[CP5670]

That is probably his big Anarchist Revolution™ to dismantle the US government.

I don't think that there will be any real fighting for at least some months; this whole weapon inspections charade will impede things for quite some time, and they are going to keep asking for more time over and over again. (after all, how they are supposed to find anything? these warheads can be hidden just about anywhere - e.g. drawers, trucks, bathrooms, etc. - and searching the whole nation for these would take decades) Good thing that none of this is actually needed for a war.

Well, I'm one, and I know there are several others that would like to see Bush thoroughly ****ed, so that's at least four, by my count... and three of those are of that small percentage who get on the news a lot. Not bad, by my reckoning.

The majority of Americans are actually quite supportive of this Iraq thing.

Essentially there's zero evidence that these are new, zero evidnce that they were intended for mass destruction, and zero evidence that they were ever full of anything. They are not a justification for War.

Actually, I think the best justification is the Iraqi post-9/11 statement. This is probably why, more than anything else, the US government decided to going after Iraq next; as I have said here countless times before, it basically indicates that they are ready to show hostilities in the open, which makes them potentially dangerous. (no other nation, not even Afghanistan, issued an official supportive statement, regardless of whatever they actually thought) They may or may not have any "weapons of mass destruction," but if they do not, it just makes them all the easier to deal with, right? Remember, it is simply a case of our terrorists against their terrorists, so may the best terrorist win.

oh, and UN is a pile of crap.

Yes, I agree there. They don't have the power to enforce anything they say, so basically all they do is talk. In this particular case it is much more so than usual, since without US support they are completely powerless, so they are in a sense US controlled.

[heretic]

Originally posted by an0n
The UN and the weapons inspectors now have to declare Saddam in violation and let America whoop his ass, because no matter what the UN say America is going in.

America is ****ing certain to attack and if the UN say Saddam shouldn't be attacked and order them to stop or try and force them to stop, they'll completely ignore the UN exposing it as no better than the failed League Of Nations and end up collapsing it. And this, kids, will bring about yet another sign of the apocalypse as prophecide in the Bible.

The UN is already a failure. The U.S. will only abide by the decisions of NATO, and nothing else. The reason the US has waited is because we wanted them to be exposed to the rest of the country.


to the morons that don't watch the news: the UN declaration sent by Iraq LAST MONTH included an inventory of ALL weapons and munitions (among other things) regardless if they were warming up in a missile silo or sitting in a dusty room. And according to that document (which took Iraq 2 months to put together), the weapons found today did not exist.

The US would have still invaded, remember, the war never ended, there was only a cease-fire signed. Over the past 10 years the US/GB/etc have had patrol planes fired upon in the NFZ, not to mention Iraq warplanes in the NFZ. Those themselves were BLATENT violations of the cease-fire agreement.

As to the "well, they were empty, so why does it matter?" comments, I quote this:

You would not keep the chemical agent stored in a warhead unless you planned on using them. And how long does it really take to fill a chemical warhead? Less than 24 hours for the total operation.


Oh yeah for the people that want to question my expertise

Sergeant Christopher Bracken
Nuclear/Biological/Chemical NCO

[an0n]

Luke 21:
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. 23 Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; 24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29

Israel is screwed, they think the Sun is doing funky stuff, weather patterns are getting screwy, and 26-27 sounds eerily like a nuke to me.

Yey, us! We're screwed.

[kode]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Just because the USSR is down doesn't mean we are- they were really just fascists in disguise, anyway. Except for Kruzchev. Gotta respect a guy who bangs his shoe on a table in a public tantrum in front of the leaders of the world.

oh, you mean that Revolution...

Honestly, I don't think we'll be seeing socialism in practise any time soon. sorry. for the time being, I'm vouching for democrasy. I hope that a country will change to that rule of government soon.

[vyper]

Frankly, we know its about getting a foothold in the middle east. We know why. Anyone with a strategic eye would appreciate why. Its just unfortunate the yanks can't be subtle.

[CP5670]

There we go. I think they are doing a pretty good job at subtlety compared to most others throughout history though, as they do at least have most of their own population convinced. The whole idea of this is to do anything that has any chance of disrupting future 9/11-like operations, and in this particular case there is almost nothing to lose, so it's an easy choice. (of course, there will likely still be such things and they cannot be avoided, but they can be delayed)

[Stryke 9]

kode: Socialism's already in place over much of Wester Europe. But that's NOT what I'm talking about, anyway.

[kode]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
kode: Socialism's already in place over much of Wester Europe. But that's NOT what I'm talking about, anyway.

no. socialism is not in place over much of western europe. it's the right wing parties that are in position here. the socialist democratic workers party (hear the name!) in sweden would be right wing, if they wouldn't lose support from the union if they said it out loud.
and USSR never was a communist state. the term itself is self-contradicting.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by an0n
If we're going to start enforcing UN Resolutions, isn't there an outstanding one regarding Israel?

BECAUSE, the Israel resolutions come under a totally different system, which arent actually enforced resolutions.

[Stryke 9]

Kode: do you know what socialism IS???

It doesn't matter what party gets the vote. The form of government in, at the very least, the three major Western European countries (England, France, and Spain; possibly Italy, too) are most certainly socialist. It's not a political party, it's not a name, it's a form of economy.

[Styxx]

Anyone here believes the US has declared all of their own weapons to the UN as they're asking from Iraq? As CP says, it's just a matter of who has the bigger stick. The problem is, sometimes even the guy with the bigger stick can get his nose bloodied before he finishes the other guy off. And then we'll see the reaction of the US citizens.

Now, I only hope they transmit the whole war live on TV, and we get some good close-up, extremely gory, shots, preferrably of soldiers from both sides.

[Stryke 9]

I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by CP5670

The majority of Americans are actually quite supportive of this Iraq thing.

[color=66ff00]
I mean't that I didn't think too many americans would be happy if it turned into another vietnam...

Who wants to go die in a foreign country just so some politican can say 'whoops that wasn't such a great idea, oh well better luck next time.'
[/color]

[Stryke 9]

Who wants to die in a foreign country just so that some politician can claim the cause of death (the war) was justified for [reason], [reason] being no reason at all, aside from a childish personal grudge and the need to distract from a failing economy and series of domestic programs?

Never mind that, nowadays, there would be no "next time", much less any luck at all, for a politician who mired us in another bloody, unwinnable war where we got our asses kicked by civilians with quarter-century-old weapory.

[heretic]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.

The US dropped the bombs to end the war. The Island campaign killed hundreds of thousands, and the eventual fight on Japanese soil was too grim to not consider it.

also, the US does not go around violating other country's soverengty (sp?), or make terroristic threats. Not to mention being the only superpower

and before anyone says, we don't think the US should police the world, etc... you say that until your country gets invaded, or has a civil war, or needs aid. In fact, every country recognized by the UN gets AT LEAST 1M from us in aid/assistance every year. even the god damned Taliban controlled Afghanastan got 8 Billion in aid in 2000.

[heretic]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Who wants to die in a foreign country just so that some politician can claim the cause of death (the war) was justified for [reason], [reason] being no reason at all, aside from a childish personal grudge and the need to distract from a failing economy and series of domestic programs?

*bangs head on wall*

god damn dude, you're worse than die-hard war fanatics!! You spout all this crap, and when someone responds giving VALID REASONS for this, you simply chose to ignore it, and go on about it.

Let's sit on our ass and wait for Saddam to gain more power. Hell, it worked with germany after WWI, right?

[StratComm]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.

Oh, there are countries that supposedly can be trusted with them, namely those friendly to the US or those too big to be forced to disarm.  Not that this represents ideal policy or absolute truth as to who can and cannot be trusted, but in today's political climate that's how things fall out (no pun intended).  And as for the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, your assertion disregards a lot.  First, when those weapons were deployed, no one really knew the long-term effects nukes had.  They were just REALLY big bombs.  The devestation of Hiroshima was comparable to saturation bombing of an urban area, something that every modern nation involved totally in a national conflict has done with regularity.  The decision to use them on civilian targets was perhaps a mistake, but given the way the Japanese fought for every square inch of their Pacific island possessions, invading the Japanese mainland would have cost millions of lives, military and civilian.    You can't say that America had no regrets, but acting on limited knowledge and with the intent of bring a swift resolution to the inevitable course of the war I don't think it was a bad decision, or that I, or you, or anyone else would have made it any differently given what was known at the time and nothing more.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a jingoist and I think this war with Iraq is being poorly executed.  I don't think it's wholly bad, but I think Bush is going about it in much too political a manner.  He needs to sit back and wait for some inevitable credible and concrete evidence, the so called "smoking gun," to turn up, and I honestly think that it will, instead of rushing in headlong so that he can be a war President in an election year.

EDIT: And here is the biggest mistake Bush has made: exploring restarting the draft.  Not that he'll do it necessarily, but if there is one thing that will cause support for war to fall really quickly, this is it.  No one wants their family (and this means sons of American families) to be broken up just so some politician can stay in power.  If more of a deal had been made about the initial comments, then the necessity of the war in public opinion would have fallen really quickly.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by heretic



The US dropped the bombs to end the war. The Island campaign killed hundreds of thousands, and the eventual fight on Japanese soil was too grim to not consider it.

That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.

also, the US does not go around violating other country's soverengty (sp?), or make terroristic threats. Not to mention being the only superpower

The first part of this is so silly I don't even feel the need to respond to it. It's what the government is doing as this post is typed. As for the "terroristic threats", I suppose that depends on the definition of "terroristic". We DO make a ****load of demands from a good many countries, with the threat of invasion implied in many cases.

and before anyone says, we don't think the US should police the world, etc... you say that until your country gets invaded, or has a civil war, or needs aid. In fact, every country recognized by the UN gets AT LEAST 1M from us in aid/assistance every year.

...Except that the UN is basically a USA fanclub, where the members have to do more or less as we say. Only this year has the UN not gone along with EVERYTHING the US wants, and it's a mild protest now, at that. I think, in light of that, a little pocket change is only fair.

Besides which, if we took the time to rein in our corporations or helped most of the poorer nations in genuinely useful ways, instead of just giving empty monetary gestures, we could keep those millions. Which, as I said, on a national scale are pocket change. It takes a million dollars for a politician to take a ****, practically.

even the god damned Taliban controlled Afghanastan got 8 Billion in aid in 2000.

Sign of the efficacy of our aid program, don't you think? We prop the governments up and let them slaighter civilians until we decide we need to go invadin', then, all of a sudden, they're terrorist rogue nations who torture their populace. Policing the world, indeed.






StratComm: True. There wasn't much of a way TO know, at that point. But it was still kinda low, and after we found out the government coulda at least felt bad...

[kode]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Kode: do you know what socialism IS???
 

do you know what socialism is? marxist utopian socialism, that is.

socialism is a form of government. the real idea of parlamentarical socialist parties is to in a democratical way change the rule to socialism, where revolutionary parties wants force to be used. the goal is the same, the ways to reach it is different.

[Stryke 9]

Sort of- that's awfully simplistic. Socialism is the halfway mark between capitalism and communism. A golden mean, to some. Basically, the economy is heavily, but not completely, regulated to give some job security and market stability, and you give the government a lot of your money in taxes (but not all), and in turn the government uses the money to pay for good healthcare and the like. England in particular is a socialist state, in action if not in name. The US is sliiightly socialist, but very much more capitalist than Commie, in that the market is controlled only minimally and your taxes go more to missiles than schools- and there aren't so many of them.


And there's no such thing as "Marxist socialism". Marx was a communist. C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T. He thought Socialism was a handy halfway point for the communist revolution, but nothing more. He certainly didn't say much about how it should be.