Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yeah, we are going to go nuke the rest of the world tomorrow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces.

[ February 25, 2003, 08:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, about the US and A-bombs.
Yes, the A-bombs in WWII save a LOT of lifes. About US not using thema gain.
In vietnam it was the president who stopped the use of them, the military was planning to use them.

In Sweden we see that Russia today isn't a threat to us, bot we have been neighbours with them a long time and so we don't disarm totally, one never knows what will happen tomorrow.
This also correlates to the US and the A-bombs, you don't know how the US policy will be in 10 years. Today I find it hard to belive that the US would be forced to use the A-bomb as they are clearly superior in conventional forces.

Samurai > About non US not should care about this. I belive the Iraqi are non US citizens, and they should care about this I belive. Also, we are a humanty as a whole. Atrocoties (Not the person) should be stopped whoever is doing them, even if it is the US.

Having said all that I'm starting to agree that the US and their allies should strike against the Iraqi.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, and that's a far more comforting thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Seriously, I wouldn't put it past the likes of George Dubbya to use nukes, it's just a matter of whether he can get away with it and he is testing the limits of public and political tolerance now. If we let him he'll stretch further and further until he's planting mushrooms all over the damn world.

There is so much on this thread that I want to respond to that I hardly know where to start. Thankfully Askan summed up many of my beliefs in his post.

Yes, Saddam is a monster, but our governments only choose to recognise that fact when it suits them. To pretend this war is for humanitarian reasons is a delusion when the very countries advocating it are the ones who armed Saddam in the first place.

False and emotive pro-war propaganda (in particular I refer to that plagiarised thesis) and shifting justifications ("it's about stopping terrorism - oh, no one believes that. OK, it's about weapons of mass destruction - no, it's actually about 'liberating' the people of Iraq.") do nothing to convince me of our governments' humanitarian motives.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it's quite easy, everybody's location is listed at the foot of their post.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're not. Since coming to power Bush has repeatedly crippled research and legislation for alternative fuels. I don't know the figures, but I'd be willing to bet that his high profile endorsement of alternatives the other week is nowhere near enough to repair the damage he has already done.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because at that time the international community and the public would not have stood for such a blatant act of imperialism. Nowadays we have the the so-called "war on terror" to justify pretty much any action in the middle east (soon to be extended to the far East) as well as draconian legislation at home.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This doesn't sound so far-fetched to me: It's a known and proven fact that the phases of the moon affect peoples' mental state (ask any psychiatric hospital employee about the working full moon shift if you don't believe me) so why not the Earth's magnetic field as well?

Oh, and finally:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Screw you! This is an international issue! When this war escalates anti-western hatred and terrorists start blowing up my home town, will it be my business then? When the Koreans start throwing nukes at my house because George Bush has announced that they are next on his hit-list, whose business will it be? When the UN is finally steamrolled into nothing and Georgy boy declares himself the undisputed gunslinging, nuke-juggling wild-west sheriff of the world (With Toady Tony Blair as his dutiful deputy) am I allowed to voice an opinion then?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

There is more than one reason why the Us Dropped the two bombs in 1945. One would have been the cost of lives if Operation Olympic was to succeed. The second was that their were 120 russian divisions who just happened to completely wipe out 80 Japanise divisions in 2 months and claimed two islands. Third was the political aspect of the bombs to act a deterient against Russia. There are many more reasons ( some which we will never know about as it was extrememly complex )but I believe that the 2nd and 3rd points were the main reasons behind the bomb.

The Us is very very right wing. They tried it in the 70's but failed ( watergate, do you remember it, Its like it never happened ), but did the right wing go away. No they formed new alliances with Groups such as the Christan Fundamists etc... and are now on the path to control again ( hoping their is no nasty surprises, ) And with only 37 companies controling all of AMerican media I am sure their will not be any.

I have no fear that the Us will drop the bomb today. But in 10 years or 20 that question is not so easy to answer.

Now, to say that the current issue with Iraq is only about oil is only part of the picture. Tell me what happens if they do get the oil. They flood the markets with it. Other countries will turn their production back. The Oil arguement alone does not make any sence.

