usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

Egg-fucking-zactly. Agree with all the above.

Also, less it should come up, I also agree with this part:

That bit about us not doing it alone, I meant.... U.S. isn't alone in it, but I strongly strongly back what Vlad said about it being turned around against the US.

It seems its the U.S.'s role, to kinda "police" the world, if you will. Of course when things go shitty, it's where the fingers are pointed.

 

Smells fingers 8)

 

ww3

Tough to follow that one Hel Khat but i will try.

Anyway. Policing the world. Thats the one thing outsiders dont like. Outsiders being non-USA people. The best way is to solve your own problems and if you have a country trying to police the world then that country is going to make alot of enemies and with that comes trouble.

Iraq isn't a policing issue, that is a law issue that can be fixed only one way.
I would be shocked if the axis of evil haven't had long strategic talks about how the war will go because it's almost a certainty that something is going to happen there after Iraq is dealt with. Maybe in 2004 it will start to come about because there has to be alot of planinng. Maybe an intense war of words is all it will take and that of course would be the best outcome.

As for the world war thing. Well we are in a world war now. This is ww3. Bush said it was by saying "You are with us or against us", which = only 2 sides, therefore a world war. This world war will go on for at least 10 years though because alot of it is diplomatic.

or not.

 

Great post, Vlad. I agree whole-heartedly and couldn't have stated it better if I tried.

(moves far to corner to avoid smelling Hel Khat's fingers)

 

Re: ww3

For all we know they may already have some kind of agreement made that once US attacks Iraq One of the others may attack Israel or Britain. The sooner they can get one of our weaker allies to fall the more vulnerable the US will be with our troops scattered the way they are.

Oh and one small correction Carl. Like Vlad said it is not the US policing the world it is the UN using the USto police the world, and letting the US get stuck with the blame and most of the bills :minigun:

 

Oh Yeah DU you need MUCH more help then I thought if you think even one of those rhetorical arguments that you made floats. We are not talking about other countries we are talking about Iraq. We are talking facts I am really not sure what part of the universe you've been hanging in for the last 11 years but welcome back to reality

I could go blow by blow and tell you where you are wrong but I don't think I will have to I'll just let the rest of the guys type it out for me. See I can not debate a person that clouds facts with fiction. No matter what historical facts i give you, you'll still fly off into outer space and pull some more wool from the sky.

Your savior has INVADED other countries (that's a far cry from anything any of your examples have done including China) . Your savior has used bio weapons and other weapons against countries he has invaded and his OWN people. Your savior while being chased out of Kuwait sent more then 30 bombs into another country that was not even attacking it (in the futile hope of drawing other countries into his little war). Your savior is not ready for a world war yet so you want us to wait until he is (well that's nice of you) and I could go on but nothing I would say has not already been typed by myself or someone else in this thread for you to read dozens of times already.

So you stay there in your little dream world and bitch about how unfair the big US bullies are for wanting to attack poor sweet innocent little Iraq "the jewel of peace and kindness in all the known world". While the rest of us deal with the serious realities in question. If you want me to take you seriously then cut the crap.

Stop using other countries actions as a weak assed smog screen and talk to me about the FACTS of what Iraq has done and is doing. Don't give me this weak ass "well everyone else is doing it so why shouldn't Daddy Saddam get away with it too??? " Cause everyone else is NOT invading other countries or breaking treaties of peace! So cut the bull cause that last post was a bit beyond belief.

So do me a favor don't insult my intelligence and I will no longer insult yours..... :wink:

 

Re: Flame on!

Er.... Hello does anyone want to enlighten DU here as to when The UN was formed? I think that would be 1963 DUH

I will say this for the 14th time for you to ignore:

US is considering invading Iraq for breaking the peace treaty Iraq signed with the US. that to me is the main reason everything else is gravy.

PS I am sorry for insulting you but I did feel like my intellegence is insulted when I try to talk directly about something and someone else talks around the facts. So please stop telling me about 1949, Russia or the little men on the moon. talk to me about Iraq because in the end this is all about Iraq and Iraq's actions. Give me one honest reason why if weapons inspections fail that we shoul not invade and get him out of there. Don't talk to me about any other country just talk to me about Iraq and please stick to the facts.

If you can do this I will honestly be very greatful cause if there is a real honest reason I want to know about it.

Thanks....

 

One copyright notice to date when than book was first written is very inaccurate , I have in fornt of me than J.R.R. Tolkien The War of the Ring with three different copyright date.of 1954, 1965, 1966. He sent to his son who was service in the UK military in North Africa pages of his story written in 1941 or 1942. It is very possible that Kennry was read the pre-prubling book as he was than very good friend of the authour.

When WW1 start all the nations in Eupore where sent each other Ultmain
that read do this or war will take place. Back then if I was able to mobelism than larger or better equipment military force I would strike first
to cross your weaked defense board to take your capital city.. Than Preemption strike that not have to be than surpise attack at all . All the Major power race to mobilitary the larger and best equip force possible to be able to strike first. But strikeing first doesnot mean you win at all in the
end.

 

DU

DU: Do you understand why the 91 attack had such a huge force. Its called playing a bluff. The allies had no inttension on using those forces they were only there to scare the crap out of Iraq (Said Colin Powell but in more of an official way) and it did.
Do you know why the Iraq's didn't use chemical weapons, well it's because they knew if they did Iraq would be flattened and they thought they had more to lose than gain, like staying in power. (That comes from interviews with Tariq Aziz, foriegn minister of Iraq).

As for my proposal, it is for a quick charge into Baghdad and 200 000 Americans is alot of troop. You dont take all your forces into one small area of the world and then pray that no one attacks you elsewhere and as Hel Khat said what if the so called evil three strike.

Iraq is determined to get Nukes and install itself as the middle east leader (That comes from high ranking officials in Iraq, and general intelligents agencies through out the world). Try reading/hearing/seeing facts and you maybe able to speak sense.

Nukes for everyone non-american allied country. They are very expensive to maintain and they bring unwanted attension. (See Iraq)

As for the isreal attacking instead of the USA. Well. Isreal is in the area and is easy to attack. The middle east hate isreal and would destroy it if they could but USA is behind them so can't but another attack to stop Iraq from getting nuclear power will be a justification for some in the area to completly shut Isreal out of the area and take middle eastern tensions to a new high or low if you will.

Hel Khat: People just don't like police, especially from other countries. Thats not a get at the USA or UN but it's just the way it is

 

DU, you make some valid points, but I'd like to draw attention to some of the other things you're doing:

• Arguing only against the current stance of the USA, with no consistent stance of your own. In one sentence you criticise the USA for interceding. In the next you criticise them for not invading China and Zimbabwe. So, what's right? Do you believe taking down every human rights violator is correct or do you think we should have no international policing at all?
• Interchanging UN and USA as it suits you. Earlier in the thread you were talking about the USA protecting Kuwait during the Gulf War for oil reasons. In fact, my last post pointed out that you did the same thing with other conflicts. Now you are picking Hel Khat up when he does the same thing, without acknowledging that you have made the same mistake.
• Ignoring Saddam's previous and current actions, including his human rights violations and his building of the supergun, etc. When you compare him using nukes (whatever) to you picking up a gun and going on a spree, you ignore the essential difference; you (I assume) have no history of irrational violence (sure, you have a history of irrational debate, but it isn't the same thing).

Having said that, I agree with you on the crucial issues of what should or shouldn't happen.

• Any action should be UN backed. I don't think it is wrong to make everyone aware that failure of the UN to protect us from Saddam may result in us protecting ourselves, but I do think the USA and UK must put aside ideas of unilateral (bilateral, whatever) action and give the UN a real chance to succeed.
• A pre-emptive strike should not be undertaken unless there is real reason to believe Saddam would use nukes/chems/bios if he got them. I don't believe he would, but I'm far from sure.
• War should not be undertaken without a long range plan to serve the Iraqi people with a new, democratic, government of their own choosing. Currently, I'm fairly sure the USA and UK governments are giving this less attention than I would like. I think they're just paying it lip service and are focused on the short-range plan of toppling Saddam's regime.

I watched a special edition of "Question Time" last night. It's our main serious political debate show where politicians answer questions from the public (in person). THe panel of politicians is balanced, both on party representation and issue representation. Some of the points above were mentioned, as some other interesting ones.

• The Middle-east as a whole, including Kuwait but possibly excluding Israel, is against a war with Iraq.
• The "Why now?" question was specifically answered as being "Because Kofi Annan was in discussion with Iraq until June regarding the return of weapons inspectors. In June, he explicitly admitted defeat, saying Saddam obviously had no intention of letting them back in.
• Unilateral action by the USA would be the end of the UN, and open up the doors for other countries to undertake unilateral "Policiing on behalf of, but without the backing of, the International community."

Bear in mind, these points were given by the panel, so I am not sure of their veracity (there may be spin or outright misrepresentation in there).

There was a phone/text poll during the programme asking "Should we go to war with Iraq?" The results were:

Yes ... 32.5%
No .... 67.5%

The panel made the point that there might be a different opinion after we've given the UN route a fair try, if it fails.

 

Thats something i've been wondering about. Is the UN even needed today. It was started up after WWII and the world has changed alot, maybe to much for a UN to have a valid place in it. There are other channels and ways out there that can work just aswell.
To many fence sitters in the UN hide behind the "we will see what the UN says"

 

In 1991 we have UN approval for our action. An the UN didnot give approval
to march into Baghdad to overthrow it government. Many of Islamic Nations back then where not in favor of any military action against Iraq in the Gernel Assembly. It we going in by our self this time with than massive forces we might leave outself open to than attack elsewhere by nation that donot like us. Plus this time we will have to fight street to street and house to house in Urban warfarce. The Battle for Berlin in WW2 cost the Russia 120,000 men killed at least 600,000 wounds and 1/3 of they tank where lost in the fighting to Germany anti-tank rocket which was only accurate up to 40 feet idear for street fighting.

 

My teacher offered to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge too. I wondered whether you co-owned it with Mr. Johnson, and yes, i am interested!!!

 

I deleted the quote thingy by accident so

QUOTE!!!
(BY A NAME I ALSO DELETED, (SORRY))

All a war will do is delay the inevitable. That is, some bad guy somewhere is going to get a nuke and use it against you. A first strike isn't the answer. September 11 is. You wait until it happens, THEN you blow the shit out of them. If you strike first, you'll piss off a lot of countries. Mainly because a lot of countries are going to think that they're next. If you're willing to launch a first strike against another country because it has "weapons of mass destruction". Then there are a lot of countries that'll want to get weapons of mass destruction and use them against you first, before you get to them.
ENDQUOTE!


Just cuz we will get attacked doesn't mean that we should let ourselves be. That's like if someone said they were try to kill you everyday, and you just said, "What the hell, might as well be tommorow." A realistic person, or country, would try to stop their demise, or the demise of their countrymen, by a madman, every day if necessary.

What is the point of having a military, and being a world power, if you just get endlessly attacked, and just sit there getting hit.

If we had known about 9-11 before it happened, we would have been dumbasses to sit there and say, "well, some terrorists are gonna destroy the World Trade Center anyway. Its not worth making someone angry to save thousands of lives."

We have been pushed into a wall, by the countries in the Axis of Evil and the terrorists they support either through money and weapons, or safehavens, or just through giving the anti-american position more power. They must be stopped, and if war will do it, then i advise war.

In Iraq, we have a precedent to invade, (he broke our treaty, shoots at our planes, abuses his people, has little regard for human life, has the potential to use weapons of mass destruction, has attacked other nations with little or no provocation, and supports terrorists, either through money, or safe houses, or just support for hte cause in general(the jury is still out on this)). We SHOULD have invaded 4 years ago, but Clinton, the UN, and the world was not in favor of making him live up to his agreement, and now we are paying for it.

Other countries, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, will be dealt with differently and fairly for what they have done. And in many ways, these nations are worse than Iraq, just there is less justification for war in these nations.

 

I find this disturbing, since it is only a short distance from "by disagreeing with the USA." I am in favour of outlawing specific immoral activities, but I would not want to live in a world where people are invaded for being "anti-American."

I do not think a country should be branded evil for opposing (peacefully) US culture or ideals.

 

How about the suicide bomber mentality instead. You can be anti-American, though i don't agree with you and don't see the logic, but you hsould not be anti-civilian, should not kill civilians, and should not be a suicide bomber to advance your beliefs.

And if one advocates killing Americans and destroying America, like Saddam does, then it is a bad thing.

But a logical opinion against American actions is okay.

 

What has the suicide bomber mentality got to do with the acceptance of any country's perogative of (peacefullly) disagreement with American culture or ideals?

I never said anything about logic. People should be able disagree on any grounds they choose, I think, including matters of faith or tradition, without threat of war.

Yes, advocating killing (innocent) Americans is a bad thing, but no worse than advocating killing any other nationality of innocent people.