War! - Page 4

DeltAlum · #46 03-25-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
Of course, this is something I understood before the war began. The US has a history of only engaging in fights that are thought to be an easy win. I say THOUGHT to be, that wasn't always so, and this does not apply to every war/battle/military strike.

You gotta be kidding! Aren't you?

World War I, World War II, Korea. Those weren't exactly walk-overs.

I'm not a total supporter of the reasons for this war. I want more (any) proof that these WMD's really exist. That may come from the discovery of this "Chemical Factory."

However, to insinuate that the United States is the big bully who only joins the fight when we're sure we can win is simply not true.

In war, the outcome is always in doubt until the final shot is fired.

amycat412 · #47 03-25-2003, 08:32 PM

http://www.nbc4.tv/emailthetroops/

Pretty cool. You can send an email to the troops.

Been emailing back and forth with someone on the USS Constellation.

Cloud9 · #48 03-25-2003, 10:21 PM

That's true Deltalum, maybe I spoke hastily...but regarding the World Wars at least, there was more of an apparent threat. And I guess what I wanted to say was more that since the big mass destruction weapons have come into play we've been more choosy about who we go after.

texas*princess · #49 03-25-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by amycat412
http://www.nbc4.tv/emailthetroops/

Pretty cool. You can send an email to the troops.

Been emailing back and forth with someone on the USS Constellation.

Thanks for the link amycat!

Peaches-n-Cream · #50 03-26-2003, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
That's true Deltalum, maybe I spoke hastily...but regarding the World Wars at least, there was more of an apparent threat. And I guess what I wanted to say was more that since the big mass destruction weapons have come into play we've been more choosy about who we go after.

What or who do you mean by "we"? The USA?

"And I guess what I wanted to say was more that since the big mass destruction weapons have come into play we've been more choosy about who we go after."

I don't begin to understand what these means.

moe.ron · #51 03-26-2003, 01:46 PM

i think she may be saying that if a country have WMD, esp. nuclear, white house and pentagon will not go after them. ex. N. Korea. THen again I could be wrong, my psychic ability hasn't been that well since that Rob Schneider movie.

Kevin · #52 03-26-2003, 02:02 PM

North Korea is a bit of a Red Herring though. What will happen if they use their WMD? Nothing good for them. China will probably go after them AND the US. I think they know that and for that reason they are contained. They are not associating with international terrorist organizations that we know of either.

It is a TOTALLY different situation and really shouldn't enter into the debate over Iraq. That's just a gross oversimplification of international politics.

moe.ron · #53 03-26-2003, 02:08 PM

just trying to read her mine.

as for n. korea, they have no, at this time, to wage a war. they're just trying to get more money. a little like a mafia asking for protection money. as little oversimplification i know.

Cloud9 · #54 03-26-2003, 02:24 PM

aaacckkk, sorry if I'm not making sense, I thought I phrased that so people would know what I was saying...

Basically what I meant is that there are other countries that at this time posses weapons of mass destruction. My question is how many of them have we tried to disarm?

Also, the terrorist argument is tired, I've said it a billion times: Saudi Arabia is on "good terms" with the US, and we know for a fact the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis.

Kevin · #55 03-26-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
aaacckkk, sorry if I'm not making sense, I thought I phrased that so people would know what I was saying...

Basically what I meant is that there are other countries that at this time posses weapons of mass destruction. My question is how many of them have we tried to disarm?

Also, the terrorist argument is tired, I've said it a billion times: Saudi Arabia is on "good terms" with the US, and we know for a fact the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis.

The terrorist argument IS the argument. The difference is that the Saudi government did not directly support these people. That is primarily done by the church leaders, etc.

Two entirely seperate entities. The church has a lot more political power than it does here in the US. About the same proportions as you would have found in medieval Europe.

Just because Timothy McVeigh was an American doesn't mean that he acted with the support of his government and they should be sanctioned.

LeslieAGD · #56 04-05-2003, 10:45 PM

Was anyone watching CNN tonight when they announced that British forces in southern Iraq have found hundreds of boxes containing human remains in a warehouse near Zubayr? The bodies are old, obviously not from the current military actions, and investigations are taking place.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Kevin · #57 04-06-2003, 02:06 AM

Iraq committing military atrocities.. Is that even really newsworthy?

James · #58 04-06-2003, 02:20 AM

Cloud9's point is relevant and on target. One of the reasons we have gotten so much flack from the world and even within our own Nation is that we never proved Bush's implication that 9/11 has something to do with Iraq.

Legally we are saying that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligation to Disarm, hence our invasion. true

As part of the background argument we are claiming that Saddam supports terroristis, terrorists blew up the Towers, therefore Saddam and 9/11 . . .. Tenous.b

We are also saying that Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction like nerve agents etc. Probably true.

We are then extrapolating that: Terrorists want to hurt us. Terrorists have hurt us. Saddam supports the terrorists that hurt us. Saddam will give them weapons of mass destruction (nerve agents) etc. to hurt us. Very tenous

He has had 12 years since the Gulf War to do so . . .

I really don't have a problem with dismantling Iraq. I am more of an "us against them" person that right or wrong, but I don't like having my dick stroked like the add campaign has done.

Also, aren't we more worried about his nerve gas etc now? If I were a despot with no other goal but maintaining my life and my rule over Iraq, when the final push came I would have no problem unleashing Gas on the opposing Army, or better yet, the Civilian population in its home country.

Nerve gas hidden in any major US city could kill a lot of people.

Anyway Ktsnake, that is all people like Cloud9 are really saying. The link between 9/11 and Iraq was never shown and 9/11 is the real reason we are invading Iraq.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
aaacckkk, sorry if I'm not making sense, I thought I phrased that so people would know what I was saying...

Basically what I meant is that there are other countries that at this time posses weapons of mass destruction. My question is how many of them have we tried to disarm?

Also, the terrorist argument is tired, I've said it a billion times: Saudi Arabia is on "good terms" with the US, and we know for a fact the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis.

AlphaSigOU · #59 04-06-2003, 08:55 AM

So far, the c*ckbreaths haven't had the cojones to hose off chem at us, but don't count the bastards out yet. Reportedly, 'Chemical Ali' (Saddam's cousin) really got whacked this time around; he was responsible for the gassing of Kurds in 1988 and was probably one of the top guys in Saddam's Saddamites who wouldn't think twice about throwing chem at us.

There was proof of botulinum and ricin toxin production at that Ansar-al-Islam terror camp in the north that was pulverized by Tomahawks.

If Saddam is captured alive... all the proof of atrocities is more than enough to send him to the chopping block.

moe.ron · #60 04-06-2003, 09:05 AM

The N. Iraq has never been in controll of the Hussein government. These camps were probably funded by Al Qaeda. These Kurds group have no love for Hussein either. However, they are protected by the "no fly zone" and it is ironic that the Brits and US were protecting them.