Heavyarms Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 well, we(The United States) are going to possibly going to war within the next seven days, despite many people protesting, including myself. What I'm concerned about, though, is the risk of losing thousands of men really worth getting rid of Saddam? They have found unmanned probes, a direct violation of resolution 1441(The one that calls for him to disarm). What if one of these comes across camp New York, with mustard gas or something released? Our troops could be instantly killed! I think its collateral damage is still to high. Middle Eastern tensions are high, this might be the tension that snaps the rope, so to speak. I don't want another September 11, but we might get one if Bush attacks, because Al-Qaeda is going to want blood... civilian blood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Yes. There is no good way for us to back down now, even if for some reason we wanted to. We will have to take the chance, go in, and live with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Well, knowing Bush and the UN after several months, I knew it would be inevidable anyway as the inspections were just rushed waiting for war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 North Korea was well enough of a problem without putting Saddam in the spotlight instead -_- Who knows what Kim Jong Il will do now that all of the world's eyes are fixed on Irak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar North Korea was well enough of a problem without putting Saddam in the spotlight instead -_- Who knows what Kim Jong Il will do now that all of the world's eyes are fixed on Irak? My thoughts exactly. If I'm not mistaken, they are within range to hit the US if they wanted to do so. The worse thing is they are backed by China from what I heard.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 *turns CNN on to see the end of the world ... live* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hell yes it's inevitable. I don't like this for several reasons, but one of them is how USA has from a long time ago, put up the argument that war is the only course of action left, and then proceeded to give a damn about other opinions. They've lined up all their hardware on the frontline, bought and bulllied their way into enforcing their opinion of what makes right, and generally not shown a single sign of detering from the "War is necessary"-railroad track. I really detest how USA has lined up all their military hardware before they announced that there is no option for another course of action. It's like they put all that crap on the frontline, then ask the world -"What do you suggest we do?". And if the world is of another opinion, too f*cking bad. It's not like they're going to change their march to war just because everyone begs to differ. Man, you could tell it was set in stone back in December 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Imperial Sardaukar My thoughts exactly. If I'm not mistaken, they are within range to hit the US if they wanted to do so. The worse thing is they are backed by China from what I heard.... No one would be stupid enough to use nukes. Nukes are a deterant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Hell yes it's inevitable. I don't like this for several reasons, but one of them is how USA has from a long time ago, put up the argument that war is the only course of action left, and then proceeded to give a damn about other opinions. They've lined up all their hardware on the frontline, bought and bulllied their way into enforcing their opinion of what makes right, and generally not shown a single sign of detering from the "War is necessary"-railroad track. I really detest how USA has lined up all their military hardware before they announced that there is no option for another course of action. It's like they put all that crap on the frontline, then ask the world -"What do you suggest we do?". And if the world is of another opinion, too f*cking bad. It's not like they're going to change their march to war just because everyone begs to differ. Man, you could tell it was set in stone back in December 1999. You can thank our wonderfull current president for that. One of the main reasons I voted against him was that he scared me, because he is a war monger. The last few months' events have only emphasised this point. Not everyone thinks the war is a good solution. The people of the United States are divided, and it is a close race, but the majority of citizens do still oppose war. Having a girl that I love in the Army, could sway my opinion somewhat, but let's take a closer look at "jeedubya". Having been the governor of the death penalty capitol of the US,(Texas) do you really think he gives a crippled crab about human casualties in the middle east? This cowboy of a leader, will not stop and in my opinion, the more he challanges our potential allies, I loose even more and more respect for him. I honestly thing he sees imminent war as the only means of helping our current "economic slump" (which happens to be the republican defintion for depression). One has to ask him, "how were the last three years of your dad's term, anyway?