Wyld_Knight 1 Posted January 25, 2003 Why war? Why not assassination? It would solve the root of teh problem whilst harming as few people as possible. Of course, there would be huge international incident if the assassin got caught... You kill one, another takes its place. [cheesy statement]Peace starts at home people. How many people are you at 'war' with everyday? Start to make peace with them before you try to solve the global problem.[/cheesy statement] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake 53 Posted January 25, 2003 Just a random piece of info: Canada has enough resources to create several nuclear weapons... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 25, 2003 Well, hope they don't then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 25, 2003 Ms Solo- It will be a MAJOR disaster if the assassin got caught. I dont know if any country wants to try it. In WW1 I think Japan was able to take some island that was allied with the central powers...not too sure though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 27, 2003 For the last time: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW POLITICAL ASSINATIONS!!! IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT SADDAM WAR IS THE ONLY WAY! CIVILIANS ARE NOT THE TARGETS! SADDAM IS THE ULTIMATE TARGET! WHY DO YOU THINK WE'RE ALLOWING HIS GENERALS AND SCIENTISTS TO DEFECT?!?!?!?!? That's it, I'm gonna get Dad on here as soon as he gets back from Vegas. He can word it a hell of a lot better than I can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rogue 4 Posted January 27, 2003 My health relies on my staying out of this debate. *glances over at Pod* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MsSolo 1 Posted January 27, 2003 I haven't really got the time or the patience to do it now, but I'll put up a letter I found in the Guardian a while ago, called 'An Open Letter to President Bush'. It points out a lot of hypocrisies in current US Foreign Policy. I wasn't suggeting assassination was a practical or reasonable idea, in fact, I pointed out it would never work, I was just mentioning it would only cost one life, rather than the many that will suffer in a war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 27, 2003 Okay, MSSolo, I see what you mean. Unfortunately, the man we're dealing with will slaughter his own generals without blinking an eye. He is known to bomb his own people, or use chemicals on his own country and say the "American infidels" did it. That kind of action just can't be tolerated. Speaking of action that can't be tolerated... I don't know what kind of report Hans Blix gave the UN this morning, but I can well imagine. I personally think the inspectors should have pulled out of Iraq as soon as they started shooting down our planes. IMO, all that needs to be in those reports is, "Failed to cooperate properly." That's enough evidence for me. If Iraq can't voluntarily disarm, he needs to be made to. We can't have someone like Saddam with nuclear capabilities, not to mention chemical and biological weapons. He needs to be stopped before he can do more damage. All I can really say about that: Go Bush, kick some ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sticks 1 Posted January 27, 2003 All I can really say about that: Go Bush, kick some ass. Amen, sister. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 27, 2003 *slaps Sticks five* Uh oh, I'm going Merfican... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 27, 2003 lol... did you hear who was made the Chair of the UN's Human Rights department? It's none other than... (wait for it...) Libya! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 28, 2003 Pod- Just because they refuse to let inspectors in doesnt mean we should totally destroy them. We are handling 2 similar situations differently. North Korea- Nuclear Weapons- solving by diplomats and talking Iraq- possibly chemical and/or nuclear weapons- solving by attempting to overthrow their gov't Also...if we followed the "Fail to cooperate properly" thing, then we could ask Russia to disarm. Most countries would thing you're crazy, Im sure the US wouldnt just disarm everything cause Britain said so. And so lets say Russia didnt, or that the US didnt. Then the world could jsut declare war, and guess what...we're gone. We dont have the non-nuclear capabilities to stop the world, and if we nuke, we'll kill ourselves. Sorry, I just like to argue for the sake of arguing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master MJade 0 Posted January 28, 2003 i think we can tell future democrats and republicans from this debate.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 28, 2003 GI- We are NOT going to disarm, and the rest of the world canNOT declare war on us for not doing so. Here's why: not only do we have a complicated system we have to go through to USE our really big guns (yes, I mean nukes), but they are NOT in violation of UN resolutions. We have no reasons to disarm. North Korea- Sure, we can talk to them. All that's going to happen is their government will say something to the effect of, "See these nukes? Supply the entire country with free food, oil, and money, or we launch them at you." They've essentially done that already. They're trying to take us hostages on our ow turf. Ain't gonna happen. But you know that negotiations will be tried first. They always are. We always, always ALWAYS try to find a peaceful way to solve problems before sending in the troops. Always. It's just sometimes easier than others, and a lot of times, our enemies don't want to talk it straight. Bush doesn't want to play political games. He wants results. And he's going to get those results the best way possible, so that the most people win. Iraq- Um... correction. We KNOW they have the weapons, we just have not seen them. Nor have we seen what's happened to them. They have no explanation. All they have is a huge report, that is old (we saw it long ago) and incomplete. The only way we can actually overthrow Saddam is war. Once we can free enough cities, more an more people will begin to defect (Iraqis). As soon as the civilians feel like they and their families are no longer in danger, they'll be on our side. Sure, they support Saddam... at gunpoint. Literally. And people, it's no longer a question of SHOULD we go to war. It's WHEN. Judging by the number of troops put on alert, I'd say we can expect something very very VERY soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 28, 2003 Pod - So far Iraq has done nothing...sure there is massacres inside its borders, but thats its own gov'ts problem. We cant just go to war because people are dying! If we could, then we could go to any country having a war and destroy them. North Korea has already threatened, Iraq hasn't. North Korea people are dying too. Bush just wants to try to finish his fathers job. I don't even think he started with talks. Just went straight to threats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 28, 2003 GI, you must be OUTSIDE YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!! FIRST of all, Korea and Iraq are two TOTALLY different problems!!! N.Korea is THREATENING becuase they want money, food, oil, etc. In short, aid that they don't intend to repay us for. If they actually follow through with their threats, they blow ANY chance they EVER had. And We've finally got a president that isn't going to play these games, so of COURSE he's not going to let them! He isn't going to make exceptions for ANYONE!!! And I'm not worried about them too much. We've already told them not to mess with us. We can EASILY fight a war on two fronts. EASILY. Now for the more pressing issue... Iraq hasn't DONE anything??? Killing his own people is NO BIG DEAL?!?!?!? What kind of ... are you?!?!?!?! Iraq is a rising threat, not only to US but to the REST OF THE FREE WORLD!!! Hasn't done anything!!! He's issued his officers chem suits. What the hell for, I wonder?!?!? WE don't use chemical warfare, Saddam does! He's going to not only slaughter his own people, but in the process is going to slaughter US if we don't stop him NOW before he has a chance to hit US!!!! He's already blowing things up in his own country and telling his people the Americans did it! And if we continue to allow him to do things like executing people for having unique IDEAS, then the Iraqis are going to KNOW that we're the bad guys! How can you sit there and tell me it's THEIR problem!!! Do you have any idea how many LIVES are at stake here?! Yeah, I know, people are going to die in war, but more people will die if we DON'T do something NOW!!!! And Bush DID try talking! He went to the UN, which justifies his actions. He warned Iraq (with the support of the entire UN!) that if they don't present themselves for inspection, they will face consequences. They did not cooperate. The inspectors have found more than one material breach. Not to mention their incomplete declarations. SADDAM IS PLAYING GAMES!!! And if we continue to give him more time, HE IS WINNING!!! *stares at GI evenly* GI, I swear, if you ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER EVER! say that mass deaths is someone else's problems within my hearing again, you and I are gonna have some serious words. If you thought all this was one-sided... *shakes her head* Just try me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 28, 2003 I am out of my mind, first of cause my minds inside me! So therefore i must be! First of all...I never mentioned anywhere that Mass murder isnt a problem! ok now to Iraq...you said it yourself US can fight a 2 front war EASILY. Even IF both countries have nukes and or bioweapons. I doubt we'll be destroyed with a ONE front war. We also dont know everything that is going on...what if Saddam gave his officers chem suits incase the US invades...then he'll just chem iraq and the US gets the brunt. Im pretty sure that he didnt blow up buildings and blame them on the US when we weren't constantly threatening them. The only reason I disagreed with you was because it was for the sake of argument. I myself want saddam out, but you over estimate some and underestimate others. I can see you're very passionate about going to war...but never say that i dont give a damn when people die... All I was trying to do was to get more peoples opinions on more detailed parts, not just yes to war, or no not to war, or i dont care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted January 28, 2003 *Gets the mega spazz on holovision for future reference/enjoyment/cackling/just for the hell of it......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wyld_Knight 1 Posted January 29, 2003 GI- We are NOT going to disarm, and the rest of the world canNOT declare war on us for not doing so. Here's why: not only do we have a complicated system we have to go through to USE our really big guns (yes, I mean nukes), but they are NOT in violation of UN resolutions. We have no reasons to disarm. The 1978 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons distinguished two categories of states: The first, those who already possessed Nuclear capabilities, the second, those who did not. The first category undertook not to transfer their arms to the states of the second category, or to help those of the second category develop them. The second category of states undertook to neither manufacture or procure Nuclear weapons. Nowhere was it mentionned in the treaty that the states of the first category were forbidden from developping their preexisting weaponry. I'll let you all think about that. Also, Beeurd, I saw that Libya thing in the paper. V funny! Libyan Govt: "By this appointment, the UN has demonstrated to the world that our Human Rights record is exemplary." For sure... But somewhat fitting, given that the 5 permanent members of the Security Council are hardly shining examples of morality themselves... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master MJade 0 Posted January 29, 2003 And people, it's no longer a question of SHOULD we go to war. It's WHEN. Judging by the number of troops put on alert, I'd say we can expect something very very VERY soon. and it will affect me and link more than any of you others due to our parents occupation.... me more than Link...since AF SP's are sent over to fight and my dad might get killed.... but Pod's right folk's it's not a q of if but when.... I support this because well this idiots been a problem for over a decade and we haven't done a thing about him........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 29, 2003 Notice how those of us with either parents in the military or near a military base, or grew up with uncles that fought in the Gulf War *raises a hand* are all for the war. GI- If you DO give a damn about people dying, then don't sound like you don't. In this case, I'm sorry I jumped down your throat. Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't really a good idea either. Look what happened to-- nevermind, not EVEN going to go THERE. The fact that we don't know everything that's going on is PERFECT justification. There are literally TONS of weapons and chem and bio weapons that have "dissappeared." Saddam has not shown them to us, nor has he given us proof that they've been properly destroyed. And, yes, he HAS killed his own people without the threat of "big bad America" hovering over them. Iraq is known for there torture chambers. TORTURE CHAMBERS, where children are tortured while parents are made to watch; victims are burnt with hot metal, mutilated with power drills, tongues are cut out, even raped. Bush said it last night in the State of the Union Address: "I have a message for the people of Iraq... your enemy isnot surrounding your country... your enemy is ruling your country." (and yes, I stayed up to watch the ENTIRE thing, and I was positively APPALLED at the reaction of a certain side of the room throughout much of it, for the record). Not only is Saddam our enemy, he is the enemy of his own people, and must be removed from exsistance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted January 29, 2003 He might be the enemy, yet the Iraqi people elected him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted January 29, 2003 Good site for coverage of the Iraqi conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle...raq/default.stm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pandora 77 Posted January 29, 2003 He might be the enemy, yet the Iraqi people elected him. All the Iraqis' supposed "support" is all quite LITERALLY at gunpoint. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
