Seven days: Is war inevitable?

[Heavyarms]

Artoo, although most times does it rather bluntly, makes a very good point. Sometimes, it appears Europe needs to learn that they are not as secure as people in the United States. The French have never really had a terrorist attack to the magnitudes of the attacks the US has. I can't recall one off the top of my head, at least.

 

What, are you damn French too concerned over your oil? Are you gonna lose it? Get a grip. The US gets oil from alternate sources, try using those, and you can always try to get a deal with a new government. That's why the French don't want war.

 

That's the problem for the majority of European and asian nations. They haven't really seen terrorism to the magnitude we have seen it. I WATCHED 8000 PEOPLE DIE ON A TELEVISION SCREEN BEFORE ME! I DOUBT ANY OF YOU SO SELF-CENTERED EUROPEANS HAVE EVER SEEN SOMETHING SO AWFUL! HE'S A MONSTER! JUST AS BIN LADEN IS! HE MUST BE STOPPED, OR DISARMED!

[C'jais]

Yeah, I forgot it was really the wicked evil that is Saddam who blew your towers up.

 

So sorry.

[Heavyarms]

Hey *******, maybe he didn't but I wouldn't like him to give someone who did those atrocities those again. It wouldn't happen to be in your country, would it? Somewhere like AASKJSJHASTAN?

 

Saddam could no doubt commit something so horrible. I'm trying to show how little thought is in this. What's more important to you, oil, or blood?

 

To most of these European Nations, it's oil.

[Natopo]

HEY MR. C'jais! I don't care who the **** you are, but you say anything like that again and I am going on a SPAMming spree. I don't give a **** if I get banned.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Natopo

HEY MR. C'jais! I don't care who the **** you are, but you say anything like that again and I am going on a SPAMming spree. I don't give a **** if I get banned.

 

Please.

 

If it can help hasten the inevitable, then just go right ahead and get it over with.

 

As for this discussion, it has now proved that the Swamp still stands uncontested as far as maturity goes.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Natopo

HEY MR. C'jais! I don't care who the **** you are, but you say anything like that again and I am going on a SPAMming spree. I don't give a **** if I get banned.

 

He was just being sarcastic, nothing wrong with that. I would advise you to relax a bit.

 

Sometimes, it appears Europe needs to learn that they are not as secure as people in the United States.

 

When did people in US get more secured than europeans? It is much more likely being murdered in US than in UK.

 

The French have never really had a terrorist attack to the magnitudes of the attacks the US has.

 

What, do you think it's much better being invaded and terrorised by another country, like France have?

 

What, are you damn French too concerned over your oil?

 

Jeez... ...mind you, US uses a lot more oil per inhabitan than France. It's a myth that France refrains from war just because of oil. You know why? Saddam isn't able to get up most of his oil because of sanctions and restrictions. If France wanted oil, they would have supported a war.

 

Get a grip.

 

I'll say the same to you, my friend.

 

. I WATCHED 8000 PEOPLE DIE ON A TELEVISION SCREEN BEFORE ME! I DOUBT ANY OF YOU SO SELF-CENTERED EUROPEANS HAVE EVER SEEN SOMETHING SO AWFUL!

 

Instead, they watched their own people suffer and die with their own eyes. 50 000 000 people died in WW2, but when 3000 people dies in USA it is obviously much more terrible. And you call us self-centered. (BTW, over 11,000 people dies each year because of guns. Your own goverment is killing you more than any terrorists.)

 

HE'S A MONSTER! JUST AS BIN LADEN IS! HE MUST BE STOPPED, OR DISARMED!

 

As C'jais already commented that one, I don't belive it is nessisary for me to do it.

[Heavyarms]

Um, JM, I don't think that they are holding back from oil is because of that.

 

Sometimes, it appears Europe needs to learn that they are not as secure as people in the United States.

 

Sorry, I mistyped. Sometimes my ideas aren't expressed well.

It should read: Sometimes, it appears Europe needs to learn they are a lot more secure than the people of the United States.

 

Instead, they watched their own people suffer and die with their own eyes. 50 000 000 people died in WW2, but when 3000 people dies in USA it is obviously much more terrible. And you call us self-centered. (BTW, over 11,000 people dies each year because of guns. Your own goverment is killing you more than any terrorists.)

