The W
Views: 97839673
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.14 0647
The W - Current Events & Politics - Powell's Iraq Case (Page 2)
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2303 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (46 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on
I have to wonder if he is ready to launch that fast- I mean, mustard gas, maybe, but all of that other stuff? He has to have it hidden pretty well, can he get it assembled and launched before we can hit it?
And hell yeah he is launching on Israel. Only this time, Isreal will not stay out of it. It will be bloody...




OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on
Yet another reason this war is not a good idea...




"Your enemy is not surrounding your country. Your enemy is ruling your country."
"President" George W. Bush - Is he talking to Iraq or us?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Yet another reason this war is not a good idea...

Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic.

But you don't tuck your tail and run from something you should fight, just because you treasure human life.

Especially when your enemy does not. They proved that they did not on 9-11 (civilian targets?), and that ideology certainly has not changed in one year... and last time I checked, they still wanted to kill us...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.2.03 1300)


astrobstrd
Bockwurst








Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2496 days
Last activity: 2463 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Yet another reason this war is not a good idea...

    Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic.

    But you don't tuck your tail and run from something you should fight, just because you treasure human life.

    Especially when your enemy does not. They proved that they did not on 9-11 (civilian targets?), and that ideology certainly has not changed in one year... and last time I checked, they still wanted to kill us...

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 7.2.03 1300)



Where were those 9/11 bombers from again? Not our magnificient friends and allies the Saudis? Iraq has not been proven to be in any way responsible for 9/11. Just when I'm starting to come closer to your side on this, you start muddying the facts.

At least more people on here are starting to see the very possible terror this war is capable of becoming. There is a very small chance that it will be the "weekend war" that so many pundits seem think it will.




Ph-nglui mgwl'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 476 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by astrobstrd
    Where were those 9/11 bombers from again? Not our magnificient friends and allies the Saudis? Iraq has not been proven to be in any way responsible for 9/11. Just when I'm starting to come closer to your side on this, you start muddying the facts.

    At least more people on here are starting to see the very possible terror this war is capable of becoming. There is a very small chance that it will be the "weekend war" that so many pundits seem think it will.



Actual while I see that there could be alot of terror in this war I still think that its going to end quicker than you. This is not going to be at all like the gulf war with 2 months worth of bombing before the army goes in. When we start we are going with everything we got. I also think that while we will help when need be the Iraq resistance in the north will be the first to enter Baghdad. This why it will seem more to the people and you hope the Iraq army that they are being liberated.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 637 days
Last activity: 55 days
#26 Posted on
Right, unless they set all the oil wells on fire, and hamstring us in a guerilla campaign while we have constant terror attacks back home. Just like Vietnam, only with more sand & women dressed like ninjas.

We're gonna seem like such chumps if we go over there and all the oil's burning. Between that, a non-functional anthrax and smallpox vaccine that has zillions of side effects and no proven benefits, and the DU rounds poisoning our troops we'll have done a good job of condeming our troops to innumerable health problems down the line in addition to having sent them of on some half-ass war in the desert.

Sorry, you wanna win a war in the Third World, you send in Col. Sanders. The Iraqi army would fold like a portable bridge table if you offered 'em a bucket of chicken for every tank.



(edited by Enojado Viento on 7.2.03 2019)-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on
I am really not sure mentioning 9-11 is muddying the facts at all.
You are right. There HAS been no evidence presented that suggests that Iraq, all or in part, was behind 9-11. But that is not something that needs to be proved in this case.
It HAS been proved that Iraq currently has very strong ties to Al Quaida. We are currently in a was with Al Quaida, and Iraq has clearly allied itself with them.
Iraq has weapons of mass distruction.
Neither Iraq, nor Al Quaida, has shown any hesitency when it comes to killing civilians. In fact, they both seem to prefer those targets.
We have an unassailable case for war on Al Quaida. Iraq, of its own volition, has allied itself with this group, its UN resolution violations not withstanding. I, for one, don't think that waiting until a V-X bomb blows in Washington is the best way to decide to go to war with someone who is obviously hostile towards us.
And WHO CARES that the nationality of a great many of the 9-11 terrorists was Saudi? Hell, there were AMERICANS in Al Quaida. I find it intriguing that one of the most popular arguments coming from Democrats, the party that is supposed to be the most open minded, the most tolorant, the most AGAINST racial profiling (race and nationality has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING!) are the first to point out that the bulk of the terrorists were Saudi.
But, of course, we have to check little old ladies and 6 year old girls at the airport because if we target Arabs, it is profiling and wrong...
Such hypocricy...




ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 664 days
Last activity: 664 days
#28 Posted on
I don't think Saddam will do anything he can't escape, alive, from. The man is a survivor - he will do what it takes to save his neck.

