cause i hate everyone and everything and think most people are better offf dead or in a rather nice vegetablelike state
Iraq presents no immediate danger to the U.S., or its allies. There is no credible evidence it has a nuclear weapons program in any advanced state.
Bush's primary reasons in support of action in Iraq are the following:
My reasons why an attack on Iraq is a bad idea:
... did I pick the wrong thread to peek in on today or what?
[ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Niklas ]
[Edit: go drys too]
quote:
Drysart wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Let's see....Iraq presents no immediate danger to the U.S., or its allies. There is no credible evidence it has a nuclear weapons program in any advanced state.
Nevermind the more than sixy other UN sanctions Iraq has already been proven to have violated.
The only reason it's Bush's war and not Bush + The UN's war is because the UN values stasis over safety. They've proven themselves opposed to action of any kind, under any circumstances time and time again.
Drys, all the reasons you've posted there are basically reiterations of the fact that there isn't any concrete evidence that Iraq is capable of nuking another country. So where's the evidence that they aren't capable? What about thier OTHER atrocities, nukes and terrorism aside?
The political bias pours off you like a stink, Drys. You'd probably see the whole world in flames if it meant legal marijuana and a ban on firearms. [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Dark Lord Mauradon ]
quote:
Dark Lord Mauradon had this to say about Duck Tales:
Nevermind the more than sixy other UN sanctions Iraq has already been proven to have violated.The only reason it's Bush's war and not Bush + The UN's war is because the UN values stasis over safety. They've proven themselves opposed to action of any kind, under any circumstances time and time again.
Drys, all the reasons you've posted there are basically reiterations of the fact that there isn't any concrete evidence that Iraq is capable of nuking another country. So where's the evidence that they aren't capable? What about thier OTHER atrocities, nukes and terrorism aside?
The political bias pours off you like a stink, Drys. You'd probably see the whole world in flames if it meant legal marijuana and a ban on firearms.
Smell pretty bad there too, pal. 
quote:
Dark Lord Mauradon had this to say about Tron:
Nevermind the more than sixy other UN sanctions Iraq has already been proven to have violated.
The international diplomacy version of traffic tickets is hardly justification for an invasion. Besides, as I've said, the United States getting on anyone's case for disregarding the U.N. is hilarious.
Where's the invasion of Israel, for example, who, for the past 40 years, has violated 3 UN resolutions every 4 years? (31 of them since 1968).. or Turkey (23 since 1968)... or Morroco? (18 since 1968)?
Iraq is currently violating about 12 standing resolutions (not "sixy"). What about the other 91 current standing resolutions that are being violated by other countries?
quote:
Dark Lord Mauradon had this to say about Tron:
The only reason it's Bush's war and not Bush + The UN's war is because the UN values stasis over safety. They've proven themselves opposed to action of any kind, under any circumstances time and time again.
If you have no regard for the UN as a ruling body (by your disregard of their condemnation of any US attack on Iraq), then why the hell do you care how many of their resolutions Iraq has violated, anyway?
I mean, come on, pick a side and stick with it. Should people respect the UN, or should they just go off and do things the UN specifically said not to?
quote:
Dark Lord Mauradon had this to say about Tron:
Drys, all the reasons you've posted there are basically reiterations of the fact that there isn't any concrete evidence that Iraq is capable of nuking another country. So where's the evidence that they aren't capable? What about thier OTHER atrocities, nukes and terrorism aside?
Where's the proof that unicorns don't exist? For as skilled as a debater you like you believe you are, you certainly know that the burden of proof on a statement lies on the affirmative side.
Don't you think going to war should be based on a fact rather than a guess? Certainly with the world's best intelligence agencies, and a budget that's more than the next highest 18 countries combined, they could come up with something definitive?
quote:
Dark Lord Mauradon had this to say about Tron:
The political bias pours off you like a stink, Drys. You'd probably see the whole world in flames if it meant legal marijuana and a ban on firearms.
Are facts too tough to debate against that you need to result changing the subject with personal attacks and childish stereotypes? ....and incorrect ones at that! ?
quote:
Drysart's account was hax0red to write:
Every other country on the planet except for England thinks it's a bad idea and will be very pissed off at us if we do. We stand the risk of provoking more countries into hating us enough to harboring and training terrorists to knock out a few of our teeth.
Sadf thing is...
Australia's Prime Minister is probably more rabidly in favor of going into Iraq than the British PM.
Then again, that might be because if the US (and it's allies) went into Iraq, we'd be able to send a token force only (at best).
Cooks, repair technicians, and other rear-echlon types rarely get shot at (hence no casulaties to provoke ire from Australian voters).
NOTE: This is not to disparage those people who hold the above posts in the military. They are just as important as anyone else in the grand scheme of things of having an up to date and prepared military
However...
it is a known fact that Australia can barely field enough troops to supply its (minimal) commitment to the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, notwithstanding our current commitment to peacekeeping forces in East Timor. Even if we "brought the boys back home" there'd still be very few troops who could do anything of major assistance in a war in Iraq.
quote:
We were all impressed when Reynar wrote:
Bush wants war, everyone can see that. What most people don't consider is that if you put troops into a place like Iraq, our soldiers will be surrounded 1000 miles in every direction by people who 'do not want them there'.Our bombs, weapons, and technology, are not useful for the kind of war he wants to put us into.
If/when we go into Iraq, it will be close quarters fighting in unfamiliar territory, where the advantage is clearly in the hands of the enemy.
Vietnam anyone??
quote:
Waging some of the wars that Bush wants is just like when we dropped people into the South Pacific Jungles.
"Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."
Sadly, (and as mentioned in my previous post) the Australian government is more in favor of the US going into Iraq than any other country (and even a fair portion of US citizens as well).
It seems we can't remember the mistakes of the past either....
(Then again, the current Australian PM is on the record of saying that he'd prefer to see Australia return to what it was in the 1950s... 
that was a few years before Vietnam.. maybe it's hard to remember things that havent yet happened in your belief-timeline.... :P )
I personally will laugh my ass of when the government asks all gamers that have played any sort of FPS to go out and point keyboards at enemies with real guns. 
Our aircraft were not ALLOWED to bomb over 80% of the country.. Time Magazine published maps of these areas. Guess where NV kept all their equipment. US aircraft had to establish radio contact before they were allowed to engage enemy aircraft. That means if they were fired at they still had to get permission to engage. (this was mostly ignored and eventually revoked).
If a battle was won and an area was taken US troops pulled out within 48 hours. Fire support was routinely denied to US forces under fire.
All targets that were bombed had to be approved by the white house. Yes thats right. If an enemy convoy was sighted then you had to get permission from the white house to attack it.
In the few cases where US troops did match up in an open battle against NVA troops we kicked thier ass. No if's ands or buts about it.
Once Linebacker II was started the NVA were running scared. For those who dont' know, Linebacker II was the unlimited bombing of NVA targets. Before this we bombed mostly trees. (Literally)
They micromanaged the war. That is why we lost. WE have also learned our lesson.
i came into this thread thinking war is bad, read az's post, thought this war would abe a good idae, then read dry's post thought war abd idae, then az's last post and went back to this war being a good idae
i will now fully refrain from makeing any politcal statement ever
And he's willing to use them. He used them on Iran. Ever see any of the videos? I saw the news at one point. Boils, festering chemical burns around the eyes and mouth. Huge patches of skin hanging like loose cloth.
VX Gas? The stuff made famous in "The Rock" ? He has it. Not as potent as the stuff in the movie, maybe, but a few drops can kill dozens of people.
I think there are plenty of reasons to go in and sweep and clear that whole regime. Take Hussein and his entire power structure out.
And we could. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done. And if there's a war, then people need to grow up. You can't have a peaceful war, which is what everyone wants. They all want to be righteous without getting their hands dirty and that's not the way war works. And it shouldn't be clean. People SHOULD see the horror of it. The monster SHOULD be seen to be dead. But at the same time, don't have any delusions. War isn't pretty or simple or a graceful missile down a chimney and a cloud of smoke. It's bloody, penetrative, violating, gory, and cruel. It's vicious.
And sometimes it's 100% necessary.
And I think the UN needs to get its thumb out of its ass. Yeah the US has the tendency to violate UN wishes, or to strongarm things. We shouldn't. Want me to cry over it? Going to have a long wait. On the other hand, the UN shouldn't pressure us if it's going to ignore our problems with other nations and say "we don't think it's a problem". We give how much in aid to other countries under the banner of the UN? We support how much of the UN's agencies? We go to war with the UN against bad people and then their own directives to those bad people goes through, why are we the only ones pissed off? I'd like to see the UN grow some balls and follow through. I'd like to see the European Union legislate some nasty forceful things against the US. Not because I want to see hard feelings with Europe, necessarily, but I think all this polite bickering needs to stop. US needs to grow up, and so does everyone else. Lasting solutions, follow-through, or back the hell off.
I stand by what I said before. It's not a matter of "if" certain parties (Hussein in particular) need to be taken out. It's a matter of when.
BUT!
Going to war for an election isn't a good reason. There's plenty of reasons there should be hard feelings and there are plenty of reasons for a war. Elections aren't one of them. It wasn't right when Clinton bombed some folks to avoid his infidelity. It isn't right to start a fight with Iraq to win power in Congress or to keep Bush elected. It's also not right to go to war based on the fact we could win. [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael ]
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Azizza's fortune cookie read:
People keep bringing up Vietnam and try to use it as an example. Here are a few facts to remember about that nasty little War.Our aircraft were not ALLOWED to bomb over 80% of the country.. Time Magazine published maps of these areas. Guess where NV kept all their equipment. US aircraft had to establish radio contact before they were allowed to engage enemy aircraft. That means if they were fired at they still had to get permission to engage. (this was mostly ignored and eventually revoked).
If a battle was won and an area was taken US troops pulled out within 48 hours. Fire support was routinely denied to US forces under fire.
All targets that were bombed had to be approved by the white house. Yes thats right. If an enemy convoy was sighted then you had to get permission from the white house to attack it.In the few cases where US troops did match up in an open battle against NVA troops we kicked thier ass. No if's ands or buts about it.
Once Linebacker II was started the NVA were running scared. For those who dont' know, Linebacker II was the unlimited bombing of NVA targets. Before this we bombed mostly trees. (Literally)They micromanaged the war. That is why we lost. WE have also learned our lesson.
We lost because the war was ran from the white house, and not by trained military professionals like it should have been.
In fact our air craft were all over VN, while they had to get radio'd in, there were many missions where we basically started burning up the Jungle with napalm.
And to clarify, I was only comparing this situation to VN because in both situations, we would 'knowingly' be dropping troops into a losing battle.
Edit: spelling. [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Reynar ]
quote:
Verily, Drysart doth proclaim:
Are facts too tough to debate against that you need to result changing the subject with personal attacks and childish stereotypes? ....and incorrect ones at that! ?
I'm looking for facts and I'm seeing a politically motivated spin on the truth.
Good luck trying to justify inaction against a militant dictatorship that has openly threatened our country and repeatedly expressed an interest in developing weapons of mass destruction. Good luck painting Saddam Hussain as an innocent. What's the worst that could happen, eh? America gets nuked and you get to blame it on the republicans.
Inaction is as much an affirmative as action in this case. UN weapons inspector David Kay is quoted as saying there is nothing weapons inspectors can do to prevent or uncover a nuclear or biological weapons development facility if even the slightest effort is made at concealment, and they know this.
Of course Saddam isn't stupid enough to attack anyone directly, but I'm sure the thought that a nuke or biological attack would be launched by proxy via Saddam's radical islamic fundamentalist neighbors has already occurred to you, eh?
The action of inaction could easily cost as many lives as the invasion you seem to think I'm proposing. But of course none of that means anything to you, because there's no "proof"...apart from the expressed intent of the Iraqi regime and the physical evidence of biological and nuclear research facilities.
I have no respect for the UN as a governing body because they neither enforce thier sanctions nor allow them to be enforced. The UN sanctions are good laws, the UN's policy of inaction is not.
And by the way, here's a short list of Iraq's violations of international law. Just the highlights really. They're hardly traffic tickets. [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Maradon XP ]
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
I'm looking for facts and I'm seeing a politically motivated spin on the truth.
You want to talk about spin? Your post has so much of it I almost thought I was watching a ballet for a moment.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
Good luck trying to justify inaction against a militant dictatorship that has openly threatened our country and repeatedly expressed an interest in developing weapons of mass destruction.
Spin spin spin -- Lack of support for total invasion does not equal an attempt to justify inaction. There are plenty of solutions that are better in just about every way than a large, expensive war; especially at a time our country is hard-pressed to pay for such a war.
But hell, if you've got a hard on for killing the guy, send in the snipers. One bullet costs a lot less than a war. I betcha the CIA could do it and make it look like it was one of his own men that turned against him. Now there's something I can agree with.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
Good luck painting Saddam Hussain as an innocent. What's the worst that could happen, eh? America gets nuked and you get to blame it on the republicans.
Spin spin spin... with a doomsday scenario thrown in for good measure. Hussain is far from innocent. I don't think he should be in power, but I really don't think the U.S. needs to make any more enemies over there; and marching our army in after just about everyone in the world told us not to is a good way to make enemies fast.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
Inaction is as much an affirmative as action in this case. UN weapons inspector David Kay is quoted as saying there is nothing weapons inspectors can do to prevent or uncover a nuclear or biological weapons development facility if even the slightest effort is made at concealment, and they know this.
So they could be hiding something so obviously they must be?
I'll tell ya, I've had a sneaking suspicion that Canada's been up to something for years, I guess this just confirms it.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
Of course Saddam isn't stupid enough to attack anyone directly, but I'm sure the thought that a nuke or biological attack would be launched by proxy via Saddam's radical islamic fundamentalist neighbors has already occurred to you, eh?
Yep. And Saddam knows that if he's involved in it, there'll be evidence pointing straight back at him. He saw what happened to Afghanistan.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
The action of inaction could easily cost as many lives as the invasion you seem to think I'm proposing. But of course none of that means anything to you, because there's no "proof"...apart from the expressed intent of the Iraqi regime and the physical evidence of biological and nuclear research facilities.
I thought they were hiding all that stuff?
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
I have no respect for the UN as a governing body because they neither enforce thier sanctions nor allow them to be enforced. The UN sanctions are good laws, the UN's policy of inaction is not.
So, in essence, you only support the UN as far as they agree with the US. Replace "US" in that previous sentence with "Iraq" and that's exactly what you're proposing as a valid reason for the attack on Iraq. This seems to be an indefensible position.
Look, if you want to drop bombs on Iraq because you think they're EEEEVIL, just say it. You make yourself look like a hypocrite and a fool when you use the bullshit excuse of the UN when you don't even stand behind the UN.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon XP wrote:
And by the way, here's a short list of Iraq's violations of international law. Just the highlights really. They're hardly traffic tickets.
I see nothing in the UN resolutions listed on that page (the quote from US law isn't a UN resolution) that have ANYTHING to do with the US. In fact, I can point you to a couple countries that are much closer and would be easier to conquer than Iraq that violate those exact same resolutions. So if those are the real reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, why haven't we invaded Cuba yet?
(By the way, it's extremely humorous that a right-winger is pointing to a description of a welfare system that Iraq doesn't have as a reason to attack them, when Republicans for years have been trying to weaken that very same system in the US. Not to mention that the U.S. is in violation of resolution 44/215, one of the resolutions listed, and that the US refuses to submit to any responsibility under the War Crimes act by its refusal to send soliders to trial in The Hague).
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Dr. Pvednes, PhD said:
I wish to express my desire to have Drysart's children.
me first 
quote:
Maradon XP had this to say about Knight Rider:
I'm looking for facts and I'm seeing a politically motivated spin on the truth.
quote:
JooJooFlop said, obviously thinking too hard:
...The man is a moron.
[ 10-25-2002: Message edited by: Hireko FishSlayer ]
