Fractux Posted December 4, 2002 Report Posted December 4, 2002 Read about it more on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2543697.stm
Raven Posted December 4, 2002 Report Posted December 4, 2002 Good, go to war for oil, but get it over with already. Oil is a sufficient reason for war, it's our government doing what is best for local corporations and, ultimately, for the populace.
Fractux Posted December 4, 2002 Report Posted December 4, 2002 Well I'll say this. Our societies in N.A. rely on resources to keep their economies stable, and to provide everyone with a nice high standard of living. Many wars are fought over resources, and there's no denying that. However, a countrie's most valuable resources is its people. So when we get sent off to die, it's costing the country quite a bit as well. When a country says that it needs to go to war, then it SHOULD be for a reason/ideal that is more highly prized than human lives. But coming back to reality, in the 21st century, we are all still not over this hump. Many people know its about oil, but it's being sold as another fight against terrorism. And who's going to stand up to the US and say, "Whoa!, listen, I don't think this is a good idea. This is a bad can of worms we're opening. This is going to make people hate us more. What is this going to mean for us later down the road?" The build up in the middle east kind of makes me think about the fact that for countries in The Great War, "mobilization meant war". The situation is very different, and i am not applying the old rules to new cicumstances. I'm saying that the buld up of forces itself warrant military action. And so far, the build up is not stopping. When you load a rifle, you will either shoot it, or unload. I wonder what the US will do once its done filling up the mag and sliding her in? I can't think of one good reason that will stop the US from puilling the trigger. Well, unless the weapon breaks down. But that's what the war against terrorism is fighting to stop. Damn, that's one vicious circle.
Lotharr Posted December 4, 2002 Report Posted December 4, 2002 Perpetual war for perpetual peace....with liberty and justice for who? [ 12-04-2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest Posted December 4, 2002 Report Posted December 4, 2002 OK, time to have some fun with this article. quote: And yet again, the Americans are trying to establish links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in a desperate attempt to hitch the "war on terror" to the war for oil (which is what, of course, the Iraqi "crisis" is all about). Vice President Cheney has been parroting all the same nonsense about "terror" leaders and Saddam, even though Bin Laden loathes the Iraqi leader. No one – absolutely no one – has produced the slightest evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the international crimes against humanity of 11 September. But still we are forced to listen to this trash. quote: Another mistaken 'conceptzia': Why do so many analysts treat Iraq and al-Qaida as entirely separate? Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-04-02 | LAURIE MYLROIE Al-Qaida has struck again, or so it seems. "A virtual enemy," as a Clinton administration official describes it, al-Qaida is everywhere and anywhere. It is no less a threat than it was a year ago, according to CIA director George Tenet although the Taliban are defeated; al-Qaida's leadership is dead or on the run; and more than 3,000 others have been detained. "You see it in Bali. You see it in Kuwait," Tenet affirmed. And now, presumably, we saw it in Mombasa. US government officials recently stated that missiles shot at an Israeli passenger plane were linked to a failed al-Qaida attack on an American fighter jet in Saudi Arabia. But does this idea that al-Qaida is acting alone really make sense? Not at all. The Clinton administration "spun" America's terrorist problem when it re-emerged in February 1993, with the bombing of the World Trade Center, one month into Bill Clinton's first term in office. New York FBI believed that was a "false flag" operation run by Iraq, working with and hiding behind Islamic militants. But Clinton did not want to hear it (he thought he took care of the problem slyly if the FBI was correct when he hit Iraqi intelligence headquarters several months later). So his administration claimed a new terrorism had emerged, consisting of "loose networks" of Islamic militants, unsupported by states. Israel might have recognized this for the dangerous misconception it was, were it not for the unrealistic expectations that set in regarding the "peace process" when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister. Already then, a new "conceptzia" had begun to blur Western vision. "Conceptzia" was the term coined by the Agranat Commission to describe the intelligence failure that led to the surprise of the Yom Kippur War. As a friend at Tel Aviv University explained, "It is much more than a mistake." It is a fundamentally flawed understanding of events that prevents one from seeing what is before his eyes. The new conceptzia is easy to explain. By the mid-1990s, the notion had taken hold that the US had decisively defeated Iraq in 1991 (in fact, many, including prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, were appalled when the US ended the war with Saddam in power). Then following Iraq's defeat, so the conceptzia goes, a new threat emerged the spread of Islamic militants after the 1992 collapse of the communist regime in Afghanistan. Thus, the two