Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2006 16:50:15 GMT -5
nice one, you clearly didn't read my first post which was about iran, and only read my second post which was about michael moore and was a direct refrence to live4evers post. You seem to think that only the original post is allowed to be read and answered. yes i am god - answer only to me fuck off what a way with words ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2006 17:37:06 GMT -5
im way too tired to bother with this now so i'll keep it short
-its not an unjust war, many reasons (not only WMD) led to it, and even if it was 'unjust' we can still be successful
-correct, al-qaeda isnt a gang. but their recruits and training camps are located in iraq now, instead of afgah.....we destroy their bases, they cant be organize and thus have a harder time planning attacks like 9/11....its even been suggested that al-qaeda cant do that even now (altho i still think they can) which shows how far we've come on that front....sucide bombers will never be stopped tho
-u.s has always intervened since the end of WWII (that is meant to read), and its true....thats what swung us from isolationism into being interventionalists....have YOU sat through any history class?
-speaking of histroy class, alot of the war on terrorism deals with security vs. freedom....hence the U.S frown upon CCTV (altho i support it)
-too asume someone as evil as Saddam wouldnt do anything is just wrong and foolish.
-we cant wait for another attack (anywhere in the world) to justify what we are doing
-think about it...what does bush get out of going to war? noone likes war, so of course his approval rating will go down, the debt will continue to climb, lives will be lost....and we all know we will be successful....but what does bush personally get out of going to war? NOTHING....
-if Kerry was president, the U.S (and world) would be in even worse condtion--its true....hence people were too scared to change presidents
-bush is our president for the next 3 years....stand the fuck by him will you....he's our leader and needs our support, even if u dont agree...altho, of course, u got to be careful with that, just look at dicators....but u know what im getting at....
im yet to hear anyone suggest any other way in dealing with all these situations, and until you do, your opinions mean nothing to me
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Jan 17, 2006 17:50:32 GMT -5
haha, everyone gangs up on live4evr. : D
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 17, 2006 18:21:35 GMT -5
-correct, al-qaeda isnt a gang. but their recruits and training camps are located in iraq now, instead of afgah.....we destroy their bases, they cant be organize and thus have a harder time planning attacks like 9/11....its even been suggested that al-qaeda cant do that even now (altho i still think they can) which shows how far we've come on that front....sucide bombers will never be stopped tho -we cant wait for another attack (anywhere in the world) to justify what we are doing im sorry, but your view of the world and this whole situation is so naive man
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 17, 2006 18:38:08 GMT -5
-correct, al-qaeda isnt a gang. but their recruits and training camps are located in iraq now, instead of afgah.....we destroy their bases, they cant be organize and thus have a harder time planning attacks like 9/11....its even been suggested that al-qaeda cant do that even now (altho i still think they can) which shows how far we've come on that front....sucide bombers will never be stopped tho -we cant wait for another attack (anywhere in the world) to justify what we are doing im sorry, but your view of the world and this whole situation is so naive man and you smell of cabbage
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 17, 2006 18:43:00 GMT -5
im sorry, but your view of the world and this whole situation is so naive man and you smell of cabbage great point that
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 17, 2006 19:07:17 GMT -5
yeah finally - an intelligent comment result! i'm too tired to reply to a lot of the points raised however i will back live4ever up in his request for the anti-iraq war, anti-bush people to come forward and tell us how they think the issues of terrorism, dictators and nuclear weapons should be handled? i cant remember one instance (in either of these Iraq-centred threads) of any of the more liberal members actually coming up with any alternative strategies or 'masterplans' (its an oasis forum after all ) regarding these issues.... so come on - Bin Laden, what would you have done to catch him? what would you do to stop the suicide bombings? what would you have done with saddam as an alternative to invading Iraq? what about Iran? speaking of which, and getting back on topic - Russia and China are stalling over referring the matter to the UN (and would be able to veto any action should it get there anyway) - why? money china needs iran's oil and russia has trade links with iran, some concerning nuclear fuel in particular... i would like to see the reaction of people if say, China vetoed any action (economic or military) just because they want Iranian oil.... its already turned into a typical UN mess whereby we cant put up a united front coz we simply arent all united! its a joke. id hoped on one issue of all, nuclear weapons, that the UN would be reliable and powerful but its looking like that is a distant possibility....
