War in the Middle East

[GI_Admiral 2]

I heard, US might hand over control by June 30 but Iraq will go down. But then again even if US DOES stay in control past June 30, we'll get a lot o fheat and Iraq will still go down....lose lose either way

[Ender 8]

In my opinion, we need to leave Iraq. And yes, this is still Janson speaking. We need to get out of there, and let the Shiites and Sunnites and Kurds fight it out. We should leave this message: Fight it out, and whoever gets power stays in power until they get overthrown. But if another madman arises and takes power and offers the danger that Saddam Hussein posed, we go back in and kick the sith out of that madman.

[Drake 53]

I think that everyone (not just the US...everyone) should just leave all of the third world countries...maybe take the people who want to leave with us. Let them work out their own problems. No one was around to help Britain or any of the first world nations when they were first developing.

It's a harsh and cruel sounding solution but it saves us the headache.

[Tsl 7]

The problem with that comes when those "lesser" countries obtain weapons of mass destruction, lol.

And yes, I know Iraq had none (this time).

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

but North Korea does. and why aren't we doing anything about it?

[CorSec 5]

So the US can have weapons of mass desctruction but North Korea can't?

How do we judge who can 'own' such devices? They could argue it's for self-defense *shrug*

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

they're in violation of START I and II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). once the world realized how bad these nuclear weapons were, world leaders took steps to first limit them with SALT I and II, then reduce them with START. so, technically speaking, no one should have them, but some do anyway.

[Drake 53]

Maybe they have them because they didn't sign the treaty. Heh...didn't consider that now, did ya? :lol:

[Tsl 7]

So the US can have weapons of mass desctruction but North Korea can't?

How do we judge who can 'own' such devices? They could argue it's for self-defense *shrug*

Well, it's not so much that I don't want them owning WMDs as I fear they'll be used. Drake pointed out that today's world powers didn't need more advanced countries helping them, true enough, but now some of the underdeveloped countries (and radical groups within various countries) already have weapons way more advanced then they are. And those weapons could end up (and do end up, on occaision) being used on the world's powers just as they could be on another third world country.

To answer JM about N. Korea and why we aren't doing anything about them. North Korea is a war you really don't want to see, JM. The US might win in the long run, but a whole lot of people would die. It would be a long, tough war, and then China would probably join in too, and it'd be a big deadly mess. And obviously, N. Korea isn't giving up it's nukes without a fight.

Also, to answer Corsec, the US has it's WMDs for self-defense (pretty much) and we don't want our enemies to have them. I think the reasoning behind that one is fairly obvious, lol. It may not be morally fair, but when it comes to super deady, kill a million people with one push of a button stuff, I say screw fairness, lol.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Tsl

[Drake 53]

But that doesn't mean the US (and other "legal" nuclear countries) can use their nukes as a threat. Like "If you don't give up your nukes, we'll launch ours."

And it's good that they're getting rid of them....even if it is at a very slow pace.

[GI_Admiral 2]

North Korea having Nuclear Weapons isn't as bad as it seems...*shifty eyes* :p

[Ender 8]

The US has never threatened to use WMD's on other nations...

[Drake 53]

It's more of an unspoken threat...except during the Cold War.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

The US might win in the long run, but a whole lot of people would die. It would be a long, tough war, and then China would probably join in too, and it'd be a big deadly mess. And obviously, N. Korea isn't giving up it's nukes without a fight.

sounds a lot like Iraq to me.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Except 1) Bush hasnt done military action 2) Bush will have a lot more critics of N Korea than from Iraq 3) N Korea has a better Army they're trained to do more than just hold a gun then run away

[chozen 1]

Yeah. Let's leave Iraq, after all the bullsith of 'making the country better for the people of iraq' you decide to pussy out? I'm sorry but you've got the responsibility of looking after that sith whole.

As for invading North Korea, well I'ma afraid the US has dug itself into a whoel there.

They're not in the position to be starting any more wars, especially those against nations such as North Korea.

The cold war may be over, but the allies are still the same, yet this time there is more of an opposition to America. If China, North Korea, and all those other naughty countries decided to band together, your in a sith load of problems.

[chozen 1]

I think that everyone (not just the US...everyone) should just leave all of the third world countries...maybe take the people who want to leave with us. Let them work out their own problems. No one was around to help Britain or any of the first world nations when they were first developing.

Third World.. heh.

You see Drake. It's all about those evil little credit card debts that these developing nations have.

They're is so much debt they can't afford to put money into schools, hospitals etc. They can only just make enough to pay off their debts.

You get rid of the debts, you help them, to help themselves.

[Andy 60]

Well, as if the US troops weren't unpopular enough:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3730423.stm

I don't think they really wanted to do that. :roll:

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

nope, that definitely wasn't a smart move. but then here we are again to the "poor Iraqi's that are getting tormented" and not a mention of our troops that have died.

[CorSec 5]

My question still stands. Why does the U.S. judge who can have WMDs and who can't? Is it simply because they can?

Are nukes only allowed to anyone who isn't their 'enemy'?

Edited May 19, 2004 by Cheeze Loving Attention Whore

[Drake 53]

nope, that definitely wasn't a smart move. but then here we are again to the "poor Iraqi's that are getting tormented" and not a mention of our troops that have died.

Those troops knew the risks when they went over to fight. The Iraqis in the prison weren't given the option of being in there or not.

[Andy 60]

Plus, the story was about the Iraqi's, not the Americans: You hear way more about the coalition casualties on the news than you do about the Iraqi losses.

Besides, it appears that it may not have been a wedding after all, Just sneaky propaganda-type news that was picked up on.

[Andy 60]

if the media feels they need to put down the troops and their reasons for being in Iraq, they really need to get their information straight.

Geez, they weren't "putting the troops down" they were just reporting news, which is what news corporations do, funilly enough.

Besides, the BBC is legally bound by the UK government to provide unbiased news reporting.

[Alexander 0]

Besides, the BBC is legally bound by the UK government to provide unbiased news reporting.

Nothing is unbiased. Everyone, especially newscasters, will always have an opinion.

[Andy 60]

Yes, the reporters can have their own opinions - that is unavoidable -

but the news they report can't favour either side.