 

What I meant, and you know it, was that you have never seen something so horrible happen to your country! In your lifetime! I did!

I believe Saddam is a threat. Do you? Obviously not. You live in England, and he doesn't hate England, but he hates the hell out of the US and Israel, the two countries I care a lot about. I wish to see neither hurt, and if it means stripping saddam and his generals and his country filled with illegal weapons to their birthday suits and them tossing them in some tiny cell on camp X-ray, I tell them to do it.

[Lord Fergie]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

What, do you think it's much better being invaded and terrorised by another country, like France have?

 

 

Hey I didn't build no Maginot Line

 

Which is difined in the dictionary :

 

2. ineffective defense: an ineffective defensive strategy that is relied on with unthinking confidence

 

 

Its like "Ohh lets build this big fortifaction and not defend our forests so that they can slip over from behind"

[darthfergie]

#1. stop the flame wars or you might JUST get banned to cool off for a while.

 

Okay. I'll give some concessions to the Europeans right off the bat.

 

1. Yes, You've seen more wars recently in your area (mainly because of the large amount of countries compacted together in one little area so that a little tiny conflict can blow up into full scale war)

2. Yes, You've seen more horrors from terrorism than the US has. Terrorist groups bomb buildings or crowds all the time over in Europe. And all of it for political reasons.

 

The thing is. We've seen our share of horrors too. Gang Wars, regular shootings, crime waves (we had a high speed chase down the interstate in rush-hour just yesterday), roiting, and finally...terrorism. We've had plenty of real terrorists in the past few years. Oklahoma City bombing, Twin towers, etc etc. The US is a big target that is always sticking its neck out to be hit. France is just friggin lucky that we're sending troops and we're trying to police the world. Who knows what state the world would be in, deffinatly nothing that resembles its current state.

 

As for the Civil War not effecting anything...The south STILL feels the horrors of the Civil War. The North ruined thousands of miles of crops and completely changed the Southern way of life. Sure it's been 140 years, but there are still many who know life as sharecroppers who lost everything when the land was not good, but who would have had a decent sized plot of land back home if it wasn't completely burned to the ground and then posessed by the Union to be resold. There are plenty who feel the effect of their land being taken from them. There are plenty who would be much better off in the south if they're entire worldly fortune had not been taken from them in the lose of the war. You can still see some scars on the country side from the war although beautification has rebuilt cities that were burned to the ground, there are plenty who remember the burned out buildings. In Loisiana they did not celebrate the 4th of July until a generation ago because of the bitterness of Vicksburg. The South still has scars and memories of the Civil War, however long ago it was.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

What I meant, and you know it, was that you have never seen something so horrible happen to your country! In your lifetime! I did!

 

Umm, no, not in my own country. Mostly because it hasn't provoked anyone into doing it. But on the other hand, I do not think it's important what country the people that dies come from, because everyone's people, and that's what counts.

 

Anyway, Bush is pretty scary, because bombing of arabic countries and senseless supporting of Israel is what got you into the 9/11 mess in the first place. So what do Bush do just after it? Bombs even more arabic countries and supports Israel even more.

 

I believe Saddam is a threat. Do you?

 

I belive he needs to be removed. But he is no threat right now.

2. ineffective defense: an ineffective defensive strategy that is relied on with unthinking confidence

 

You live in England, and he doesn't hate England,

 

But when did I say I live in England. I actually live in Norway, the long country west of Sweden, north of Denmark, and one of the two countries that still hunt whales (wich I think is pretty nice)

 

but he hates the hell out of the US and Israel, the two countries I care a lot about.

 

Why do you care a lot about Israel? What have they ever done to support you? Even though I certainly do not support suicide bombing, I still understand why Palestine is angry at Israel.

 

Hey I didn't build no Maginot Line

 

Which is difined in the dictionary :

 

2. ineffective defense: an ineffective defensive strategy that is relied on with unthinking confidence

 

 

 

Its like "Ohh lets build this big fortifaction and not defend our forests so that they can slip over from behind"

 

Perhaps you think you would have done any better? For your information, they had built fortifications all along the border to Germany, but the Germans went through the Netherlands instead. It had nothing to do with ineffective defense, it was just that Germany did something France did not expect.

[darthfergie]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Perhaps you think you would have done any better? For your information, they had built fortifications all along the border to Germany, but the Germans went through the Netherlands instead. It had nothing to do with ineffective defense, it was just that Germany did something France did not expect.

 

He OBVIOUSLY knew that. And BTW, if you have total reliance on one tactic like the French did, and then get wiped out because they "did something you didn't expect." That's ineffective defense. When you allow yourself to be flanked like that, it's ineffective defense. There IS no excuse. They SHOULD have expected it. It's what their military desk boys are trained to do. Hypothesize on various strategies and the outcomes. They overlooked it and it IS their fault and they paid for it. It was a horribly ineffective defense.

 

although how that is relivant to the upcoming war I have no clue.

[Natopo]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Why do you care a lot about Israel? What have they ever done to support you? Even though I certainly do not support suicide bombing, I still understand why Palestine is angry at Israel.

 

For your info, Heavyarms is Jewish. Do you think a Jew wouldn't support Israel? Still Israel was tossed about, then completely extinguished. The U.S. restored it, and got Palestine real ****** off in the process.

[Artoo]

Thread died, anyway I'd like to say to you Dagobahn. If you'd look at other people's posts and actually try and understand where the speaker is coming from, maybe this wouldn't degrade into a flame war. This is one of the keys to good listening. Though it may not look like I do it all the time for you, I do. I'd ask you show the same respect.

 

*ignores Heavyarms and Natopo*

 

Just abit of advice to you two, read your arguments over better, you destroyed any semblance of a point that I was trying to make. You are also shooting yourselves in the foot as we speak.

 

Anyway yes it must be remembered the Civil War was only 140 years ago, also yes the south still feels the affects from it. Charleston would be the southern New York City if it weren't for the war.

 

Also can't forget the countless times that America has helped over in Europe and around the world even if it wasn't our problem. That was going after people who could've been classified on the same threat level as Saddam. So you don't want us to do so now, but you sure change your minds when your home is getting wailed on. Another prime example of European Hypocrisy.

[Natopo]

Mr. Lockhart, about the subject that Artoo brought up (America helping Eurpoe even when it wasn't our problem), imagine what you'd be living in had we not helped you guys out in WWI. You'd be under control of Germany, living under the rule of a kaiser with no say so in the government, possibly a blockade preventing you from getting supplies without Germany approving them, and you'd basically be living in Hell on Earth. So I wouldn't be complaining if I were you.

[Darth_Rommel]

Originally posted by Natopo

Mr. Lockhart, about the subject that Artoo brought up (America helping Eurpoe even when it wasn't our problem), imagine what you'd be living in had we not helped you guys out in WWI. You'd be under control of Germany, living under the rule of a kaiser with no say so in the government, possibly a blockade preventing you from getting supplies without Germany approving them, and you'd basically be living in Hell on Earth. So I wouldn't be complaining if I were you.

 

America did NOT win WW1. Germany was doing fine... well, if you discount the fact that they WERE STARVING!

 

WW1 was won by United Kingdom/Britain, and their fantastic naval blockade! Not to say American help wasn't appreciated, but no soldier really made much progress before or after America's war entry.

 

...

 

And Natopo, if we're going to argue like that, let's just think of it this way: without the Europeans, North American's would still be living in Teepees. Geez...

 

EDIT: Hell on earth? Errm, no. Kaiser Wilhelm wasn't at all like Hitler. From what I heard, he didn't even support the war!

[Clefo]

Something I've thought about:

 

You know, I may just be an idiot Liberal, but if we're invading Iraq to keep them from using WOMD, wouldn't they be more likely to use said WOMD against the US if we attack? Something I thought about...

 

Natopo: "You must not be American?" I should point out that you haven't lived in America since recently.

[Zygomaticus]

Well, Clefo, he could use more than what he might use if he was attacked than if he wasn't attacked.

 

And Rommel, although it was true that the American soldier did not fight much in WWI, there was quite a bit of financial aid, and also the the prospect of possible american reinforcements that caused Germany to step back.