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2006 20:13:01 GMT -5
yup the UN doesnt work...stated that above as well
and quickly back to al-qaeda...how am i wrong, mate? not once did i say it would DESTROY them, but i did say it will limit their chances of BIG attacks....9/11 took 5+ years to plan....you dont have time to plan like that when you're going from cave to cave trying to avoid capture....im not saying a big attack CANT happen, but i am saying its LESS likely to now thanks to what Bush has done.
now back to D.S post...(gd post mind you)
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 17, 2006 21:27:53 GMT -5
Well, it's fucking irrelevant if you get him or not. Why don't you understand this? Go on, catch him, kill him and make him a martyr. I guess that's the solution to the problem LOL! And even start a war? Well yeah, everyone in the middle east will understand.
Am I understanding you right, that the UN is powerful as long as it follows the US-administration? Pretty strange understanding of domocracy to my ears.
Wtf is that all about? Is bush like the elected god or something? Is his politics a sort of dogma?!?! What do you think democracy is all about?
Pretty strange, but this to me sounds a little bit like Michael Moore, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2006 21:46:11 GMT -5
concerinng bin laden--ur partially right
killing him wont completly end al-qaeda
BUT
the finances will dry up, and the leader will be dead...of course someone will take his place, but never to full effect....he inspires so many people to become terrorist that him dead would lower the overall effect of al-qaeda...its just one step closer to completly destroying them as an organization
think what the world may look like in 20years: -Al-Qaeda as an ORGANIZATION may not exist -IRAQ will have a democracy, maybe -Iran/Syria/N. Korea wont be a threat to society
all bc of Bush....he can go down as one of the best presidents if everything eventually succeeds, or one of the worst presidents if everything fails...but its waaay too early to tell now
then we can start focusing on world wide poverty....but, in my book, threats to human nature comes first....but poverty is the next goal that we need to reach
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 17, 2006 23:45:58 GMT -5
Fair goals. But, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not present anymore, even today. Look at the bombers in London. These people had no contact to AQ members. But they killed in the name of it. So Bin Laden didn't spend any money on this. Nor did he for the bombings n Madrid. Pretty simple bombs and a bunch of stolen cell phones. That's it. So as long as this abstract idea Al-Qaeda exists, people will kill and die for it. No war will solve that problem. I wish it was that easy!
Don't forget: Iran IS a democracy! What if the Iraqi people voted for an Islamic fundamentalist? Like people did in Iran last year.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 18, 2006 11:28:33 GMT -5
But, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not present anymore, even today. Look at the bombers in London. These people had no contact to AQ members. But they killed in the name of it. So Bin Laden didn't spend any money on this. Nor did he for the bombings n Madrid. Pretty simple bombs and a bunch of stolen cell phones. That's it. So as long as this abstract idea Al-Qaeda exists, people will kill and die for it. No war will solve that problem. I wish it was that easy! that is exactly the point i was trying to make. al-qaeda as an organistion simply doesnt exist, so killing bin-laden or any of his cronies or destroying training camps in iraq or any other country wont make a blind bit of difference to this situation as long young men like those guys who carried out the london bombings are prepared to do what they did. and this Don't forget: Iran IS a democracy! What if the Iraqi people voted for an Islamic fundamentalist? Like people did in Iran last year. is another great point. say the iraqi people voted for a hardline fundametalist government, think george and tony would be so concerned about freedom and democracy then?
