War on Iraq?

anyhow, this argument misses the point- even if we were justified in commiting these terrorist attacks, we have no right to spontaneously start a war with a country JUST for having the same capabilities we have. Whos to say saddam housein wont face the EXCACT SAME SITUATION we faced in 1945?

Perhaps you didn't read what I said correctly. They PLANNED to DROP BOMBS until they SURRENDERED. They stated as much back then. Who are you to say that they would have all of a sudden changed their mind? Are you them? Can you say what exactly was going through their minds? Do you know for sure that they would have just magically stopped dropping bombs to send forth the people for invasion that you've been trying to say was worse than dropping a bomb? Organise your argument better if you're going to argue a point, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time.

GooberMan: then how about simply 'resistance fighter', or 'freedom fighter' if their country had already been conquered.

NiGHTMARE: yeah, that gets the point across. I'm sure theres a single word for it though, but oh well, resistance fighter will do.

Whatever, theres no ending to this arguement, so i'm going to stop. But as my last words on this matter, dropping the bomb was not genocide. Period. If you believe it was, fine.

Xian said:
Beleive it or not sex DOES NOT solve all the worlds problems.

You know, I've always thought the world would be a better place to live if there were less people. I think we should discourage reproduction. Although I don't see that happening. And not, a nuclear war would make more problems then it solves

Zimbabwe has population of 12 million, Mugabe has said he thinks they could do with losing 6 million.

Someone may have already said this (I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread - yeah, I suck) but.. the president had no idea how devastating the atomic bombs would be on Japan before we dropped them. Yeah.

Long term effects, I'd believe him. Short term, I have no doubt he would have seen the results of the tests they did.

kallisti said:

Someone may have already said this (I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread - yeah, I suck) but.. the president had no idea how devastating the atomic bombs would be on Japan before we dropped them. Yeah.

You never know. Maybe he did.

I think with all the reports emerging that Iraq is planning to fight in the streets, America is paving the way for excuse to use nukes.

Xian is damn right.

Xian said:

(Wrongheaded diatribe against the Bush administration and their plans to attack Iraq)

I am 100% in favor of war on Iraq, and I'm also in favor of you being Losered, you communist. The reason we need to attack Iraq is NOT that the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. It's that as soon as they acquire weapons with enough range to cross continents and oceans, they will not hesitate to use them.

I also don't care what the UN says. What would those puny little nations do if we defied them? Attack us? We'd squash them like gnats.

P.S. Don't even bother calling me a goose-stepper. You'll just make an ass of yourself.

P.P.S. Coddling terrorist murderers will only lead to more 9/11s and thousands more innocent civilians killed.

P.P.P.S. (insert DOOMWorld-obligatory sexual insult here)

fodders said:

America is paving the way for excuse to use nukes.

That excuse will come if Iraq nukes us first, killing over a million innocent people.

Well of course America could, but America cannot survive very well with no one to trade with. Your isolationist views are nothing short of childish and show you have a very immature grasp of world politics.
Iraq has made no threats against America and has not got nukes, whereas N.Korea HAS, has made threats and can reach the lower 48 states.

Yes, America would get quite cranky without a steady supply of foreign oil, but many Middle Eastern economies are VERY, VERY dependent on profits from oil. If the Middle Eastern oil trade stopped, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and probably Iraq would go down the economic toilet within five years. They'll all go back to being dirt-poor and living in tents like they did before oil was discovered there!

fodders said:

Well of course Ameica could, but America cannot survive very well with no one to trade with. Your isolationist views are nothing short of childish and show you have a very immature grasp of world politics.
Iraq has made no threats against America and has not got nukes, whereas N.Korea HAS, has made threats and can reach the lower 48 states.

Remember that Saddam has already used almost all of the different types of weapons at his disposal on some of his own people (namely the Kurds). I don't recall hearing news reports of the North Korean government using lethal chemical weapons to kill thousands of their fellow countrymen.

RailGunner said:

You never know. Maybe he did.

No, he didn't. The bombs had been tested in the desert, but that could only gauge the destruction of the bomb itself. There was no way they could know for sure what the effects of the fallout would have on people.

You seem to forget who put Saddam where he is and supplied him with Anthrax spores. He was America's man, a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favourite coup". Moreover, he was sustained in power during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior and Margaret Thatcher, who gave him all the weapons he wanted, often clandestinely and illegally; in Washington, the relationship was known as "the love affair".
Today America lies about lots of things concerning Iraq. It has lied about the rise in the number of cancers in southern Iraq, the "Hiroshima effect" of depleted uranium, a weapon of mass destruction used by British and American forces during the Gulf War. It has lied about the vast amounts of humanitarian goods denied to Iraq, even though the UN Security Council has approved them. These include cancer assessment and treatment, medical equipment, and equipment that would allow Iraq to clean up its contaminated battlefields

Why is there an urgency about this attack? Is it true that the Bush administration needs something to go right with its rampage against "terror". There is another reason, which is seldom reported. This is the dire state of the world's number one source of oil, Iraq's neighbour, Saudi Arabia. This medieval throwback is America's most important client in the region, almost as important Israel; and Washington is losing control.
George W Bush and his own unelected, Christian fundamentalist regime face a dilemma. An attack on Iraq and conflict in the Middle East would provide a timely boost for American's military-industry-complex, for which the Senate has voted an historic increase in expenditure of £24billion. It would also divert attention from a sick economy and the corporate corruption scandals in which Bush and his vice-president are immersed up to their necks.

However, an attack on neighbouring Iraq could also give al-Qaeda the moment they have been waiting for and allow it to take over Saudi Arabia through proxies and control the most important oil fields on Earth. It goes almost without saying that Bush's dilemma does not include consideration for the thousands of Iraqis who will die under the American cluster bombs and depleted uranium tipped explosives.

Woolie hat said I don't recall hearing news reports of the North Korean government using lethal chemical weapons to kill thousands of their fellow countrymen.

Don't think North Korea would not use them, they have them and as the U.S used germ warfare against them in the 1950's who would blame them?

Just remember that there was an Ayatollah back then, and he was far more dangerous than Hussein was at the time.

Woolie Wool said:

Just remember that there was an Ayatollah back then, and he was far more dangerous than Hussein was at the time.

Ayatollah? I think you are confused, perhaps you got confused with IRAN?




Ahmad Hassan al-Bakir was PRESIDENT 1968 until 1979

fodders said:

Ayatollah? I think you are confused, perhaps you got confused with IRAN?

I think you are the one who was confused. We put Saddam in power in Iraq because the Ayatollah Khomeini was in power in Iran and Hussein hated Khomeini's guts. We thought that Hussein would shut the Ayatollah up and that would be the end of it. But that was not the case.

m0l0t0v said:

IMO soldiers may kill eachother, that`s what they`re for.

Uh, they're there to defend their countries.

Woolie Wool said:

I am 100% in favor of war on Iraq, and I'm also in favor of you being Losered, you communist.

Heh...you actualy think 'communist' is an insult?

Communist is an insult, since communism has proven more than once that it doesn't work. It's nothing more than a glorified dicatorship. If he had called you a Marxist, that would be different.

I'd take 'communist' as a compliment.

Fredrik said:

I'd take 'communist' as a compliment.

HA HA HA HA HA! OH MY GOD! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Anyway, I really meant "socialist."

Woolie Wool said:

HA HA HA HA HA! OH MY GOD! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

One thing: O_o

I fail to see the funny. Communist itself isn't bad. Democratic communism is good. But all former implementations of communism have been under dictatorship.

You don't have a clue, do you?

Anyway, communism will never work right because commies always count on their countrymen to not be greedy, selfish, hedonistic bastards. But, unfortunately, almost all people are like that.

Woolie Wool said:

I think you are the one who was confused. We put Saddam in power in Iraq because the Ayatollah Khomeini was in power in Iran and Hussein hated Khomeini's guts. We thought that Hussein would shut the Ayatollah up and that would be the end of it. But that was not the case.

I can see no reason why you have brought Iran into this discussion, he did not take power until 1979. The U.S had sponsored Saddam a lot earlier.