[Rictor]

Sandwich:

according to you killing 10,000 of you own people is "horrendous, terrbile blabla" while killing 10,000 of someone else's people (those from another country) is "keeping the peace"


Bob:

They may have found 2 mible production plants. We both know this will probably turn out to be bogus, since the US is now jumping everytime they discover anything, hoping it'll be WMD. Even if they had the 2 mible plants, just how much of a threat is it. How much can 2 mobile (which means they cant be bigger they say, a truck) plants produce? Is that their entire weaons program?

__________________

And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, best of all would be if Saddam got it instead. He is the true man of peace.

No worries, they already gavce the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a true man of peace.



(barf puke gag)

Originally posted by Rictor
Sandwich:

according to you killing 10,000 of you own people is "horrendous, terrbile blabla" while killing 10,000 of someone else's people (those from another country) is "keeping the peace"

When a Palestinian is killed whilst aiming a loaded weapon at soldiers, I don't call that man-slaughter. Yes, he was killed. He was also doing something very very stupid.

Originally posted by Rictor
And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

Yes - most nations "allowed" to have WMDs have proven to be responsible in their international behavior. Iraq hasn't.

Will write more later - gotta run now.

[CP5670]

No worries, they already gavce the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a true man of peace.

really?

And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

I already gave you all the necessary reasons; you really need to read the old Iraq thread again. The stronger countries dictate terms to the weaker ones, and that is the way the world works. And yes, that logic is indeed quite sound, so let them bring it on and may the best nation win.

maybe they'll find a copy of Freespace 3 this time

maybe Hussein played FS2 and liked it so much that he ordered his men to make an FS3 for him. what if he posted in the community forums as well? what if one of us is really Saddam?

[Rictor]

CP: well the US isnt saying "we're the strongest so we can do whatever we want", they're saying "we are justified blabla"

if they just went ahead and admited to being the agressors and being unprovoked, I wouldnt have asmuch of a problem with them..its their hypocracy that I scoff at

Sandwich: You speak as if every one of the Iraqis killed had a gun in their hand and a bomb on the chest. We both know thats not the truth. But a life is a life. About 5000 people (innocents) died in the WTC thing. Do you honestly believe that since then the US has not exceeded that figure in the amount of innocent Iraqis (and Afganistanis) that they have killed. I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

 And I am still to see ANY (independently confirmed) proof of Iraqs ties to terrorism or WMD. Who is giving you all the information about the "proof"? America. IN whos best interest is it to lie about ties to terrorism and WMD? America? And now, go ahead and believe whatever they tell you, since their viewpoint on the whole thing is SO objective

And hasnt the US proven several times that they are willing and able to fake evidence? What about the remains of that US missle that the Brit reporter found? What about the Uranium purchase document that turned out to be fake? If someone has a history of lying, why do you believe them?

[CP5670]

CP: well the US isnt saying "we're the strongest so we can do whatever we want", they're saying "we are justified blabla"

if they just went ahead and admited to being the agressors and being unprovoked, I wouldnt have asmuch of a problem with them..its their hypocracy that I scoff at

The two are not mutually exclusive; they are justified because they are strong. I'm not even sure what exactly your argument here is. Obviously they would officially say something like that because it is more popularly appealing; remember, the key in democratic politics is to lie effectively. As I have said before, their stated reasons may not make much sense, but there exist other, equally good reasons that can be used to obtain the "justification," so it does not really matter.

I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

Every government says that their enemies are the bad guys when they are attacked or whatever, but only some governments are listened to. The Afghan and Iraqi governments probably said the exact same things as the US when they were attacked, but the world paid no attention to them since they were too weak.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
Sandwich: You speak as if every one of the Iraqis killed had a gun in their hand and a bomb on the chest. We both know thats not the truth. But a life is a life. About 5000 people (innocents) died in the WTC thing. Do you honestly believe that since then the US has not exceeded that figure in the amount of innocent Iraqis (and Afganistanis) that they have killed. I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

3k, not 5k. And I wasn't referring to the Iraqis - I specifically said Palestinians. And please note that that's not a differentiation I'm making because of who they each are, but because of the situation those two groups of people are in.

I haven't heard what the "final" tally was on Iraqi deaths from the American attack. What were they? And what percentage of that was comprised of soldiers (a "legal" target in wartime, I'm personally afraid to say), and how many were civillians?

[Stryke 9]

Since when have most of the major nations with WMDs been responsible? Sandwich, I do believe you've got a bit of a memory gap where the Cold War should go. Between the two, the US and Russia were at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent (and a handful of not-so-innocent) people, the conversion of peaceful democracies into genocidal dictatorships, and the near-destruction of the nations of South America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Never mind the nuclear tests the US (and undoubtedly Russia, and the various allies) did on their own soldiers, things like sending them out immediately after an atomic explosion to see what the effect of hard radiation on people for different periods of time was. For that matter, it's coming out now that the US (and, again, likely Russia) did radiation and chemoweapon tests on unsuspecting civilian communities.


We powers with the big bombs have been anything but responsible, and even a cursory look at history would tell you that. Get your facts straight, man, we killed more people than Saddam ever did.

[Sandwich]

Cold War? What's that?

Seriously, you have some very good point there, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. It doesn't take possesion of nuclear weapons to do radiation tests - not that I'm saying that purposeful exposure to radiation is a Good Thing - far from it! But I was referring to the responsibility to realize the power you hold in your missile silos, and the holocaust you would most likely trigger if you actually used those WMDs.

Look at it this way: I'm a big boy - 6'3", 200 lbs or so (1.93 meters, 102Kg). I'm told by people that I'm quite strong, but it's strength that comes with my size - I don't work out. But even so, I'm aware of just how hard not to hold an egg. In "extreme" terms, I can be responsible enough to know how much strength I should or should not use in holding on to that egg. Yeah, I make mistakes - that has nothing to do.

You cannot expect a nation to be perfect. First of all, that perfection is completely relative to every person. But secondly, mistakes happen. We can try an avoid them, but there's a reason the word is still around. Yeah, it's easy to say that the Cold War was one big mistake now, but look at it from the perspective of those people who were not only living in that time, but who had to make the big descisions at the time. Their primary job was to ensure the safety of their citizens, a task which I believe they strived towards with the utmost of their abilities and with the knowledge they had at the time.

And don't pull a CNN on me, either. I said most WMD equipped nations. I refer to specifically the USA, Britain, France, Israel, and the like. I'm unsure about Russia, simply from a lack of knowledge about the situation. But take those four nations I listed. Can you genuinely see Saddam's Iraqi dictatorship being as responsible with WMDs as they were? Honestly?

[Stryke 9]

So... you're praising our responsibility in not saturation-nuking the world.



Perhaps you wanna think that one over a little bit more, eh? 'Cos last I checked, the nuclear setup was something like the WWI treaty system gone global, so that if one nuke was fired a million would be, and last I checked nobody stood to profit from destroying the entire planet, including (very much so) themselves. It doesn't take a "reasonable" or "responsible" commander to know this, nor does it take restraint to recognize it and act (or not act) on such- hell, there's damn near no person in the entire world eligible for any position of leadership beyond King of the Treehouse Club who is dumb enough to actually detonate a nuke over another country- they're bargaining chits, where the potential for destruction is many millions of times more useful than the destruction itself. Crazy as you or anyone else likes to think Saddam is/was, he was far from stupid, and he was supremely aware of basics like this- just like Kim Jong Il is, just like every leader is.

 If anything, the nations who set the MAD system up in the first place are irresponsible merely in setting up the conditions where one stupid, stupid person could blow up the entire planet many times over, even if nobody's likely to be so stupid soon. It's inevitable sometime.

It's like saying the guy being held at gunpoint by a largish SWAT team is being responsible for not pulling out a pistol and firing away. And considering how responsible that guy musta been to get in that position, it's doubly ludicrous.

[tEAbAG]

Ahhhh...  Welcome to the weird wonderful world of Pax Americana.  The Empire that dare not speak its name.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's like saying the guy being held at gunpoint by a largish SWAT team is being responsible for not pulling out a pistol and firing away. And considering how responsible that guy musta been to get in that position, it's doubly ludicrous.

But, the SWAT team is being responsible by not blowing away the milita guy.  They have the power to do so easily, right?  But they don't.

BTW:  I don't think Kim Jong Il is all that smart; I mean picking a fight with the most powerful nation the planet has ever seen when you can't even feed your own people?

[Stryke 9]

And he's getting away with it, too.

[Bobboau]

Sadam got away with it for 12 years.
...
/*pulls gun on SWAT team*/

[Stryke 9]

What, nuking Jerusalem? First I ever heard about it.