[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 9

Aloofi · #81 February 26th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Instar:

As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11.

"Faceless terrorist group" means that they claim to be independent. Or do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden is the one pulling the strings in Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition.
Who they are?
Ask your CEO, I mean, President, why he haven't make public their names and attack them instead of bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, a country where he knows perfectly well Al Qaeda was present just to atract the American rage after 9/11 from the real enemies.
But I guess oil is more valuable than truth.

Aloofi · #82 February 26th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
It would be quiet easy to track the device to the source. All fissionable materials carry a signature that can be linked to their source of manufacture. So based on byproduct yield, we would know the source in less than a day. At that point, it would just be a case of tracking it to the end user. If any large city was to be nuked by terrorists, then the gloves will come off in the war on terrorism.

Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user.

Sinapus · #83 February 26th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)
The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.

So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them?

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing

Hunkpapa · #84 February 26th, 2003, 10:43 PM

I am jumping into this discussion and I do not know how much of this has been covered in other Posts or similar topics....this is just my opinion...

1. It was mentioned other countries have also been on the recieving end of terrorism...then do something about it, one of the countries (France) choses to veto any actions by the US to thwart terrorism. Hell even Egypt was attacked by muslim terrorists looking to assassinate the president, they are not even safe from their own people.

2. I agree that Iraq is not the nucleus of 9/11, but they are hiding weapons of mass destructoin that they were suppose to destroy that alone should be reson to move in.

3. Along with 2, Suadi Arabi is where most of the 9/11 terrorists called home (although some officially are outcasts), we should be putting the screws to them also and any other nation that harbors terrorists. But we cannot take on the entire middle east at one time, it is impractical both strategically and finacially.

4. Isreal has been dealing with this crap for decades, and if let loose they could whip up on all the countries around them, internatioanl pressure is the only thing stopping it. Who is stopping the attacks on Isreal?

5. Saddam is a scape goat for the time being, and maybe GWB is just finishing what daddy started. Saddam actually is very liberal by Islamic standards, he recognizes other religions and there are other churches in his country that are allowed to operate unmolested...he does have issues in other areas such as his dealings with teh Kurds, hiding weapons, etc.

6. Almost every war has some kind of fianicial aspect...Korea was rubber, did the US care that the commies where taking over no...the US wanted the rubber for it's industry, Kuwait was oil...today it is oil, tommorow who knows.

7. The UN is ineffective, they cannot enforce diddly crap. Do I want the the US policing the world? no. Do I want the US to ensure my safety? yes, and so does the majority of the nations that are lacking any military of their own.

8. Everyone seems to like bashing the US for wanting to defend itself now and in the future, calling us Imperialistic...maybe we are alittle imperialistic...we financially aid at least half of the world, they are essentially our colonies if we are funding them. Where would half these countries be with out our aid...I say let them find out.

In closing I feel terrorism and any country supporting it should be eradicated.

rextorres · #85 February 26th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)
The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.

So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them?

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing

If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?

No one has made a case how things will be better after the war. My perception is that the world will be more dangerous for American with all these pissed off muslims floating around.

[ February 26, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: rextorres ]

CEO TROLL · #86 February 26th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Fry them All!!!!

Nuke-em until they glow.

Nuke-em back to the stone age.

They want to use bio-weapons?
Well, we can play that game. Just release the impotance and sterility viruses. Then charge for temporary relief.

Mephisto · #87 February 27th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloofi:
And the European Union just need a little push and will be inventing an excuse to invade Israel. Talk about double standards. They support a dictatorship in Iraq and fight a democracy in Israel.

Excuse me? The EU invading any country? Do we talk about the same world here?

Excuse me, people, but some of you are really frightening me. Some of you talk about waging a nuclear war or a war by the US against the rest of the globe as if it wouldn't be the end to the world as we know it. Any use of nuclear weapons will bring the world to the brink of all out nuclear war.

Sic transit Gloria mundi�

geoschmo · #88 February 27th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
No one has made a case how things will be better after the war.

That case is impossible to make. War never makes things better. War brings death and destruction. War is in and of itself a failure. But the question that must be asked and answered is whether the reuslt of the war is better or worse than the result of continued appeasment.

Geoschmo

Quote:

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "

- John Stuart Mill, English philosopher

DavidG · #89 February 27th, 2003, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?

Sounds like a fairly simple question to me. They are waiting for their friends to convince the US to back down and pull their troops back. Then get the UN to drop all sanctions cause they're real swell guys now. They will then make a few gazillion dollars selling their oil while they build up their army. Once convinced of their own superiority they will check the map and see which country is next in line to be invaded.

Saddam is surely smart enough to know that if he had used WMD's in the Last 12 years the political climate of the region would have meant instant action by the US and her allies.

[ February 26, 2003, 22:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

geoschmo · #90 February 27th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

This is an interesting way of describing Sadaam. Iraq today is not any more bankrupted then Germany was after WWI and we all know how well appeasement worked then.

Geoschmo