threats, Iraq and the spread of Islamic militancy, are separated in time and space. BUT THE Gulf War never really ended. The two phenomena the ongoing war with Iraq and the spread of Islamic militancy existed at the same time, the 1990s, and in the same space, the Sunni Muslim Middle East. Did they merge? That is an important question, which almost no one asks. But it would seem they did. Consider Egypt, a key member of the anti-Iraq coalition. Without Egyptian backing, the Arab League would never have voted to support Iraq's ouster from Kuwait, as it did in August 1990. Egypt seemed to have beaten back its post-Afghanistan Islamic challenge by 1997. On November 17, however, more foreign tourists were killed in one day in an attack at Luxor than were killed during Egypt's entire post-Afghan Islamic insurgency. The attack occurred as the first crisis over UNSCOM ended. More crises would follow, as Saddam deliberately moved to end weapons inspections. When the next crisis began in early 1998, Egypt, through the Arab League, took a strong position that it not be resolved by force. No major terrorist attack has occurred in Egypt since. What happened at Luxor? If Iraqi intelligence joins with an indigenous militant group, isn't the ensuing attack likely to be far more lethal than what that group might do on its own? Of course. Recently, I discussed this with the distinguished historian Bernard Lewis, who concurred. The subtle hints that Iraq was involved in Luxor were missed by those who jumped to the conclusion the militants had struck again, but not by the Egyptians. A major debate rages in Washington as to whether Iraq supports al-Qaida. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland wrote, "The links become clear with a little digging. You miss them only if you have a strong need not to know." The attacks on tourists in Bali and Mombasa come as momentum builds for war with Iraq. As one US official, part of the new Bush team, noted, their main purpose is "to divert us from the war on Iraq.... Terrorism is an instrument of state, not a wildcat NGO." The conceptzia needs urgent reexamination. If Israel accepts and endorses an erroneous explanation for this terrorism, that will only increase the risk more will follow. The writer is the author of The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks. there's LOTS of proof that Iraq is helping Alquaeda and other terrorist organizations. You want more? quote: Proof That Saddam Bankrolls Terrorism Insight Magazine | Nov. 13, 2002 | Kenneth R. Timmerman Even as President George W. Bush and CIA Director George Tenet lay out the evidence of Iraq's operational ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, new documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the last two years. Among Saddam's victims have been U.S. and European citizens who were visiting Israel. And yet for some reason, as with the evidence showing Iraq's alliance with al-Qaeda, few Western reporters have been willing to pay attention. A notable exception was a report aired Sept. 29 by CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl. Citing captured documents provided by the Israelis, she revealed that Saddam's closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally had signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks. Since dropping that bombshell, the Israelis have analyzed and offered to reporters hundreds of pages of documents that detail Iraqi money transfers and operational orders to what they now call an Iraqi "terror industry" in the West Bank and Gaza. The evidence is so overwhelming it appears almost mundane. Captured documents include ledgers of "martyrs" who have carried out suicide operations against Israel, showing how much and when each was paid and the number of the check. It includes internal memoranda, computer disks, hard drives, videotapes and bank statements. In many cases the Israelis managed to seize checkbooks showing the stubs of these payments; in others, they have the actual wire transfers from Iraq. "We knew all of this many years ago," chief analyst Reuven Ehrlich told Insight as he displayed hundreds of pages of letters, reports, bank statements and lists that showed payments to suicide bombers and their families by Iraq in recompense for murder. "But, until now, the proof has all been classified top secret or above. Now we can finally release the evidence to the public." ----Snip---- Go to the link to read more of this article. How about a little more? quote: Why Iraq? Weekly Standard ^ | 29 Oct 2001 | gary Schmitt Posted on 10/23/2001 1:02 PM PDT by white trash redneck Why Iraq? If Saddam stays in power, the war on terrorism will have failed. WeeklyStandard by Gary Schmitt SHORTLY BEFORE getting on a plane to fly to New Jersey from Europe in June 2000, Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker of the first jet airliner to slam into the World Trade Center and, apparently, the lead conspirator in the attacks of September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. This was no chance encounter. Rather than take a flight from Germany, where he had been living, Atta traveled to Prague, almost certainly for the purpose of meeting there with Iraqi intelligence operative Ahmed Samir Ahani. To understand the significance of this meeting, put yourself in the position of a terrorist. You work within a small cell of operatives; you are continually concerned about security; and you are about to launch a mission designed to bring unprecedented death and destruction to the world's most powerful country. The last thing you would do would be to meet with a foreign official--especially one from a country whose "diplomats" are presumably under close surveillance--unless the meeting were critical to your mission. In light of the otherwise sound "tradecraft" demonstrated by Atta and his confederates in the run-up to September 11, Atta would never have met with an Iraqi intelligence officer unless the Iraqi had been in some way in on the operation. U.S. intelligence officials have responded to reports of this meeting (and others between Atta and Iraqi intelligence operatives) by denying that they provide a smoking gun tying Iraq to the attacks of September 11. That might be true by the standards of a court of law, but the United States is now engaged not in legal wrangling but in a deadly game of espionage and terrorism. In the world where we now operate, the Prague meeting is about as clear and convincing as evidence gets--especially since our intelligence service apparently has no agents-in-place of its own to tell us what was in fact going on. This much, however, is beyond dispute: Regardless of the differences between their visions for the Middle East, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden share an overriding objective--to expel the United States from the Middle East. Alliances have been built on less. And there is evidence of an alliance. For example, there are numerous reports that Saddam's henchmen were reaching out to bin Laden as early as the early 1990s, when he was still operating out of Sudan and Iraq was using Khartoum as a base for its own intelligence operations after the Gulf War. We also know that high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officials have made their way to Afghanistan in recent years to meet with bin Laden and the leadership of al Qaeda. There are Iraqi defectors who claim to have seen radical Muslims at a special terrorist training site in Iraq where trainees learn, among other things, to hijack airplanes. None of this should be a surprise. Iraq can offer bin Laden money and technical expertise, and in exchange al Qaeda can provide the manpower to strike at the United States without exposing Baghdad's hand. ----snip---- for more go to the above link OK, there are just 2 articles showing that this man has not a clue what he is talking about. On to the rest.[/b} quote:We will presumably use depleted uranium munitions against Iraqi armour – the same depleted uranium that was used 11 years ago in the deserts of southern Iraq, where children are now ravaged by strange and unexplained cancers. And we will not – repeat this one hundred times – we will not mention oil. First off there is NO scientific proof that Depleted Uranium is any more dangerous then naturally occurring Uranium. quote: Facts About Depleted Uranium The Associated Press Washington Post Friday, Jan. 12, 2001; 4:39 p.m. EST Concerns have arisen over NATO's use of ammunition containing depleted uranium during the Balkan war. U.N. scientists are trying to determine whether the heavy metal is linked to the leukemia deaths of several soldiers and illnesses in dozens of others. Some facts: – Depleted uranium is a byproduct of natural uranium, created after the fissile isotope U235 is removed to produce nuclear fuel. Thousands of tons exist. – Depleted uranium is about 40 percent as radioactive as natural uranium. – It is extremely dense; a piece the size of a soda can weigh about 15 pounds. – Because of its density, depleted uranium is used as ammunition, armor, ballast for aircraft and ocean-going vessels, packaging for radioactive materials and shielding for medical workers taking X-rays. – Because its high density gives it an unmatched ability to punch through armored vehicles, it is used to tip anti-tank ammunition. It also is self-igniting, creating secondary explosions. – U.S. and British tanks and warplanes first used ammunition containing depleted uranium in combat during the Gulf War, and more than 300 tons still litters battlefields in Iraq, according to U.N. officials. U.S. forces fired about 30 tons in air raids in Kosovo two years ago, and smaller quantities in Bosnia. – Unfired munitions pose little health risk because they emit virtually no radiation. But depleted uranium ammunition penetrates armor, it creates dust particles that can be inhaled, ingested or enter the body through an open wound. – Because it is a heavy metal, depleted uranium can be both a chemical poison and a radiation hazard. The chemical hazard is greater, according to the U.S. Army. – The U.S. Army urges soldiers to wear protective masks and cover exposed skin when working around vehicles struck by depleted uranium munition, and advises troops not to pick up unexploded rounds. ┬® Copyright 2001 The Associated Press OK, now onto his other point about this being a war for oil. If it were, Russia and France are the ones that will be helped, they are the ones that hold the contracts to that oil. The people that will be the new Iraqi Government have promised to honor those contracts after checking to make sure that they are in the best interest of the Iraqi people and not just for Saddam. Fact of the matter is that the US imports less then 3% of it's oil from Iraq, Iraq has no bearing on our importing of oil, if they cut off production, it's NO big deal. As a matter of fact, Bush's main oil goal is to up domestic production, and lower our percentage of imports. I'll go into more of this later, but personally, I think the guy is nuts and doesn't have a clue.
Lotharr Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraq_war_cost_1 So this report thinks it could cost 2 trillion to invade Iraq....finnaly somebody put it in terms that we understand.
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote: A short war could actually benefit the United States in terms of its macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, by $17 billion. A long war, in contrast, could have a $391 billion negative effect. Let me give you a hint, It AIN'T gonna be a LONG war. In the end, the war with Iraq is not gonna cost us a cent. Oil prices are going to come down as the FULL Iraqi oil reserves hit the market, putting OPEC down and out, then Russia piling on as well, we may see oil prices in the high teens to the low 20's a barrel. This war isn't gonna cost ua a penny, as a matter of fact in the long run it will actually make us money. I find the naysayers so amusing.
Epsilon 5 Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote:Let me give you a hint, It AIN'T gonna be a LONG war.Yeah right. Almost every major war the united states fought in they said it would be short.
Raven Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 Well yea, let's look at this for a moment. Every major war, as in every one that wasn't short. Iraq will not be able to put up that kind of opposition, not in a million years.
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote: Yeah right. Almost every major war the united states fought in they said it would be short. Ever heard of the Gulf War there EP5, it was SHORT. This ones gonna be shorter, our weapons are so much more advanced that it is insane, Iraq's army is demolished, demoralized and lack any decent equipment. It will be short, and Saddam will be gone. Our military is not like Canada's, it is actually well financed and modernized. Our soldiers morale is also very high, I know more gulf war veterans that are begging to go back and finish what they started then I can shake a stick at. The DOD actually has a list of ALL the retirees etc that want back in, so they can go back to Iraq and kick Saddams ass.
Epsilon 5 Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote: Yeah right. Almost every major war the united states fought in they said it would be short. Ever heard of the Gulf War there EP5, it was SHORT. This ones gonna be shorter, our weapons are so much more advanced that it is insane, Iraq's army is demolished, demoralized and lack any decent equipment. It will be short, and Saddam will be gone. Our military is not like Canada's, it is actually well financed and modernized. Our soldiers morale is also very high, I know more gulf war veterans that are begging to go back and finish what they started then I can shake a stick at. The DOD actually has a list of ALL the retirees etc that want back in, so they can go back to Iraq and kick Saddams ass.Did you REALLY needed to bring Canada into this?
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote: Did you REALLY needed to bring Canada into this? That is where your experience is, you know Canada, I know the US, but I also know a bit about Canada, I have to, I do a lot of business there. I need to use your personal experience and let it be a guide to what I am trying to explain to you.
AllenKG2001 Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote: Our military is not like Canada's, it is actually well financed and modernized. Our soldiers morale is also very high, I know more gulf war veterans that are begging to go back and finish what they started then I can shake a stick at. I know some English Gulf war vets who dare not go back and fight along side the americans. They were shot at by americans while on test flights. Just so long as you guys shoot at the right people next time it's alright.
Lotharr Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 EP don't not discount the level of rage your country generates by living in peace with your firearms. We'll see how much it costs. quote: Almost every major war the united states fought in they said it would be short. Good point. People don't understand this as a long term power struggle over Arab self determination and international justice vs economic and strategic ÔÇ£securityÔÇØ for the most free of the freemarket. It's strange what we call war these days....for the average American it's either a romp through the desert in 100 days or less, or it's a rally against "evil".....wait a minute...
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 quote: EP don't not discount the level of rage your country generates by living in peace with your firearms. We'll see how much it costs. And what exactly does this mean? By living in peace with their firearms? excuse please, would you care to explain this statement. I would really like to know what exactly it means.
Lotharr Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 That they can live with a bunch of guns, like us, but without all the corpses? It's true and I think it just makes some people
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 You aren't looking at the statistics are you? Canada's per capita gun ownership is LOWER then the US, and it's crime rate with guns is skyrocketing. whereas in the US, our crime rate with guns is actually going down. It's all about gun control Lotharr, where there is major gun control and registration. England, Australia, Canada, gun crimes skyrocket, whereas less gun control, shall issue states etc, gun crimes go down. Look at the statistics Lotharr, and you will understand how wrong you are. You went and saw "Bowling for Columbine" didn't you? Well, we can make a point by point rebuttal of just about EVERYTHING that is in that POS of a movie. What a joke that movie is, but it's by Michael "the pickled pear" Moore so it must be full of facts. NOT!!!
Lotharr Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 I don't think you can, but what have you got?
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Posted December 6, 2002 I will go over the bowling for olumbine in a later response, right now, I have GOT to post this. It is JUST TOO GOOD!! quote: Canadians go to Baghdad as 'human shields' CBC online | December 5, 2002 | Martin O'Malley Opposition to a war on Iraq has a long way to go before it rivals the draft-card burnings and demonstrations against the war in Vietnam in the 1960s, but a new anti-war movement is growing muscle. Some Canadians already have left for Iraq to serve as human shields against bomb attacks on Baghdad. More will follow before Christmas. Irene Vandas and Jennifer Ziemann of Vancouver are heading to Iraq on Friday. Vandas, a 32-year-old registered nurse, and Ziemann, a 30-year-old home-care worker, will fly to Amsterdam, board a plane to Amman, Jordan, then drive into Iraq all the way to Baghdad where they will live with Iraqi civilians. There, they will join friends Linda Morgan and Irene MacInnes, two Canadians who travelled to Iraq in mid-November. The four Canadians, sponsored by an anti-war organization called Voices in the Wilderness, have volunteered to be human shields in an effort to dissuade American-led forces from attacking Iraq. Im not too scared, Vandas told CBC News Online the day before she left. I think it will be a powerful experience. The last time human shields were in the news was during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when NATO accused Yugoslavia President President Slobodan Milosevic of using civilians as human shields at strategic targets, such as bridges and power plants. Vandas and Ziemann have agreed to stay in Baghdad until the end of December. They will work with two Canadian doctors, Amir Khadir and David Swann, both anti-war activists who have taken up residence in Iraq to protest against U.S. attacks. Vandas said another group of Canadians will go to Iraq later this month, joining some 30-40 young protesters from the U.S. and Britain. Recent developments: On Sept. 28, 2002, a crowd of over 150,000 in London marched to Hyde Park to protest against attacks on Iraq. The demonstration was sponsored by the Muslim Association of Britain and Stop the War Coalition. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the British government for a report on Saddams use of torture and summary executions. The two groups usually welcome such documentation of human rights violations, but they criticized the British government for using the report as propaganda to justify an attack on Iraq. Opposition to an attack on Iraq extends to Yukon, where a rally will be held on Dec. 6, 2002 in front of the Elijah Smith Building in Whitehorse. Protesters intend to march to Yukon MP Larry Bagnells office to deliver a message that Canada should stay out of any war in Iraq. Why is the United States so unwilling to try diplomacy? asked rally organizer Rohan Quinby. On Dec. 4, 2002, The Washington Post reported on a poll of 44 countries that suggested overwhelming majorities in France, Germany and Russia oppose military force to end Saddam Husseins rule. It isnt a matter of groundswell support or sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Rather, the new anti-war movement zeroes in on the fear that any campaign against Iraq  especially the expected urban warfare on the streets of Baghdad  would imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The Washington Post story on public attitudes of other countries regarding the U.S. says large majorities in Britain, France, Germany and Russia believe Saddam is a threat to stability in the Middle East and a danger to world peace. But this consensus collapses when it comes to a military attack on Iraq. Overwhelming majorities in France, Germany and Russia oppose the use of military force to end Saddams rule, the newspaper says. Even in Great Britain, Americas staunchest ally on Iraq, opinion is sharply divided: fewer than half  47 per cent  favor using force to oust Hussein, while an equal proportion disagree. Jo Wood, a psychology professor at Carleton University, says groups across Canada are raising money to fund a national peace coalition against a war on Iraq. As for the Canadians going to Baghdad, Wood says, they are prepared to risk their own lives by standing with the Iraqi people and positioning themselves at important public facilities, such as water plants and hospitals, in an effort to protect these against the bombs. As for those who condemn Saddam but profess support for the Iraqi people, Wood told CBC News Online that the Iraqi people get hurt either way. All efforts to hurt Saddam hurt the Iraqi people much more and weaken them so that they cannot find their own resources to make a better world for themselves, she said. Mainstream media so far havent made much of the anti-war movement building against an attack on Iraq. Stephen OLeary, a contributing scholar to Online Journalism Review, wrote a story on Oct. 17, 2002, titled The Antiwar Movement on the Web. If you get your news by reading newspapers and watching television, you wont find much coverage of the antiwar movement, OLeary said. But on the Web, theres plenty of evidence of a global grassroots sentiment opposing the war. OLeary mentioned the anti-war rally in London, when police estimated the crowd at 150,000 but organizers of the demonstration estimated the crowd to be 400,000. In any case, he said in his OJR article, the demonstrations were mostly ignored by the American press. Most of the American press chose to write about public support for fox-hunting in England. Notice the bold? Yeah, you can oust Saddam, he's a threat to stability and all that, but you can't go to war, because you might hurt someone. ROFLMAO!! That is what war is all about, you destroy and break things and kill people until the will to resist is gone. THAT IS WAR, get over it. And if these idiots that want to play human shields get their butts shot off, don't expect me to feel guilty about it. They shipped themselves over there and know that they are getting in harms way. They are doing it on purpose!! MORONS!!
Unforgiven_Killer Posted December 7, 2002 Report Posted December 7, 2002 One thing I always think about is when people complain about Sept 11 and how it should have been provented.....yet now we could be dealing with a guy who could posses nuclear warheads...instead of two tower falling we could see a mushroom cloud rising..... Im not saying to send our troops for no good reason..(I personally dont if I go or not) but I dont want to hear or see a crazy dictator blowing up his near by countries or cause even more problems in the middle east.....
Lotharr Posted December 7, 2002 Report Posted December 7, 2002 quote: ROFLMAO!! That is what war is all about, you destroy and break things and kill people until the will to resist is gone. THAT IS WAR, get over it. It sure worked after WWI...er... And after Vietnam....wait a minute.... And our recent romp through Afganistan....oops...that country is back to growing heroin and war lords.... And Iraq....once we get in there and effect regime change all our problems will magically go away.... Do you follow history? quote: but I dont want to hear or see a crazy dictator blowing up his near by countries That's why Isreal has nukes. That's why we have nukes....Saddam is an ego driven self serving CEO type...we can trust him...er...well Rummy sure did. Anyway of real concern is the thousands of weapons that litter the Russian step....but we don't talk much about them....
Guest Posted December 7, 2002 Report Posted December 7, 2002 Lotharr, Your naive ideas of the world would be funny if they weren't so popular. But hey, that's what you get from government run school systems. Critical thinkers are rarer every day, I am sorry to criticize you so, but the fact is that your idea have been tried and they have failed. Afghanistan is working, but you cannot change the world in a day, and it will take longer there then in most, because of their interesting way of governing themselves. Darwinist to it's core. Vietnam was a politically run war, not a true military one, unlike the gulf war and afghanistan. Also, we are giving over 20 billion dollars a year and ALL of our expertise to Russia to get their nuclear weapons stockpiles secured and dismantled, but you don't wish to talk about that do you? Unfair of you to leave out facts like that Lotharr, or did you not know those facts? Too bad, you need to get out more, your world view is awfully small. Sorry to sound so condescending, but I just can't help it. You are so deadset in your little naive worldview, and I am beginning to think that it is the only way to shake you up a little bit so you will think. Put you on the defensive a little bit so that you will study a little more thoroughly before you try and take me on.
Unforgiven_Killer Posted December 8, 2002 Report Posted December 8, 2002 what I was getting at is if saddam has the plan and part to build a nuke then he could do anything he wishs... He doesnt have to send a lond range nuclear missle to destory a enemy he hates....just pay acouple thousand dollars to a suicide bomber and put it in the back of jeep.....drive to the capitol of the country and detonate...since we didnt see where the nuke came from it would be abit harder to say who did it... Oh and WWII would have never happened if countries wouyld have paid more attention to germany...after WWI the allies left the enemy counties in ruins....England,france and the other want to see germany die....instead of giving money and aid to them, and making them like the west, they left them with no money,broke and with no true leader.... If we'd ignore saddam what could happen?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now