Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: TheQuirk on 16 January 2003, 23:40
-
-- U.N. weapons inspectors find 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent condition" in Iraq.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (http://CNN.com) /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.
(I'm signed up to the CNN breaking news service, so I'm not sure what page is on the web that I should go to, aside from the fact that it's on CNN).
-
the weapons inspectors found a total of twelve but took #12 with them for further testing to determine what was contained.
i listen to national public radio. it has the very latest of most everything, check it out at www.npr.org (http://www.npr.org) you might like it
-
I still don't get the entire Iraq thing. Why can't they have nukes and stuff? I understand if the Netherlands or other non-nuclear-race countries complain, but the US has the *biggest* stash of nukes in the world goddammit. Unless the US gives up their entire supply I don't see their reason for complaint (the fact that Iraq is more evil is at least debatable and besides the point anyway).
Besides, empty chem warheads? If they were full, OK. I can make a empty warhead of any type if I want to, it's the stuff inside that's the problem.
Why doesn't Bush admit why he wants to attack Iraq? And why does no country object to the atrocities committed by the US? They're more of a rogue state than Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and the entire Middle East can dream to be.
-
I believe the entire underlying goal is to get rid of Saddam and his lusers and have them replaced with a real democratic government. Too many shady things going on with this one (and shady really isn't a strong enough word). I also believe that the underlying reasons for going in so strongly is to put an incredible amount of pressure on them in hopes that the Iraqi people will overthrow the current government and the US will have people in place to assist. Now whether or not things will play out like this time will tell (hopefully a short time).
If a new democratic government takes over and they are able to stabalize the country (and region) and are able to prove that they can live and play well with others for an extended period of time then it might not be quite as big of a deal if they were to have a nuclear weapons program (but it still would be a big deal). Every other country that has nukes today are required to have international inspections and extreme accountability for such weapons.
The BIO/chemical weapons are almost another issue. I don't have the stats but most/all other countries have either destroyed or are in the process of destroying any BIO/chemical weapons that they have. Russia wants to extend the amount of time they have to destroy theirs because they say they don't have the budget for it. I believe their current time table is 3 more years to have them all destroyed. But the thing is, they are working with the supervision of the international community.
When you don't have accountability then who knows who's hands these weapons can end up in?
-
The only reason for US to oust Saddam is to replace him with a friendly government which will give oil to US, precious oil for a thirsty nation.
-
that's a very cynical view, and i don't beleive that's the case. saddam is an evil man to say the least, and he should not be allowed to govern any country--especially one that we can't trust
-
We (the US) only get a tiny percentage of our oil from Iraq so that's a bunch of nonsense.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus:
that's a very cynical view, and i don't beleive that's the case. saddam is an evil man to say the least, and he should not be allowed to govern any country--especially one that we can't trust
I think this (http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/jan2003/3/4/0007BF80-30AC-1E19-B07C80BFB6FA0000.jpg) daily mirror front page explains the major reasons behind bush's iraq hard-on.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
We (the US) only get a tiny percentage of our oil from Iraq so that's a bunch of nonsense.
Yes but Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves in the world. Russia and hina have pretty much exclusive rights to this at the moment.
America's problem is that Saudi Arabia's people are very upset set about their leaders (Saud royal family) being in bed with the US. America understands that if the people of Saudi Arabia revolt and oust the monarch, they have lost a big militaryily and economically strategic partner. For this reason they see it as quite nessesary to have a US friendly government in Iraq. I am not saying Saddam is not worth watching, I just don't belive he is #1 world priority at the moment and I belive there are definately ulterior motives to US/UK actions. Lots of what we are being told is for fear factor, which is just an element of government control. I really don't want to see young guys lives spared over this...
-
Yes but only around 10 percent of the US oil comes from the Persian Gulf region and by far the largest percentage of that 10 percent comes from Suadi Arabia. If they would let Bush drill in Alaska then it would be a non-issue. He wants to be less dependent on foreign oil so it pisses me off when people blame him for everything. We do have enough oil reserves to keep us going for quite some time, but alternative energy needs to be a higher priority. Saddam does scare the hell out of me. So does North Korea.
-
There's only one religious maniac with weapons of mass destruction + hell-bent on war who scares me. And it's not saddam.
-
I don't wanna get into politics, too tired to argue.
-
ya i hate those fukers at the airport with thier shaved heads and flowers. you know theyre trying to take over the world. just give everyone a flower then everyone has an allergy attack. just wait you'll see they will spring into action and make all of us sing them stupid fukin songs like in summer camp.
shit got to go the people with the white coat are coming. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I think this (http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/jan2003/3/4/0007BF80-30AC-1E19-B07C80BFB6FA0000.jpg) daily mirror front page explains the major reasons behind bush's iraq hard-on.
Get a clue...
-
People say the US is not in it for the Iraqi oil, because they don't need it. But it's the profits from selling the oil that are important, not the oil itself.
-
Oil certainly is an important resource for the region and it is an important one, not just for the US but for most of the rest of the world. Unstability in the region can have serious effects, however I will continue to argue that it is not the major underlying reason for us (the US) to be concerned and for us to be building up forces there. I would certainly be happy to let some other countries go in and take care of the problem but I just don't see it happening any time soon. For instance, rewind about 12 years or slightly more. Saddam had by far the biggest and best military in the region. He invaded Kuwait and many speculate he wasn't about to stop there.
Imagine everyone sitting back and letting it happen, how far do you think he would have gone? Now he's nothing more than a pissed off dictator looking for revenge with who knows what sort of weapons going to who knows where. Without cooperating with the international community and accounting for WMD bad things will surely happen. None of this would be an issue if Iraq would cooperate and follow the agreements.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: void main ]
-
There
-
quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
There
-
And it's not just George Bush willing to go to war. *I'm* willing to go to war. I was there in 90/91 and I am seriously considering going back in the military, possibly as early as next week. So I might get another free trip over there.
-
I was "there" in 93-99. For different reasons, though.
-
to be a pawn?, maybe i should be my dad himself to post. but i don't think you should join to be one the lil'l feuer's pawn. but, then your going to say "like gore would have done better?" NO, all our presidents have sucked for a while. especially clinton/*well, monica did the sucking....*/ and every body is quick to blame malice on somthing that could be easyer explained for stupidity. me and my dad actally belive them when they say they were forgotten. "how could something so important go missing?" you might say. i respond "30+ vial's of the plague amd a harddrive with nuclear secrets and god knows what else missing, theis guys are really trying to hide something, you could never lose anything that important could you?" but we do need to go to war, but we need to do so for the right reason of removing an oppressive government/*that should mean most countrys in the area*/ but we are doing it wrong, we give to much of a shit about the arabs, you know how i know, we save their sorry ass's every time isreal gets ready to beat them all down. and we are trying to goto war with the arabs, but keeping isreal from kicking their ass's. this doesn't make sense to me/*note, replace arab if you are offended, with muslim extremist*/
-
You know, I really don't understand this.
Everywhere I go, there is always some type of an asshat who is ready to dictate to me that Sharon is wrong/Saddam is wrong/the Palestinians are wrong.
Listen up: you are not qualified to tell me that. You just listened to a few hours of CNN/Fox News/MSNBC (well, not the posters on the forum, but generally (http://smile.gif) ) and read a few posts on some message board, and feel that you can assume the whole situtation there. You can not.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
You know, I really don't understand this.
Everywhere I go, there is always some type of an asshat who is ready to dictate to me that Sharon is wrong/Saddam is wrong/the Palestinians are wrong.
Listen up: you are not qualified to tell me that. You just listened to a few hours of CNN/Fox News/MSNBC (well, not the posters on the forum, but generally (http://smile.gif) ) and read a few posts on some message board, and feel that you can assume the whole situtation there. You can not.
I don
-
The only way it would be the start of WW3 is if all the other countries join with Iraq and if that's what they want to do then so be it. Again, it's not George Bush that is the problem, it's Saddam. If they start behaving and implement a true democracy then it's a non-issue.
I personally am extremely offended that I went over there in 90 risking my life watching scud missiles fly over, followed by us kicking him out of Kuwait, he signed a bunch of resolutions/agreements such as allowing inspectors into his country like every other country has only to ignore those agreements when we leave.
It ain't going to happen again, that's all I gotta say. I'll go back over and personally take him out. The world needs to be sure he doesn't have any chem/bio weapons.
-
note to saddam. soon, all your bases are belong to u.s.
-
It ain't going to happen again, that's all I gotta say. I'll go back over and personally take him out. The world needs to be sure he doesn't have any chem/bio weapons.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Be sure to take out the real Saddam if you go. He
-
quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
A personal question, when you were there, did you meet any people who didn
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I was in Saudi Arabia just about 20 miles south of Kuwait/Iraq border. I only had a few opportunities to speak with the local people. When the topic did come up they indicated that they were in fear of him. They were concerned that he would do more than just invade Kuwait, that they would be next on the list.
What makes Saddam a mad, really mad man is the fact that he has an old assyrian king as a role model, Nebukadnessar (not sure how you spell his name in english) who conquered the same region about 2700 years ago. He had his armies kill, rape and pillage without mercy anywhere they won. In the end he was stopped by a babylonian army. Saddam is hell bent on doing the same as Nebukadnessar did.
He is the biggest threat to the region, but he
-
well, so far the U.S. has been attacking countrys that arn't that powerfull. i wonder why we are not so enthusiastic about going to war with north korea.........
/*yes i have a few theorys, but maybe i don't like china*/
-
and i also think i heard bush or a general or somebody talking about how we could take em all on at once, multi-front wars are nightmares to manage and supply. and what is this shit about the troops are awaiting orders from gw? i think the generals would be in a much better position of knowledge to lead something like that. i hope its just the media bullshiting, and not bush trying to control everything
-
Chaos, have you been skipping school? The president is the "Commander in Chief". He gives the red/green light. The commanders execute plans that they have devised to achieve a specific objective or set of objectives. Bush would have a high level knowlege of them but he certainly doesn't make the detailed plans. He just says "go" or "don't go". Read your constitution under the section titled "Executive Branch" (Article II, Section 2).
[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: void main ]
-
yes he is the commander in cheif, i guess its more of an issue witht he medias wording. and i thought congress is supposed to declare war before we go kick their ass's and get rid of saddam/*like we should have years ago*/
-
quote:
Originally posted by chaosforages:
well, so far the U.S. has been attacking countrys that arn't that powerfull. i wonder why we are not so enthusiastic about going to war with north korea.........
/*yes i have a few theorys, but maybe i don't like china*/
Read your history book. Ever hear of the "Korean War"? And when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait Iraq was considered to have one of the worlds most powerful military. Korea is definitely a problem that needs to be dealt with. I believe this one has a better chance of being resolved diplomatically. If not they will need to be dealt with. South Korea was ready to kick us out until this little "Nukes in N. Korea" thing came up. Now I just heard they wanted to sign us on to stay for another 50 years. Interesting...
-
quote:
Originally posted by chaosforages:
yes he is the commander in cheif, i guess its more of an issue witht he medias wording. and i thought congress is supposed to declare war before we go kick their ass's and get rid of saddam/*like we should have years ago*/
I guess you haven't been been following it. Congress authorized the use of force several months back which gives Bush the green light if the green light is necessary. Our forces wouldn't be heading over there right now if that were not the case.
[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: void main ]
-
BTW, N. Korea has something like 300 (or maybe more, I don't remember) pieces of artilery at the border with S. Korea that can each shoot the capital of S. Korea without moving them an inch. So just bombing N. Korea would not be very fun for the S. Koreans (and for us, if that nuke they have really works (it's one thing to make one, but it's another to make it work))
-
quote:
Originally posted by chaosforages:
but we are doing it wrong, we give to much of a shit about the arabs, you know how i know, we save their sorry ass's every time isreal gets ready to beat them all down. and we are trying to goto war with the arabs, but keeping isreal from kicking their ass's. this doesn't make sense to me/*note, replace arab if you are offended, with muslim extremist*/
This is off-topic and trollish probably, but I'll bite. You call it 'saving asses' if you give Israel weapons and tell them to go easy with them if they're utterly destroying the arabs in the region? I call that 'saving asses' too - of the Israeli, that is.
Void main, every nuke/chem/bio warhead is equally dangerous, no matter who has them. Making Saddam give them up is good - AFTER you establish they have them - but the US is not in the position to ask that since they HAVE them themselves. Besides, who controls the nuke-countries? I don't see Iraqi inspectors snooping around US nuke facilities.
And Void Main, these days Iraq does cooperate with the international community. The fact that Bush says he doesn't doesn't prove he doesn't, you know.
Do you know the governments the US helped into power the last few decennia? Those were not democracies. They were US-friendly dictatorships.
TheQuirk, Nukes are easy. If you have the nucleair fuel, it's trivial to make a simple nuke. Bigger nukes are more intricate, but expect the nuke to work if they have it.
-
Ok, this is getting nowhere, I can't believe I entered the discussion in the first place as I try very hard to stay out of them. They always turn out the same way, a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. How about this, I will throw out the white flag and sign a peace treaty....
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Ok, this is getting nowhere, I can't believe I entered the discussion in the first place as I try very hard to stay out of them. They always turn out the same way, a lot of people arguing about things they know nothing about. How about this, I will throw out the white flag and sign a peace treaty....
Tux was wise and quit early, this is no place for politcis...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
Tux was wise and quit early, this is no place for politcis...
Let
-
quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
Let
-
I just think we should put Bush and Saddam together somewhere and have them in a bitch-slapping fight.
-
about the korean war, my dad tells me that we were kicknig there asses up to a certain point, then the chinese starting pouring thru, and oops about the congress issue, my mistake. and i guess i should clarrify my position. i am not anti-american, what im against is those that work to take our freedoms. be it corperations, foriegner's, other americans, hell, even the president or a branch of the governement. also, the war in iraq, my dad wonders why we didn't finish them off back in the gulf war. also, why are we still buying oil from them. i really doubt that drug traffic brings more money then oil does. and about their former army, quantity doesn't always mean quality. but we are starting to stretch ourself's thin. we have people at the n. korea border, in afganistan, heading for the middle east, in other various shitholes of the world im glad im not at.. and also, what about the canidian soldeirs being bombed. i have a question for voidmain, knowing your experiance in this field, are the claims about the pilots being on stuff valid? or is the media taking us for a ride?
rant=off
-
quote:
Originally posted by DC:
Void main, every nuke/chem/bio warhead is equally dangerous, no matter who has them. Making Saddam give them up is good - AFTER you establish they have them - but the US is not in the position to ask that since they HAVE them themselves. Besides, who controls the nuke-countries? I don't see Iraqi inspectors snooping around US nuke facilities.
that's not true, when was the last time you heard the US use a nuke? we tend to put a lot of thought into that sort of decision. like right now and considering war. i think the US is a bit more responsible than Saddam. Saddam is likely to impulsively decide to use it. And I believe, i'm not sure, but i believe that UN (not US) weapon inspectors are wanting in iraq. And I am sure that the UN has their inspections of us, and if not we would not fight it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
that's not true, when was the last time you heard the US use a nuke?
Isn't the US the only country in history to have used a nuke in anger?
While most western countries would apparently have little to fear from a US packed up to the eyeballs with nukes and so on, other countries will understandably not feel so secure.
-
quote:
Originally posted by avello500:
note to saddam. soon, all your bases are belong to u.s.
LMAO!!! I don't remember if that's a Starcraft or Warcraft III code, though.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Nobber:
Isn't the US the only country in history to have used a nuke in anger?
While most western countries would apparently have little to fear from a US packed up to the eyeballs with nukes and so on, other countries will understandably not feel so secure.
The US didn't use those nukes at the end of WWII in anger! It was a desperate attempt to get Japan to give up. If we hadn't nuked them who know how much longer the war would have dragged on?! Those nukes actually probably saved lives.
Other countries really should have no fear of being nuked by us, unless they nuke us first, of course. Bush can't even sneeze without talking it over with the UN. Remember how difficult it was just to attack Iraq (which never happened because they had to talk it over and over and over again with the UN)? The US would never nuke anyone without the UN backing them, and the UN seems like it's a bit too hesitant about everything to even come close to backing the US in that case.
[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: Macman, Crusader of Justice ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Macman, Crusader of Justice:
Those nukes actually probably saved lives.
!
quote:
Other countries really should have no fear of being nuked by us, unless they nuke us first, of course.
Substitute "attack(ed)" for "nuke(d)" in that sentence, though, and it becomes false. At least, that's what history tells us.
-
Politics is all about maintaining a very delicate balance of interests and this is what you must keep in mind. Do you really believe that the U.S are about to throw Saddam out of Iraq just because he's an insane dictator or because he carries nukes and chemical weapons? I don't think so. If that were the case, then why did they support him in the 80s against Iran and Homeini?
Pinochet was a dictator too in Chile but then again the US didn't seem to bother when he squashed his political opponents like bugs and commited his own share of crimes against humanity. As a matter of fact, it was the US who brought him in power and helped him assasinate Alliente.
There are plenty of examples like the above that can prove you wrong in case you believe in this "fight against terror" utopia. What I'm trying to say is that you all should look a bit deeper. What does Iraq have that would be of interest to the mighty U.S.A? Yep, you've guessed right: Oil. Who's standing in their way? Saddam Husein. What do we do? Wipe him out of the face of the planet. That simple.
Saddam Husein is a lunatic and a fanatic, no question about that. After all, he always was (even when he enjoyed full US support).
O tempora, O mores. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
We (the US) only get a tiny percentage of our oil from Iraq so that's a bunch of nonsense.
True but just because you don't have full control of Iraq's oil (a coincidence?)! BTW, do you know that at this rate the US oil supplies will run out in 10 years from now more or less (another coincidence?)?