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 18, 2006 11:42:45 GMT -5
But, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not present anymore, even today. Look at the bombers in London. These people had no contact to AQ members. But they killed in the name of it. So Bin Laden didn't spend any money on this. Nor did he for the bombings n Madrid. Pretty simple bombs and a bunch of stolen cell phones. That's it. So as long as this abstract idea Al-Qaeda exists, people will kill and die for it. No war will solve that problem. I wish it was that easy! that is exactly the point i was trying to make. al-qaeda as an organistion simply doesnt exist, so killing bin-laden or any of his cronies or destroying training camps in iraq or any other country wont make a blind bit of difference to this situation as long young men like those guys who carried out the london bombings are prepared to do what they did. and this Don't forget: Iran IS a democracy! What if the Iraqi people voted for an Islamic fundamentalist? Like people did in Iran last year. is another great point. say the iraqi people voted for a hardline fundametalist government, think george and tony would be so concerned about freedom and democracy then? Can you understand that Americans want his head? Or does all the blood in your head run to the left side? ;D It does matter Iraq would be quite the country now IMO without all them fucks who like to kill their own people.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 18, 2006 11:52:05 GMT -5
that is exactly the point i was trying to make. al-qaeda as an organistion simply doesnt exist, so killing bin-laden or any of his cronies or destroying training camps in iraq or any other country wont make a blind bit of difference to this situation as long young men like those guys who carried out the london bombings are prepared to do what they did. and this is another great point. say the iraqi people voted for a hardline fundametalist government, think george and tony would be so concerned about freedom and democracy then? Can you understand that Americans want his head? Or does all the blood in your head run to the left side? ;D It does matter Iraq would be quite the country now IMO without all them fucks who like to kill their own people. i meant that it doesnt make a difference to the situation. kill bin-laden or any of those guys and the US, UK or any other country that these nutters have in their sites arent gonna be any safer from attack which is kinda the reason and justification behind all this action in iraq isnt it? if americans want his head, then yes thats understandable.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 18, 2006 12:22:35 GMT -5
Can you understand that Americans want his head? Or does all the blood in your head run to the left side? ;D It does matter Iraq would be quite the country now IMO without all them fucks who like to kill their own people. i meant that it doesnt make a difference to the situation. kill bin-laden or any of those guys and the US, UK or any other country that these nutters have in their sites arent gonna be any safer from attack which is kinda the reason and justification behind all this action in iraq isnt it? if americans want his head, then yes thats understandable. yes i agree to a point - BUT there are some of them who are still carrying on with their plans to kill us. Need to be dealt with. I'm gonna go and get them! ;D
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 18, 2006 14:44:23 GMT -5
Am I understanding you right, that the UN is powerful as long as it follows the US-administration? Pretty strange understanding of domocracy to my ears. halftheworld - you're more than half the world away mate, you're on a different fucking planet how in the name of greek buggery did you come to that 'understanding' based on what i'd wrote?? you obviously dont understand coherent sentences to come up with that! fucks sake. i didnt say anything at all about the UN following the US's administration. what i said was the very concept of the UN is flawed because it is a democracy! and in a democracy people are going to want different things. a united front is very hard to achieve. However on the issue of nuclear weapons there is a certain treaty that most countries signed up to and that needs to be obeyed by those countries. it is up to the UN to ensure that, regardless of the individual interests of the member countries! and i have serious doubts whether that will happen. hopefully it will. gods sake, if you're gonna reply to me, then at least read what i write first as for your michael moore comment - i havent invented the stance russia and china have taken. i got the information from the good people at the BBC and CNN and every other fucking news organisation who've said exactly the same thing....go read i cant believe you've described the capture of Bin Laden as 'fucking irrelevant' - or have i missed something here? have they legalised plane hijacking, terrorist organisations and mass murder now? did i miss that? must have. You do know that Bin Laden organised the attempted destruction of the Pentagon right? and you do know what the Pentagon is right? and yeah i am patronising you now. but it seems to me like some people around here actually condone and forgive the attempted destruction of the 2nd most important government building in America.... and i cant seriously believe people are saying that removing terrorist organisations wont make a difference. fair enough, some recent incidents have been on a small scale and more easily organised with just a few people involved. But the 9/11 attacks required massive organisation and investment over several years - and if you people dont realise that and dont think that removing Bin laden and his cronies would have prevented it, then you're frankly barking mad the final point about Iraq's democracy - yes they are free to elect whoever they want and maybe that will be another islamic fundamentalist or nutcase or good guy. Thats the point - its a democracy. we're giving them the chance to choose the path of their nation. whatever they pick is up to them.....whether it turns out good or bad. we've given them that choice, and that is a hell of a lot more than saddam ever game them there is a difference however, between an islamic fundamentalist and a nutcase. Since when did Islam require Israel to be wiped off the map as the Iranian president wants? he is a nutcase. he was democratically elected, yes. so Iran will have to live with the consequences of his actions. same as Iraq will have to live with the consequences of its future governments actions
