thinking it through, and only through the UN is it any of their buisness. Leave alone things you have nothing to do with. Obviously, war is not the best idea, and lives will be lost, but to keep america free, I think its worth it. And apparently so do our troops, and our president. I have no reason to believe that Sadamm is some helpless dictator, and the same with North Korea's leader. I know this post will piss alot of you off, but I am entitled to my own opinion. I am sick to death of people talking about America like it is some evil country who can't stay out of other peoples affairs. Get over it. Saddam has fooled the world before, and he is doing it again.

 

Peace.