The wild card, should war come, will be Israel. Back in '91 it was a lot of work to keep them out of the conflict. Now, should anything go wrong and they be attacked (especially with how the Palestinians have been acting recently), I believe the Israelis will retalliate and plunge the whole region into conflict.

However, as morally opposed to war as I am, I believe that something has to be done and I'd rather it be sooner than later. No reason to give the opposition more time to prepare, right?



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Do you know where your Chainmail, +1 vs. Cruiserweights is?

oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1903 days
Last activity: 1837 days
#29 Posted on
"Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic."

Oh, I love this. Don't you mean "Better to see the Middle East devestated now than America possibly maybe getting it's nose bloodied in the future"?



(edited by oldschoolhero on 8.2.03 0315)


"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Yet another reason this war is not a good idea...

    Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic.

    But you don't tuck your tail and run from something you should fight, just because you treasure human life.

    Especially when your enemy does not. They proved that they did not on 9-11 (civilian targets?), and that ideology certainly has not changed in one year... and last time I checked, they still wanted to kill us...

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 7.2.03 1300)



Oh man...

"The loss of life is always tragic"

Yeah! So let's go in with cannons firing!

"But you don't tuck your tail and run from something you should fight, just because you treasure human life."

If I am not mistaken, he is not "tucking his tail." He is standing up for what HE thinks is worth fighting over. Basically, what you are saying here, is "you should disregard the things you find worth fighting over, in order to go follow the things OTHERS find worth fighting over."

"Especially when your enemy does not. They proved that they did not on 9-11 (civilian targets?), and that ideology certainly has not changed in one year... and last time I checked, they still wanted to kill us..."

Well hey! I guess that makes it OK then. They want to act like jerks trying to take over the world, so I guess we should do the same while condeming them for doing it.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2746 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    "Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic."

    Oh, I love this. Don't you mean "Better to see the Middle East devestated now than America possibly maybe getting it's nose bloodied in the future"?



    (edited by oldschoolhero on 8.2.03 0315)



I'll sign on to that in a heartbeat. I don't WANT to devestate the Middle East, but if it is necessary to do so in order to avoid an American "bloody nose," (which I imagine is a euphemism for losing a few American lives which you no doubt find inconsequential), then I say let's go for it.

Remember this: We didn't start ANYTHING with Islamic fundamentalists. And if it comes down to us or the other guy, I hope we have the guts to survive. Your calculus suggests that you think all lives are of equal value; what is missing from your argument is the concept of merit. As an American, I'm going to hold to the belief that the lives of my countrymen and the servicemen putting their lives on the line to protect me (and the rest of the world) are worth a hell of a lot more than any others.

And, Bucs: You think American is trying to take over the world? Check the facts. What happened after WWII? Last I checked, the Soviets took over huge swaths of land, while the Americans REBUILT EFFING EUROPE, so they could oppose us decades later. If we were truly an Imperial nation, we would have done exactly what the Soviets did, and there would be no France or Germany today. And if we wanted Empire, why go through the freaking UN? If we wanted to take over the whole Middle East, we would have done it by now. Who is going to stop us, Canada and it's 55,000 man army? The case that America is an imperialist nation has zero grounding. Our history is rife with opportunities for land grabs and massive imperialism (remember, we had the nuke before anyone else), and we passed up on them.

(edited by PalpatineW on 8.2.03 0936)

Damn your eyes!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 395 days
Last activity: 395 days
#32 Posted on

    Originally posted by astrobstrd

      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
        Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
        Yet another reason this war is not a good idea...

      Better somewhat bloody now, than later when it would be far worse. War is always bloody, and the loss of life is always tragic.

      But you don't tuck your tail and run from something you should fight, just because you treasure human life.

      Especially when your enemy does not. They proved that they did not on 9-11 (civilian targets?), and that ideology certainly has not changed in one year... and last time I checked, they still wanted to kill us...

      (edited by Pool-Boy on 7.2.03 1300)



    Where were those 9/11 bombers from again? Not our magnificient friends and allies the Saudis? Iraq has not been proven to be in any way responsible for 9/11. Just when I'm starting to come closer to your side on this, you start muddying the facts.

    At least more people on here are starting to see the very possible terror this war is capable of becoming. There is a very small chance that it will be the "weekend war" that so many pundits seem think it will.






Finally, someone almost agrees with me. I've been in favor of bombing Medinah and particularly Mecca since May of '83. Screw Iraq, lets bomb Saudi Arabia.



Bringing the French along in a war is like bringing an accordion along when you go hunting. All it provides is useless noise.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#33 Posted on
Can you supply me a link to where you found this info on the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection?


