Author Topic: This thread is about IRAQ  (Read 754 times)

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2002, 08:20:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ping

 Saddam is a mass murderer and should face the music...but why should we be forced to play the political games. Enough of the BS.
 
 Do I think America is the Great Satan? NO! But I do live in a country where there is a lot of political roadkill so I can recognize that when I see it.



 For those that choose to ignore previous posts.
 
Saddam along with a great many others deserve the Death penalty. I just refuse to listen and take at face value the crap politicians spout in order to whip up support or mold human reaction.
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2002, 08:25:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Samm
One could speculate that we allready have it. One could speculate that that is the reason for all the Iraq hubub as of late .


 But untill Evidence is presented...I guess its all speculation
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Samm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2002, 08:44:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ping


 But untill Evidence is presented...I guess its all speculation

Of course, what is your point ?

Offline Samm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2002, 08:54:28 AM »
I DON'T think India Pakistan or China should have nukes as opposed to Iraq . We both agree that Saddam is a dangerous "mass murderer" . He also happens to be the dictator of a rogue state that is actively at war with us . If India was run by a murderous despot at war with us and actively seeking nukes well then our reaction would be no different .  As for unfinished business, your government has unfinished business there too, actually I guess the whole coalition does. Yes I'm angry that we will probably have to go back now becuase we didn't defeat him the first time . I don't think it has anything to do with revenge . Revenge for what btw ? It's really a matter of protecting and preserving ourselves .

We don't have the right to decide to take up arms against a country that we feel is a threat to us without the approval of some international committe first ?

This is totally irrelevant but since you asked. Yes there are still cuban terrorist groups but sadly their goals are much less philanthropic than the liberation of Cuba .
« Last Edit: March 31, 2002, 08:58:35 AM by Samm »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2002, 09:02:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ping
that Iraq shouldn't have nukes as opposed to say India, Pakistan, China, North Korea (if they have them) France, Israel who has threatened serious retaliatory actions in the past.


Because of all these only Iraq *at present* is considered to be a willing supplier of chem/nuke/bio weapons for terrorists that want to strike the US. Our intelligence services, as prone to fault as anyone else's, are still our first line of defense here and they've identified Iraq as a primary threat.

Sorry, but I'm going to value their opinion more than yours.


 
Quote
Ping: Fine Establish the evidence of Iraqs involvement with terrorist acts against the American Homeland, but then introduce it in an international court of law. Until that time...its just a vengefull act on the part of the US Gov.


Problem is that odds are overwhelmingly great that a chem/bio/nuke weapon will be used against us, on our own soil, before we can provide the "proof" that would convince you and people like you around the world.

In fact, I suspect there IS and would be no proof that you would accept.

We could probably have "security camera" film of Saddam himself pushing the button on a "suitcase nuke" in front of the UN and you'd just say we had Hollywood make it up for us. Remember the Bin Laden videos?

Well, as I said upthread, it's only a matter of time until a chem/bio/nuke weapon is used against a major US city.

Six months, one year, five years, ten years... whatever. Best thing to do is sit on your hands and wait for the axe to fall lads. :)

Odds are overwhelming that it will be NYC or DC... LA may earn a "favorable mention" since it puts out all those horrible films that actually show women's ankles and thus destroy the Islamic paradises created by the folks who hate us so.

Even so, my money's on NYC or DC.

After it happens, there'll still be people in denial about how to deal with... what did Clancy call it? "Clear and Present Danger"?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2002, 10:03:01 AM »
10Bears, you seem to ignore the fact that Saddam has already offered a reward for any surviving family members of martyrs that kill Americans. It's obvious that the first death this causes will give us reason to attack Iraq. No, it doesn't matter what the U.N. says THIS week, when they'll only change their position after such an attack takes place. I say we don't wait. We have the provocation already.

Obviously, I wasn't clear on my statement of dislike for people of the region. I have worked with some of these amazinhunks in the past. Even in school in America, and working for American dollars, the people I met were talking up trash about killing Americans that violated their lands just by setting foot there. They want our aid, but they want to be able to say where ELSE we give aid. They want to be able to have someone like Saddam as their leader, a bully, a tryrant, a dictator that chooses to attack, kill, maim, and destroy whoever he pleases, and yet deny us the ability to strike back. The one thing that absolutely drives these fanatics crazy is when we install leaders in their country, like we did the Shah in Iran. It drives them so crazy they will come to our country, work for our money (taking a job from real Americans), and then use that money against us. I suppose some twisted ideal could be used to legitimize their reasoning, but it still goes against Americans. If you feel so driven as to side with them, to legitimize their actions, then wait until it's over and then pay reparations to the survivors.

