[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by LtNarol
For those of you who are against war, shame on you for your shortsited naive ignorance.  War may not be a fun thing, but someone's gotta do the dirty work every once in a while and the US would not be going to war just because 'it can', but because theres a nutcase in power who needs to be removed before he starts nuclear armageddon.

1 here.

LN, just for the record, I'm not against war on Iraq. I fully realize that he will have to be dealt with soon. But I haven't seen any evidence that his threat of getting nukes is imminent (and Bush hasn't supplied any such evidence yet). We still have to deal with Al Queda first. All I'm saying is that we should finish one war before we start another, especially another war that could jeopardize the first one.

The debate isn't whether we should go to war with Iraq, but how and when.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by CP5670
fascists rule!

Not for very long, though.

Remember Mussolini and Hitler? Both of their regimes lasted less than 20 years (and thank God for their regimes fell, too).

[CP5670]

Well, Hitler at least would have gotten somewhere but for all his political cunning, he was a tactical buffoon...

All I'm saying is that we should finish one war before we start another, especially another war that could jeopardize the first one.

You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
Well, Hitler at least would have gotten somewhere but for all his political cunning, he was a tactical buffoon...



You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.

Yep...never finished as long as anyone isnt brainwashed enough to exhibit non-conformists attitudes.

Your defense of this tired, over-tried course of action in an effort to expand your empire actually makes me sick.

[RandomTiger]

Originally posted by Bobboau
it is prety black and white if you think something must be done (that economic and political stuff isn't going to work, ie militarily action will be needed), then you are for the war, else you are aganced it

I still disagree. 'political stuff' with the threat of force is the only way to do with without causing a lot of people in the middle east to turn to terrorism.

I reserve the right to agree to war on conditions.

LtNarol

For those of you who are against war, shame on you for your shortsited naive ignorance. War may not be a fun thing, but someone's gotta do the dirty work every once in a while and the US would not be going to war just because 'it can', but because theres a nutcase in power who needs to be removed before he starts nuclear armageddon.

I have read most of the British document on Iraq and it would seem that containment is working to the extent that we have breathing time to try and find a diplomatic solution.

Why is everyone so desparate to go to war?

[Black_Dragon]

ANTHRAX !!!!!!!  AHGGGGGGGGGGG.....  

 

[RandomTiger]

Originally posted by CP5670
You see though, this one will never be finished, since as I said in the other thread, it is essentially impossible for us to root out Al Qaeda completely. We can only disrupt their plans and keep them running.

Al Qaeda relies on fanatics to join their cause.
If people stop joining then its nothing an Bin Laden is only one man (assuming hes still alive).

If you are willing to look for and solve the root cause it will do a lot more good.

[Black_Dragon]

Why?   That means search of power,  power superiority.

And the 500 year of fuels that are in the enemy territory,  well  thats what wants your country,  $$$$$$$$$$$.

They allways find some excuse for war,  lets blow our own ship!!!!!  And go to war.  

And people are stupid,  they will believe the most B.S. commentary,  that can tell your goverment,  thats the power,  you can do anything in it.


Well,  i dont like people beeing killed for dirty work.  

Who cares who got Biological weapons,  maybee 50% of the planet there are stored for future use,  and 80% of the planet has nuclear weapons,   this will never end,   radiation cannot be cleaned,   that can last up to 300 years or more.

At least all of it will burn in "hell".

[wEvil]

Originally posted by RandomTiger
Why is everyone so desparate to go to war?

Its empire-fever.  They want to bash someone because they can.

[Black_Dragon]

Well,  talking of the Bin Laden Guy,  gee,  who you will blame for the billions of dollars was donated to him,   for fighting against the Russians.

[LtNarol]

Unfortunately for your arguement people like Saddam also support things like Al Queda, are you therefore saying that plugging one wellspring of evil while leaving the other to sprout readily solves international terrorism?

As for containment, don't make me choke; I just had dinner.  Containment and diplomacy didn't work with Hitler during WWII, it will not work with Saddam and WWIII.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Diplomacy only works with the sane, its a whole new game when you're dealing with the insane.

[Black_Dragon]

Well,  thats a big mess.

[Stryke 9]

I say we nuke everything, just to be safe. Including the US- you don't want those insider cells to wreak havoc without their leaders.

[Black_Dragon]

JAja     cool.

It will be like the fallout game.

[RandomTiger]

Originally posted by LtNarol
Unfortunately for your arguement people like Saddam also support things like Al Queda, are you therefore saying that plugging one wellspring of evil while leaving the other to sprout readily solves international terrorism?

We are not saying leave it how it is.
I want to see all Saddams weapons destoryed.
I believe this can be done without killing anyone.

Look at history, how often is the quick fix better than the slow long term solution?

As for containment, don't make me choke; I just had dinner.  Containment and diplomacy didn't work with Hitler during WWII, it will not work with Saddam and WWIII.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Diplomacy only works with the sane, its a whole new game when you're dealing with the insane.

This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.

[vyper]

Originally posted by RandomTiger

This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.

Air superiority is not the issue. An attack by Iraq upon an Allied country would come, not on the wings of fighter/bombers, or from the deck guns of a Cruiser, but rather from long range missiles carrying biological or chemical weapons. Even the JSF would have trouble stopping that.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by RandomTiger
I want to see all Saddams weapons destoryed.

He won't do that just because you ask him nicely.

Originally posted by RandomTiger
I believe this can be done without killing anyone.

Sorry for being blunt, but if you really believe that then you're as naive as the hippies of the 70s and as idiotic as they come.  Nothing is so free.

Originally posted by RandomTiger
Look at history, how often is the quick fix better than the slow long term solution?

Never, and leaving Saddam in power _IS_ a short term solution because he _WILL_ find a way to aquire new weapons.

Originally posted by RandomTiger
This is totally different. We have a huge advantage. In a mater of hours we could have total air superiority over Iraq and do whatever the hell we like. The problem with WW2 is that no-one tryed to contain Germany.

Not true, we may have air superiority, but Saddam can always dig in or run for the tall grass.  If he builds his missile silos underground, nothing short of tac-nukes will be able to get to them.

Leave him in power and we'll have the cold war all over again, only this time with an opponent who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Frankly, I'd rather die fighting it than live fearing it.

[RandomTiger]

It is because America must have Iraq under total survalence. Theres no way that a missle launch could be setup (for that kind of range) without it being seen and stopped.

Im more worried about if Saddam gives it away in small batches to Al Qaeda and other terror groups.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by vyper
Air superiority is not the issue. An attack by Iraq upon an Allied country would come, not on the wings of fighter/bombers, or from the deck guns of a Cruiser, but rather from long range missiles carrying biological or chemical weapons. Even the JSF would have trouble stopping that.

And leaving him able to do so in the future is such a better alternative?

[RandomTiger]

Originally posted by LtNarol

He won't do that just because you ask him nicely.

He will if he knows we'll attack him if he doesnt.

Sorry for being blunt, but if you really believe that then you're as naive as the hippies of the 70s and as idiotic as they come.  Nothing is so free.

I think thats a bit more than blunt.
You are a fool if you think that killing Iraq's, even Saddam is going to solve America's security problems.