Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2002, 08:13 AM   #21
Ar-Cunin
Ra
 

Join Date: August 14, 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Age: 52
Posts: 2,326
The USA should get approval from the UN, if they are going to war with Iraq - and also convince Iraq's neighbours to accept the war, because the US (and - if UN agrees - allied) forces will need staging posts for any landbased attack. I'm no military expert, but attack though the narrow Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf will be difficult to say the least. Secondly, an invasion of Iraq will not be like the Gulf War, where the Iraqi army took to the field in open battle. I think that they will stay in the cities where they cannot easily be targeted - to maximize casualities both among the attackers and the civilian population (for PR).
__________________
Life is a laugh <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[biglaugh]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/biglaugh.gif\" /> - and DEATH is the final joke <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[hehe]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/hehe.gif\" />
Ar-Cunin is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 08:50 AM   #22
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna:
Maybe if the U.S. and Israel kept their noses out of Iraq it would be easier to get allong with Saddam. I think he is right to stop allowing U.N. inspectors into his countrie. Whos buisness is it to tell him what his government can and cannot do? As long as he doesnt go around attacking other countries what does it matter what he does? Maybe if other world leaders tried talking to him like an equal instead of dictateing to him like he was inferior they would get a better response.
Must kind of suck for Iraq to loose a war eh? You loose the ability to be self determing and to have a say in what you can or can't do....its probably one reason why most countries don't go around invading others, since it means they could end up loosing a war eh?
 
Old 09-13-2002, 08:52 AM   #23
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
I didn't get to hear Bush' speach to the UN but the synopsis I have heard was basicly, he told them either they enforce the sanctions and rules they imposed on Iraq about 10 years ago or they become irrelevant as an organization and should be disbanded. I kind of agree, the UN sits around and spouts a lot of shite, but they never follow through, or so it seems.
 
Old 09-13-2002, 08:53 AM   #24
Nachtrafe
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: August 9, 2001
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna:
Maybe if the U.S. and Israel kept their noses out of Iraq it would be easier to get allong with Saddam.
Err...ummm...maybe I'm crazy, but I dont recall Israel "sticking it's nose into Iraq"...ever! All Israel is doing is trying to survive. It is a nation under the gun of every Arab fanatic with a grudge and a pipe bomb. As for the US...we didn't "stick our nose into Iraq" until he invaded Kuwait! And then we were ASKED TO HELP! By whom?? KUWAIT!!! Get your history straight dude.

Quote:

I think he is right to stop allowing U.N. inspectors into his countrie. Whos buisness is it to tell him what his government can and cannot do?
He signed an agreement with the UN to the that effect. Thus, that *makes* it the UN's business. And he has categorically ignored his responsibility to live up to said agreement.

Quote:

As long as he doesnt go around attacking other countries what does it matter what he does? Maybe if other world leaders tried talking to him like an equal instead of dictateing to him like he was inferior they would get a better response.
Erm...read a history book! Hussien INVADED KUWAIT! He ATTACKED ANOTHER SOVREIGN COUNTRY! The world responded, at the request of Kuwait, and defeated Hussien. He signed the aforemention agreement and BROKE HIS WORD! We have tried diplomacy, several times, and all he has done is thumb his nose at the world. How many more times must the world try to appease this despot before finally removing him? Must we wait until he nukes Tel Aviv? Or he and his buddy Bin Laden smuggle a couple of nukes and an Anthrax bomb into New York, Chicago, Paris, London, or Tokyo. How many times must you say 'Bad Boy, now play nice' before you send in the Marines to oust him? It seems to me that people with opinions like yours are the reason people like Hussien are still in power. IMNSHO anyway.

[ 09-13-2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]
__________________
~~OFFICIAL BOYTOY OF CLOUDY'S CAFE....WELL...OK...JUST CLOUDY!~~

"May the wings of liberty never lose a feather!"
Nachtrafe is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 09:09 AM   #25
B1ade
Elite Waterdeep Guard
 

Join Date: September 2, 2002
Location: London, England
Age: 41
Posts: 41
The thing about 'weapons of mass destruction' is this - the reason a lot of countries keep them is to do with the balance of power, i.e. if I didn't have any and my neighbour does.....scenarios, and then you get the whole arms race.

Now, Iraq is hardly the only country with these type of weapons - the anthrax released in the USA was MADE in the USA, Britain sells arms to other countries and a large proportion of our budget is spent on defense, Israel has plenty, I'm sure Russia has some about somewhere and Pakistan and India do too, just to name a few. The USA has determined Iraq as a threat and want something visual to go with their 'War on Terror' campaign. After all, why now? Hasn't this issue been going on for years?

Also, the US have already decided on war as being the only answer- most political journalists have described the diplomatic 'motions' as just that. If they want to go to war in someone else's country and displace their (dysfunctional, it's true) government, they better make sure that they have some kind of long term plan, as opposed to 'go on in, bomb them and leave them to sort it all out'. That's how the Taliban got into power after America trained people to get rid of the Russian presence, and we all saw how well THAT worked out....

The situation in the Middle East is already at a critical point. Taking another war into the region as opposed to actually SOLVING the problems would be an act of stupidity, and poorly thought out. The people have incredibly high levels of leukaemia and other such diseases, deformed babies and serious problems from the Gulf War, even the soldiers suffered and they were much better protected.

The bottom line is this, if other alternatives have been tried (and demanding for an inspection while never having been inspected yourself is hardly what I'd call the diplomatic approach), there is some proof about the need to act NOW and there is consideration to the country afterwards and the high price of innocent lives - surely the world will agree. If the war begins without the UN's support, it will be for all the wrong reasons - a personal vendetta instead of focusing on the Iraqi people who are surely the most at risk, as well as people on other shores.

What right do the USA and the UK have to start an action that affects the world and without consulting the people they are supposed to be representing? I know from some polls I've heard that the majority of us Brits don't want this to happen and by Tony Blair encouraging it, he is not representing the voting public who'll be paying for this war, and who will have it on their collective conscious.

Sorry that went on a bit, but we all know that this war is not just about the accumulation of weapons, but all kinds of political issues from oil to power. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.
__________________
when you hear thunder, you know there was lightening, even if you missed the flash...
B1ade is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 09:39 AM   #26
Ronn_Bman
Zartan
 

Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
Quote:
Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna:


1.)Who has the right to decide what leaders get to stay and what leaders have to go?

2.)Who decides who is and isnt good for stability in a region?

3.)The U.N. and America need to watch who they push around because no one likes a bully.

4.)Last time I checked Iraq got allong with almost all of its neighbors except for Kuwait and Iran.

5.)Also if Americans say Saddam is evil and has to go then they are considered "right"and "patriotic" , but if people from Iraq say George Bush is evil and the devil then they are branded as "terrorists".

6.)If assassinateing unpoular world leaders is how the U.N. wants to start dealing with its problems I have a feeling a lot of U.N. leaders are going to start getting picked off as well.
I hope you don't mind that I numbered your points. [img]smile.gif[/img]

1.)Preferably, the citizens of the country. Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys Democracy.

2.)Those who are effected/threatened by the potential danger.

3.)No one likes a bully, but isn't that exactly what Saddam is? The United Nations was formed to help keep the peace and hold nations accountable for their actions. The idea is to keep nations from threatening one another. Who are they bullying? Didn't Iraq join the UN knowing the rules? Did they agree to inspections to end the Gulf War?

4.)You should check again. None of his neighbors like Saddam because he is unstable and dangerous. I mean, he did use chemical weapons against Iran and HIS OWN citizens. This is not the kind of guy you want for a neighbor. His neighbors just don't like the idea of the US acting unilaterally in the region.

5.)I haven't heard anyone "brand" those who dislike Bush as terrorists. Americans who like Bush maybe offended, but please don't think them so stupid. If they made that leap of logic, then all Democrates would be terrorist too.

6.)Assasination may or may not be the way to handle this situation, but considering Saddam tried to have both the Israeli PM and the US President assassinated in the early 90's, I tend to lean towards, "what goes around, comes around."
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />
Ronn_Bman is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:16 AM   #27
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by B1ade:
The thing about 'weapons of mass destruction' is this - the reason a lot of countries keep them is to do with the balance of power, i.e. if I didn't have any and my neighbour does.....scenarios, and then you get the whole arms race.

Mostly that only describes the cold war and the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) And only related to the US and NATO vs the USSR (now defunct). France had its own nukes but were not likely to use them.

Now, Iraq is hardly the only country with these type of weapons - the anthrax released in the USA was MADE in the USA, Britain sells arms to other countries and a large proportion of our budget is spent on defense, Israel has plenty, I'm sure Russia has some about somewhere and Pakistan and India do too, just to name a few. The USA has determined Iraq as a threat and want something visual to go with their 'War on Terror' campaign. After all, why now? Hasn't this issue been going on for years?

Also, the US have already decided on war as being the only answer- most political journalists have described the diplomatic 'motions' as just that. If they want to go to war in someone else's country and displace their (dysfunctional, it's true) government, they better make sure that they have some kind of long term plan, as opposed to 'go on in, bomb them and leave them to sort it all out'. That's how the Taliban got into power after America trained people to get rid of the Russian presence, and we all saw how well THAT worked out....

The war against Iraq (Deasert Storm) was declared with the blessings of the UN AND was a coalition of several nations not just the USA. Check the history. Saudi Arabia was in mortal fear that they were next, Jordan was sweating bullets and Israel had reason to be afraid as well.

Iraq is the only country so far that has and shows indications of doing so again, used the weapons they get.


The situation in the Middle East is already at a critical point. Taking another war into the region as opposed to actually SOLVING the problems would be an act of stupidity, and poorly thought out. The people have incredibly high levels of leukaemia and other such diseases, deformed babies and serious problems from the Gulf War, even the soldiers suffered and they were much better protected.

Mostly because their sovereign leader mr. Hussein is taking money that should be spent on medicine and food for his people and is putting it into weapons research and aquisition...ever wonder how a pissant little nation like Iraq could have the 4th largest army in the world? It was paid for by depriving his people.

The bottom line is this, if other alternatives have been tried (and demanding for an inspection while never having been inspected yourself is hardly what I'd call the diplomatic approach), there is some proof about the need to act NOW and there is consideration to the country afterwards and the high price of innocent lives - surely the world will agree. If the war begins without the UN's support, it will be for all the wrong reasons - a personal vendetta instead of focusing on the Iraqi people who are surely the most at risk, as well as people on other shores.

Other alternatives have been tried. The only reason the Coalition did not take out Hussein in the first war, was because he surrendered, the terms of that surrender were mandatory inspections, and reparations to kuwait and the repayment for expenditures of the Coalition. All these conditions have been ignored by hussein and the UN has failed to hold him accountable to this day. Basicly the man lost a war and has paid no penalty.

What right do the USA and the UK have to start an action that affects the world and without consulting the people they are supposed to be representing? I know from some polls I've heard that the majority of us Brits don't want this to happen and by Tony Blair encouraging it, he is not representing the voting public who'll be paying for this war, and who will have it on their collective conscious.

I doubt it will affect even half the world. Iraq could become a smoking crater tomorrow and life in the rest of the world would continue quite nicely thanks. The reason we elect leaders is not to blindly follow public opinion polls. The general public is a rather uninformed lot who don't know dick about what is really going on around them. A good leader will make his decision based on intelligence that the general masses never sees.
Anyway you slice it, the US and Anyone who backs them has the moral high ground when discussing ousting Hussein.


Sorry that went on a bit, but we all know that this war is not just about the accumulation of weapons, but all kinds of political issues from oil to power. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.

Actually in this case I believe military force is the proper means to accomplish the desired end.
I have to say you made your points quite well, I just believe they are all flawed [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-13-2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
 
Old 09-13-2002, 11:13 PM   #28
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally posted by skywalker:
No UN support, no war! That's the way it should be. If we attack on our own, we pay for it alone and we police Iraq for 10 years alone. We should not be vigilantes.

Funny how Bush started threatening war all by his lonesome...didn't need the UN resolutions...didn't need any allies...didn't need to legally ask Congress for approval...thought he had enough of the American people behind him to go it alone.

Funny how now he has been slowly trying to back fill the support because he did not have enough from the people.

I think if he did it right from the start he would have done much better. I think he has been stalling for evidence. He gave Iraq time to make their case with Arab Nations...it will be messy, for sure.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq are dangerous, but so are many other nations. I guess this will be the start of the NEW World Order and 1 by 1 the despotic rulers will fall. I'm glad I don't have kids that will have to grow up in such turbulent times.

All I want is for whatever is done, do it right.

Mark
Skywalker Pres. Bush still has the support of the majority of the American people, the majority realize the need to take Sodamn Insane out. The so called back filling is accually a great political move, it backed the Liberal wing of the Dems. into a corner They asked for Pres Bush to go to the UN, IMHO thinking he was to much of a cowboy to do it. But he did, one step back for the liberal Dems. They asked for him to brief them and he has and is, another step back for them. Under the war powers act He CAN act without the approval of congress for 90 days, under the 14 Sept, 2001 congressional join resolution he has the authority, congress has already given him the authority. It is congress (the Dem. controled Senate mostly) that is back filling. Hell they're polling their constituances (sp?) to see if it ok. These people were elected to be THE leaders, not followers. They need to lead say this is what we are going to do, vote on, and do it. Then take the heat, or the glory for their decesions instead of trying to hold on to their own power. There are several Reps. that aren't any better.

I agree that what ever we do we do it right, to the best of our abillities. Human lives hang in the balance
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 05:57 AM   #29
skywalker
Banned User
 

Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: VT, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,097
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 is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 09:23 AM   #30
The Hierophant
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
 

Join Date: May 10, 2002
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
Age: 41
Posts: 2,860
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.
__________________
[img]\"hosted/Hierophant.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Strewth!
The Hierophant is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Portrait conflict,, maybe... ElfBane Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast 1 09-27-2004 03:21 PM
Conflict of interests Lord Stefan Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 12 12-22-2003 05:57 AM
Conflict with Mods Xero279 Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal 15 03-09-2003 05:13 PM
Conflict: Freespace Dreamer128 Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 17 12-17-2002 08:00 PM
4 reasons why the usa is going to win this conflict Dreamer128 General Discussion 11 10-20-2001 12:01 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved