Escalating potential conflict in Iraq

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: I disagree John. Our leaders are elected to serve us. They need to do what we, the people who live in each state, want or they should be replaced. Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the record of Leahy, Jeffords, and Sanders of Vermont and I will vote to have them as my Senators and Congressman again. The President may be there to lead, but he must also do what the people want, Republican, Democrat, or Independant. He started at close to 90% approval and a year later he is at 60% (of those polled, of course...nobody asked me ). That's why this is a Democratic Government. The path he chose smacks of manipulation and a go it alone mentality that is a trademark of Bush's style. He seems to say "This is what needs to be done. Now I want all you people to work with me to reach this goal, but don't expect me to work with you. If you can't compromise to what I want, don't expect me to meet you halfway." He does this with Congress and with the rest of the world at large. I can't decide if he wants Free Trade or Protectionism. I don't want a Cowboy...I want a President, I want a President who talks smarter than me. I don't want to have a child who won't play nice with the other kids in the sandbox, I don't want a spoiled brat or a bully. Mark

Skywalker this is where we part company, Leaders are to lead not serve! That's why the process of voting is so important we are to be chosing the people that make the decesions. I beleive it was Thomas Jefferson that said when the people relize they can vote people in to office that will give them things the Republic is doomed. I may not agree with everything our leaders do, but I want them to lead not follow.

Now I'm not a math wiz but last time I checked 60% is still a majority in a Democratic Government

There's nothing wrong with going it alone, sometimes you have to take stand. Not work with people give me a break! Pres. Bush DID go to the UN like Congressional leader wanted him to do, He has and is briefing them like they asked him to do. That IS working with them! Everytime he does they come up with NEW excuses for something new, a new hoop he must jump through. That is Maniptualtion, standing for something is not maniptualtion. Nothing personal , but I find it funny that you want a President that "TALKS" smarter. I want a president that acts smarter, talk is cheap. Sometimes you can't compromise, sometimes compromise causes things to be done Half-assed, which can be worse then not being done at all. ie: after the Gulf war there was only a half-assed attempt to oust Sodamn Insane and look at where we are now! the world would have been better served to completely support the opposition or to have left Sodamn alone. Instead we tried to do both, it's kinda like driving and trying make-out with your girlfriend at the same time. We half did two jobs at once!

[skywalker]

I disagree with you John, but I'm not going to argue over it. I understand your point of view..I just don't think there's much point of hashing it between us.

There will be a war no matter what happens, I've come to grips with it. There's no reason for me to continue on the subject. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

War really does suck, though.

[AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe]

My personal opinion on the matter is that if the UN will not live up to its own part of the ceasefire agreement, namely that they enforce the need for weapons inspectors in Iraq. Then what good is the UN? It doesn't matter whether or not you can talk a good game, it's whether or not you can back it up. If the UN can't back up their own policies on this I honestly think that we should completely drop out of it. Granted this is a drastic step, but why should we be a part of a weak multinational political system that will not live up to or enforce the policies that they themselves set? If Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction, which we do have proof that he is. Proof in the form of intelligence reports saying he is, proof in the fact that his own former scientists saying he is close to developing a nuclear bomb, and even more proof in the fact that he will not allow UN weapons inspectors in to at least determine the validity of the proof that we have. It is UN weapons inspectors that Saddam will not allow in, not US weapons inspectors. Bush recognizes the potential harm of Saddam developing chemical and nuclear weapons obviously much more than the UN since they will not act upon their own policies. If this body is too weak or unwilling to act, then why should we waste our time being a part of it, or waiting for its approval?

[ 09-14-2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe ]

[Piestrider]

I agree with AZRaEL on this one. I believe that if Saddam ever does possess weapons of mass destruction then he will go after all of the countries that he has been trying to obtain for years now. Not only that, but it is the UN's duty to uphold the policies that they have been neglecting when it comes the Iraq. For example, the weapons inspectors are allowed in, then they're not, then the are, then they're not. The UN should have stepped in and not allowed this juggling of weapons inspectors the first time it happened and not allowed it to happen again. But since they haven't been tough with Iraq, she has tried to take over most of her neighboring countries. What makes you think that once Saddam actually possesses weapons of mass destruction that he won't use them against all those countries that he tried to take over before?

Personally I just think that the US needs to get in there and do something before Iraq starts a nuclear war.

Originally posted by Piestrider: I agree with AZRaEL on this one. I believe that if Saddam ever does possess weapons of mass destruction then he will go after all of the countries that he has been trying to obtain for years now. Not only that, but it is the UN's duty to uphold the policies that they have been neglecting when it comes the Iraq. For example, the weapons inspectors are allowed in, then they're not, then the are, then they're not. The UN should have stepped in and not allowed this juggling of weapons inspectors the first time it happened and not allowed it to happen again. But since they haven't been tough with Iraq, she has tried to take over most of her neighboring countries. What makes you think that once Saddam actually possesses weapons of mass destruction that he won't use them against all those countries that he tried to take over before? Personally I just think that the US needs to get in there and do something before Iraq starts a nuclear war.

BUT IT CANNOT BE PROVED IT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOR THAT IT WILL EVER GET THEM!

isreal has nuclear weapons...
It has lots of outstanding UN resolutions (motre that iraq) why will american not move against it?

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I see a lot of people here useing "weapons of mass destruction" as the tag line of the hour when refering to Iraq. Do some of you even know what a weapon of mass destruction is?? Nuclear bombs are definately a weapon of mass destruction. Nerve gass and biological contaminants are not. A Nuclear bomb can destroy everything for about 50 miles and contaminate and area 3 times that size with radiation, not to mention the fallout that can be carried in the upper atmosphere and come down in rain drops. Biological weapons on the other hand can be made species specific and can only crash a population. Biologicals dont level buildings,contaminate soil,kill fish and wildlife or start fires. Also after it kills the 50% to 80% of the population it becomes useless because there will always be at least 20% of any given population that is immune or resistant to any given disease.That is why people with AIDS sometimes die in six months and sometimes live for 60 yrs with the disease. Chemical weapons are very similar to biological weapons because they too dont destroy buildings or contaminate soil,also some of them are species specific. Unfortunately if something is suceptible to the chemical agent then it will be affected by it. There is almost no immunity or resistance to them.Chemical agents also comein a wire assortment of abilities. Nerve gass hits the central nervous system and causes most vertebrates brain and spinal cord to turn to mush. They can be absorbed through the skin as well as inhaled. THen we have the lovely blood agents. These inhibit the bloods ability to absorb oxegen from the lungs.Eventualy a victim of a blood agent will fall over and pass out from lack of oxegen because the hemoglobin cant absorb any from the lungs.They then fall into a blissfull sleep and die. Blister agents are the worst type of chemical agent because they dont always kill. Basicaly a blister agent is a fine mist of acid the burns the skin,eyes,lungs and anything else it touches.Verry nasty!!

The U.S. has also been useing a weapon of mass destruction that is worse than any of the ones I have written about. It is called the "FAE" or fuel air explosive.Basicaly the FAE bomb spreads out a fine fuel mist in an area about the size of 6 city blocks and then ignites the mist evacuateing all of the oxegen in the area. Buildings are exploded as air is sucked out of them, animals and people are killed as their lungs are torn out in the vacume effect, and plants in the area are killed because all of their leaves are burned off. The unfortunate thing is that as long as we are just useing these things on "terrorists" or enemys of democracy no one seems to care about them.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: BUT IT CANNOT BE PROVED IT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOR THAT IT WILL EVER GET THEM! isreal has nuclear weapons... It has lots of outstanding UN resolutions (motre that iraq) why will american not move against it?

Do you really want the mushroom cloud of proof?

Why don't other countries move against Israel? If you think it's important why don't you petition your government. The US will, of course, oppose it, but if you think it's important maybe you should petition your nation to act unilaterally, or petition your nation to form a coalition against Israel? The fact is you are just using that as an silly way of saying if "you" can't fix everything, fix nothing. "You" being the US. People complain about the US acting unilaterally, then when a joint effort is requested you say well why don't you fix this or that instead. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I know, lets just forget about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's gassing of thousands of innocents. Just let people who threaten others do anything they want. Who cares what happens as long as the US doesn't stick it's nose in. The US isn't perfect, so it shouldn't say or do anything, right?

I guess the real question is whether or not the UN should perform the function for which it was formed. Maybe it's best left as a big social club that wastes money, spouts of lots of ideas, but is completely impotent for the lack of a will to act?

And actually, it has been proven Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He used them against Iran and the Kurdish element of his own population. Tons of chemical and bological weapons were found after the Gulf War and not all were accounted for before the inspectors were booted. His own people have said he was working towards nuclear capability. Maybe you don't care if he gets nukes, but lots of people do, including his neighbors, who certainly don't want the US acting unilaterally, but do want resolution.

As to Israel, yes they have nuclear capibility, but have they used it against Palestinians or anyone else? Have they used any weapons of mass destruction? Saddam has, and because of it the UN has sanctioned military action against Saddam, it has not authorized military action against Israel, so the point you make is taken, but the context in which you use it is not really pertinent to the argument is it?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I see a lot of people here useing "weapons of mass destruction" as the tag line of the hour when refering to Iraq. Do some of you even know what a weapon of mass destruction is??

People use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" because it is the accepted terminology for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. While your explanation is quite informative, it doesn't mean those using the term are incorrect. Accepted terminology doesn't always translate word for word. Personally, I'd say a weapon with the potential to kill thousands, but leave buildings standing is still pretty damn destructive. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-14-2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: The U.S. has also been useing a weapon of mass destruction that is worse than any of the ones I have written about. It is called the "FAE" or fuel air explosive.Basicaly the FAE bomb spreads out a fine fuel mist in an area about the size of 6 city blocks and then ignites the mist evacuateing all of the oxegen in the area. Buildings are exploded as air is sucked out of them, animals and people are killed as their lungs are torn out in the vacume effect, and plants in the area are killed because all of their leaves are burned off. The unfortunate thing is that as long as we are just useing these things on "terrorists" or enemys of democracy no one seems to care about them.

Actually, I'd say what you wrote about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is all quite a bit worse than the 15,000lb. "big boy", the largest conventional weapon in the US arsenal. It hadn't been used in combat since Vietnam, where it was used to clear landing areas for helicopters in the dense jungle terrain. In Afghanistan, it was only used in the Tora Bora mountain region to penetrate the caves and tunnels, and it wasn't as bad as you describe because lots of Al-Queta and Taliban surrended or escaped after it's use. It certainly wasn't used in any cities. A weapon's potential and its implementation can be quite different.

Now if you really want to complain about the use of US weapons you can really get people cranked up about cluster bombs.

[ 09-17-2002, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: You guys know what a war is? It's murder, it's sheer bloody murder. There are no 'right' or 'just' forces at play here. Plenty of Iraqi civilians are going to die pretty soon, it has pretty much already been decided. Basically, I and my country have more in common with the USA than Iraq so if innocents are gonna be butchered to fulfill political agendas then I'd prefer them to be Iraqi than American. It's more profitable to serve the USA. To be honest I'm getting pretty sick and f**king tired of people trying to moralize this perpetual slaughter. Better to just kill and be done with it, then enjoy the benefits of conquest (primarily: a nice supply of CHEAP OIL!) than obsess over this pathetic judeo/christian/americana moralization. There's just been too much stock put in empty, flowery ideology in this past century, utter horseshit! Kill for profit, territory and resources and to hell with empty moralizing. And you can inscribe that on my tombstone after I've been killed by a hostile invading force.

Look up the definition of murder please. Yes War and murder do have one thing in comon, someone ends up dead. You cannot equate one with the other, to do so is to simplify things to the point where language has no meaning.