All Sudam has to do here is comply with the UN resolution 100% and then see where that issue takes his nation and the US.

Eduardo Galeano uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki but fails to mention Toyko, Berlin , Dresdan, Hamburg, nor Nanking.

My God he is defending a man who has killed over a million people. 900,000 Iranians 350, 000 of his own people in that one war. 40,000 in the Shia Rebellion 91-92 , 85,000 in Gulf War 1, 1,000,000 because of the Embargo, 300,000 Kurds.

Think about that.

( Well somehow I think I wrote a post that will piss everyone off.... SOrry... ANd Fryon if the US was involved in a convential war against the world.. They would lose. )

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, G.W.Bush proclaimed recently that US will us nuclear weapons as a preventive strike.

No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um you are scared because the Americans would attempt to stop two countries from nuking each other? I think it's a bit more scary that some countries (yours perhaps?) would do nothing.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, my two cents:

First of all, I don't wanna hear anymore that BS that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, because its an insult to the intelligence. Everybody knows that the Iraqis hate the Kurds for some old reasons (or misreasons) and they applauded when Saddam droped the gas. No Iraqi see the kurds as their own. For the Iraqis the Kurds are terrorists as bad as Al Qaeda is for the Yanks.
Second, you are deluding yorself if you believe that the US will not use their nukes if the time for the need comes. That's just plain stupid. No nuclear power will ever be defeated on his own soil, or get his cities nuked, without nuking back. What I'm saying its that if a nuke goes off in an American city, all bets are off.
Third, there is already an state of war between Iraq and the US, you probably heard of fire interchange over the no fly zone on a weekly basis, if not daily. Iraq have been under a blockade for the Last 13 years, and they have to stop that somehow. If Iraq get their hands on a nuke I have no doubt on my mind they will use it against the US. So its foolish for the US not to take Saddam out.
You may argue that Saddam could disarm, but the problem with that is the fact that if you haven't found a nuke doesn't mean that there is none. I would never believe, and so will the US govt, that Saddam can't hide nukes in some hidden place 1000 meters underground. The risk of a nuke going off in an American city its a risk that no administration can take. And that's why there is going to be a war.
Do I support this war?
No, I don't.
I don't like Bush and company. I liked Clinton a lot better, but this Georgy guy is too involved in corporate business to trust him for half a second. I mean, this guy actualy put one of his employees as President of Afghanistan! Well, ok, ex-employee, ex co-worker of Condy Rice, and ex oil analist under Dick Cheney. Still is mighty suspicious.
Anyway, I think there is going to be a war, either this year or next, but war it will be.
And I do expect Iraqi attacks on American soil. Any half witted armchair general knows that you have to take war to the enemy territory or lose, and I don't see a reason to believe that Saddam will repeat the same stupid mistakes he did the Last time.
Rule number one of war: NEVER understimate the enemy. I know its hard not to, because of the easy victory Last time, but don't.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um you are scared because the Americans would attempt to stop two countries from nuking each other? I think it's a bit more scary that some countries (yours perhaps?) would do nothing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry, You misunderstand me.
I am scared if Americans believe they are more intelligent and have higher moral standards then the rest of the world. And if they believe it’s their “right” or “duty” to police the world.

India and Pakistan have managed to fight several “limited” wars, without (correct me if I am wrong here, because I know to little about this) escalating it into full force terror bombing of the other sides cities. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate that they are stupid enough to start nuking each other.

And my Country:
We will be there when it is necessary. We just don’t think it’s necessary yet.
What GBW is doing is not problem solving, it’s creating new problems.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While false and emotive anti-war propaganda is what, exactly?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Specifically, this: "Intelligence" report turns out to be plagiarised graduate thesis. The top result in the above search ( http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/uk020603.html ) seems to be a pretty good summary of the article in question.

If I was being unspecific, I would point to the general air of desperation coming from the Whitehouse & Downing St as they scrabble around for anti-Iraq sticks to hit the public with...