View Full Version : Are We All Dead?
An interesting topic that ive wanted to discuss with people and i thought who better than you guys, with such varied input on everything.
Will the war on Iraq be the lraq war? will bio and chemical warfare wipe out all human life? is this the end of days predicted by the christians? or is this just going to be another fight? im interested in your views.
frutkake
01-24-03, 10:34 AM
Although I hate thinking it, I believe that if the war was to take its toll or iraq and defeat for Saddam Hussien was looking inevitable , Iraq would fire their arsenel of weapons of mass destruction or use their bio and chemical warefare against the allied nations.
What would they have to lose?
This may be Paranoia on my part and just a thought, I hope thats all it ever is.
to be honest, the amount of **** humanity has pulled on this planet, i think we deserve to be wiped out. although my views will probably change when i'm facing death..
Travis_Bickle
01-26-03, 02:41 AM
I live in Canada... I'm safe.
As long as that cowboy is in office however ... America is not.
I'm not a thick skulled, big ball'd redneck. I disagree with mass slaughter of the innocents... over something as ironic as oil.
Why must we kill each other over something that will eventually kill us all.
I guess it's a vicious cycle.
Originally posted by leinad
to be honest, the amount of **** humanity has pulled on this planet, i think we deserve to be wiped out. although my views will probably change when i'm facing death..
I agree what are you on about? because some people show ignorance for humanity, all good and evil people should die and be wiped out. Sorry Dan but that logic is just stupid in the first degree
Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
I live in Canada... I'm safe.
As long as that cowboy is in office however ... America is not.
Thats debatable, i dont believe anyone is entirely safe, although i do hope i am wrong.
udarescream
01-29-03, 07:09 AM
We must attack against Saddam we should have killed him in the Gulf war, if he doesn't build bombs this time what about next time, he will not have Mercy on us, we must unite or fall.
oh so its ok to pull in other countries to lose soiders in a war, that the US wants, i mean Australia really has no choice, without the US of A we are defencless, so its kinda help us or we wont help you when you want it. I would wait until the UN decides war is nessercary not G. W. Bush
The Silver Bullet
01-29-03, 07:55 AM
Written by William Pfaff in the Int'l Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/84666.html):
American commentators like to think that the "Jacksonian" frontier spirit equips America to dominate, reform and democratize other civilizations. They do not appreciate that America's indefatigable confidence comes largely from never having had anything very bad happen to it.
The worst American war was the Civil War, in which the nation, North and South, suffered 498,000 wartime deaths from all causes, or slightly more than 1.5 percent of a total population of 31.5 million.
The single battle of the Somme in World War I produced twice as many European casualties as the United States suffered, wounded included, during that entire war.
There were 407,000 American war deaths in World War II, out of a population of 132 million - less than a third of 1 percent. Considering this, Washington does not really possess the authority to explain, in condescending terms, that Europe's reluctance to go to war is caused by a pusillanimous reluctance to confront the realities of a Hobbesian universe.
Personally, this is my view also. Call me opinionless if you will, but this is the way I see it.
Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
I'm not a thick skulled, big ball'd redneck. I disagree with mass slaughter of the innocents... over something as ironic as oil.
If we wanted oil, there are other, more plentiful nations we'd probably find cause to attack first. And Bush wouldn't be proposing $1.2 billion to develop hydrogen-based automobiles, either.
They do not appreciate that America's indefatigable confidence comes largely from never having had anything very bad happen to it.
Nonsense. America has been involved in many conflicts for such a young nation, and has rarely shyed away from it. Now the US is being put down for doing its job well and only losing X percentage of its population? Last I checked minimizing casualties was cause for praise.
The Silver Bullet
01-30-03, 03:02 AM
Now the US is being put down for doing its job well...
Well? That is debatable.
Monkeypunch
01-30-03, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Naisy
oh so its ok to pull in other countries to lose soiders in a war, that the US wants
No, I don't think that's okay at all. But let me set this straight. The US does not want this war. The government of the US does. The country and the government are not one and the same. I do not appreciate the generalization.
udarescream
01-30-03, 06:44 AM
If there isn't a war this time, there will be next time.
It's simple if we do not want terrorism we must defeat this threat, shameful I know it seems.
The Silver Bullet
01-30-03, 07:17 AM
It's simple if we do not want terrorism we must defeat this threat...
Terrorism? Who said anything about terrorism?
A war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq is a completely different war to the war on terror. It is a war against weapons of mass destruction and such, yes. But terrorism?
It comes so hot on the trail of our not being able to find/kill Osama Bin Laden that the Bush administration is able to veil this war under the same banner and title as the post September 11 war against terror, although it is anything but.
It may be a war that involves scary things, but this isn't a war against terrorism. Terror is not Iraq. Terror is terror and Iraq is Iraq. And this is a war against Iraq.
Sir Toose
01-30-03, 10:05 AM
Ok
Let me ask you naysayers this:
If we knew prior to 9-11 exactly what was going to happen and then did nothing to prevent it then you would say it was Bush and Co's fault that those people in the WTC were dead, right? You'd want to hang his @ss from the closest tree for not protecting those people.
This time there is warning. We know what Saddam is capable of. We know he hates us. We DO NOT know what happened to his stores of chemical weapons. We do not have precise locations of weapons manufacturing facilities but we don't need them to know that one buys plutonium(among other things) in order to make them.
I don't need a mushroom cloud as evidence that Saddam means to try for the rest of his life to take out as much of the US and US interests/allies etc as he can.
US intelligence knew of the building aggression towards the US in Afghanistan and chose to do nothing. We were all focused on Clinton's dick and how exactly Monica Lewinsky wrapped her lips around it... and the come stained dress and on and on. We were clueless as a nation and we got a heads up delivered in one hell of a frightening package.
Now that we know that Iraq as a nation (lead by a fundamentalist in league with other fundamentalists) is not interested in peace with the US or in anything other than turning the rest of the world to Islam the sheeple of the world want to turn the other cheek.
I plain, flat out, do not agree with the sheeple. Iraq (Saddam)needs to be stopped in any way possible. Why should we wait until he strikes again? WTF is the logic in that? Please tell me... I don't understand it.
I would most definitely prefer that Saddam and his friends be shown the way to the promised land i.e. 97 virgins and all. I would prefer that no innocent life is taken in all of this.
Here are the cold and hard facts though. If we do not strike, the innocent lives taken will be ours and our allies. If we do not strike we will enable Saddam to make his arsenal even more powerful so that when he does hit he will score a knock out punch. We cannot bury our heads and hope it will go away amidst the re-runs of whatever the fck we're watching on TV.
He is a danger to free people everywhere.
Sir Toose
01-30-03, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Terrorism? Who said anything about terrorism?
A war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq is a completely different war to the war on terror. It is a war against weapons of mass destruction and such, yes. But terrorism?
It comes so hot on the trail of our not being able to find/kill Osama Bin Laden that the Bush administration is able to veil this war under the same banner and title as the post September 11 war against terror, although it is anything but.
It may be a war that involves scary things, but this isn't a war against terrorism. Terror is not Iraq. Terror is terror and Iraq is Iraq. And this is a war against Iraq.
Iraq is ruled by a fundamentalist who happens to agree with the views of said Mr. Bin Laden. It's come to light as of late that some of the funding to Al-Queda was provided by Iraq. Saddam has many links to terror...
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Well? That is debatable.
I'm referring to the "accusation" that the US has not suffered major military losses. That indicates effectiveness. It's a virtue, but the thing you quoted made it out to be a flaw.
Anyway, this is all rather simple: Saddam Hussein has gone well out of his way to interfere with weapons inspectors. He did so a decade ago and he's doing so again now. We have reason to believe he was loaded in terms of weapons, and he's yet to provide evidence that he's done away with said weapons. Why would he interfere with these inspections if he didn't have something to hide? For the hell of it?
Piddzilla
01-30-03, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Toose
Iraq is ruled by a fundamentalist who happens to agree with the views of said Mr. Bin Laden. It's come to light as of late that some of the funding to Al-Queda was provided by Iraq. Saddam has many links to terror...
It is pretty well known that Saddam is hardly even religious. It's just rethoric he's using to get the rest of the arab and muslim world with him. I don't know what it's like nowadays, but I know that during the times of the Gulf war there were even christians in the government. I do believe one of the ministers in the present government is in fact a christian.
I don't really buy the argument that in order to prevent further attacks on US they have to elliminate every potential future suspect. It's kind of sick to me. But anyway... US will strike - it's just a matter of time. They will do it with or without (probably without) both domestic and foreign opinion.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I don't really buy the argument that in order to prevent further attacks on US they have to elliminate every potential future suspect. It's kind of sick to me.
Someone who's violated his own people, threatened the US and defied numerous commands and inspectors regarding disarmament is hardly a "potential future suspect." He's already guilty of several questionable things, and it's no stretch to refer to him as a threat.
Piddzilla
01-30-03, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Someone who's violated his own people, threatened the US and defied numerous commands and inspectors regarding disarmament is hardly a "potential future suspect." He's already guilty of several questionable things, and it's no stretch to refer to him as a threat.
So why aren't USA attacking?
Originally posted by Piddzilla
So why aren't USA attacking?
Perhaps it's because those in power care more about world opinion than you may realize; they'd obviously rather have a smoking gun to show the world before taking action. There are a multitude of other potential reasons as to why they would hold off, too, but they're all speculation. Regardless, it's not hard to come up with plausible explanations as to why no move's yet been made.
Originally posted by Monkeypunch
No, I don't think that's okay at all. But let me set this straight. The US does not want this war. The government of the US does. The country and the government are not one and the same. I do not appreciate the generalization.
I apologize, you are correct, without sarcasium i apologize.
When Saddam Hussein accepted the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire, he agreed to destroy or render all Iraqs weapons of mass destruction.......:rolleyes: .......The United Nations weapon inspectors left in 1998 after obstruction after obstruction rendering their work as pointless...............
The question remains.........."What is he hiding".......................The International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled 40 nuclear "research facilities" before the UN left Iraq. For me.........this clearly shows Saddams intentions.
Just chiming in for a moment here...
Originally posted by Yoda
Someone who's violated his own people...
Saddam did this way back when he was a US backed dictator fighting the evil Iranians.
By the same token, is anyone concerned with who originally gave him the weapons, or who taught his people how to make them? Both of the answers begin with U and end with A, with only one part of the acronym in between. The war ended, Saddam stopped folowing orders, and we decided it was time he died (anyone having some Stalin/Trotsky flashbacks?).
I think if Hussein still did have weapons, or if he intended to use them on the U.S. of A he would have done so. Because let's face it, as long as we keep a decent eye on him -which we have been doing for a long while- , I much doubt that he will be able to contribute to any standing arsenal.
If we should have any concerns right now, I think they should lie with North Korea, who have certainly violated more human rights laws of late, threatened more countries, and expressed more anti-American sentiments than Iraq. Additonally, they've openly admitted to building nuclear weapons, and turned away U.N. inspectors, and diplomats, and more importantly rejected U.N. orders to stop their behavior.
What i want to know is does America have nuclear capabilities and weapons of mass destruction? and if so why is it one rule for one country and another for another country!
I just feel like war would have been avoidable had the American's just stopped stirring trouble, certainly enquire but not always be so pushy! Now IF Saddam has weapons that have not been found, War or no war i wouldnt be surprised if he uses them because he has every right to be pi$$ed off!
LordSlaytan
02-07-03, 12:34 AM
Naisy, you know I like you...but if you were here right now, I'd slap you for your ignorance.
Well instead of claiming im ignorant explain so that i no longer am, that might help me, but when you offer nothing than i can only stick with my opinions.
Originally posted by Herod
Saddam did this way back when he was a US backed dictator fighting the evil Iranians.
We "backed" him mildly and temporarily to rid ourselves of a greater enemy. I don't see what's so damning about this.
Originally posted by Herod
By the same token, is anyone concerned with who originally gave him the weapons, or who taught his people how to make them? Both of the answers begin with U and end with A, with only one part of the acronym in between. The war ended, Saddam stopped folowing orders, and we decided it was time he died (anyone having some Stalin/Trotsky flashbacks?).
First off, we didn't give him "the weapons." We gave him some. Though you might be hard pressed to present a source for such data. Assuming you can, however, what's your point? I don't care how we got in the situation, so much as how we're to get out of it. As far as I can make out, you're just trying to remind us that America is imperfect, as the procurement of the weapons means nothing when the issue is how to deal with the fact that they've been procured.
Originally posted by Herod
I think if Hussein still did have weapons, or if he intended to use them on the U.S. of A he would have done so. Because let's face it, as long as we keep a decent eye on him -which we have been doing for a long while- , I much doubt that he will be able to contribute to any standing arsenal.
If he doesn't have the weapons, why is he hassling inspectors? Doing so is clearly hazardous to his health, if you know what I mean. Regardless, there is always the potential threat of Saddam supplying others who ARE capable of coming at us, even if he himself cannot. All the same, the weapons shouldn't be in his hands, and the evidence tells us that they are, in direct violation of the UN's order and the US' very reasonable ultimatum. End of story.
Originally posted by Herod
If we should have any concerns right now, I think they should lie with North Korea, who have certainly violated more human rights laws of late, threatened more countries, and expressed more anti-American sentiments than Iraq. Additonally, they've openly admitted to building nuclear weapons, and turned away U.N. inspectors, and diplomats, and more importantly rejected U.N. orders to stop their behavior.
I'm going to defer to the experts in the US government, who probably know what they're doing, strategy-wise. For one, its been said that the situation with North Korea is remarkably similar to that of the Soviets not long ago, which was eventually resolved peacefully by focusing, in negotiations, on their human rights record. Perhaps the idea is to deal with Saddam and then dispatch the same gameplan in regards to North Korea.
LordSlaytan
02-07-03, 10:20 PM
Naisy, it was your, "he has every right to be pissed off" statement. That, to me and maybe me alone, is an ignorant statement. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid, it means unknowledgable. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, but Saddam doesn't have any right to be pissed. He started a war and lost it, then was to conform to a certain set of guidlines in order for him to stay in power. You see, the world allowed him to stay as long as he met the conditions from his loss of the war. Not only has he not met those stipulations, he has spat at the enforcing community, and the enforcing community allowed it! Now, time has come to own up to the spit that he's hurled at us, and he has the right to be pissed???
That's what I meant. Don't worry, you can still bear my child and I'll call you winkie. :yup:
Well now we are all screwed! Bushy and Howard are going to go to war dispite what the people want and a war is a stupid thing no matter what way you think about it!
Originally posted by Naisy
Well now we are all screwed! Bushy and Howard are going to go to war dispite what the people want and a war is a stupid thing no matter what way you think about it!
A war is a sad thing no matter how you think about it...but not always a stupid thing.
Travis_Bickle
02-10-03, 12:50 PM
A war should be about soldiers vs soldiers. Not planes bombing the whole country, innocents and all. That's not a war, that's a slaughter.
oh yeah i see that happening anytime soon soon :rolleyes:
A war is a sad thing no matter how you think about it...but not always a stupid thing.
Chris, how could this war in anyway be a good thing? or a wise thing? Im sorry but this is just BS
Originally posted by Naisy
Chris, how could this war in anyway be a good thing? or a wise thing? Im sorry but this is just BS
It depends on what you're fighting for. Was William Wallace stupid and foolish for rebelling against his oppressors? Was the American Revolution not a good thing? Some wars are necessary.
Originally posted by Travis_Bickle
A war should be about soldiers vs soldiers. Not planes bombing the whole country, innocents and all. That's not a war, that's a slaughter.
Why "should" a war include infantry alone? What about guns? If guns, why not cannons? If cannons, why not tanks? If tanks, why not planes? If planes, why not planes with bombs? What is this "should" based on?
Sir Toose
02-12-03, 10:29 AM
A war should be about soldiers vs soldiers. Not planes bombing the whole country, innocents and all. That's not a war, that's a slaughter.
It should be said that those who enjoy the benefits of a goverment are not innocent bystanders of it's actions. "We the People" are responsible for the actions of our government. If the world has a problem with the government of the United States of America, then they have a problem with me as well. I am not extricated from the collection of my people. The soldiers of America are my brothers and sisters and I will fight in any way I can for them... I do not distance myself from them while enjoying the fruit of their labors. It is because of them that we are a free nation.
What of planes bombing buildings? Terrorist acts against the populous of the free? If it is innocent blood spilled on American soil it's ok?
You paint only half the picture.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.