[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 42

thorfrog · #**411** March 19th, 2003, 06:59 PM

All I have to say is blame these radical nations who support terror for the coming war. By funding these Groups they up'd the antie in the world. Did these nations think the US would not react after 9/11. The US would rather avoid war at all cost. We have to strike now. Bush will probably not not win re-election because of this. But I give him credit, he is has the backbone to what is right. This will send a message that escallating attacks against America will have consequences.

I wonder what would happen if ALCADA attacked multiple sites in Europe, Russia, or China. Do you think human life would be a priority on their list. Well, maybe Europe. But then America would have to foot the bill for the EU.

I'm not saying this should be the responce to every nation like Iraq. But then again every other nation hasn't had 12 years of sanctions and signed treaties against chem/bio weapons. With the current Iraqi government gone countries like Iran and North Korea will take notice. The US does not make empty promisses. Maybe they will think twice on supporting terror Groups.

thorfrog · #**412** March 19th, 2003, 07:13 PM

Another thing, I think the US has had plenty of patients with Iraq. If we look at history wars began for lesser reasons. WWI kicked off after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinan. WWII began because of the failure of Euro appeasement to Germany. Falkland Island War started because of Argentina's 100 year old claim to the island and viewing the UK as a weaker power. Sometimes war is the only option. Iraq should have been taken care of 12 years ago.

Atrocities · #**413** March 19th, 2003, 07:20 PM

You know what, in a year we will all look back at this thread and ask ourselves why.

tesco samoa · #**414** March 19th, 2003, 07:26 PM

atomannj
i do hope your including USA in that list of nations.

thorfrog · #**415** March 19th, 2003, 08:23 PM

List of nations? Do you mean that have a high reguard for life? Sure. I think it's very well documented that the US is among those countries.

Wardad · #**416** March 19th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Bombing???
No, Let us call it "parking lot development".

http://www.milspecgear.com

tbontob · #**417** March 19th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wardad:
Bombing???
No, Let us call it "parking lot development".

http://www.milspecgear.com

That could be one massive parking lot.

Fyron · #**418** March 19th, 2003, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SgtBigG:

quote:

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.

A few thousand deaths in a war are absolutely nothing compared to how many of his own people Saddam has already killed, and will kill in the future if he is not stopped. We are not fighting a war to "save face".

Aloofi · #**419** March 19th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Click on the link below to play an strategy game about a possible scenario for the "Gulf War II"

Gulf War II

.

Hey guys, nobody liked the little flash game?

Wardad · #**420** March 19th, 2003, 11:25 PM

We played that flash game months ago.

Regardless of Fryons opinion, that game did highlight some possible losing scenarios.

How many countries are stilled ruled by Royal Families? How many goverments have survived with dirt poor starving population and ultra rich ruling class? Does this sound like Saudi Arabia?

/
/
/
Another repeat: French Army Knife
http://www.milspecgear.com/french.html

[ March 19, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Wardad ]