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Groovy I honestly thing he sees imminent war as the only means of helping our current "economic slump" (which happens to be the republican defintion for depression). If you call this a depression watch out this isn't even really a repression buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Fergie If you call this a depression watch out this isn't even really a repression buddy. Now THAT is inevitable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 i hope there's no casualties. =( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 That's like throwing a grenade into a house and saying "I hope it doesn't destroy anything"..... Both sides will take losses and probably a houndred thousand civilians are going to die. What I hate about American pro-wars is that they call Europeans cowards. Cowards? Because we don't like war? Well.. if bravery is measured by the number of wars fought "at home", the USA is the chicken and Europe is the daredevil. Europe knows what war is like; why doesn't USA listen to them when they say war is not the right thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Because their economies are intricately woven with Iraq's and who knows what benefits would be revoked from them if Saddam was disarmed and a strong democratic government got up and running. Euro-Pansies. Bravery is *looks at this thread* *remembers his vow not to get involved* *looks at how wrong the competition is anyways* 3 things: 1. The world is going straight to oblivion because of liberal policies. 2. Never argue with idiots, they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. 3. If you don't want to fight to defend your people, go ahead and surrender, France has done enough of it, but I like believing in democracy and standing up for it if need be. Ya cowards won't even back up your ideals when the weapons come out to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 1. The world is going straight to oblivion because of liberal policies. You'll have to elaborate on how leftist nations like Scandinavia or the leftist party in the USA is plunging the world straight into oblivion. I'm curious, honest. 3. If you don't want to fight to defend your people, go ahead and surrender, France has done enough of it, but I like believing in democracy and standing up for it if need be. There's a grey zone between surrender and pre-emptive attack. And no, your democracy won't be threatened if Iraq goes to war against you. Lives will be, but you'll still be a democracy when the war ends, no matter who starts it. Two words: French Revolution. Oh, and no one's asking you to surrender to Iraq, just to force them to disarm without killing 100 000 of their civilians. We believe Iraq should be arms-free too, but given the choice of doing it the bloody easy way or the clean hard way, we choose the clean hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Oh, and no one's asking you to surrender to Iraq, just to force them to disarm without killing 100 000 of their civilians. Will you deliver an ultimatum "Please sirs bring out you NON-Civillians army so that we may fling poo?'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 This is what I told my English class today while discussing Iraq, on part of what makes Europeans dislike Bush: What makes me angry is that Americans just fail to see the other side. The United States haven't fought a war at home for, what, 200 years? And here's Europe, who just fought World War II sixty years ago. My homeland lost 5000 people, which is the same as the USA losing 300 000. We remember what war is like. But instead of listening to us, Bush just waves us off as the "old Europe". Oh, and an analogy: Let's say I'm talking to a Texan student on living as a Chinese-American in the USA. Let's say I'm way off, and this helpful Chinese-American points out that I'm wrong. But instead of listening to her, I not only tell her to shut up, I also call her something really mean for "daring to disagree". Will you deliver an ultimatum "Please sirs bring out you NON-Civillians army so that we may fling poo?'' Did I tell you I hate trolls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 *points* - - - - - > Civil War Also your analogy is a little shot, like as in flak holes. And what makes me mad is Europeans who don't believe in fighting for their freedom. You people are willing to just let terrorism, oppression, and dictators stand all over the world. You just sit there on your thumbs going, "Give peace a chance you oil-baron." When they don't even believe enough in peace to stand up for it. This is why we call you cowards, you say that peace is good and we should all try it, but you won't ever do anything to make it happen. It's hypocrisy in it's most refined form is what it is. All you are are a bunch of Euro-Hypocrites. In conclusion... Maybe some of us truly believe in peace, and maybe some of us just think it's a nifty concept that, "everyone should try." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I know you're trolling, but I'm not backing down when openly insulted by ignorant trash, so I won't now. *points* - - - - - > Civil War You remember how the Civil War was?!?!?! Boy, never knew you were 200+ years old . Also your analogy is a little shot, like as in flak holes. And what makes me mad is Europeans who don't believe in fighting for their freedom. You people are willing to just let terrorism, oppression, and dictators stand all over the world. You just sit there on your thumbs going, "Give peace a chance you oil-baron." When they don't even believe enough in peace to stand up for it. This is why we call you cowards, you say that peace is good and we should all try it, but you won't ever do anything to make it happen. It's hypocrisy in it's most refined form is what it is. All you are are a bunch of Euro-Hypocrites. If you knew any European history at all, you'd have known that we have repeatedly fought for our freedom, thank you very much. Norway did, against Sweden; Scottland did, against England; Ireland fought England; The French low-class fought the high class for equal civil rights; the Finnish fought the Soviets when they were invaded; Europe fought during World War I and II; we fought the Muslims during the Crusades; there were battles fought in Kosovo and Bosnia; and there were countless civil wars in Germany. There has been continental peace in Europe for less than five years. We've had 20+ wars on homeground; the last one 5- years ago, while the USA has had... two. Two houndred+ years ago. And if we're not willing to fight dictatorships, why did we fight with you during Afghanistan? If, if Saddam invades someone, then we fight him. But a pre-emptive attack is not viable at this time. Or as Carter put it: War Should only be entered into as a last resort, when all peaceful means have been found a failure. Which is not the case in Iraq. UN is making him disarm (watch the news and you'll see that he destroyed two warheads the inspectors found just last week). If Germany doesn't believe in making peace happen, why is it, second to the USA, the country in the world with the most peacekeeping forces? Oh, and about France: Who helped with you during the Revolutionary War? France. But sure, you don't have to be grateful. In fact, just forget the French helped you, like most people I know do ("they did? I thought the USA fought England all alone"). I find it extremely arrogant to expect Europe to love you for taking part in saving us.. when you don't even remember who saved you. About surrender: The reason why the states have not surrendered yet is you haven't had to. You've almost always been fighting away from home, so you haven't had to surrender. You've just had to pull out. It's pretty bold of you to say the French choose to surrender when facing the decision... when the USA never has faced the decision themselves. About neutrality: The United States wanted to stay neutral in WW2, and did so from '39 to '41. If it was okay for you to sit and watch until you became involved, why isn't it okay for us? "Give peace a chance you oil-baron." *looks to Artoo's other post*. Uh, I thought we were the oil-barons.. Changed your mind, or..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 First: You sound very much like your Texas example. Artoo disagrees with you and you call him ignorant trash. Now a few facts: Civil war was in 1860s that would put it 140 years (give or take a few years). Please don't get me started on Bosnia and Kosovo. -------------------------- Now onto UN. The UN is disarming his through the efforts of the US, and only is he cooperating because there is a threat of war. Even now he only cooperates just enough not to appease Europe. If the US did nothing then Europe would have done nothing until it was to late and Saddam couldn't be forced to disarm. (Even by doing it with inspectors your still forcing him to disarm). Finally can you please stop implying that all of Europe is against the war. Last time I checked Britian, Spain and other countries were supporting the US. ----------------------- THe US was nuetral in the begining of WWII (not really if you consider the aid that was being sent to Britian, example the Lend Lease act...). Furthermore there were European countries that remained Nuetral through the entire war. Finally: It is not that France/other countries want to remain Nuetral it that they are basically prevanting the US from doing what it believes is the right thing to do. France and those countries are also making the UN ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 First: You sound very much like your Texas example. Artoo disagrees with you and you call him ignorant trash. May I ask why? It's not about disagreeing, it's about not knowing anything on the subject and disregarding those who do. Which I clearly am not. As I said, analogies are wasted on these forums. Now a few facts: Civil war was in 1860s that would put it 140 years (give or take a few years). No difference. No one's 140 years old either. Finally can you please stop implying that all of Europe is against the war. Last time I checked Britian, Spain and other countries were supporting the US. I never said so. THe US was nuetral in the begining of WWII (not really if you consider the aid that was being sent to Britian, example the Lend Lease act...). Furthermore there were European countries that remained Nuetral through the entire war. Which was their right. That's what I said. Finally: It is not that France/other countries want to remain Nuetral it that they are basically prevanting the US from doing what it believes is the right thing to do. France and those countries are also making the UN ineffective. How does the peace bloc make a peace organization ineffective;)? UN is there to maintain peace, not to help start a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I just wanted to add that these are discussion boards. Having a discussion means that all of you are perfectly welcome to share your thoughts and opinions. Here is the downside, when somebody calls someone names; I.E. ignorant trash, now it is no longer a discussion, it is a flame war nobody said you had to agree with what he said, but believe it or not, it IS still possible to have a discussion without the insults, thank you very much. Some poeple question why I hate politics so much... this is why. Humans are still too immature to deal with politics withouth getting at each other's throats. I have seen enough threads here to know what I am talking about. Both of you need to calm down and practice your social skills without jumping on each other with the insults. That is all, oh yeah and: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 If the UN is unwilling to back up it's resolutions with force then it can no longer maintain the peace. Countries will laugh in the UN's face and continue doing whatever they want. That is how France is making the UN ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral If the UN is unwilling to back up it's resolutions with force then it can no longer maintain the peace. Countries will laugh in the UN's face and continue doing whatever they want. That is how France is making the UN ineffective. List of US vetoes. If anything, it's the US that's making the UN ineffective. France has used their vetoes since WW2 about 6 times. US, 73 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.