Edited: Got to the second page of Powell's speech. Okay, the fact that Al Qaeda is hiding in northern (read: rebel controlled) Iraq doesn't really surprise me much. Seeing as how Iraq isn't too friendly with the US anyway, and has a legitimate excuse when it comes to dealing with the Kurd controlled territory, it seems like a perfect place to hide.

As for the Iraq/Al Qaeda non-aggression pact, that doesn't surprise me either. I'd bet a thousand bucks that Syria has/had one too, as well as the Saudis. So while I don't discount all the other information presented by Powell, I'd say that the Al Qaeda link are still pretty damn shaky.

-Jag

(edited by Jaguar on 8.2.03 1311)


Year after year, the United States has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use they could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

-The hypocrite at work.

rabidzebra
Linguica








Since: 23.6.02
From: Charleston SC

Since last post: 2739 days
Last activity: 1570 days
#34 Posted on

    Originally posted by redsoxnation

      Originally posted by astrobstrd

        Originally posted by Pool-Boy
          Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard



    I've been in favor of bombing Medinah and particularly Mecca since May of '83. Screw Iraq, lets bomb Saudi Arabia.

And we wonder why they call us the Great Satan. (Unless that was sarcastic which I'm bad at figuring that out.)



The way of Hercule is the philosophy of daily training, constantly pushing your limits, and never giving up to build a powerful body and mind... and having a wild time all the time.
I am a H-Fer.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 395 days
Last activity: 395 days
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by rabidzebra

      Originally posted by redsoxnation

        Originally posted by astrobstrd

          Originally posted by Pool-Boy
            Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard



      I've been in favor of bombing Medinah and particularly Mecca since May of '83. Screw Iraq, lets bomb Saudi Arabia.

    And we wonder why they call us the Great Satan. (Unless that was sarcastic which I'm bad at figuring that out.)






I'm completely serious. Before the First Gulf War, I was hoping we'd let Sadaam march through the House of Saud after he invaded Kuwait, then we could take care of him. The Saudi's have been screwing with the U.S. for over 30 years.
1) They caused a U.S. recession and oil shortage in the '70s because of their being upset of U.S. support of Israel in the '73 war (Funny, these supposed great Arab fighters all seem to get beat real quick. Israel beats them quick in '67 and '73, we beat the Iraqis quick in '91).
2) The Islamic Fundamentalists have been screaming Holy War against the Great Satan U.S. since the late 70's and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran. Well, if they want a Holy War so bad, that means their Holy Sites should be a prime target.
3) The place that preaches and funds terrorism is Saudi Arabia. Eventually, it will have to be dealt with. I'd rather deal with it now than in another 15-20 years when the Fundamentalists are even stronger.




Bringing the French along in a war is like bringing an accordion along when you go hunting. All it provides is useless noise.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1903 days
Last activity: 1837 days
#36 Posted on
"I'll sign on to that in a heartbeat. I don't WANT to devestate the Middle East, but if it is necessary to do so in order to avoid an American "bloody nose," (which I imagine is a euphemism for losing a few American lives which you no doubt find inconsequential), then I say let's go for it."

So...it's fair to trade off many more Middle Eastern lives for much less American lives. This isn't some sort of moralistic argument here, this is pragmatism; do the math. I don't find the loss of a few Americans inconsequential; far from it. I don't find the loss of ANY lives inconsequential. That's my point. You can't trade off thousands of lives in another part of the world just because there's a risk that at some vague point in the future-near or distant-America MAY be attacked. Sorry. It just doesn't wash with me.





"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2746 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    "I'll sign on to that in a heartbeat. I don't WANT to devestate the Middle East, but if it is necessary to do so in order to avoid an American "bloody nose," (which I imagine is a euphemism for losing a few American lives which you no doubt find inconsequential), then I say let's go for it."

    So...it's fair to trade off many more Middle Eastern lives for much less American lives. This isn't some sort of moralistic argument here, this is pragmatism; do the math. I don't find the loss of a few Americans inconsequential; far from it. I don't find the loss of ANY lives inconsequential. That's my point. You can't trade off thousands of lives in another part of the world just because there's a risk that at some vague point in the future-near or distant-America MAY be attacked. Sorry. It just doesn't wash with me.




Well, I don't agree with your pragmatism.

Imagine you are president of the US. Before you are two options.

1.) Permit 10 innocent Americans to die.
2.) Prevent these deaths by killing one terrorist and 11 Iraqi civilians.

Which do you choose? Because the war on terror is merely that scenario writ large. We either kill some innocent civilians, or we permit ourselves to die. Personally, I'd rather see the ideas of America and the West - namely, personal freedom and prosperity - triumph over those of the current Middle East. I'm not brushing off the deaths of Arab civilians, but I refuse to accept that argument that we need to LET people attack us, because to kill them means taking innocent life. Because when does it stop? Imagine that bin Laden, for the rest of his life, travels with a coterie of civilians. Do we refuse to attack him because he's surrounded by civilians, no matter how many of us die? We have the right to self-defense, and, in the long run, it's better for everyone to remove these dictators. Innocent people die in every war, but sometimes the war is just, and needs to be fought.