|
|
|
Post by brumoscardo on Jan 18, 2006 17:13:27 GMT -5
To tell the truth, the US are not up for doing intervention coz of the menace of nuclear weapons or whatever, otherwise they would go straight to N. Korea. They're up for something else. But I gotta tell you, Iran is no Iraq. They better be careful for another intervention there.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 18, 2006 18:00:17 GMT -5
Am I understanding you right, that the UN is powerful as long as it follows the US-administration? Pretty strange understanding of domocracy to my ears. i cant believe you've described the capture of Bin Laden as 'fucking irrelevant' - or have i missed something here? have they legalised plane hijacking, terrorist organisations and mass murder now? did i miss that? must have. You do know that Bin Laden organised the attempted destruction of the Pentagon right? and you do know what the Pentagon is right? and yeah i am patronising you now. but it seems to me like some people around here actually condone and forgive the attempted destruction of the 2nd most important government building in America.... c'mon DS, nobody is saying that capturing bin-laden is simply irrelevant and that we're trying to condone the 9/11 events, and you know it. what i, and im sure i can speak on behalf of halftheworld here, were trying to say is that capturing him or killing him isnt going to change these islamic extremists in any kind of way and it isnt gonna make me or you or any other british or american citizen any safer wherever they live in the world. and the whole point in all this action in iraq was part of the 'war on terror'. well, im sorry but you'll never convince me that by invading and occupying iraq that we are gonna be safer from terrorist attacks. it seems to me that the only thing we've done there is wreck the place. as for iraq voting for a hardline islamic government, are you seriously trying to tell me if they voted for a party which was similar to say the taliban, that the uk and the us would accept that result? oh yeah, speaking of the taliban, who was it who armed and trained those guys again? surely it wasnt the same people who armed saddam was it?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 18, 2006 19:07:09 GMT -5
c'mon DS, nobody is saying that capturing bin-laden is simply irrelevant and that we're trying to condone the 9/11 events, and you know it. what i, and im sure i can speak on behalf of halftheworld here, were trying to say is that capturing him or killing him isnt going to change these islamic extremists in any kind of way and it isnt gonna make me or you or any other british or american citizen any safer wherever they live in the world. and the whole point in all this action in iraq was part of the 'war on terror'. well, im sorry but you'll never convince me that by invading and occupying iraq that we are gonna be safer from terrorist attacks. it seems to me that the only thing we've done there is wreck the place. well the guy is a big boy and he can speak for himself - i asked the question (several questions that still no one has answered...) and he responded with that bullshit. i asked what should have been done to capture bin laden - the head of an international terrorist organisation. ignoring iraq, ignoring Bush and everything else. and he responded saying it was fucking irrelevant! is that the great liberal solution?? writing him off as irrelevant and moving on to slagging america again?? i take your point about the spread of terrorists and suicide bombers not being directly linked to bin laden. but i dont know how you can seriously claim that capturing him and his buddies isnt going to make the world safer. It would of prevented 9/11 - what if tomorrow morning we wake to find he executed 9/11 part 2? would you still be claiming the world wouldnt be safer without him? as for arming the taliban and saddam hussein - we all know why the taliban were initially supported. The arms trade is a murky business but thats the world we live in - by your logic Britain should of kicked off with France because they sold the Exocet missle to Argentina which was used on British ships in the Falklands war! i mean where does it all end? you cant use hindsight in that way mate, - to me thats just another example of people looking far too hard at ways to criticise america when there are other countries we should be looking at... the iraq war - we did to death in the other thread so im trying to get away from that. there are different viewpoints and thats that. theres got to be a line drawn between hardline radical, suppresive regimes and extreme religious regimes. i doubt the US would ever have gone into Afghanistan if it wasnt for Bin Laden. the taliban werent a big issue. (not compared to Iran's nukes for example) If the new Iraq government was suppressive, undemocratic and aggressive then id expect Britain and America would have something to say. However if it was just ultra-islamic, inward looking and hostile to the west then i dont see any reason for us to get involved with it. the situation will be looked at in time though. again you seem to be striving for negatives regarding the US/UK....