 

But yes, it was the Naval blockade that ultimately bought them to their knees.

 

WWI, unlike WWII wasn't a power hungry move by some country, as far as I see. It was more, I'll hurt you if you hurt my friend, and I'll hurt you if you hurt my friend from both sides, regarding the assassination of the Austrian (?) king to-be.

[Darth_Rommel]

Originally posted by krkode

And Rommel, although it was true that the American soldier did not fight much in WWI, there was quite a bit of financial aid, and also the the prospect of possible american reinforcements that caused Germany to step back.

 

But yes, it was the Naval blockade that ultimately bought them to their knees.

 

Hmm... no, that's wrong. Quote your sources if you disagree.

 

After American joined the war, the Triple Alliance didn't yield more than a few miles, and neither did the Allies. No one "stepped back"... it was already a stalemate, and without the blockade it would have stayed a stalemate.

[Zygomaticus]

Well maybe the "step back" part was mistaken, but it was "all over" from Germany's point of view after American joined as there was the prospect of American reinforcements. It wasn't like Britain and France weren't fast running low on resources and stuff like that. America's entry into the war as a "non neutral" which was a new stance for them, completely removed German hopes and rekindled allied hopes. Kinda paraphrased from The American Pageant by Bailey, Kennedy and Cohan. It's an American US History text book, so I wouldn't be surprised if the opinion was biased but it seems plausible

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The reason why so many people in the States want to invade Iraq: Hate.

 

I'm not saying you don't have a reason to hate them, but in Bush's case, well, if the nazis were still in Germany developing WOMDs, I'd want to attack them. If they tried to assasinate my dad, I'd freaking want to nuke them. But I'd wait until I had solid evidence he's planning to do it.

 

"What? What evidence do you want, the death of 2000 more Americans?" If there is a warning sign, it will not be that. And hey, you're talking about killing 100 000+ innocent people here.

 

Europe: Knows what war on homeground is like. Does not want a pre-emptive war. You can argue that hey, that's 60+ years ago, and the youth don't know what being at war is like. But what about all those people over 60, who experienced the war? They know what war is like. Europe will stand with you when proof is found that Iraq is really planning to invade you.

 

USA: Does not remember what war on homeground is like. Does want a war.

 

Countries next to Iraq: Definetly knows what war is all about. Does not want a war.

 

Can all these countries really be wrong? What makes you so sure the USA is right, anyway?

 

I may be flamed for this, but I think I'm right.

 

France is letting dictatorship stand for oil..

Artoo, you've said this 3 times now, but will you ever back it up or is it just something you're saying? I can certainly back up what I'm saying.

 

Also can't forget the countless times that America has helped over in Europe and around the world even if it wasn't our problem. That was going after people who could've been classified on the same threat level as Saddam. So you don't want us to do so now, but you sure change your minds when your home is getting wailed on. Another prime example of European Hypocrisy.

No. American intervention in WW2 was a right thing to do. USA invading Iraq, however, is not right.

 

"Europe doesn't care?" Germany is the second in the world when it comes to peacekeeping forces. If we were to put that to scale with the US population, Germany would have deployed more peacekeeping than the Americans.

 

And we did help you during Afghanistan, as that was not a pre-emptive attack.

 

In fact, neither WW1 or 2, nor Cold War wars, were not pre-emptive attacks. Give one example of a US Pre-emptive attack being a good thing, and I'll listen.

 

And no, we're not appeasing Saddam. We're (with the USA) taking his missiles away.

[Admiral Odin]

I support a war with Iraq only because I believe it will increase the safety of my country and other countries. Futhermore I believe that diplomacy has failed. It has nothing to do with Hate. Some people may hate Iraq/Saddam, however I seriously doubt that most do.

 

There you go. By saying Europe you imply that every country in Europe is against a war which is false. That is what I meant before. Some countries in Europe are standing with others others are not.

 

Some things I would like to point out.

 

People say the US is rushing to war. I would like to differ. How many resolutions have been past? How many years has Iraq be given to disarm?

 

After 18 resolutions, 12 years. How can you say that the US is rushing to war. 18 months alone just with Bush. Iraq has been given plenty of time to disarm.

 

Europe:

France, Germany are a minority. Many Countries in Europe and the world support the US/Britain/Spain's position. The US is by no means doing this by themselves, or without support.

 

Countries next to Iraq (ie Kuwait):

They want Saddam arrested for war crimes. Such as rap, ethnic cleansing. Outside of a war he deserves to be put on trial and then executed for what he has done.

 

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

 

Furthermore I find your comments extermly disrespectful to our soldiers (past and presant).

 

The US knows the horrors of war just like any country. The fact that an entire war hasn't been fought on our soil is of little importance. Our men have given their lives to save other peoples countries. Sometimes it is worse to fight a war in a country far from home. Especially when you know that you could be living a peaceful life at home.

 

While I don't think you meant it this way, I did want to point it out that your comments give the impression that because the US hasn't fought a war at home, what our soldiers have gone through means nothing and that we cannot appreciate war because of that.

[Heavyarms]

The main problem I am worried about is with what he's got waiting for us. He wants to detonate the oil wells, which can be easily stopped if the US drops e-bombs near the wells before saddam tries to detonate. Also, the US needs to stop any SCUDs at the border, which there are, most likely with chemical weapons. Also, Iraq looks as if to soon attempt to attack the US.

 

 

THEY will start this war, not us. We are just there, but have done nothing to harm him, except his sense of security.

[Zygomaticus]

No. American intervention in WW2 was a right thing to do. USA invading Iraq, however, is not right.

 

I don't mean to spawn a subargument or anything, but I have to ask: Who decides what is the right thing to do?

[Natopo]

That's the best comment I've seen next to Admiral's. Probably a supreme ruler, god, etcetra. No one in this world can decide.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Admiral

I support a war with Iraq only because I believe it will increase the safety of my country and other countries. Futhermore I believe that diplomacy has failed. It has nothing to do with Hate. Some people may hate Iraq/Saddam, however I seriously doubt that most do.

 

So you support a war because you fear Saddam. And we all knoe fear leads to anger, anger lead to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

 

There you go. By saying Europe you imply that every country in Europe is against a war which is false. That is what I meant before. Some countries in Europe are standing with others others are not.

 

The reals split in Europe is not between UK/Spain and France/Germany. The real split in Europe is between the people and the goverments. The people does not support war, you see that in all of the countries in Europe.

 

People say the US is rushing to war. I would like to differ. How many resolutions have been past? How many years has Iraq be given to disarm?

 

After 18 resolutions, 12 years. How can you say that the US is rushing to war. 18 months alone just with Bush. Iraq has been given plenty of time to disarm.

 

So why is it so darn dangerous to wait a couple of more months? We are finally getting somewhere, and then US want to go to war?

 

Europe:

France, Germany are a minority. Many Countries in Europe and the world support the US/Britain/Spain's position. The US is by no means doing this by themselves, or without support.

 

1. There are others who support France and Germany's position in Europe.

2. Both Russia and China does not support war against Iraq. So 3 out of 5 permanent security council members does not support war.

 

They want Saddam arrested for war crimes. Such as rap,

 

When did rapping become a war crime?

 

Outside of a war he deserves to be put on trial and then executed for what he has done.

 

I agree with you that he should be put on trial, but not on the executing thing. No one deserves death.

 

Our men have given their lives to save other peoples countries.

 

But for the most part, the countries you wish to "save" does not want to be saved.

 

Sometimes it is worse to fight a war in a country far from home. Especially when you know that you could be living a peaceful life at home.

 

But it would be worse knowing that there is no peaceful life at home.

 

The main problem I am worried about is with what he's got waiting for us. He wants to detonate the oil wells, which can be easily stopped if the US drops e-bombs near the wells before saddam tries to detonate.

 

What's so terrible if he blows up the oil wells? US have already said that they don't attack for the oil, and they wouldn't really care about the oil wells if they spoke truth.

 

Also, Iraq looks as if to soon attempt to attack the US.

 

Iraq can't attack the US. They might try on Israel, but only if you provoke them into doing it.

 

THEY will start this war, not us.

 

THEY do not want war. YOU will start the war.

 

I don't mean to spawn a subargument or anything, but I have to ask: Who decides what is the right thing to do?

 

No one can. Especially not Bush.