We get a war - oh yay, LGB's on CNN! :D

[Monk]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
The spectator is a pretty poor publication.

Never heard of it, liked the article tho.

[GRUNHERZ]

"Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Liberty"

Where in anything I say do I deny you rights of free speech.   Perhaps you are so wrapped up in your left wing political correctness victim mindset that you see any form of disagreement, dissent in left wing speak, with your ideas as a form of oppression. I fully accept your views, but that doesnt stop them from possibly being wrong or dangerous and thus me disagreeing with them and criticizing your arguments.

LIBERALS:

People who disagree with you, and express that disagreement to you are not opressing you, they are simply disagreeing with you....

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Staga
Just one question: Are you ready to see pics like This and This?
In war there's always casualties thought I'm sure U.S would have better K/D ratio.
If there's a way to avoid war every health person would use it.

One question back to you, if we do nothing, are YOU ready to see pics like this or this?

Which is worse, waging war for prevention, or waiting for war?

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
An extreme example were the "anti-war" activists after 911. To them the "war" only started if we attacked the Taliban - the actuall 911 attack was not the start of war in their minds.

Them folks shoulda been volunteered to go clean up the WTC, maybe help'em get a clue.

On the conditions, 3 is the only one that doesn't make sense to me.  What do I care if the Iraqi regime slaughters thier own civilian population.  Long as it stays within thier borders it's not my concern.  Do I approve of that? No, but when it comes down to the line it shouldna be one of the factors.

2 and 5 will probably be the hardest to meet.  There's the problem of proving they aren't supporting terrorists anymore and there is no telling what happened to the missing pilot, unless they captured him and have him hidden away somewhere.  Or already did away with him.

1 and 4 are pretty straight forward.

Instead of an all out war why not just send sniper teams into Iraq and basically cut the head off the snake one night.  Several cooridnated teams all pick off thier targets in the same night, Iraq wakes up to a change of leadership.  Seems alot simpler than just going for an all out and out war.  And if the new regime can't tow the line do it again.  And again.  Etc etc until a regime takes the reigns that can tow the line.  Seems a better solution to me than getting bogged down in a full blown war over there.

[GRUNHERZ]

Staga:

In the leadup to WW2 people were asking, are you ready to see this:

[GRUNHERZ]

Or this:

[Monk]

Originally posted by CavemanJ




Instead of an all out war why not just send sniper teams into Iraq

Woohoo!!.......I like that

[GRUNHERZ]

Many sensible people said no, so soon they saw this:

[GRUNHERZ]

Or this:

[N1kPaz]

Personally I am in favor of an all out global campaign to crush any nations with anti-american policies or attitudes among its leadership or population. This may seem harsh, but the fact remains that the lives and happiness of my kinfolk and children far outweigh the importance (imho) of the lives of people who would destroy them if they could.

sorry world...

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by Monk
here is a interesting articlehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-10-5&id=2328

That's a pretty good read.  What's the matter Dowding, thier views run contrary to yours?

But I wonder if the rest of the anti-Yank set have thought it through. When they squeak about America’s warmongering but think the UN’s the perfect vehicle to restrain it, you know they’re just posing, and that, though they may routinely say that ‘Bush frightens me’, they’re not frightened at all. America could project itself anywhere and blow up anything, but it doesn’t. It could tell the UN to go diddly itself, but it’s not that impolite. Imagine any previous power of the last thousand years with America’s unrivalled hegemony and unparalleled military superiority in a unipolar world with nothing to stand in its way but UN resolutions. Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.

That is a pretty scary thought.

N1kPaz I'm all for protecting our family/friends/loved ones, but I'm not for whole sale slaughter.

We just need to train more snipers

[Mighty1]

I heard Bush's speach and it didn't sound like to me he was talking about starting a war. He was saying he COULD/MIGHT if the conditions were not met.

As for the conditions well each one makes sense if you look at them.

1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.
 
UN resolution not US resolution. There for UN support!

2. End its support for terrorism.

There in case we need to attack on our own. Public support!

3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.

There to help the people of Iraq. Again needed to get UN support!

4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.

Saddam is taking the food that we trade for oil from the people that need it the most. Needed for UN, Iraq people, and public support!

5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.

There were reports that said that there were some Americans still being held in Iraq. Public support again!


Look it comes down to this....the more support we have the less chance we have of actually having to go to war.

If Saddam sees he has no chance to win he will cooperate.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Mighty1
I heard Bush's speach and it didn't sound like to me he was talking about starting a war. He was saying he COULD/MIGHT if the conditions were not met.

As for the conditions well each one makes sense if you look at them.

1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.
 
UN resolution not US resolution. There for UN support!

2. End its support for terrorism.

There in case we need to attack on our own. Public support!

3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.

There to help the people of Iraq. Again needed to get UN support!

4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.

Saddam is taking the food that we trade for oil from the people that need it the most. Needed for UN, Iraq people, and public support!

5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.

There were reports that said that there were some Americans still being held in Iraq. Public support again!


Look it comes down to this....the more support we have the less chance we have of actually having to go to war.

If Saddam sees he has no chance to win he will cooperate.

yep, Bush/America is just trying to get Saddam to stick to the original 1991 agreement as the rest of the world just twiddles their thumbs and looks the other way or are too busy making money from him ie France/Russia.

[Monk]

How many more do we need ya'llhttp://home.achilles.net/~sal/un-resolutions.html

[GRUNHERZ]

"How many more do we need ya'll"

My superior impartial left wing liberal scientific training has led me to conclude that only a further 197 UN resolutions are required to solve once and for all the Iraqi problem. No other action is needed in this matter.