[vyper]

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

Where did  I say that? I'm just saying simple containment isn't an option.

[Bobboau]

killing Iraq will solve the Iraqi security problem

[phreak]

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

isn't that reason alone to take the guy out.  he likes terrorist groups... hell he compensates the families of suicide bombers (gives them a good $25000 which a bunch of money to palestineans)

[LtNarol]

I'm not for an all out assault meant to level Iraq, I want Saddam dealt with and dealt with before he becomes any more of a threat.

[CP5670]

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

Of course, finding a solution to this "root cause" is pretty much impossible; the only realistic and practical solution is to keep killing them as they come up. It is much harder to destroy an idea than to destroy men.

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 quite agree here. This is over-optimism at its worst.

Actually, I think that this absolute anti-war thing that some people display has nothing to do with what people are saying here - they are giving pseudo-rational reasons but the true sentiments behind it are somewhat different. The simple fact is that much of western society has become softened to the extreme, and the mere mention of war, death, "immorality," and whatever else causes the rabbles to start protesting. Sorry, but this is the real world, and all of this does and must happen as long as humans act independently of each other, which will be the case for at least our lifetimes.

[Stryke 9]

Whaa...? The hippies were in the 60s- the 70s were fashionable dropouts- most didn't even CALL themselves hippies. And if you think the student radicals were naive, you seriously need to brush up on history. Some of those guys were out for blood, plain and simple, and knew EXACTLY how things worked.

[Warlock]

One of the funniest things I've read here and heard on the news etc is the "WE have not seen good enough proof about Iraq"

Ummm ppl .... MILITARY,... do ppl actually think it's a bright idea to produce everything for a freaking public debate ? ?


Imagine hearing this on CNN "Today at 3pm EST we recieved satelite footage that clearly shows a military installation in Iraq setting up a nuclear warhead for transport to a nearby aresenal."



Gee ... no wide spread panic here eh ? No offense to anyone here ,.. so if the following upsets anyone ... oh well,....

But I think the Joint Chiefs have been doing all this for a wee but longer than ANYone on this forum.  Hell most of them have prolly held that position longer than half the forum's been breathing.

Let the ppl TRAINED to make this type of call do it.

[diamondgeezer]

Yes, but they get paid to kill people, so I'm not going to go on their recommendations alone

[LtNarol]

They get paid to defend their country, not to kill; killing just happens to be required from time to time.  They're there for a reason, and I quote: "If Command wants your opinion, they'll promote you to admiral."  If your thoughts were needed, you'd be sitting on a board by now, not posting on the internet.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Warlock
Gee ... no wide spread panic here eh ? No offense to anyone here ,.. so if the following upsets anyone ... oh well,....

Yeah, because it's one thing to issue terror warnings every day, say that anybody near a nuclear power plant, public building, large city or the ground is putting themselves at imminent risk of terrorist attack, and scream about a bioweapon threat when powdered donuts turn out to leave dust and mosquitoes bite people, never mind encouraging people to spy on their neighbors because they MAY BE TERRORISTS. Saying that the government had any evidence that Saddam has the weapons it's been claiming it knows he has all along is the WRONG kind of panic-inducing!

Screw your head on, kid. It's a war, and we've got war propoganda. A heightened state of panic, tempered with murderous hatred, is just what the powers that be want and need. Never mind that producing actual, real evidence, instead of making it up, wouldn't create a very effective panic. Maybe one or two new bomb shelters, but people are running on the assumption that he's got bombs anyway, because that's what the military keeps screaming to panic about on TV.

But I think the Joint Chiefs have been doing all this for a wee but longer than ANYone on this forum.  Hell most of them have prolly held that position longer than half the forum's been breathing.

Let the ppl TRAINED to make this type of call do it.

And I'm sure Stalin was quite qualified for the job, as well. In fact, no junta dictator comes to mind who wasn't, in some way. "years of experience" might wash at McDonalds, but not when I have to live with deeper consequences than food poisoning. Assuming that, simply because someone appears to know what they're doing, they're any more likely to get it right than Joe Blow might sound good on paper, but in real life it's almost never been the case in politics- certainly not the case when you're talking about US foreign relations. Pull out a history book and tell me how well the qualified men have fared in the past.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by LtNarol
If your thoughts were needed, you'd be sitting on a board by now, not posting on the internet.

Needed by whom? By a consortium of generals whose career hinges on blowing **** up- who've been trained their entire lives to kill foreigners whenever they poked their heads up? No, I suppose any thoughts leading to the concept of "not blowing **** up for the hell of it" wouldn't be needed. But a government that doesn't need the people is the greatest threat to the peopel there could ever be- we get in the way. And I'm not the government, I'm the people- I think I'll cover MY ass, not worry about theirs.

[Pera]

Originally posted by Warlock
Imagine hearing this on CNN "Today at 3pm EST we recieved satelite footage that clearly shows a military installation in Iraq setting up a nuclear warhead for transport to a nearby aresenal."

Nope, but instead you might hear this:

"According to military sources, there is a reason to believe that the government of Ouagadaogou has been supporting terrorism. Their country will cease to exist at 3. pm tomorrow."

My point is, would you let your country(I assume you are an american) to attack absolutely anyone just because the government says so?

Oh, and that would be option 3 for me, but I'm hoping it would be possible to get rid of that wacko-Saddam without turning Iraq into a glass parking lot. Also, the US should be held accountable for it's corperate imperialistic global domination plans. Still, some of these "War is BAD!, USA is BAD!"-hippies here make laugh.(referring to no-one in particular, put down those flamethrowers)

[Bobboau]

well it would be fun to nuke sadam we could just use our conventional weapons and instal a democratic republic in his place

and how's this for some evedence, a bunch of guys were just caut in turky 130 miles from the Iraqi border with 30 pounds of weapons grade uranium

or something a little simpler, Iraq kicked UN inspectors out and won't let them back in to see what they have, Iraq hates us (not just America, but the entire western world) becase we wooped his ass so baddly, and is, at the least idealogicaly, alighed with these islamic terrorists

[Tar-Palantir]

Anyone know about what Bush and Blair plan to do after any war with Iraq? Regime change is all well and good, but it does start a rather dangerous precient. What happens if the next guy in power isn't all that friendly?

[Top Gun]

"Ouagadaogou" is a city, not a country




Saddam Hussain will not attack Britian/America if we don't attack him. He could well attack his neighbours, which have regiemes that are no better than his, if not worse. He's not stupid, he's well aware that the use of any chemical weapons will mean the end of his rule so they're effectively useless to him, unless he's invaded.


It seems that certain people here are unfammiliar with the concept of war: When you bomb someone, it's normally customary to be bombed back. A war would only be provokation for more terrorist Attacks. Bush and Blair are a far Bigger threat to us (the people), than saddam could ever be. America doesn't even provide basic healthcare for its citizens, 40 million of which live in poverty and britain "can't afford" to pay its firefighters a decent wage yet they spend millions on a war with a country thousands of miles away. Wake up guys. The desires of Bush and Blair are very different to the desires/needs of the people they "represent". We should have a "regieme change" in our own countries before bothering about others.

[Pera]

Originally posted by Top Gun
"Ouagadaogou" is a city, not a country

You're kidding, right? 'cause I just made it up.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by CP5670
fascists rule!

4.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670


I quite agree here. This is over-optimism at its worst.

Actually, I think that this absolute anti-war thing that some people display has nothing to do with what people are saying here - they are giving pseudo-rational reasons but the true sentiments behind it are somewhat different. The simple fact is that much of western society has become softened to the extreme, and the mere mention of war, death, "immorality," and whatever else causes the rabbles to start protesting. Sorry, but this is the real world, and all of this does and must happen as long as humans act independently of each other, which will be the case for at least our lifetimes.

Nope, I just think the western way of life is corrupt, has had its day and needs to be removed for any kind of progress to happen.

I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror".  I'm not saying the other guys are saints, i'm saying this will cause problems in the long run and its going to get harder to make everything right the longer you all SIT ON YOUR ARSES AND PRETEND EVERTYHINGS' OK.

[vyper]

Originally posted by wEvil
....I just think the western way of life is corrupt...

I am fundamentally against any attempt by western nations to spread their capitalist sedition under the guise of "security" "containment" or "war on terror".

Then you are your likes, sir, better be ready for the fight of your lives. Because this is one capitalist westerner who will fight to the last to protect our way of life, and I'm not the only one.

[wEvil]

the longer you leave it and refuse to see what you're doing to the world around you the nastier things will get when they finally snap.

What you want is unsustainable and you know it.