Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Demosthenes, Mar 18, 2003.
what are people's reactions to Bush's speech?
All well and good, but where is the promised buddy cop action between Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in this thread?
Oh that's right here it is
Saddam has had twelve years to comply with the UN resolutions passed after the Gulf War. It's past time to finish the job we started back then. I have a nephew over there right now, so I don't say that lightly. He's in the Navy and stationed on a ship, but that still doesn't put him out of harms way. Today is Shaun's birthday. He's 19 years old. He was born March 17, 1984. I know a lot of people are against the war, including other Americans. Whether you support the war or not, at least support our troops. It might not be your kin that is over there, but they still have family back home that wants to see them again.
my position on the war is rather complicated. we need to take further actions to make saddam disarm quickly; he has had enough time. im not sure if war is the best answer to this problem, but it is an answer. im not sure if this makes me pro war, or just not anti war.
Oh man, all is forgiven...who saw '48 hours' without thinking that ?
i have to admit i was as little dis-apointed that there was no mention of the movie...... for shame...... for shame indeed.
I didn't, but then again I'm only sixteen and not into old movies.
And to make a comment that's on topic, did anyone else notice at the end of the speech when Bush said if Saddam didn't get out of there he and our allies would war against him at a time of our choosing. Does this mean even though he's not leaving that we still will not get this stupid war thing over with?
There is the small problem about world oppinion when we commit a war crime. We need to stop taking out all Sadam's AA defenses so he can shoot down one of our aircraft. Then he will have shot first, & no war crime. It worked in Viet Nam, another rousing sucess story in our long history of exporting demoracy by war.
A bigger problem is that after 9/11, we had tremendous capital with the rest of the world. That is when we should have started to assemble the colation. Instead Bush, following Chenny's script, first alienated EVERYONE. Then he started after Sadam.
but now the french are saying that they will, under certain circumstances, join us in fighting saddam. we're getting some of our alienated allies back because we are going in and they want a claim to the oil fields when everything is done.
Although the "certain terms" are if Saddam uses biological warfare, so it's sort of a win-lose situation.
if he begins biological warfare, it will be horrible, but we will have the support of the world, which would end the war more quickly and make the aftermath of the war easier. i would rather continue without international support than see biological and chemical weapons be used. unfortunately, that decision is up to someone who we cannot trust.
I'm not in favor of the war at all. I see no valid reason why anything could justify going to a foreign country halfway around the world to kill other people as well as risk being killed yourself. I know what Bush and all the other americans with a "world cop"-complex claims, but do any of you really think Saddam would be stupid enough to attack America or any of their allies first? If he was a comicbook madman out to destroy the world with no regards for his life or that of the people dear to him, he would. Need I remind you that he's not? Saddam has only two main objectives: To remain in power and to complete the gigantic buildings he's started on. You may argue that his people don't deserve to be under his inconsiderate rule and I agree, but war will not necessary put him off "the throne". Even if it does, as soon as he's killed by US, he's going to be a martyr, revered by those iraqi that for some reason thinks he's a great leader. After his death, a new leader, celebrating his principles would probably emerge. What I'm trying to say is that war is not a solution in this case (or in any case for that matter), only thing a war will accomplish is the deaths of countless people, including innocent iraqi only supporting Saddam out of fear for their lives and their families.
They will probably celebrate him being dead, since he is an total arshole, but he will not become a martyr. Also the us will try to controll iraq for atleast a year and try to establish democracy, what i em afraid of is that the us will try to get their hands on all the oil and that this will only be a question about oil because if it is the iraq people will probably rebel and there will be more terrorism wich in the end will lead to a much unsafer world.
The thing I'm more worried about is what America is going to do with Iraq once they've taken it.
We all know what happened in Afghanistan when they left it...
Humor me. When did we leave Afghanistan, and what horrible things have befallen the previously fair country since?
humor me too. what the hell did happen to it when we left it? and did we even leave it yet? last time i checked, it was still a small, desolate country. nothing has changed for the last few millenia
Probably the same thing we've done with every country where we've unseated a government, we'll set up a democratic governmant that is friendly to us and wants to trade all sorts of fun stuff with us. *cough* oil *cough*
Nope, we're still there, though in smaller numbers and being helped by other countries. In fact I just saw a report on the news today about some new cave-clearing operations involving "thousands" of US troops.
Nothing wrong with setting up a democracy or republic. Yesterday I was watching some footage of antiwar protestors and one of them said something to the effect of, "No democracy has ever been successfully set up by force." Yes, quite, just look at Germany and Japan, tsk. Anyway, we haven't always set up/propped up democracies. The Shah wasn't a particularly democratic fellow IIRC.
Separate names with a comma.