It's not a question of finishing what we started ten years ago (not really). It's about preemptively eliminating any threat that could make the WTC pale in comparison. You don't seem to recall the horror of people leaping from one-hundred stories, or the absolute revulsion of helpless individuals in the airliners that struck the WTC. Have you forgotten the civil service personnel that dies just trying to do their job? Those were AMERICANS pal. I was born not even fifteen miles from ground zero. Two graduates from my high school senior class died in that attack against American soil. How many others have to die before you liberal punks see the light?

G.W. is not king. He is the Commander in Chief of our military. When he says "Go here, and attack there" then you can bet your bottom dollar the military will do so. This is a war against terrorism, and Saddam just made his entire country a terrorist training camp. So, let's open our hearts and cry a river about what a financial burden this war will be. Wars cost money. You might have to go without a few things. I think ending terrorism will be worth it, especially if American kids can grow up without fear of being gassed, nuked, or poisoned.

You tell us who else has made threats like Saddam (of those 15 other nations) and you can bet they'll make the list, too. Terrorism is going down, and not for a Lewinski.

Hiding nukes in the sand? Man, you really have no idea what you're talking about. If, he has nukes in the sand, we can find them. If he's hidden anything in the sand you can bet we already know where they are. Don't be stupid.

Yeah, I'm real worried about sanctions against the U.S. NOT!

Saddam fancies himself to be a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. The reincarnation of Nebudchadnezzar, actually. If, you don't know anything about Nebuchadnezzar, you need to read up on it. Ol' Neb' was a real turd! He sacked Israel, for one thing, but he also murdered millions. He destroyed Solomon's temple, and was so troubled by his own conscience that he needed his dreams interpreted (what he really needed was psychiatric care) as these nightmares were making rest impossible. When he could not find anyone to do as he asked, he had anyone of wisdom and education killed. He forbid the practice of religion except the worship of him. Well, in the end ol' Neb' was deposed, and  was driven from his people to live with the wild donkeys in the area. Persia (Iran) took half his kingdom. "The Great Babylon" that he built was eventually destroyed, but today Saddam is rebuilding it.

That's about all the proof you need to confirm that Saddam is insane. Ironic though, that his reign may end the same way, if he survives it at all. Oh wait, do liberals believe in reincarnation? Damn, no wonder Clinton left this one alone.

Oh, and 10Bears, I live in Arkansas. That doesn't make me a redneck. You wanna come down here I'll show you some rednecks. I consider that term to be the equal of love muffin, so watch it bud!

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2002, 04:45:08 PM »
Theres a big difference between china having wmd's and Iraq.

1st the Us and most of the west are engaged in massive trade with China. They are making money large sums of it off of us.

We are engaged with them politically. They are an oppressive communist government but far more stable then Iraq.

But to the point of the matter Iraq has used wmd's against its own. Its not hard to imagin Iraq trying to develope such weapons to be used else where. Couple this with the Iraqi goverments ties with the worlds terror networks and you can see where we might be in trouble.

We need to hit so they cant hit us.

The problem I see though is what next? Sadams gone Iraqs in a mess. Do we occupy? Set up a puppet government? Divide up Iraq? etc...........

Offline Elfenwolf

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2002, 05:26:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:

" Take your anti-Capitalism diatribe and "not one more death" nonsense  and stuff it.......

Cabby


LOL Cabby, as much as I love a great flame war I'm not biting, bud. Anti-Capitalism? I am a crass consumer and am self-employeed because I love the fact our system here allows me unlimited earning potential. Catch me on a thread that's either silly or redundant and we can play there.

Voss, please, this isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" isssue, and anyway if being branded a "liberal" for paraphrasing articles from the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, and you label yourself a conservative because you choose to reject the statements issued at the Arab League Summit while deciding who we should attack next, then kewl.

Toad hits the nail on the head concerning our stretched-too-thin military and the liklihood we will be attacked in the future with WMDs should we do nothing to help stabilize the region. My only question is, what's the best way to remove Iraq, Iran, et. al., as threats to our national security?

The Arabs consider the attacks in Afghanistan as an attack against Islam. Unless we're willing to kill the vast majority of Arabs I don't see how we have a reasonable hope of stopping terrorism by an invasion of Iraq. Don't expect cheering crowds waving American flags as we enter Baghdad. Instead expect a long, brutal conflict that has no guarantee of achieving stability, and indeed may only serve to convert rven more Arabs to terrorism.

I have no answers... hell, I'm not even sure of all the questions. I'm simply not convinced we can actually win a conflict against the entire Arab world without using nukes against them is all. One thing we can all agree on though- the world is different since 9-11.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2002, 05:38:18 PM »
Yeah, split iraq up and give parts of it to our "allies". part to Kuwait, part to Saudi Arabia, and part to Iran.

That should be nifty ;)

Offline Gadfly

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
This thread is about IRAQ
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2002, 06:30:46 PM »
Give it to the Palestinians-it worked for Jordan.