Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 160

Thread: Iraq

  1. #11

    Re:Iraq

    if you head over to http://www.stallman.org/ RMS has some enlightening views on the whole so-called "war on terror." I particularly like the comic with GWB taking a knife to the freedoms of the American people.

    As for Iraq, I wonder how this will affect GWB's approval rating. The general consensus seems to be "no war," not just the international community, but over most of America as well. However, him and Blair(e?) seem to be forging ahead full-speed regardless of what everyone says. Can we say alterior motive?

    One thing I can definitely say about the whole situation: this weapons-inspection is fast turning farcical. It was a fantastic idea to start out with, but now it would seem that no matter what Iraq claims or what Iraq does, it won't be good enough for the US (and, by association, Britain). Also, no matter how much evidence the US accumulates, France won't budge an inch. More like a fight between stubborn children than international politics. Then again, sometimes the difference isn't all that apparent.

  2. #12
    Guest

    Re:Iraq



    OMG!!! I think it's the hardest I'm ever laughed over something this grave and serious...

    The french thinks we need more weapons inspectors?... well okay, Duyba has 200.000 men and women down there al leager to "inspect" Saddam and his weapons of partial destruction.

    Okay, I think I've made enough bad jokes now, the serious debate can continue.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    148

    Re:Iraq

    [quote author=RedHat link=board=14;threadid=6554;start=0#61660 date=1047270039]
    I agree with cloverm. I've been back and forth on this issue myself. But I do think North Korea is a much bigger threat right now.
    [/quote]

    But Korea isnt killing their own people like Saddam is, nor are they threatening anyone.

  4. #14

    Re:Iraq

    Afghanistan is killing their own people. Still. After the war. War did not stop it.
    I do not know what the regime in Korea is, but I don't think it is a democratic and humane one.
    As far as I know, neither is Iraq threatening anyone. Bush is afraid that they might have WMD, so he is trying to neutralize those weapons before they can be used. And all the economic stuff that comes with it.
    North Korea, on the other hand, just started doing missile testings openly, and opened their nuclear plants that can be used to create nuclear weapons (of which no one has said Iraq has.) They have openly said they would go to war with US if an agreement is not made.
    I think that kind of puts them as a bigger threat than Iraq.

    Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not proposing going to war with Korea. I am just saying that the intentions for the war with Iraq are not noble. They are out of interest and fear.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    148

    Re:Iraq

    I have a few things to say in reply to that.

    North Korea is communist. Very communist. More communist than the Russians can ever imagine. The government installed speakers in peoples houses! Yikes! I would be a supporter of war with North Korea, however, the situation with them is VERY tricky. They have a HUGE assortment of missiles, weapons, bombs, everything pointed right at South Korea, which the U.S Happens to be guarding ever since the Korean War.

    Iraq. They're not as tricky, but yes, Saddam has threatened countries and people. Hes attacked his own people (the Kurds in particular). He's threatened countries like Kuwait (remeber, Desert Storm?) and other neighboring ones. We even believe he's supporting the terrorist networks (Iraq is very rich, after all, they live on like a hojillion oil dealies). Iraq (Saddam) is in violation of the treaty and 1441 when he produced WMDs. See, in Desert Storm, after liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraq to surrender, part of the treaty was that they were not going to produce any WMDs. Well, here we are 10 years later and Jack-Ass Clinton didn't do a thing about it. So, it's time to take action.

    I dont have a problem with the missiles Iraq is producing. The missile means nothing. I have a problem with Saddam, who means everything when the missile is in his hands. Somebody has to push the little button....and I would not like his mad insanity do that.

    Sure, Iraq has destroyed and gave us a few of their weapons, but hes only doing that because we have around 200,000 troops, carrier groups, and a crapload of planes sitting on his front door. Should we back off because hes destroying and giving us the weapons? Absolutly not! He still will have the technology to make them, and this process will repeat itself all over again.

  6. #16

    Re:Iraq

    In reality Saddam poses no real threat to the US however North Korea on the other hand does have significant firepower. Although personally I am against war, I will support whatever the government decides to do. As a side note we should have finished the job in Desert Storm instead of waiting eleven years.

  7. #17

    Re:Iraq

    well... i guess i have the same questions as Congressman Ron Paul
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...2/cr091002.htm

    more reasons i am skeptical.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml



  8. #18

    Re:Iraq

    Damn republicans and their always wanting war. When will they learn that not everything can be solved by bombing, invading, or otherwise destroying? :'(

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    148

    Re:Iraq

    in reply to pbharris's link about questions, I'll answer what I'll can to the best of my knowledge (I'm only in 8th grade - dont expect me to know too much)

    1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

    It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. We had WMDs, and they had WMDs, and mass amounts of them too. And actually, my friend's grandfather, who've I've talked to before said that he was fired at on the front of Eastern Germany, but did not fire back.

    2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

    Iraq is too a threat. They can hit our ally Israel, and hes a dictator and a mad man. WMDs in his hands = bad thing.

    3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

    Hrm...Most likely when they say "Sorry, can't go in there!" to the inspectors, its usually means there is a WMD or something highly confidential in there. My suggestion: If they don't let us in within 2 hours, Blow up the building.

    4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

    Iraqi Cooperation = no cooperation. They're full of lies. You heard the one general that Saddam had on the news saying "It is a disgrace that a world power is trying to pick on a small country like us. They just want out wealth, they know we dont have nukes!" Yeah right, you saw them hand 5 or so over.

    5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

    Iraq sits on an oil field though which means a shitload of money. Money funds terrorists. Terrorists use money to buy guns and ammunition. Although Saudi Arabia sits on an Oil Field too....meh....Thats not the main reason why we're attacking anyway. I'm sure Saddam has links somehow in one way or another with terrorists.