Damn your eyes!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1903 days
Last activity: 1837 days
#38 Posted on
My problem with that scenario is that nobody right now is pointing a weapon at the US and saying "We're going to kill x amount of Americans in 30 days". The only people currently doing that are-surprise surprise-the Americans. If there was concrete evidence that there was a MAJOR threat to American and/or English soil, then I would happily sanction going to war. But you're totally oversimplifying the situation. There is no immediate threat to America-and if there ARE terrorists in our midst, then the one tinhg sure to provoke them into voilent action is us going to war against the Middle East. The other point is, of course, that right now the US and Uk aren't just playing hot potato with American, English and Iraqi lives-they're also fucking things up for Iraq's neightbours and the nearby Western allied states. You tihnk America is going to have Iraq-born mustard gas landing inside it's borders? Nope, Isreal can have that honour.

Oh, and let's be realistic here-there would NEVER be such a match-up as "ten Americans for twelve Iraqis"; geography and advanced technology would skew THOSE numbers. Plus, as a country you are NEVER going to have a war on your doorstep, again as dictated by geography. Middle Eastern civilians, on the other hand, will have to contend with multiple bombings, shellings, ground combat, missile strikes, and if things REALLY get fucked-up, poison gas and chemical shit.

But hey, if I expand this argument any further it's just going to turn into yet another dissection of the "We-re Better Than You" classic American outlook. And I really don't want to go there any more, because people refuse to take it seriously and I just get called a liberal jerk-off and an America-basher.



"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 476 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    My problem with that scenario is that nobody right now is pointing a weapon at the US and saying "We're going to kill x amount of Americans in 30 days". The only people currently doing that are-surprise surprise-the Americans. If there was concrete evidence that there was a MAJOR threat to American and/or English soil, then I would happily sanction going to war.


I am sorry did I miss the "We are going to fly planes into the WTC in 30 days" announcement? Did I miss Iraq tell Kuwait that they were going to invade in 30 days? How many countries besides the US tell their enemy that "you have 30 days to change your ways or we will attack" We gave the Taliban time to turn over those people who attack us on 9/11 when we had by all rights to attack them on 9/12.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2746 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    My problem with that scenario is that nobody right now is pointing a weapon at the US and saying "We're going to kill x amount of Americans in 30 days". The only people currently doing that are-surprise surprise-the Americans.


Well, on 9-11, the rules changed. As the President said, "since when do tyrants... announce their intentions?" (I've paraphrased, but you get it). Hussein has the weapons. He has the hostile intentions. Will he use them on us? I don't know. But I do think that there is a sufficient enough chance that he will either use them or give them away that we do need to take them away from him. I don't want to wait for another 9/11. And you're wrong that the Americans are the only ones making threats. Saddam has been threatening us for quite some time, as are the North Koreans. And besides, are you trying to suggest moral equivalence between the US and Iraq?


    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Oh, and let's be realistic here-there would NEVER be such a match-up as "ten Americans for twelve Iraqis"; geography and advanced technology would skew THOSE numbers. Plus, as a country you are NEVER going to have a war on your doorstep, again as dictated by geography.


Yeah, you're right. 3,000 people will never die on American soil in the span of a couple hours. Or, if they did, it would never happen twice. And certainly it will take a lot of advanced technology to infect someone with smallpox. But I hear the Iraqi labs are hard at work on a device called a "syringe," and working on a technique known as "coughing on subways." Besides which, this isn't all about the US. Last I checked, they found that ricin over in the good ole UK.


    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Middle Eastern civilians, on the other hand, will have to contend with multiple bombings, shellings, ground combat, missile strikes, and if things REALLY get fucked-up, poison gas and chemical shit.


Yes, and that will be too bad. But the only things which necessitate such action are Middle Eastern despots, Middle Eastern terrorists, and Middle Eastern culture.


    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    But hey, if I expand this argument any further it's just going to turn into yet another dissection of the "We-re Better Than You" classic American outlook. And I really don't want to go there any more, because people refuse to take it seriously and I just get called a liberal jerk-off and an America-basher.


I'd never call you a "liberal jerk-off and an America-basher," because that would be terribly redundant. Besides which, I'd like to see your argument showing that there's a country out there better than the US.




Damn your eyes!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute
Next thread: UN is always good for a laugh
Previous thread: What a difference a decade makes
(2303 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
As opposed to the Kerry hate?
The W - Current Events & Politics - Powell's Iraq Case (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.241 seconds.