I crapped all over BigMo's thread(sorry man), so I figured that I'll have my own thread to soil this way.
I see it this way. The fact that Saddam possibly has some weapons that have potential to wipe out a city with one instance of use(I.E. nuke/bio/chem), opens a conduit for the US to finally deal with the freak.
Oil and disarmimg go hand in hand. First off, its a samaritan mission. Keep the Gulf states a bit safer and secure some oil assets and prevent odd-ball governments from screwing with our security.
Not JUST oil. Throw me a bone here.
Alright MY thoughts on the real purpose of this upcomming conflict
Alright MY thoughts on the real purpose of this upcomming conflict
Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I agree with brembo.
We need to follow through on this one. Get him out of power, help set up a government that isn't oppressive, and make the world a "better" place. I don't care about cheap oil prices, I care about safety of the citizens of the world. It might, in fact, do the world some good if the oil weren't so readily available. More research would be put into alternative fuels and enery sources. If we (USA) are going to act like the world police... we better back up our words. There is time to change our foriegn policy (if that be the consensus) after we finish what we've already started in regards to Iraq.
Sorry for posting my opinion in yer thread... but it kinda relates.
We need to follow through on this one. Get him out of power, help set up a government that isn't oppressive, and make the world a "better" place. I don't care about cheap oil prices, I care about safety of the citizens of the world. It might, in fact, do the world some good if the oil weren't so readily available. More research would be put into alternative fuels and enery sources. If we (USA) are going to act like the world police... we better back up our words. There is time to change our foriegn policy (if that be the consensus) after we finish what we've already started in regards to Iraq.
Sorry for posting my opinion in yer thread... but it kinda relates.
Alrighty, for the sake of argument I'll assume that this government now wasn't acting like a dictatorship.
Saddam has empty warheads. Alrighty, so he could possibly fill them in the future, correct? Yes, so we need to stop him before he does.
When did you begin believing in predetermined destinies?
In the United States of America, we have a little thing called being "Innocent until proven Guilty." This means that you cannot be punished for a crime until there is reasonable suspicion that you actually did one, and then you could not be assumed to have done it.
How does this work on Saddam? Well, unless we are a bunch of hypocritical citizens, we need to realize that Saddam has that same right that we do to not be assumed guilty before proven innocent.
No, Bigmo, this does not make me a Saddam sympathizier. It makes me someone who likes the principals that America was founded upon, and theoritically still has.
Look at a map of oil distrobution across the world. What country shows up very large (According to 1995 it was the largest producer of oil) on those maps? Iraq.. so we do have a vested interest from the current administration.
While you can see both sides, it makes more sense that the roles are reversed and oil is the big issue, Saddam's possible but improbable use of weapons of mass destruction a tool to get at it.
Just my 2cp.
Saddam has empty warheads. Alrighty, so he could possibly fill them in the future, correct? Yes, so we need to stop him before he does.
When did you begin believing in predetermined destinies?
In the United States of America, we have a little thing called being "Innocent until proven Guilty." This means that you cannot be punished for a crime until there is reasonable suspicion that you actually did one, and then you could not be assumed to have done it.
How does this work on Saddam? Well, unless we are a bunch of hypocritical citizens, we need to realize that Saddam has that same right that we do to not be assumed guilty before proven innocent.
No, Bigmo, this does not make me a Saddam sympathizier. It makes me someone who likes the principals that America was founded upon, and theoritically still has.
Look at a map of oil distrobution across the world. What country shows up very large (According to 1995 it was the largest producer of oil) on those maps? Iraq.. so we do have a vested interest from the current administration.
While you can see both sides, it makes more sense that the roles are reversed and oil is the big issue, Saddam's possible but improbable use of weapons of mass destruction a tool to get at it.
Just my 2cp.
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
1949 -- Afghanistan’s parliament refuses to recognizes new boundaries drawn by Great Britain establishing an independent Pakistan. In the coming years, Afghanistan will develop close ties with the Soviet Union after the United States refuses to grant military aid.
1978 -- Daoud is killed and his government falls in a bloody Communist-backed coup. Mass killings, arrests and tortures ensue, and the Afghan guerrilla (Mujahidin) movement is born.
1979 -- Anticommunist forces take control, prompting a Soviet invasion. The Soviets lose about 15,000 troops in constant fighting, and withdraw by the late 1980s.
1984 -- The Mujahidin, known by supporters as "freedom fighters," begins receiving military and logistical assistance from the United States and other countries. "Purple Rain" is recorded.
The U.S. support Bin Laden and the Taliban throughout the 80's and 90's, viewing them as freedom fighters, and when convenient, allies against the Russians.
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan.
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.
UNOCAL spent $10 billion on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin.
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with
UNOCAL in 1998.
1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.
1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
9/11 WTC disaster. Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan.
Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some proof. We refused; we bombed.
We have a new government in Afghanistan.
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL.
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL".
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company before going to Washington.
George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge oil investments around the world.
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington.
**** Cheney worked for the oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP.
There are $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.(Irish Times 02/10/02)
Dec. 28, 2002. 01:00 AM
$5 billion gas pipeline planned in Afghanistan
BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan—Pakistan and Turkmenistan signed an ambitious pact with the Afghan president yesterday to build a $5 billion (Canadian) gas pipeline through war-ravaged Afghanistan.
The 1,465-kilometre Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline would carry natural gas from the central Asian nation of Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan. It would be one of the largest direct foreign investment projects in Afghanistan in decades.
"It is a project mainly for the next generations of our countries and important for the energy consumption of the three countries and the whole region," Afghan President Hamid Karzai said after signing the deal with President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali.
The project has yet to secure financial backing from investors wary of making such a massive investment in a country where U.S.-led forces are still hunting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and remnants of the ousted Taliban regime.
Karzai defended his country's prospects, saying the security in Afghanistan "can be considered one of the best in the region" and his government would do whatever is necessary to see that the pipeline is completed.
Officials estimate the pipeline, which would carry up to 700 billion cubic feet of gas a year, would pump about $470 million in annual transit fees into Afghanistan's ruined economy and create 12,000 jobs.
The project would also secure an additional source of energy for Pakistan and provide an additional export outlet for Turkmenistan, which has the fifth- largest natural gas reserves in the world.
Japanese conglomerate Itochu has expressed interest in the pipeline project.
And to top it all off...we now have Jimmy Carter making deals with the devil (Chavez) in order to keep our oil interests secure. Is this the kind of alliance that we want to make? Making good with the enemy to secure our oil has proved to be a very bad move. We are playing with fire here.
Yes...Saddam is a threat to our interests and to our friends. Yes, I believe he has WOMD. But he's a player. If we oust him, then we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time. Al-Qaeda has setup shop in Northern Iraq...they are now fighting with the Kurds. If we go in there...there will be political unrest like you have never seen...all the while AL-Qaeda will be trying to trip us up...the Soviets will be organizing against us in multiple theaters, China will continue to fund Al-Qaeda, North Korea will find a weakspot, and the southern hemisphere will be our next hotspot.
Are we setting ourselves up for failure?
1978 -- Daoud is killed and his government falls in a bloody Communist-backed coup. Mass killings, arrests and tortures ensue, and the Afghan guerrilla (Mujahidin) movement is born.
1979 -- Anticommunist forces take control, prompting a Soviet invasion. The Soviets lose about 15,000 troops in constant fighting, and withdraw by the late 1980s.
1984 -- The Mujahidin, known by supporters as "freedom fighters," begins receiving military and logistical assistance from the United States and other countries. "Purple Rain" is recorded.
The U.S. support Bin Laden and the Taliban throughout the 80's and 90's, viewing them as freedom fighters, and when convenient, allies against the Russians.
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan.
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.
UNOCAL spent $10 billion on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin.
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with
UNOCAL in 1998.
1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.
1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
9/11 WTC disaster. Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan.
Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some proof. We refused; we bombed.
We have a new government in Afghanistan.
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL.
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL".
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company before going to Washington.
George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge oil investments around the world.
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington.
**** Cheney worked for the oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP.
There are $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.(Irish Times 02/10/02)
Dec. 28, 2002. 01:00 AM
$5 billion gas pipeline planned in Afghanistan
BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan—Pakistan and Turkmenistan signed an ambitious pact with the Afghan president yesterday to build a $5 billion (Canadian) gas pipeline through war-ravaged Afghanistan.
The 1,465-kilometre Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline would carry natural gas from the central Asian nation of Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan. It would be one of the largest direct foreign investment projects in Afghanistan in decades.
"It is a project mainly for the next generations of our countries and important for the energy consumption of the three countries and the whole region," Afghan President Hamid Karzai said after signing the deal with President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali.
The project has yet to secure financial backing from investors wary of making such a massive investment in a country where U.S.-led forces are still hunting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and remnants of the ousted Taliban regime.
Karzai defended his country's prospects, saying the security in Afghanistan "can be considered one of the best in the region" and his government would do whatever is necessary to see that the pipeline is completed.
Officials estimate the pipeline, which would carry up to 700 billion cubic feet of gas a year, would pump about $470 million in annual transit fees into Afghanistan's ruined economy and create 12,000 jobs.
The project would also secure an additional source of energy for Pakistan and provide an additional export outlet for Turkmenistan, which has the fifth- largest natural gas reserves in the world.
Japanese conglomerate Itochu has expressed interest in the pipeline project.
And to top it all off...we now have Jimmy Carter making deals with the devil (Chavez) in order to keep our oil interests secure. Is this the kind of alliance that we want to make? Making good with the enemy to secure our oil has proved to be a very bad move. We are playing with fire here.
Yes...Saddam is a threat to our interests and to our friends. Yes, I believe he has WOMD. But he's a player. If we oust him, then we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time. Al-Qaeda has setup shop in Northern Iraq...they are now fighting with the Kurds. If we go in there...there will be political unrest like you have never seen...all the while AL-Qaeda will be trying to trip us up...the Soviets will be organizing against us in multiple theaters, China will continue to fund Al-Qaeda, North Korea will find a weakspot, and the southern hemisphere will be our next hotspot.
Are we setting ourselves up for failure?
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
Paft we gave Saddam his chance and he blew it. He messed up and is known for a fact to have had weapons of mass destruction and that some of these were missing which is why inspectors were there after the gulf war in the first place. he is also known to have used these weapons in what some call attempted geneocide against the kurds. If we're looking for a Hitler I think its Saddam.
Yes the US has an oil interest and yes we have an oil man for a president. However Bill Clinton being from Alabama and passing a law that will benifit his state as part of the US is not considered bad. So why is pursuing the liberitation of a country with the side effect of an oil deal that will directly benifit everyone in the US and boost our economy and thereby boost the world economy bad?
Oil is important to the US. I find it funny however that the same people who scream loudest for oil independance are the ones who oppose useing our own oil the most.
Yes the US has an oil interest and yes we have an oil man for a president. However Bill Clinton being from Alabama and passing a law that will benifit his state as part of the US is not considered bad. So why is pursuing the liberitation of a country with the side effect of an oil deal that will directly benifit everyone in the US and boost our economy and thereby boost the world economy bad?
Oil is important to the US. I find it funny however that the same people who scream loudest for oil independance are the ones who oppose useing our own oil the most.
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
Originally posted by Onethenumber2
Paft we gave Saddam his chance and he blew it. He messed up and is known for a fact to have had weapons of mass destruction and that some of these were missing which is why inspectors were there after the gulf war in the first place. he is also known to have used these weapons in what some call attempted geneocide against the kurds. If we're looking for a Hitler I think its Saddam.
Yes the US has an oil interest and yes we have an oil man for a president. However Bill Clinton being from Alabama and passing a law that will benifit his state as part of the US is not considered bad. So why is pursuing the liberitation of a country with the side effect of an oil deal that will directly benifit everyone in the US and boost our economy and thereby boost the world economy bad?
Oil is important to the US. I find it funny however that the same people who scream loudest for oil independance are the ones who oppose useing our own oil the most.
You have a person on trial for a murder. The jury finds that person Not Guilty. We have a law that's called "Double Jepordy". This law states that once you are tried for a crime, you can never be tried for that crime again. Ergo, Saddam should not be attacked for past aggressions.
The United States has chemical and biological weapons, and have used them. Yet nobody calls foul upon us for doing so. We're under the rule of a man who wants to pull a Taliban and make this country a religious rule.. tell me again who the real Hitler is?
Why is it a bad thing? Because passing a law does not entail losing hundreds of thousands of lives. We, the United States, got roaring mad at a loss of 3-5 thousand people. And yet we're going to turn around and drop bombs, and go to war, and kill 10,000 - 100,000 people. That is an evil act.. passing a law is not, even if it was selfish.
It's too bad that oil is important to the United States when we have practical alternative energy sources, we just don't use them.
It's all sad.
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
I'm not fond of double jeapardy. I think it's cause more harm than the good it was intended for in the first place. Really just there to make sure the prosecutors do their job well in the first place.
What do you do in those cases were clear and obvious proof comes along afterwards?
As for dropping bombs killing into the hundreds of thousands of people...we've got to give our military some credit here. They've really redesigned weapons and tactics to be all about precision strikes, one of the goals being to drastically cut back those civilian casualties which were an unfortunate result of the older methods of carpet bombing.
What do you do in those cases were clear and obvious proof comes along afterwards?
As for dropping bombs killing into the hundreds of thousands of people...we've got to give our military some credit here. They've really redesigned weapons and tactics to be all about precision strikes, one of the goals being to drastically cut back those civilian casualties which were an unfortunate result of the older methods of carpet bombing.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
I'm not fond of double jeapardy. I think it's cause more harm than the good it was intended for in the first place. Really just there to make sure the prosecutors do their job well in the first place.
What do you do in those cases were clear and obvious proof comes along afterwards?
As for dropping bombs killing into the hundreds of thousands of people...we've got to give our military some credit here. They've really redesigned weapons and tactics to be all about precision strikes, one of the goals being to drastically cut back those civilian casualties which were an unfortunate result of the older methods of carpet bombing.
And I'm not fond of Age of Consent laws that restrict perfectly mature people from deciding what they want to do with their own bodies, but I have to obey those. Wether or not you like something has no weight on its' relevance or importance to consider.
They (bombs) still have a blast radius. And they will still destroy everything within that blast radius. The 747's that hit the Twin Towers didn't have a large, 10,000+ citizen radius of killing and yet we were collectively horrified and pissed. It's no different when we drop bombs on other people's families; or other lives that have yet to live or have just begun to live.
When we're considering taking out Saddam - which needs to be done, I give you that - we don't ever consider the wasted lives that we'll have from it. Nobody considers assassination, or any of the "cleaner" methods.. they just think of, "Kill the ragheads! Kill the muslims! Kill the Arabs!".. it's never given consideration that they're human, too.
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
Originally posted by Paft
When we're considering taking out Saddam - which needs to be done, I give you that - we don't ever consider the wasted lives that we'll have from it. Nobody considers assassination, or any of the "cleaner" methods.. they just think of, "Kill the ragheads! Kill the muslims! Kill the Arabs!".. it's never given consideration that they're human, too.
I don't feel that Paft, and I don't think the majority of this country feels that way either. Especially after nine-one-one, I think the sensitivity of this country has increased, or better, awareness, that it's not the nation of people that we're against, it's the few leaders that are bad. I'm not wording this well. I know you see a few hate crimes here and there, but that's really a minority I believe. I'd say the majority don't want to see the civilians injured. They are aware of that, and don't want to see civilians hurt in a conflict. I believe we do consider the wasted lives that come from conflict. Our military has been drastically changed in that way.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
I have never heard once from our Government or any other government that makes up the U.N. that we are interested in hurting the Iraqi people. The beef isnt with them. Will some die as a result of Saddam's actions? Unfortunately Im afraid so. Do I think those numbers will be far less then if he remained in office? Your darn right I do.
The fact is Saddam didnt start hitting our radar screen many years ago until he did something that made him guilty Paft. This is a man who is guilty and the only evidence out there supports that theory. There may not be much yet that they have found in regards to this most recent scenario, but nonetheless he is 100% guilty and if our last three Presidents including our current one don't agree on anything else they do agree on this one thing.
Saddam is 100% guilty.
The fact is Saddam didnt start hitting our radar screen many years ago until he did something that made him guilty Paft. This is a man who is guilty and the only evidence out there supports that theory. There may not be much yet that they have found in regards to this most recent scenario, but nonetheless he is 100% guilty and if our last three Presidents including our current one don't agree on anything else they do agree on this one thing.
Saddam is 100% guilty.
-
SeedOfChaos
- Posts: 8651
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Comfortably Numb
Roody, Saddam is 100% guilty, I suppose we all know that, could or should know that. It's just that we've known that for a long long time (at the latest when he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians). And the intelligence community was certainly aware of the threat that Saddam poses far before Iraq invaded Kuwait.
I've been saying before, and I'll say it again.... since we claim to be the smartest species on this planet, is war really the only solution to our problems that we can come up with?
YoSC, a friend of mine, who served in the British army in a lot of conflicts (including Desert Storm and subsequent operations in the area) told me that British snipers had a clear view on Saddam, it think it was less than 300 yards away. But they were not allowed to fire. Guess what, the operation stood under US command. This was before George W.'s time though. Why am I saying this? Because it shows that a full blown war might not be the only method of getting rid of Saddam, it IS possible to assassinate him. One could argue though that getting Saddam wouldn't be enough, you'd have to get all of his relatives that are involved, too. Dictatorships always run deeper than just the dictator.
We'll see...
I've been saying before, and I'll say it again.... since we claim to be the smartest species on this planet, is war really the only solution to our problems that we can come up with?
YoSC, a friend of mine, who served in the British army in a lot of conflicts (including Desert Storm and subsequent operations in the area) told me that British snipers had a clear view on Saddam, it think it was less than 300 yards away. But they were not allowed to fire. Guess what, the operation stood under US command. This was before George W.'s time though. Why am I saying this? Because it shows that a full blown war might not be the only method of getting rid of Saddam, it IS possible to assassinate him. One could argue though that getting Saddam wouldn't be enough, you'd have to get all of his relatives that are involved, too. Dictatorships always run deeper than just the dictator.
We'll see...
ex-WoW-addict
Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
Roody, Saddam is 100% guilty, I suppose we all know that, could or should know that. It's just that we've known that for a long long time (at the latest when he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians). And the intelligence community was certainly aware of the threat that Saddam poses far before Iraq invaded Kuwait.
I've been saying before, and I'll say it again.... since we claim to be the smartest species on this planet, is war really the only solution to our problems that we can come up with?
YoSC, a friend of mine, who served in the British army in a lot of conflicts (including Desert Storm and subsequent operations in the area) told me that British snipers had a clear view on Saddam, it think it was less than 300 yards away. But they were not allowed to fire. Guess what, the operation stood under US command. This was before George W.'s time though. Why am I saying this? Because it shows that a full blown war might not be the only method of getting rid of Saddam, it IS possible to assassinate him. One could argue though that getting Saddam wouldn't be enough, you'd have to get all of his relatives that are involved, too. Dictatorships always run deeper than just the dictator.
We'll see...
Ronald Reagan used a precision strike consisting of 2 F-111's to quiet Qaddafi. We don't hear too much from him these days. Killing his daughter was not the intention...but it did work.
-
SGTMAJRET
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: Manhattan, Kansas, USA
A little spin off of this thread. Saddam is definitely guilty. He HAS used chemical on Iran and his own people. He has continued research on nuclear weaponry. He will use these weapons again either as a terror broker or a direct assault against one of his neighbors.
The United Nations is virtually worthless. Getting consensus from the likes of France on anything is practically impossible. Of all of the countries that should be mindful it is France. The League of Nations failed to stop Hitler when they had the chance and France suffered defeat and humiliation during the Second World War.
These countries must realize that ignoring the threat will not make it go away. They must also realize the isolationism and sanctions don't work either, it just makes countries like North Korea and the likes more bold. We have been trying to enforce sanctions against Iraq for 12 years with limited success. Saddam has still received illegal shipments for his various programs and will continue to do so as long as he is in power.
Saddam is a power hungry thug that doesn't care what the United Nations thinks. He blew them off before and is blowing them off now.
I couldn't give a damn about the oil. I fought over there once and would do so again if called upon to do so. My only condition is that we finish the job this time.
The United Nations is virtually worthless. Getting consensus from the likes of France on anything is practically impossible. Of all of the countries that should be mindful it is France. The League of Nations failed to stop Hitler when they had the chance and France suffered defeat and humiliation during the Second World War.
These countries must realize that ignoring the threat will not make it go away. They must also realize the isolationism and sanctions don't work either, it just makes countries like North Korea and the likes more bold. We have been trying to enforce sanctions against Iraq for 12 years with limited success. Saddam has still received illegal shipments for his various programs and will continue to do so as long as he is in power.
Saddam is a power hungry thug that doesn't care what the United Nations thinks. He blew them off before and is blowing them off now.
I couldn't give a damn about the oil. I fought over there once and would do so again if called upon to do so. My only condition is that we finish the job this time.
New keyboard, but still no "any" key.
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
solution to our problems that we can come up with?
YoSC, a friend of mine, who served in the British army in a lot of conflicts (including Desert Storm and subsequent operations in the area) told me that British snipers had a clear view on Saddam, it think it was less than 300 yards away. But they were not allowed to fire. Guess what, the operation stood under US command.
If that's true......that's a bummer. My guess is that's one of the common rumors that spread around.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
Paft Saddam is not on trial. International politics is not a courtroom. Saddam has
1. Attempted geneocide on his own people
2. Started two wars of aggression
3. Finnanced an attack on sovereign American soil
4. Repeatedly not complied with UN orders
5. Developed WMD in seceret against UN orders
6. Lied to the world over and over and over
7. Starved his own people
8. Threatens our ally Isreal and the stability of the Middle eastern world
If we dont take him out now lets say ten years down the road he attacks Isreal. Isreal retaliates and whoops him up then the whole arab world attacks Isreal and a huge war ensues with thousands and thousands of causualties many of them civilian because thats who Saddam is going after now. This is discounting all his own people he continues to kill gas and oppress.
Civillian deaths and Soilder's deaths are very different. By becoming a soilder one accepts the risks and the possiblility you may be killed in combat. These men are prepared to die and to fight. Kiling civilians is no longer just killing but slaughter and murder. They are called non-combatants, civilized nations do not target civilians for slaughter.
Ohh yeah that genecide is only stoped now because we've been giving them air cover since the gulf war.
1. Attempted geneocide on his own people
2. Started two wars of aggression
3. Finnanced an attack on sovereign American soil
4. Repeatedly not complied with UN orders
5. Developed WMD in seceret against UN orders
6. Lied to the world over and over and over
7. Starved his own people
8. Threatens our ally Isreal and the stability of the Middle eastern world
If we dont take him out now lets say ten years down the road he attacks Isreal. Isreal retaliates and whoops him up then the whole arab world attacks Isreal and a huge war ensues with thousands and thousands of causualties many of them civilian because thats who Saddam is going after now. This is discounting all his own people he continues to kill gas and oppress.
Civillian deaths and Soilder's deaths are very different. By becoming a soilder one accepts the risks and the possiblility you may be killed in combat. These men are prepared to die and to fight. Kiling civilians is no longer just killing but slaughter and murder. They are called non-combatants, civilized nations do not target civilians for slaughter.
Ohh yeah that genecide is only stoped now because we've been giving them air cover since the gulf war.
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
Originally posted by Onethenumber2
Paft Saddam is not on trial. International politics is not a courtroom. Saddam has
1. Attempted geneocide on his own people
2. Started two wars of aggression
3. Finnanced an attack on sovereign American soil
4. Repeatedly not complied with UN orders
5. Developed WMD in seceret against UN orders
6. Lied to the world over and over and over
7. Starved his own people
8. Threatens our ally Isreal and the stability of the Middle eastern world
Why do people ignore these facts...?
Three Rivers Designs wrote:America! Love it or give it back!
Originally posted by CiscoKid
Why do people ignore these facts...?
Because if we change a few of those statements....it could represent someone like.......Radovan Karadzic.
We have so many lunatics in the world that we have become desensitized to it all. Really......what's so bad about lieing to the world over and over and over? We get that right here at home from some of our illustrious politicians. We hear it so often that we have grown to not care.
apathy.............
Alrighty, so Saddam has commited those crimes.
Well, here's a solution that makes sense: Get rid of Israel! It's illigetimate anyway, stolen from the Palestinians, so why should we help a group of thieves keep their land?
That'd really make the arab nations happy for a while, and I'm pretty sure that happy arab nations are a good thing. The Jews that live there can find another place to live just as easily as they're trying to make the Palestinians who actually have claim to that land..
Well, here's a solution that makes sense: Get rid of Israel! It's illigetimate anyway, stolen from the Palestinians, so why should we help a group of thieves keep their land?
That'd really make the arab nations happy for a while, and I'm pretty sure that happy arab nations are a good thing. The Jews that live there can find another place to live just as easily as they're trying to make the Palestinians who actually have claim to that land..
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
Yeah they're real illegitimant except the almighty all reveared UN whom we all seem to love so much instituted the Jewish state after WWII. Then the arab nations atacked them and the Isrealis retaliated and whooped the arab nations tails despite beign very much outnumbered.........
I'm not sure what claim youre talking about but Biblically the Jews have claim to that land. And the forefather of the Arbs gave up his claim.
And you cant just get rid of countries. Besides the US and Isreal have been allies since the creation of the Jewish state.
Oh and that Bush-Hitler religious state thing? I'm not seeing where you're coming from on that one.
I'm not sure what claim youre talking about but Biblically the Jews have claim to that land. And the forefather of the Arbs gave up his claim.
And you cant just get rid of countries. Besides the US and Isreal have been allies since the creation of the Jewish state.
Oh and that Bush-Hitler religious state thing? I'm not seeing where you're coming from on that one.
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
And why does "biblically" have to do with anything? If you remember, we have an agnostic government (Recognizes religion but has NOTHING to do with any), and so that bible you draw from holds no weight.
Remember, not everyone in the world is an Xian.
Remember, not everyone in the world is an Xian.
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
-
Onethenumber2
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:52 pm
- Location: somewhere South of the North Pole
You said that the Israelies have no vaild claim on the land they are on. You didn't say what invalidated their claim and I came up with what is comonly used for there claim. Arabs and Jews are in agreement on this particular text and both look to it as the history of the orign of their ethnic groups. They both belive that they came from Abraham and are then descended from two of his sons.
I'm not useing that as a reason why we should attack Iraq. I dont think I need anymore reasons for that.
I'm not useing that as a reason why we should attack Iraq. I dont think I need anymore reasons for that.
XP 1600+ @1606 Mhz, GIGABYTE Mobo WD 60GB 8MBc, 512 MB pc 2100 DDR, GF 2 Ultra, Win XP Pro, CDRWx40
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks nothing (is) worth a war, is worse.
-John Stuart Mill “The Contest in America”