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 18, 2006 19:30:50 GMT -5
c'mon DS, nobody is saying that capturing bin-laden is simply irrelevant and that we're trying to condone the 9/11 events, and you know it. what i, and im sure i can speak on behalf of halftheworld here, were trying to say is that capturing him or killing him isnt going to change these islamic extremists in any kind of way and it isnt gonna make me or you or any other british or american citizen any safer wherever they live in the world. and the whole point in all this action in iraq was part of the 'war on terror'. well, im sorry but you'll never convince me that by invading and occupying iraq that we are gonna be safer from terrorist attacks. it seems to me that the only thing we've done there is wreck the place. is that the great liberal solution?? writing him off as irrelevant and moving on to slagging america again?? who said that? nobody said that. that was a great piece of spin mate. you should get a job with new labour honestly, i dont know what the solution is, and im not claiming to know it. all im saying is i cant see why invading iraq or any other country for that matter is gonna be a solution to this type of problem. and im not slagging america off, its a fine country which has given the world so much, im slagging their present government off, aswell as my own i may add. ok, so if bin-laden was killed it would stop another 9/11 type attack. you trying to tell me if he was dead that there wouldnt be some other fanatic to take his place and plan similar attacks? for all we know, he might be already dead, does that mean that another 9/11 attack would never take place? one man cant be responsible for something like that. it must have taken hundreds of people to plan. now im not trying to say that we should just ignore the guy or not try to find and kill him. i'd love to wake up tomorrow to the news that the evil little fucker had been killed. as for my comment about the taliban. im not really talking about arm trading, i know its not as black and white as that. i just meant that it sticks in my throat that the the west wanted people like this on their side when it suited them (ie when they were at war with the russians) and now its like their the "enemy of democracy and freedom". fucking hypocrites. as for being negative, im only being negative because all i see is negativity in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 18, 2006 21:43:27 GMT -5
Am I understanding you right, that the UN is powerful as long as it follows the US-administration? Pretty strange understanding of domocracy to my ears. halftheworld - you're more than half the world away mate, you're on a different fucking planet how in the name of greek buggery did you come to that 'understanding' based on what i'd wrote?? you obviously dont understand coherent sentences to come up with that! fucks sake. i didnt say anything at all about the UN following the US's administration. what i said was the very concept of the UN is flawed because it is a democracy! and in a democracy people are going to want different things. a united front is very hard to achieve. However on the issue of nuclear weapons there is a certain treaty that most countries signed up to and that needs to be obeyed by those countries. it is up to the UN to ensure that, regardless of the individual interests of the member countries! and i have serious doubts whether that will happen. hopefully it will. gods sake, if you're gonna reply to me, then at least read what i write first as for your michael moore comment - i havent invented the stance russia and china have taken. i got the information from the good people at the BBC and CNN and every other fucking news organisation who've said exactly the same thing....go read i cant believe you've described the capture of Bin Laden as 'fucking irrelevant' - or have i missed something here? have they legalised plane hijacking, terrorist organisations and mass murder now? did i miss that? must have. You do know that Bin Laden organised the attempted destruction of the Pentagon right? and you do know what the Pentagon is right? and yeah i am patronising you now. but it seems to me like some people around here actually condone and forgive the attempted destruction of the 2nd most important government building in America.... and i cant seriously believe people are saying that removing terrorist organisations wont make a difference. fair enough, some recent incidents have been on a small scale and more easily organised with just a few people involved. But the 9/11 attacks required massive organisation and investment over several years - and if you people dont realise that and dont think that removing Bin laden and his cronies would have prevented it, then you're frankly barking mad the final point about Iraq's democracy - yes they are free to elect whoever they want and maybe that will be another islamic fundamentalist or nutcase or good guy. Thats the point - its a democracy. we're giving them the chance to choose the path of their nation. whatever they pick is up to them.....whether it turns out good or bad. we've given them that choice, and that is a hell of a lot more than saddam ever game them there is a difference however, between an islamic fundamentalist and a nutcase. Since when did Islam require Israel to be wiped off the map as the Iranian president wants? he is a nutcase. he was democratically elected, yes. so Iran will have to live with the consequences of his actions. same as Iraq will have to live with the consequences of its future governments actions best stetement of the year right there nice work
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 18, 2006 22:28:07 GMT -5
daysleeperOk, Listen, I apologize if it sounded like it was irrelevant at all to catch him. He has to be taken to justice for 9/11. No doubt about that, but how many wars do you want to start? All I was trying to say was, that it has NO effect to terrorism at all. Besides that terrirists don't have that much money anymore (eventhough that is probably wrong, cause I guess he's not the only rich fucker). Allright, let's say about 20 people caused 9/11. 20 irritated guys with monetary support of Bin Laden. But can you guess, how many people are now willing to kill themselves with or without Bin Ladens support? How many are willing to do the same as the bombers in Madrid or London? See, I totally understand, that Bin Laden has to be caught. But you also have to admit that this wouldn't change the situation right now. I just can repeat: AQ did NOT have any contact to the London bombers. And do you really think, that invading a country will help? Do you think all Iraqies are glad that their houses got bombed? How many people blew themselves up in Iraq? Do you really think they're all foreign nuts? Or die-hard Saddam supporters? Yeah that's great. Do you really think Michael Moore made up the facts he presents? I am not denying the fact, that China and Russia have economic interests involved in that Iran issue. But tell me, that US foreign policy is free of economic interests! Nope, it is not. And now tell the whole world: Where is the difference between China's economic interests, Ruassian economic interests or US economic interests? Do you think that the United States have contracts with democratic states, only? How far would President Bush probably go critcising China, considering that they have 600 Billion Dollars in the back ? Do you know what a threat that is for the US economy, let alone the world's economy! (consider that China recently said, that one goal is to reintegrate Taiwan- with all possible instruments! Not excluding military actions, wich they actually trained in a maneuver last year) How much money does China invest in US companies? e.g. They bought 70 Boeings last year. Like you said: why? money. It's all about the money. For sure it is. But not only for China, Russia etc. And to me it sounded like the UN is not working, because these countries take their economic interests to the institution of the UN. Well i have no problem with that, but then consider, that the US are doing the same. Allright, and what's so wrong about it? Opposition is an important part of democracy, to me... And just to repeat that: Allright, if it's not right to follow democratic principles and also not right to follow US's administration, what should be the basis of an institution like the United Nations then? ... Yeah, what hell of a choice. And one last thing: even if I am not a citizen of the United States I am pretty much aware of what the Pentagon is. Correct me, if i didn't read your posts properly. Oh and one latest thing: I DON'T WANT TO SLAG OFF THE UNITED STATES. It's a great country. I am just not content with that policy. Opposition is democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 18, 2006 22:31:55 GMT -5
thank you DS!!
he takes my views, and says it even better (look up, i said the exact same thing)
EVERYTHING Bush has done in respect to the War on Terror (inc Iraq) has been correct....it may not have all worked out as planned, and is more of a struggle than anticipated, but its all the correct move in the long term
the main question is....are we/the world, safer than we we were prior to 9/11?
yes we are....fine, theres been Madrid/Bali/London....but you cant stop suicide bombers....but why not prevent what we can?
Iraqi war made sense: -Saddam went against UN Mandates...thats war worthy to begin with -Potential WMD (heh) -Not a dicatator, but a terrorist--he killed his own people....theres a worldwide term: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY....he is not fit to lead a country, and must be removed and convicted as the criminal he is -Iraq can now become a better country due to their decision -Stabalizes the middle east bc Iraq will be between Syria and Iran -Al-Qaeda losing even more bases -o and btw: AL-ZAQAKARI (what ever the fuck his name is...the leader of alqaeda in iraq) WAS LINKED TO ALQAEDA AND HAD BEEN HIDING IN IRAQ WAAAAY BEFORE THE WAR STARTED: THERES YOUR AL-QAEDA-SADDAM LINK
War on Terror (Afghan): -not even going to list the reasons, cos thats clearly justified
so whats the whole debate over Iraq? Saddam didnt have WMD?....maybe....but thats only A FRACTION of what the war was about....it was the most publicized reason bc it gets the publics attention, but the Iraqi war is about so much more
And Iran is even more dangerous....we can and will deal with them....
but dems, heres a list i want answered of what you would do...and you even have the advantage of hindsight, and u still wont be able to tell me what you would do!! -How would you deal with bin laden after 9/11? Al-Qaeda? -What would you do concerning all that intel about Iraq? -How would you handle Iran?
War of course is bad....but sometimes its neccessary....by taking out Saddam, i wonder how many lives we saved?
REMEMBER, SADDAM HAD MANY MASS GRAVES!!!!!!!!!
you people are retarded if you disagree with removing Saddam...he was a threat to his own people, possibly us and the world...we cant take the risk of finding out....could bush and co planned it better? hells yeh he could of....and he deserves the criticisim on that front...but to question whether we should have gone to war or not is just stupid
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 18, 2006 22:50:00 GMT -5
back on topic, READ THIS:
America's nuclear ticking bomb
By Jorge Hirsch January 3, 2006
New U.S. policies for the use of nuclear weapons were formulated in the administration document "Nuclear Posture Review" of 2001 and became more sharply defined through a Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations."
They envision the use of nuclear weapons against adversary underground installations, against adversaries using or intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces and for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms. Implementation of these policies, whose drafters occupy the upper echelons of the Bush administration today, could be precipitated in the near future by events unfolding in the Persian Gulf.
Iran's nuclear program has become a central theme in Israel's electoral campaign, with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly advocating a pre-emptive attack against Iran's nuclear installations, and his main rival, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, explicitly not ruling out that possibility. Given the U.S. presence in Iraq and its close alliance with Israel, the United States would necessarily become militarily involved in the aftermath of such an Israeli attack.
Russia and China have sided with Iran in that it is legally entitled under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for nonmilitary purposes. The United States adamantly opposes Iran's restarting of any uranium-enrichment-related activities and is pushing for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. The United States has explicitly not ruled out its own military option against Iran and has recently exercised that option against a state (Iraq) suspected of having weapons of mass destruction and of sponsoring terrorism. Iran certainly falls in that category.
If only conventional bombs are used in an unprovoked U.S. or Israeli aerial attack against Iran's facilities, Iran is likely to retaliate with missiles against coalition forces in Iraq and against Israel, as well as possibly a ground invasion of southern Iraq, that the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would not be able to withstand. Iranian missiles could potentially contain chemical warheads, and it certainly would be impossible to rule out such possibility. Iran has signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1993 and 1997 respectively), however it is still likely to have supplies, as determined by the U.S. State Department in August 2005.
Early use by the United States of low-yield nuclear bombs with better bunker-busting ability than conventional bombs targeting Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile installations would be consistent with the new U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine and could be argued to be necessary to protect the lives of 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and of Israeli citizens. It would also send a clear message to Iran that any response would be answered by a far more devastating nuclear attack, thus potentially saving both American and Iranian lives.
However, the nuclear threshold is a line of no return. Once the United States uses a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear adversary, the 182 countries that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty will rightly feel at risk, and many of them will rush to develop their own nuclear deterrent while they can. A new world with many more nuclear countries, and a high risk of any regional conflict exploding into all-out nuclear war, will be the consequence.
The scientific community (which created nuclear weapons) is alarmed over the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies. A petition to reverse these policies launched by physicists at the University of California San Diego has gathered over 1,500 physicists' signatures including eight Nobel laureates and many prominent members of the U.S. scientific establishment (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/). Scientists object strongly to the concept of WMD, that lumps together nuclear weapons with other "weapons of mass destruction" and blurs the sharp line that separates immensely more destructive nuclear weapons from all other weapons.
An escalating nuclear war could lead to the destruction of civilization. There is no fundamental difference between small nuclear bombs and large ones, nor between nuclear bombs targeting underground installations versus those targeting cities or armies.
The nuclear weapons "taboo" has served humanity well over the past 60 years. If the use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries is part of the military doctrine and planning of the United States, there will come a time when their use becomes unavoidable because no alternatives will have been planned for, as in the scenario described above.
These policies should not be implemented. All U.S. citizens should participate in a national debate on these dangerous policies that will hopefully lead to their repudiation and reversal before it is too late.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego. He is one of the originators of the physicists' petition on nuclear weapons policies started at the UCSD.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 18, 2006 23:00:09 GMT -5
thank you DS!! Iraqi war made sense: -Saddam went against UN Mandates...thats war worthy yes
|
|