quote:
Talonus was naked while typing this:
Oh yes, you're not exaggerating at all. Saddam has a few hundred thousand nukes stored below the sand out there. He also plans to send a nuke missle out to kill each individial American soldier. Yup. Ok. Besides, since when has Saddam *definitely* had nukes anyway?And you're trying to change the point also. Please, prove to me how American going in without UN sanctions is not hypocrisy on our part.
Did you not fucking read what I said.
I said IF HE WAS CAPABLE!
We should not and do not really give a shit about the UN. However they do provide some convinence. [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Azizza ]
Like in this case. And here thay have a chance to become something more than the useless waste of resorces they have been. And they sure are not doing a very good job.
Sadam could have nukes and sit them on his front lawn and the UN would call for "more inspections"
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about dark elf butts:
This pretty much sums up my feelings about this war.
Then your feelings on the war are pretty uneducated and so full of holes that you could use it to strain pasta.
quote:
Talonus obviously shouldn't have said:
Please, prove to me how American going in without UN sanctions is not hypocrisy on our part.
Because it has nothing to do with the UN? The UN is trying to keep the peace, but us going into Iraq has nothing to do with them.
The UN just happens to be the weapon inspectors that were agreed to by both sides and keep getting turned back. If both sides agreed to let China do the inspecting instead of the UN, and China kept getting turned away by Iraq the war wouldn't be about China.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about John Romero:
Did you not fucking read what I said.I said IF HE WAS CAPABLE!
We should not and do not really give a shit about the UN. However they do provide some convinence.
quote:
We have no intent of using any and all weapons when we attack Iraq. The Idea is to get rid of SH not turn the place ionto a sheet of glass.
If we were to find out the location of a large Iraqi armored division then we would send in aircraft, bomb it to hell and back, then send in ground forces to mop up.If Sadam was to find the location of one of our ground forces and he was able to, he would probably just drop a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on thier heads.
I've read it over a couple times now. I don't see if he were capable in there. Could you point it out for me?
And we *should* and *do* give a shit about the UN. I mean, we're a big reason the US exists and are a major power within the UN is all. If we didn't give a shit, why did we go to them at all? Why haven't we busted down Saddam's doors yet, and the doors of every other bad bad dictator out there?
quote:
Talonus had this to say about Captain Planet:
I've read it over a couple times now. I don't see if he were capable in there. Could you point it out for me?
quote:
If Sadam was to find the location of one of our ground forces and he was able to, he would probably just drop a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on thier heads.
quote:
Azizza enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Then your feelings on the war are pretty uneducated and so full of holes that you could use it to strain pasta.
You read that pretty fast.
quote:
Kermitov stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
You read that pretty fast.
I am a fast reader however It was also posted on another board I go to earlier today.
quote:
Frog got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Because it has nothing to do with the UN? The UN is trying to keep the peace, but us going into Iraq has nothing to do with them.
A large part of why the US wants to go to war with Iraq and why the US went to the UN in the first place is because Saddam has WMDs. He's not supposed to.
Now, if we were to say "well, the UN doesn't want to go to war with Iraq, but we're going to do it anyway" how does it differ from what Saddam is doing?
And I see "is capable of" as being VERY different from "was able to." "Is capable of" implies Iraq may not have nuclear weapons. "Is able to" implies Iraq has nuclear weapons and will use them if he can.
quote:
A sleep deprived Talonus stammered:
[QUOTE]I've read it over a couple times now. I don't see if he were capable in there. Could you point it out for me?
And we *should* and *do* give a shit about the UN. I mean, we're a big reason the US exists and are a major power within the UN is all. If we didn't give a shit, why did we go to them at all? Why haven't we busted down Saddam's doors yet, and the doors of every other bad bad dictator out there?
If Sadam was to find the location of one of our ground forces and he was able to
Oh I am sorry. My exact words were " he was able to"
You have yet to give me a good reason why we should pay any attention to anything the UN says.
quote:
Talonus had this to say about (_|_):
A large part of why the US wants to go to war with Iraq and why the US went to the UN in the first place is because Saddam has WMDs. He's not supposed to.Now, if we were to say "well, the UN doesn't want to go to war with Iraq, but we're going to do it anyway" how does it differ from what Saddam is doing?
And I see "is capable of" as being VERY different from "was able to." "Is capable of" implies Iraq may not have nuclear weapons. "Is able to" implies Iraq has nuclear weapons and will use them if he can.
The US only went to the UN because it was the only "Body" both sides would agree on to do the inspecting. The UN in this situation are nothing more than the weapon inspectors.
And uhm.. "and was able to" in that context pretty clearly means "if he was capable." 
quote:
Talonus had this to say about Robocop:
A large part of why the US wants to go to war with Iraq and why the US went to the UN in the first place is because Saddam has WMDs. He's not supposed to.Now, if we were to say "well, the UN doesn't want to go to war with Iraq, but we're going to do it anyway" how does it differ from what Saddam is doing?
And I see "is capable of" as being VERY different from "was able to." "Is capable of" implies Iraq may not have nuclear weapons. "Is able to" implies Iraq has nuclear weapons and will use them if he can.
So you see no difference between the US and Iraqi leadership? Please tell me you are not that blind. Iraq has in the past invaded other countries with the intent of taking over thier people and natural resorces. Iraq has used WMDs on numerous occasions against both Iraqi people and countries it is at war with.
Saddam has had his own family members killed after pardoning them. Thier crime? Speaking against his totalitarian rule.
Saddam pays $25,000 to the families of homicide bombers who kill Americans or Isrealis.
His own people hate and fear him...
Yeah Sddam is a good guy and we are so evil and bad for wanting to remove him from power when the UN says not to.
/rude UN
/rude Saddam
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Knight Rider:
You have yet to give me a good reason why we should pay any attention to anything the UN says.
I'll say it again, it shows total hypocrisy on our parts. If Saddam isn't supposed to have certain weapons because of UN rules, and we attack him, without the UN ok, because he has the weapons it makes us *no better than him.*
We're breaking rules just the same then. We're invading his country because we don't like him. We're the agressor. We're wrong. We're the bad guys. He'll be a martyr. He'll be the one asking for help from the UN to defend against an agressor. He'll be the one to say, "Help me, help me. Those big, bad Americans are attacking me!" Don't you see a problem with that?
On the "is capable of" and "able to" thing. I guess its just a difference of opinion on the meaning. *shrugs*
With force out of the way, there will need to me some mode of dealing with global problems. (National pride won't help you when your neighbours are building unsafe nuclear reactors on your border because they're less likely to hit their own people when they blow up that way.
No shit Saddam is a bad bad man who deserves to have bad bad things done to him. The end does not justify the means though.
You can't go in and take over Iraq because you don't like him though, or you're no better than him? Think he liked the Kuwait gov't when he invaded back in 1990? Nope. Did he go in and attack? Yup. Did we get UN ok to go in then? Yup. Think we like Iraq's gov't in 2003? Nope. Do we have UN ok to go in now, at this very second? Nope. Is it ok to attack yet? Nope.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Talonus said:
He'll be the one to say, "Help me, help me. Those big, bad Americans are attacking me!" Don't you see a problem with that?
Yes, I see a problem with that. The problem being, of course, that you have no understanding of the history of this confrontation.
I am a History freak. After I save up enough money to not ruin my credit for the rest of my life by taking out 4294284928492 loans, I will be going to school to be a History teacher. As a History freak/future teacher, I can tell you there are three major causes to wars. Territory, resources, and the throwing away of agreements.
Guess which one this is about! Please let me know now if you think territory or oil(resources), so I can cease speaking and find someone of some intelligence.
What? You're not that stupid? Didn't think so!
Now, that leaves us with one option: the ending of agreements. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, we and the rest of the world swooped down and smacked them around for a few months. A stipulation of the ceasefire was that Iraq destroy all of it's chemical weapons and ballistic missles, and build no more. We have hard evidence, as outlined by Powell a few weeks ago at the UN, that neither of these have happened. We also had suspicions previously, by the fact that Iraq sort of.. wouldn't let the UN look for those weapons. Which makes the ceasefire invalid, by Iraq themselves.
quote:
Frog wrote this stupid crap:
Now, that leaves us with one option: the ending of agreements. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, we and the rest of the world swooped down and smacked them around for a few months. A stipulation of the ceasefire was that Iraq destroy all of it's chemical weapons and ballistic missles, and build no more. We have hard evidence, as outlined by Powell a few weeks ago at the UN, that neither of these have happened. We also had suspicions previously, by the fact that Iraq sort of.. wouldn't let the UN look for those weapons. Which makes the ceasefire invalid, by Iraq themselves.
Welp, good reasoning indeed. *Bows down to Snoota.* A good point I've totally forgotten actually. Much better than the "We should invade Iraq cause Saddam is a bad man" arguement. I concede defeat.
Doesn't change my beliefs that we should get the OK though, but that's more because I'd rather the US cover all its bases so Saddam doesn't go yell "Help me, help me" and paint us as the bad guy. The US doesn't need anymore enemies. *nods*
quote:
Rodent King wrote this stupid crap:
I'm not entirely against a war with Iraq, but I'd like to know why we're the only country that seems to want to do it. Doesn't Iraq scare all the other countries of the U.N.? Why can't we get a whole lot more support and troops from our allies?
That's a surprisingly good question!
Just wanted to point that out.
That is all.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Verily, Nicole doth proclaim:
What does trhe little eye icon mean...?
quote:
Rodent King had this to say about Cuba:
I'm not entirely against a war with Iraq, but I'd like to know why we're the only country that seems to want to do it. Doesn't Iraq scare all the other countries of the U.N.? Why can't we get a whole lot more support and troops from our allies?
Uumm.. Dude, you better do some fact checking fore making comments like this...
Australia has sent approx half it's Special Air Service Regiment to the Gulf to be part of this, with the other half on 'rapid deployment' alert, as well as a squadron of F/A-18s, as well as other ancillary support aircraft.
Additionally, we have two-three warships and another support vessel from our navy in the Gulf, or on the way.
Beleive it or not, this committment of troops is MORE than what we sent during Desert Shield/Storm, or to enforce the UN embargos since.
I think you'll also find a fair number of British troops are either stationed in the Gulf at the moment, or are on 'round-the-clock' standby for immediate deployment to same.
It might be true that national opinion is split on whether or not we should be involved, but we do have troops there ready to go in.
Same troops we had in Afghanistan, and I beleive you'll find that a LOT of US soldiers are happy that we've sent the same guys again... Our SAS guys are just as highly trained as the British SAS (since both sides regularly 'exchange' troop, just as they do with the US Special Forces).
I can also categorically confirm that there has not been a single war (or police action, or peacekeeping effort) since 1901, when Australia was officially recognised as a nation, that we have not sent troops to (we sent them to numerous wars before that date too.. most notably the Boer War of South Africa).
As part of one Australian national song says:
"We're a peace-loving race,
But should danger ever threaten,
Let the world know
We will answer the call."
Despite public outcry and threats of censure from thier respective parliments, they have stood thier ground nad supported the US.
Frankly the Brits and Austrailians have really gone far to earn my respect. Both the leaders and people who are supporting us, and the people who dissagree but still have the balls to say. "We dissagree with war however we will support our country because we have faith that they are doing what is right"
And after typing that I relised that I made a great omission by forgetting to mention Canada. The same thing applies to them.
It seems that France, germany, and Russia are the only ones who really causing a stir over this. The others are either with us or acknowlege that we may be doing something that is for the greater good even if they dont' agree completely with our course of action.
quote:
Aanile's account was hax0red to write:
I understood her... And it's not. ;P
Yes it is, and what was said is a borderline anarchist statement.
Also, believe it or not, and even people who have spent time in the country can attest to it. The people there, even without Saddam, would not get along with Americans. Cultural differences, socialogical differences, and philosophical differences. The middle east, and the rest of the world (Some countries excluded) are not compatible. Period.
Do they derserve to die for thier way of life, absolutly not. Do they need to be stopped from causing harm to others because of thier way of life, by force if nessesary, absolutly yes. However there are other, more humane ways of taking care of that. Saddam on the other hand, his political regiem, and those terrorist organizatiions housed there and abroad, deserve death, and a subsequent sterilization of thier kind from the gene pool.
And people need to get off the "Oh American wants world domination" or "American just wants control/oil/land/(insert completely asanine conquest standard here)". It's complete and utter BS, because if that was the case. It would have been done. We've had the opportunity and the power to do it, we choose not to. So people spouting that crap can just go off themselves, cause they are bordering on brain dead anyway, and don't have a leg to stand on.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Azizza:
STUFF
I was about to comment on the lack of Canada love.
First, some countries (France in particular) have been dealing with Iraq, including even illegal arms for a few countries, and if we attacked, they'd basically get exposed horribly.
Secondly, Europe has had two world wars. They're rather stability oriented and don't really prefer war. They have a valid reason for being a bit... hesitant to fight; but, however, they should be helping out a bit more. They're actually making things worse, because, something is going to happen.
Yeah, a few countries have helped. And I respect them for supporting it. Europe has not been victim to a major terroistic attack (And, honestly, the terrorists are pretty smart to only piss off America, which seems to be an easy country to hate)
, so, they don't see as much hubub about the terrorists (I assume they still loathe terrorism; but these anti-war countries probably think that Bush is making a bit of a stretch to lump Iraq into this.) as we do.
Also, there's oil. [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Lenny ]
quote:
Lenny had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Also, there's oil.
I thought Iraq's oil output was more or less insignificant?
quote:
We were all impressed when JooJooFlop wrote:
I thought Iraq's oil output was more or less insignificant?
It's more insignificant than everyone thinks; but, it's still a factor as more and more countries become industrialized. However, it isn't really a direct reason, but, it's something that will be affected. [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Lenny ]
I have nothing to contribute to this thread.
"When I started this thread, all I wanted to know was what bush said, now it has become some horrible abomination of dispute."
That is all. You may now resume your normal ranting, raving, and what ever else you do...
quote:
NecroPope had this to say:
"When I started this thread, all I wanted to know was what bush said, now it has become some horrible abomination of dispute."
The creator of a thread can request the closure of it at any time.
Just so you know.
quote:
NecroPope wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I demand closure, I feel those eyes are tarnishing my already tainted name.
tainted name...
whoooaaaahhh tainted name....