    6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

    Unsure.

    7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

    Unsure.

    8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

    Not exactly. The Kurds are just a group of religious people. Last time I checked, they didn't use guns like al-qaeda did to go hunt down and shoot people. The Kurds are mainly based out of Turkey too, thats where the large percentage of them come from. That's why we're building up defenses at turkey.

    9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

    I'm not sure where the hell they are, but Pakistan isn't an "ally." They're just cooperating with us. They have no military and can care less about terrorists.

    10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

    It's a highly unstable world out there. Unfortunitally, people aren't really civilized out there, and don't know any better. Plus, if bin Laden and his network show up again, I'm sure we will immediatly shift our forces over and go hunt em down after the Iraq situation, which shouldn't take long.

    11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

    Iraq has attacked the United States - indirectly. They attacked and invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours. Plus, terrorists dont have WMDs (thank god)....at least to our knowledge...lets hope currupt Russia doesn't sell any. Iraq is also threatening to attack another ally, Israel.

    12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

    It would probably give bin Laden an excuse to make the Arab world hate us. But, lets face it. It needs to be done! If Saddam keeps it up, soon, he'll have the power of striking whereever he pleases. Money and manpower for him are not an issue.

    13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

    Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons did he?
    There is actually a saying "Saddam is the next coming of the devil." Yes, we did crush their army from being the 6th largest to no larger then Belgium's. So, why not take that oppertunity now to attack while he's still weak?

    14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

    Oh, stuff about the constitution! Yay, time to put History class to use. If you're a super-strict constitutionist, then, yeah, only the people have the right to put the pressure. However, It never says that the President or anyone else can pressure. Plus, I believe, congress should do what's best for the country.

    15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

    Hrm....
    How can you find out where a gas came from? Both Iran and Iraq are not friendly with the US. Iran could have sold gas to Iraq, and, yeah, whocares where the villege is occupied. That's a rough area of the world, country borders aren't necessarily the biggest worry over there.

    16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
    We nailed the Iraqis in the Gulf War. 45 days of total ass-kickin'. We liberated Kuwait in 5 freakin days. Believe it or not, we took NO casualties from enemy fire. Infact, the 19 or so people that died were from friendly fire accidents. The Abrams (M1-A1 Tank) is no match for their T-55s and just beat the living shit out of it along with their infantry. The F-16 flew 16,000 missions alone, and disabled their 50 year old airforce of MiG-15's. Ha, there is no such thing as Gulf War syndrome. Whoever is gonna ask this is smokin crack.

    17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

    lol....its called bombing my friend. Take out the SAMs with the Infantry, Shell the military positions with Howitzers and big ass cannons, and bomb the complexs we believe contain weapons/mass amounts of ammunition/tanks/whatever military that has the potential to shoot at us.

    18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

    Democracy is a great thing. I don't care how long that takes, those people need some fuckin democracy and say in their government. 100 billion dollars? Im not sure it's going to cost that much. You're forgetting something about the oil. As soon as we install a new government, they'll most likely be loyal/we'll force them to be loyal to us and therefore, we can buy oil from them, at cheap prices.

    19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

    Yes, but that's the result of whoever is the leader that decides what must be done. Right now, Bush thinks it must be done, so it will be done.

    20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

    Things change. We didn't need to go into Baghdad back then, now we do, since it's the cap, and we're installing a new government.

    21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

    Who fuckin cares about the UN? International laws mean squat, with super powers and all of that. Sure the UN may be great to resolve conflicts. Also, Britian and the US were the only ones fighting in that war. They had the right to do that.

    22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

    I don't understand.

    23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

    Shit Happens. We don't need to kick Musharaf out of power, he's not bothering us.

    24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

    After the Gulf War? Yeah right, i highly doubt that. Maybe before that, because, after all, we loved Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war. We put him in power.

    25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

    As I said, yes, we did put him in power, and at the time, we hated Iran and they hated us. Kinda like the thing with the terrorist networks in Afghanistan...

    26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

    I do not understand.

    27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

    We dont plan to take over Iraq for Oil. They prolly support it because after we install a loyal regime, they can move their and pump out super-cheap oil for all of us.

    28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

    Because it needs to be done. Last time I checked, generals were all "go-go" for it.

    29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

    It could if it wanted, see previous answers to question simular to this.

    30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

    Where does it not? The constitution was left open ended for a reason, dont be a strict constitutional follower.

    31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

    Who cares about a treaty 400 years ago. This is BS. We replaced the governments in WW2....didn't they violate the treaty too?

    32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

    I dunno.

    33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

    Define clear cut. In the Korean War, communists were invading. Hard fighting. We pushed them back, but didn't liberate the country. So, we kinda drew a line and created north korea and south korea, and we did our job, making sure the communists didnt invade, and they didnt! Vietnam was a different story. the Gulf war was a clear cut victory. 45 days of total victories.

    34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

    Who cares, day of the past, Pakistan agrees with us now, and helped us (by letting the use of land). And we exterminated the taliban, didnt we?

    35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

    Dunno. Ask someone else.

  10. #20

    Re:Iraq

    [quote author=1stSgt Bobert link=board=14;threadid=6554;start=0#61709 date=1047329564]
    [quote author=RedHat link=board=14;threadid=6554;start=0#61660 date=1047270039]
    I agree with cloverm. I've been back and forth on this issue myself. But I do think North Korea is a much bigger threat right now.
    [/quote]

    But Korea isnt killing their own people like Saddam is, nor are they threatening anyone.
    [/quote]
    that's not right north korea is killing there own, ever heard of the death's camp, if 1 family member is caught for something most likely the rest will incasirated as well. In the camps they try to get children and other to escape so the dogs can hunt them down.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •