The Excriment Hits the Air Conditioning

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

The Excriment Hits the Air Conditioning

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:45 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.i ... index.html


Powell lays the law down! Iraq is fookt.

And an amazing coincidence!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuter ... 5_317.html

Who would think that North Korea would pick the same day as the U.N. security council meeting to reactivate their "power plant"? Saddam sez 'jynx! North Korea owes me a beer!"

I don't know if dealing with N. Korea and Iraq is going to be a good thing or a bad thing, but the axis of evil is sure stirring up the pot today.

We are going to war. Stop questioning it, stop reasoning against it, and begin prepare yourself for the days to come. It isn't going to be pretty if Iraq has all the things that Powell's report implies. I can't say I'm happy about going to war, but I am as pleased as possible with the U.S. government today, they have proven beyond a doubt that we are no bullies or war mongers, but that Iraq is a very real threat that needs to be taken care of immediately.

To all those who read this and are serving, I wish you the best of luck, and thank you for defending our country.

Yes, even you Gormal :wink:
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:08 pm

I watched Powell's broadcast and it unsettled me mightily. I'm very much a negative person, I've believed for some time that Iraq had a great deal more than they were letting on, but what was revealed today seemed overwhelming even for me. Either we wait until the middle of the month when we have close to 200,000 troops over there and choose the time and place, or he drops the flag for us between now and then. Either way, it's going to be so much uglier than I think we can really comprehend or imagine. Do we want to fight two fronts? Hell no. I also don't think our allies are standing as strong as they should considering their recent incidents, but I don't see any of the powers that be backing out now.
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:49 pm

Image
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:57 pm

Somebody put Cherzra's country next on our list. I don't care where it is or what it looks like on a map, as long as he's home at the time we come knocking!

::cough::

That was sarcasm. The card was funny.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 05, 2003 7:04 pm

Hey cherzra, i guess your country has the moral superiority to vote against the U.S. in the security council meeting, since its obvious Iraq poses no threat to anyone. Oh wait, no they dont.

But surely they will use their veto power to stop this horrible injustice from occurring! Oh wait, they don't have a veto, because nobody cares what they say.

Seriously though Cherzra, your starting to look more and more like one of those guys who says "The holocaust never happened! Its a conspiracy!" while standing next to huge piles of indisputable evidence.

Why don't you move to France? You would fit in very well there.

Oh no wait, they're voting in support of the U.S. too...hrm your running out of places who share your views! Oh I know, move to Iraq! Two birds with one stone.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:36 pm

For the first time since this thing started, I do believe now is the time to strike. If we give them any more time, I think we will be very sorry.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:37 pm

France is actually going to vote with the UN security council for invading Iraq? *boggle*
I thought those spineless pansies just wanted to lie down and wait to be taken over. Or maybe they decided to stop trying to appease the several million mulsims in their country?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:40 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2730567.stm


because they are lying to us, and we now have proof, this must mean we need to watch them more carefully.


no wonder all the european superpowers are gone.
Shevarash OOC: 'Muma on Artificial Intelligence - Muma OOC: 'someday the quotes really will just become AI and then i'll talk to the AI and be like, hey you come from me, but it will get angry at me and revolt and try to kill me or something heheheh. like in the movies''
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm

Daz wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2730567.stm


because they are lying to us, and we now have proof, this must mean we need to watch them more carefully.


no wonder all the european superpowers are gone.



Just give it some time. That's what they are saying, basically to protect their previous views against war, so they don't look like the spineless surrenderors that we all know them to be. Once the U.S. forces the issue and calls for a declaration of war, there's no way they are going to vote against it, basically because we are going to go to war regardless of what they say. And once we go to war against the wishes of the U.N., the U.N. loses all credibility, and the French and Russians lose what little influence they have left in the global community.
The ball is in our court now, and im confident that the U.S. will call for vote from the security council. I am also confident that we will be going to war, whether the U.N. condones it or not.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:31 pm

good thread.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Nyv
Sojourner
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:57 pm
Location: SE
Contact:

Postby Nyv » Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:43 am

I'm neither for or against the US strike on Iraq. The way I see it, war is in best case a necessary evil. I don't dismiss the notion that Iraq is hiding arms/lying about it. Nor do I exactly trust US evidence.

I do think there's one peculiarity of note though. It's a little easier to be pro-war when you know the war is going to be on the other side of the ocean. Would American civilians be as interested in going to war if they thought they would become the targets? If Iraq had the power to launch missile strikes/soldiers into Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York? If 9/11 had the possibility of becoming a weekly event - would war be a course of action as popular?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:54 am

Nyv wrote:I'm neither for or against the US strike on Iraq. The way I see it, war is in best case a necessary evil. I don't dismiss the notion that Iraq is hiding arms/lying about it. Nor do I exactly trust US evidence.

I do think there's one peculiarity of note though. It's a little easier to be pro-war when you know the war is going to be on the other side of the ocean. Would American civilians be as interested in going to war if they thought they would become the targets? If Iraq had the power to launch missile strikes/soldiers into Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York? If 9/11 had the possibility of becoming a weekly event - would war be a course of action as popular?


The reason why we should go to war is to prevent those very things from happening. If 9/11 proved anything it's that you don't need a good army to attack this country, all you need are a few suicidal psychopaths who can sneak in. We're worried about Iraq's biological weapons because someone could sneak into the country and set a small bomb in NYC, killing a LOT of people.

Sometimes I don't think the Europeans get that...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:32 am

Other reasons to fight Iraq besides getting rid of their WMD program:

1) Creating a free republic in a region that has only seen despots. A free Iraq would be an island in a sea of Islamofacism. A shining example of what America stands for when contrasted against the brutal regimes of the other governments in the region. If America lives up to its promises, such as using the oil to rebuild the country for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people, then its destined to succeed. It would destabalize the region in a very very good way.

2) It would provide a strategic base of operations for the american military. I think that the arab governments still might need help digesting the fact that we expect them to stomp the militant islamic factions within their region. The madrassas have to go. The hate spewing shieks and clerics advocating the killing of civilians.. they need to go. A serious American military presence in the region will go a long way towards convincing them that Bush was serious when he said that you either stand with us, or against us.

3) With Saddam gone, a substantial source of financial support for the families of suicide bombers in israel will be removed as well. It is well documented that many of the suicide bombers perform their brutal work because they understand that their families will be well taken care afterwords. Saddam has been supporting this evil trade in death with hard currency. Perhaps when the financial incentive towards killing yourself is removed the Palestinians will return to more peaceful ways of negotiating.

4) Last, but certainly not least, the Iraqis *want* us to remove their dictator. The guy is a brutal torturer. Not the worst leader thats ever been seen, but definately on the lower end of the spectrum. The people most adamant against removing him are, interestingly enough, Saddam's largest trade partners.. the Europeans.
Last edited by Corth on Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Shar
FORGER ADMIN
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Shar » Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:58 am

Corth, your last post was why I enjoy this thread. That is *exactly* the way I would have put it, only you said it much more eloquently than I ever could have managed.

I hope Saddam ends up a prisoner in the hands of his own people some day, although I doubt he would live very long, he *would* get a very, very small taste of his own medicine.
Gerad
Sojourner
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun May 13, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Postby Gerad » Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:29 am

I think we should coat him with molten steel and shoot him into the sun.
<I>When a man lies, he murders some part of the world
These are the pale deaths, which men miscall their lives
All this I cannot bear to witness any longer
Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?</I>
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:02 am

Ashiwi wrote:Do we want to fight two fronts? Hell no. I also don't think our allies are standing as strong as they should considering their recent incidents, but I don't see any of the powers that be backing out now.


Our armed forces are designed to carry out a war in two separate theaters.

Beating Saddam's decrepit army down isn't going to be hard, killing whats left of his fanatical republican guard isn't going to be much harder. Going door to door finding his ass is going to be the hard part, that along with the ensuing occupation of Iraq until the US sees fit to let them govern themselves, which will probably be around 10-15 years from now.

It is going to be ugly, my team got back from Afghanistan three weeks ago, and they're already gone again. The "maximum" amount of days one can be deployed in a 365 day period is 180. When someone goes beyond that they are supposed to get a $100 a day cash reward for the Pentagon's screwup. They suspended this rule prior to Afghanistan. Remember that when you ask yourself "why does everyone always bug out to support the military, they volunteered!"
Hibbidy group-says 'you using fkeys or buttons'
Tsaen group-says 'buttons'
Tsaen group-says 'f1 f2'
Musi
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Musi » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:47 am

Gerad wrote:I think we should coat him with molten steel and shoot him into the sun.


:shock: Uh...could we pose him first :twisted:
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Feb 06, 2003 3:13 pm

Ensis wrote:Our armed forces are designed to carry out a war in two separate theaters.

Beating Saddam's decrepit army down isn't going to be hard, killing whats left of his fanatical republican guard isn't going to be much harder. Going door to door finding his ass is going to be the hard part, that along with the ensuing occupation of Iraq until the US sees fit to let them govern themselves, which will probably be around 10-15 years from now.

It is going to be ugly, my team got back from Afghanistan three weeks ago, and they're already gone again. The "maximum" amount of days one can be deployed in a 365 day period is 180. When someone goes beyond that they are supposed to get a $100 a day cash reward for the Pentagon's screwup. They suspended this rule prior to Afghanistan. Remember that when you ask yourself "why does everyone always bug out to support the military, they volunteered!"


Ensis - I don't doubt we have the capability to fight on two fronts, but i am sure that we have no desire to. I also doubt the severity of the North Korean threat - they don't want to go to war, they just want food. Nobody will give them food, so they are attempting to create a nuclear hostage situation in which we will be required to give them food and money so that they wont use their nuclear weapons. This was the agreement that got them to shut down the nuclear facility in the first place, but since they never stopped researching nuclear weapons, we cut off their aid in november. Basically this is North Korea trying to get that aid back, and they have chosen a time that we are pre-occupied to do so, which is a good move on their part. If they are going to play the nuclear hostage card, now would be the time to do so, as our interests lie elsewhere and we are more likely to give N.K. the food/money they want just to eliminate the distraction. whether bush will actually do this remains to be seen, but that is what the North Korean government is hoping for.

That being said, i wish you and your team the best of luck in the middle east. If all goes well, there won't be much door to door searching going on, which is undoubtedly the most dangerous part of this situation. I also believe they have a plan to set up a self-sufficient Iraqi government in much less than a decade, so i also hope you and your fellow soldiers will be coming home as soon as possible. My neighbor just shipped out a few days ago, leaving his wife and 2 month old child at home. I hope you all get home quickly and safely.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:49 pm

Thanuk,

Your dead on with North Korea. They're going nuts over there because unless they get some food and heating oil soon the regime might collapse. Now we don't want them to collapse, but we want them to accept a bargain that is most beneficial to us. That means we need to wait until its almost intolerable over there. Its funny how they keep rattling their nuclear sabres and we pretend not to hear them. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:58 pm

thanuk wrote:
Ensis wrote:That being said, i wish you and your team the best of luck in the middle east. If all goes well, there won't be much door to door searching going on, which is undoubtedly the most dangerous part of this situation. I also believe they have a plan to set up a self-sufficient Iraqi government in much less than a decade, so i also hope you and your fellow soldiers will be coming home as soon as possible. My neighbor just shipped out a few days ago, leaving his wife and 2 month old child at home. I hope you all get home quickly and safely.


I appreciate the sentiments but they've gone/are going without me :(. Got hurt shortly before they went to Afghan.

Wasn't trying to refute what anyone said when i mentioned we were designed to run war on two fronts, just wanted to tell everyone that we do have the capability.

I dont like Bush but I have faith in Powell. He was a great general and I think he'll be an excellent influence on the administration to do the right thing.
Hibbidy group-says 'you using fkeys or buttons'

Tsaen group-says 'buttons'

Tsaen group-says 'f1 f2'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:15 pm

Yeah it is pretty funny how we are treating North Korea. They just keep getting angrier and angrier the more we ignore them, and their anger just makes us ignore them more. Its hysterical to see some of the outrageous comments that come from their government leaders, only to have them shrugged off by low-ranking white house officials.

And yet, the U.N. commission for nuclear weapons has yet to speak out against North Korea for reactivating the plant. I guess Iraq and Iran truly believe the plant is going to produce power and not uranium:)

Oh well, every day the U.N. becomes a bigger joke. And now they are having trials for war crimes, before the war has even started!

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jh ... ID=2172308

But it just makes you wonder, that if the "serious consequences" for violating the inspections are more inspections, then what's the punishment if you are found guilty for a war crime? Following recent logic, the punishment seems to be another trial with more witnesses:)
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:05 pm

A group of lawyers aims to prosecute Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes at the new International Criminal Court (ICC) if an Iraqi war goes ahead.


Does anyone still not comprehend why the US refused to join the ICC treaty?

On an completely unrelated note:
<img src=http://home.nyc.rr.com/corth/images/SOS.jpg>
Just got my new issue!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:25 am

LOL Nice pic!

Yes it is funny to see the crazy 'leader' in N. Korea going even more insane because he isn't even being acknowledged. Its obvious he is trying to stir up things while we are busy with Iraq and the middle east, and I can't wait to see his plans collapse due to lack of critical resources.
combatmedic
Sojourner
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby combatmedic » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:27 am

Omg that is a funny pic Corth! ROFL!
The only thing more accurate than enemy fire is friendly fire.

Dalen the super paly.
Aram the novice paly.
Bakeledam the CombatMedic.
Kuurg
Sojourner
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Faang
Contact:

Postby Kuurg » Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:57 am

A friend asked me today if I thought war with Iraq was the answer. I asked her "the answer to what? what's the question?"

Does Iraq pose a threat to the United States? no...in fact by attacking Iraq we could be adding fuel to the fire. If everything we do bears out the belief that the US is the 800 lb gorilla, willing to stomp all over human rights if it's in our interest to do so, we probably have a few more terrorist attacks in our future...and that WILL have an effect we'll all feel here in the states.

Does Iraq pose a threat to it's neighbors and US interests in the region? Possibly, capability - definitely...motivation - that's questionable. Again it's a question of whether forcibly removing saddam and his regime from power is going to provide stability in the region or whether it will be the catalyst which polarizes the entire region against us.

Do I support war with Iraq? I really don't know. Until Powell's presentation and seeing Al-Douri's desperate lies and attempts to refute the (to my mind) obvious proof of their deceit, I was against any military action. Now, I'm more concerned with precedent and long term effects this would have.
Unless the UN endorses military action, it's going to completely under-mine any sort of influence they have in future dealings with recalcitrant nations. Contrary to what you may think, the US citizens are the one who would be most likely to suffer were this to come to pass. Why? Because there are precious few constraints upon our government as it is...they're beholden to the people they govern...a people who have largely relenquished all responsibility and who don't want to be bothered with the details. They're beholden to the world community: the UN council, amnesty international - because these agencies/bodies actually DO pay attention to US actions/policies and reflect global concern about belligerent and jingoistic US action. As citizens of the US we benefit from the constant vigilance of these groups. We hear very little about what transpires around the world. Newspapers, TV News, they're holding the proverbial tiger by the tail...they have to cater to and entertain a lethargic US population which requires constantly gauging public opinion, while at the same time acting as impartial sources of information. How often do we get what its easiest to report, or what sells the most rather than truly useful information? The more independent and inward-looking the US becomes, the greater the risk of ending up with posters of a benevolent, yet stern mustachio'd fellow on our walls and buildings.
Now if the US acts without UN approval, we are the aggressors, and in a war which reeks of ulterior motives instead of the leaders in a global movement to depose a tyrant.

I do not trust Bush. I do not feel Bush has the best interests of the american people in mind. I believe Ari Fleischer disseminates false information regularly to prop up US support for a war that most people are, at best, fence-sitters on.
Conversely, Saddam Hussein and his entire regime are corrupt, consumed with power and a palpable threat to every nation in their immediate vicinity.

I don't like being force-fed a war.
·• Kuurg •·
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:35 am

"The United States are not the only ones who can launch a preemptive attack."

Is the man totally insane?
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:04 pm

Hey Kuurg,

There is alot of holes in your argument. First and foremost, Iraq definately does pose a very real threat to the American population. Their direct ties to Al Queda among other terrorist groups cannot be ignored, and their role in the 9/11 tragedy is unknown, but suspect none the less.

And again, with your comment about the 800 lb guerilla and the backlash of terrorist attacks, read what Ambar said. If you don't act the way that you would normally act due to fear of terrorism, then the terrorists have accomplished their goal. If that is the reason we would choose not to go to war, than we have already given in to terrorism.

Our goal in removing Saddam is not to create stability in the region; in fact it is the exact opposite. Our brightest hopes are that once Saddam is out of power, all the dictators around him will begin to fall, in particular Arafat. Once these dictators are out of power, we can set up some form of democratic government to start operating there, give the people more rights, and basically end the tyrannical oppression of women, common men, and anyone who isn't an islamic fundamentalist. Have no doubt that we are indeed intentionally de-stabilizing the region.

And the U.N. is a joke, im sorry to tell you. The U.N. stopped being a real concern the day the U.S. was voted off the humanitarian commission and replaced by Sudan. Iraq and Iran will head the nuclear disarmament commission. France holds veto power in the security council, although they have no military that warrants a position of such importance.

The fact is, we are the only country who has ever even respected the U.N.'s declarations. Look at Iraq. Do they care what the U.N. says? No. They have proven time and again that they could care less for the opinions of the rest of the world, they will continue to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. And no one seems to care. Yet when the U.S. decides that they too will throw the words of the U.N. to the wind, there is immediately a backlash from all the countries of the world trying to shame the U.S. for these actions, while those countries themselves ignore the very rules that the U.S. follows! How about NATO article V? Where are the troops!?! Oh thats right, all the members decided that it wasn't worth sacrificing their troops to accomplish what they said they would in NATO. And now the U.S. is actually willing to carry out the "serious consequences" that no other country is willing to act on, and somehow this has been twisted to paint us as the war mongers? Unbelievable! Its a wonder we don't shut the U.N. down.

I'm sorry that you do not trust your own president. But do you trust Saddam Hussien to act responsibly with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons? If you do, then you are a naive fool. Indeed, you are being force fed a war, but remember that the U.S. is carrying out what was pre-determined by the U.N. many months ago; "Disarm, or we will disarm you." Unfortunately, every other country save Britain has lost their spine, and the French are just opposing the U.S. because they have lucrative oil interests in Iraq. So it has been left to the United States, as usual, to act as policeman for the world, who will remain ungrateful for our efforts. War is never desired, but in this case it is most certainly necessary.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:02 pm

Kuurg wrote:
capability - definitely...motivation - that's questionable.


He has motivation. We may not know exactly what it is at this point, but he has it. If he didn't, we would just disarm rather than risking a war with the US. The great effort he's taking to stockpile and hide these weapons from the world can only mean he wants to use them for something.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:57 pm

Lay the smackdown on Saddam's rudypoo candy-ass! If you smell what the Bush is cooking 8)
Meatshield
Kuurg
Sojourner
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Faang
Contact:

Postby Kuurg » Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:56 am

thanuk wrote:Hey Kuurg,

There is alot of holes in your argument. First and foremost, Iraq definately does pose a very real threat to the American population. Their direct ties to Al Queda among other terrorist groups cannot be ignored, and their role in the 9/11 tragedy is unknown, but suspect none the less.


Hey, thanks for responding. heading out for happy hour in a few minutes so I can't give you a decent refutation, but I'll try and do it piece-meal.

As far as Iraq and it's ties to al-Qaida, it's so much smoke. Saudi Arabia has far more tangible connections with al-Qaida and it's leaders than Saddam and Iraq ever have, yet we hear next to no mention of that. Not a single one of the terrorists was from Iraq...15 saudi arabians, an egyptian, a lebonese and 2 from the united arab emirates (I had to look that one up!) The money Saddam was giving to families of terrorists was dwarfed by the amount of money coming out of Saudi Arabia for these families.
The al-Qaida has publicly criticized Saddam hussein for his secular rule.
are they both our enemies...yep. Is it fair to say they have the same aim, not at all. they have completely different goals which are ultimately at odds with each other. al-Qaida and what they're responsible for should have nothing to do with our going to war with Iraq.

It's important to note, though, that al-Qaida's over-arching goal was a 'fertile crescent' free of western influence. If israel wasn't enough of a burr in their saddle, do we think that US forces occupying iraq after the war is going to go over well? because invading Iraq is not going to make that threat go away.

I'm glad you responded, but I really didn't want to be put in the position of rebutting an argument I'm not completely at odds with. Still, whatever encourages healthy debate is a good thing.

Take care,
·• Kuurg •·
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:35 am

Kuurg wrote:It's important to note, though, that al-Qaida's over-arching goal was a 'fertile crescent' free of western influence. If israel wasn't enough of a burr in their saddle, do we think that US forces occupying iraq after the war is going to go over well? because invading Iraq is not going to make that threat go away.


I don't think too many people (that matter) really give a damn how things go over with al-qaida... If they dont like it, all the better :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Sat Feb 08, 2003 3:53 am

Corth wrote:Other reasons to fight Iraq besides getting rid of their WMD program:
1) Creating a free republic
4) The guy is a brutal torturer. Not the worst leader thats ever been seen, but definately on the lower end of the spectrum.

Ah, I get it: slippery mage strikes again. (It has happened in the past that liberals have advocated these as reasons the U.S. should intervene in some country. At which point conservatives object "We shouldn't try to do nation-building.")
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 08, 2003 4:41 am

Gurns:

Generally I would be against nation-building. Its expensive, dangerous, time consuming, and historically, a good result is by no means guarranteed. On the other hand, there have been some incredible results. Japan after WWII is the best example. We took a militant culture, gave them a constitution and a democratic form of government, hung around a few years, and then watched them buy up half of Manhattan 40 years later. :)

Anyway, I think in Iraq nation building is justified. Its worth the expense and risk to attempt to introduce democracy and freedom to the arab world. Terrorism is by far the greatest threat to humanity that exists today. Its partially caused by culture, but even more importantly its caused by simple poverty. The reason those countries are poor is because they are run by dictators. Dictators keep all the money for themselves. They stifle innovation because they dont allow people to enjoy the fruit of their labor. Unfortunately, the arab people do not know what freedom is. I think they would like it a lot more than what they have now. If we were to successfully build a free democratic country in that region it would be a threat to all the autocratic regimes. Thats why Saudi Arabia and Iran have their knees shaking at the thought of a successful and free Iraq.

As for reason #4, you quoted me out of context. I wrote those lines to show that common Iraqis want us to liberate them. The purpose of this is, partially, to state a reason for going to war, and partially, to refute people who are against the war on the basis that it will potentially harm civilians. The Iraqi population, like that of Afghanistan, will be more than happy to have their oppresive government overthrown.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Sat Feb 08, 2003 6:14 am

Corth wrote:Generally I would be against nation-building.

I know. :)
Japan after WWII is the best example.

Heh. I was trying to think up successes, and that was the one I got, too. Germany as well, although they had democratic traditions to build on. Since then? Not so good. I suspect that the reason post-WWII worked, and the rest didn't, is at that time we were determined to occupy those countries until they were democratic. And we kept a strong military and cultural presence in those countries for decades.

The current case of Afghanistan leads me to believe our current leaders, like their predecessors of the last few decades, lack the will to do serious nation-buildling, that is, keeping troops there for the decades of presence required. We don't hear much news about Afghanistan now, but it sounds like the country is a mess. Ever since we started moving troops out, and turned it over to people we admit are (at best) warlords. I can't say I expect much different for Iraq. I notice you didn't say much about the likelihood of success either, just the benefits to success. I know we both hope such efforts are successful.
As for reason #4, you quoted me out of context.

Yeah, yeah, I knew you'd notice, but my line doesn't work if I quote you in context. :)
The purpose of this is, ... partially, to refute people who are against the war on the basis that it will potentially harm civilians. The Iraqi population, like that of Afghanistan, will be more than happy to have their oppresive government overthrown.

I'm partially against the war because it will potentially harm Iraqi civilians. I'm partially against the war because I think Bush has decided that the value of an Iraqi life is infintesimal, and I find that uncivilized (I would say sinful, but I ain't religious).

On the other hand, I have no illusions about the Iraqi populace, and I think your statement assumes some. I'm sure they will be happy to have Saddam overthrown IF they don't get hurt much in the process. Unfortunately, I expect they'll get hurt pretty badly, one way or another. (Nightmare #1: Targeting radar in Bagdhad locks onto U.S. planes, who destroy it, and necessarily the civilian area surrounding the installation. Nightmare #2: Saddam realizes he's lost Bagdhad. To slow down the search for him, he opens all of the bio and chem weapons stored in the city, which is a lot. U.S. troops in protective gear are seriously inconvenienced. Iraqi civilian population is wiped out. Who is resented for this, after it's over? The occupying military force, of course. It ain't logical, but it's human.)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sun Feb 09, 2003 9:45 pm

<IMG src="http://home.nyc.rr.com/corth/images/unitednationscard.jpg">


Cherzra was holding out on us!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:01 pm

Gurns wrote:The current case of Afghanistan leads me to believe our current leaders, like their predecessors of the last few decades, lack the will to do serious nation-buildling, that is, keeping troops there for the decades of presence required. We don't hear much news about Afghanistan now, but it sounds like the country is a mess. Ever since we started moving troops out, and turned it over to people we admit are (at best) warlords. I can't say I expect much different for Iraq. I notice you didn't say much about the likelihood of success either, just the benefits to success. I know we both hope such efforts are successful.

I'm partially against the war because it will potentially harm Iraqi civilians. I'm partially against the war because I think Bush has decided that the value of an Iraqi life is infintesimal, and I find that uncivilized (I would say sinful, but I ain't religious).

On the other hand, I have no illusions about the Iraqi populace, and I think your statement assumes some. I'm sure they will be happy to have Saddam overthrown IF they don't get hurt much in the process. Unfortunately, I expect they'll get hurt pretty badly, one way or another. (Nightmare #1: Targeting radar in Bagdhad locks onto U.S. planes, who destroy it, and necessarily the civilian area surrounding the installation. Nightmare #2: Saddam realizes he's lost Bagdhad. To slow down the search for him, he opens all of the bio and chem weapons stored in the city, which is a lot. U.S. troops in protective gear are seriously inconvenienced. Iraqi civilian population is wiped out. Who is resented for this, after it's over? The occupying military force, of course. It ain't logical, but it's human.)



Gurns, i would normally agree with you when you make the case that American nation-building as of late has not had a stellar record, but i think the situation in Iraq will be a great deal different for 1 reason; oil.

They have a ton of money coming into that country all the time from oil. Where does it go? Their roads are not paved, their people live in poverty. Oh yeah, Saddam has 11 castles, thats right. Oh yeah, the families of suicide bombers no longer have to work for a living in Iraq. Well once we do occupy this country, we will be using their substantial oil revenue to rebuild the country, rather than our own funds. Afghanistan went wrong for the same reason most other endeavours of that kind do; the money has run out, and people have no interest in investing more money that will never be returned to them. The amount of money given to third world countries as debt that is never repaid is staggeringly close to our own national debt. In the case of Iraq, however, they have their own, very lucrative source of income with which to fund the rebuilding of their nation, so it will be easier to accomplish and sustain a plan of nation building. This of course makes the very large assumption that corruption will not lead this money into the hands of the Iraqi elite who stay within the favor of the U.S., but you have to hope for the best:)

Indeed even after a war or occupation, its not very likely that the Iraqi people are going to come out and embrace the American people and country the day after Saddam Hussein loses power. I doubt anyone really expects that to happen. The reasoning i believe is that we will show these people how to live free and prosper, and then they will begin to do it on their own. After they gain some prosperity by the work of their own hands, within the democratic system that we teach to them, then they will begin to respect and possibly even like America and American culture.

If you consider the size and population of Iraq, and the amount of oil they pump out to other countries each year, you realize that on paper Iraq should be a wealthy nation; but since that wealth has been dominated by warlords and dictators, there is no reflection of that wealth in the general populace. In a democratic system, the wealth would be more evenly distributed, and your average Iraqi citizen stands to gain a great deal from the change. We know this, but they do not. The only way to win their respect is to show them. It will take some time before Iraq accepts America, but i think there is a very good chance that they will eventually do just that.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests