| From | Message |
kingofpawns
1/29/2003
08:52:59
[ report this post ] |
 Subject: Saddam Hussein
Message:
is evil. It would be nice if he were dead, but somebody
else as evil might take his place.
My problem with a war on Iraq is why now? If Iraq is such
a threat, why didn't G. W. Bush campaign on disarming
Iraq? If it is so urgent that Iraq be disarmed, why didn’t
Bush start this up last year?
What about Saudi Arabia? Most of the Al Qaeda terrorists
came from Saudi Arabia. Most of the Al Qaeda terrorists
we hold in Cuba are from Saudi Arabia. Most of the money
for Al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is
one of the most oppressive regimes in the world,
especially for women. Don’t you think it makes more
sense to attack Saudi Arabia first?
|
drcorbett
1/29/2003
09:05:47
[ report this post ] | Who Knows
Message:
Humanity always gets in the way of justice; but our justice is a construct of humanity.
|
golfman
1/29/2003
10:54:09
[ report this post ] | kop
Message:
I think your starting to come around...to answer your question, 9-11 changed the dynamics of the issue. Nobody foresaw that during the campaign. I believe that Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with, but it is simple -- they arent pursuing WMD's under the noses of inspectors and refusing to disarm.
There are many in Saudi Arabia that are enemies of freedom, but Saddam is taking those actions which will only lead to mass loss of life. Saudi Arabia is not. I believe that political pressure--particularly once Saddam is off the world map -- could be a strong weapon against those who harbor al-qaida and other terrorists.
|
zylstraj
1/29/2003
11:22:29
[ report this post ] | Because..
Message:
Saddam Hussein has already shown his proclivity to construct, and deploy, chemical weapons, biological weapons and even nuclear weapons. He has admitted to making many such weapons & weapons grade materials which have never been accounted for. Is that simple enough for you? Perhaps you would like to wait for more concrete proof - maybe your own children coming down with Lassa virus or anthrax ... but then, we still might not be able to PROVE it was actually him. Hmmmm...
|
nobody
1/29/2003
12:07:03
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Have Iraq got the means of lauching missiles that will reach the USA or the UK?
If they have, then why have they not been dismantled?
If they have not, then where is the threat?
If they have no means of lauching the weapons, like we are lead to believe North Korea hasnt. Then how are they a bigger threat than North Korea?
Would a laucher be more difficult to hide than WMD's?
nobody
|
drcorbett
1/29/2003
17:07:26
[ report this post ] | Nobody
Message:
Obviously, there are more ways of delivering an attack than the conventional ones. Clearly, the terrorists didn't build or ship in their own planes and make the jet fuel; they stole it and smuggled themselves in. If, say, one nuclear device slips past into a port, it can be taken near anywhere in the US. What can you do about it, anyway?
|
andreabs
1/29/2003
18:15:13
[ report this post ] | drcorbett
Message:
"If, say, one nuclear device slips past into a port, it can be taken near anywhere in the US. What can you do about it, anyway?"
Do you think killing Hussein would change this possibility ?! I think it would make it much more possible to happen with the rage that would appear after a war against Iraq.
regards
andré
|
kingofpawns
1/29/2003
20:12:08
[ report this post ] | andreabs
Message:
you are correct. One thing we can be sure of, a nuclear
devise will be detonated in a major US city. We don’t
know when. It may be a year from now, 5, or 10 years
from now, but it will happen.
|
nobody
1/30/2003
02:56:34
[ report this post ] | drcorbett
Message:
Exactly. So in which case there is NK who have definatly got the weapons. Then we have Iraq who is suspected of maybe having them.
Again who is the bigger threat?
nobody
|
zdrak
1/30/2003
07:07:08
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Obviosly NK is the bigger threat. Which is exactly why USA must act against Saddam right now, achieving two goals:
a. Preventing a small threat from transforming into a large threat. Which could happen sooner that you can say "appeasement"
b. Sending a message to the leaders of NK and the other ahem, "problematic" countries: If you don't start playing nicely, there is a good chance you'll lose those comfortable seats of power.
As for attacking NK, I hope you are joking. You are joking, right ? No matter how many words and rhetorics are spilled on this issue, no American president is going to invade a country which has operational nuclear weapons. Ever. Not even worth discussing it ...
And one word to andreabs: you seem to misunderstand the way the Islamic fundamentalist world works. The theory of "if we hit them, they'll become mad, therefor we must never hit them" has no connection to reality. Those "angry mobs" are in fact carefully orchestrated by leaders, who WANT them to be angry, and who brainwash them accordingly.
All you need to do is to either (a) replace the leaders or (b) send a REALLY CONVINCING message to existing leaders that this policy of hatred doesn't pay - and your problem is solved. Neutralise the 1000 leaders, the other 10,000,000 will go home for lack of anything better to do.
In this case, the message will be sent in the shape of Saddam's head.
|
kingofpawns
1/30/2003
08:07:35
[ report this post ] | It is amazing...
Message:
how people delude themselves. A war with Iraq is all
about oil and nothing else. Iraq has no military and
pathetic "weapons of mass destruction". Any war with Iraq
is over in hours or days.
Saddam is evil and doesn't deserve to live, but that is not
what this coming war is about. It is very simple, we win,
and we get the second largest oil reserves in the world.
|
zdrak
1/30/2003
13:50:15
[ report this post ] |
Message:
I don't care if GWB is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. As long as he's doing the right thing, he ok in my book.
PS: There is no need to put "" around Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq has chemical weapons and the means to launch them. Quotation marks wont help you here.
|
kingofpawns
2/11/2003
11:45:31
[ report this post ] | Please list
Message:
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and how they are going
to use them on the US:
|
drgandalf
2/11/2003
11:59:06
[ report this post ] | Evil
Message:
If Saddam is evil, why not let God defeat him. National war is purely a question of practicalities, not morality. The israelis use that argument against the Palestinians. Look at the destruction Sharon has brought upon both peoples.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is a poor argument. Eventually, such a leader will do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Statesmen, such as Chirac and Schoeder, wait for the right reason, while patience is permissible.
Any fool can do something for the wrong reason. And, who is to say that invading Iraq is the right thing to do? Did God reveal that to someone?
|
peppe_l
2/11/2003
12:15:26
[ report this post ] | golfman
Message:
"There are many in Saudi Arabia that are enemies of freedom"
Freedom = United States of America?
|
calmrolfe
2/11/2003
13:58:16
[ report this post ] | There will be no war
Message:
I know there will be no war because France and Germany have expressly forbidden the US and Britain from going to war.
France and Germany are not in the least bit marginalised, they have the backing of the entire European Union behind them, well... most of the European Union.....well, some bits of the European Union....well, just the Belgian bit really.....
I wonder what the Gallo/Germanic stance will be if innocent Turkish civilians are killed through the lack of Patriot missile defences ?
|
zdrak
2/11/2003
14:11:20
[ report this post ] |
Message:
I think that what France/Germany/Belgium done with the latest move in NATO is nothing short of a treachery.
I mean, it's legitimate to pull political strings to avoid US/Iraq war - I don't agree to the French/German policy on this, but at least they have a legitimate case. But to refuse defensive measures to a fellow NATO ally !? Totally despicable.
|
af16stang66
2/11/2003
16:36:01
[ report this post ] | Reader's Digest
Message:
Aug2002 issue
"Mind of a Monster, The twisted world os Saddam
Hussein"
Pg 112-119
Pg 117
"Hidden Arsenal"
Biological - Description - Declared (by Saddam at
end of the Gulf War)
Anthrax - Bacteria cause fever, septic shock,
difficulty breathing, death in 72 hours - 22457
gallons or about 85336 liters
Botulinum Toxin - Toxin causes blurred vision,
difficulty swallowing, paralysis, respratory failure,
death in as few as 24 hours - 100396 gallons or
about 381504 liters
Aflatoxin - A mold toxin, can cause hemorrhage,
convosions, comma, liver cancer, death - 581
gallons or about 2207 liters
Gas Gangrene - Bacterial infection can cause tissue
death shock, kidney failure, coma, often death - 900
gallons or about 3420 liters
Chemical - Description - Declared (by Saddam at
end of the Gulf War)
VX Nerve Gas - Disrupts nervous system, causes
convulsions, respratory paralysis, death - 4 metric
tons (intel estimates over 200 tons)
Sarin - Attacks nervous system, paralyzes muscles
used for breathing, can cause death with in minutes
- 100 to 150 metric tons (intell estimates up to 350
tons)
Mustard Gas - As liquid, causes skin and ey burns
and blisters. Inhaled can cause longterm respiratory
disease and cancer - 500 to 600 metric tons (intell
estimates 800 tons)
- Adapted by Anthony H. Cordesman, Center
for Stratigic and International Studies, from material
provided by the National Security Council; Staff
research
This is what Saddam ADMITTED to have after the
Gulf War. The UN has not found nor been porvided
any evidence that these weapons were destroyed,
and yes you can produce evidence that you
destroyed something, it does not fall under the relm
of "you can't prove a negitive" thing. The reason is
simple, it know as the "law of the conservation of
matter and the conservation of energy" - matter can
be neither created nor destroyed except in a nuclear
reaction. This means that either Saddam has
evidence that he once posesed these weapons or
the weapons themselves.
|
cpocf
2/11/2003
17:13:40
[ report this post ] | Who is bad ?
Message:
Saddam is a bad man and the world is better off without him. It will not be long. The U.S.A.will take him out ! We are working overtime look out !
|
komei
2/11/2003
17:18:13
[ report this post ] | LOL!
Message:
Saddam is laughing away as NATO is torn apart by US aggression.
|
cpocf
2/11/2003
17:24:40
[ report this post ] | Komei
Message:
You are correct. Your analysis and preception of this matter is quite precise. But the U.S.A. will take him out very soon. Stay tuned !
|
komei
2/11/2003
17:33:43
[ report this post ] | Taking the Taliban 'out'...
Message:
...of Afghanistan has left massive infighting, some of the worst fighting there is happening right NOW. Does the USA hear about this on their news? No. The USA went in, blew the place up, but INSTEAD of staying behind to help create a stable system, the left, so the net result did NOT help the Afghan population. In a year or two the Taliba will be back, because, although they ARE clear supporters of terrorism and I agree it was justified to take action against them, the sad fact is only they could create STABILITY in the country and control the Opium trade, even though the 'stability' was controlled by tyranny. Looks like that was better than the anarchy the country has been deserted by the USA is in now...
The USA can't just go in, destroy what they don't like (usually for revenge or greed) and then go str8 out again. They must stay behind, clear up their mess and HELP the country to rebuild.
Tell me, IF they 'take out' Saddam, what will they replace to lead Iraq? An American Oil Dictatorship that the people will hate even more? Or just leave these innocent people to squabble amongst themselves and the charred remains of their homes?
Think LONG-term for the humanity, not SHORT-term for greedy oil and election needs...
|
drcorbett
2/11/2003
17:35:16
[ report this post ] | Unfortunately
Message:
NATO was designed to fight the Russians. France, Germany, and Belgium all have massive oil interests in Iraq. Their not going to war is FAR more motivated by oil than the US's going to war. I insist that if they wanted oil, they'd invade Newfoundland with its large offshore reserves or take away Alberta. (I know many Canadians who wouldn't mind that...)
|
cpocf
2/11/2003
18:34:11
[ report this post ] | Komei
Message:
The U.S.A. does not have any obligation to rehabilitate any nation who wages war on us and kills thousands of American people with suicide attacks. Al-quida and their terroist networks' are our enemies. That includes Osama bin laden, Iraq and any other nation or religious group (Muslims) who has waged war on us. They (Osama bin laden calling for all Muslims to kill Americans once again) did it again just today. We will defend our people and our nation and if it takes war we are very capable. Our country need to stop being so politically correct and take care of buisness. We do not need to rehabilitate countries who want to destory us after we defend ourself by taking those countries out of the equation. Hay sometimes war is necessary. Our country is prepared and very capable. We do not wish war but we have that as an option. Do you!
|
tulip_pussy
2/11/2003
21:25:21
[ report this post ] | Easy there Uncle Sam..'er cpocf
Message:
You're ignorance about the world is very apparent. If you even represent what the "average" american thinks like, the US is in sorry shape. I think you're idea of of what entails "war" is a bit off. I'm sure that Muslims (which by the way are not a religious group) have never as a whole waged war on the US. I'm also pretty sure "Iraq as a nation" has never waged war on the US of A. They did invade Kuwait and Americans helped defend Kuwait (obviously not because they care that Iraq invaded another country, but because oil prices were nearly doubling). But that is a entirely differnt debate.
If you look at what is happening in all these cases. The people that are waging war on the US are a small minority of who you say the United State's "enimies" are.
And if you think spreading propoganda and hate towards Americans (which is basically what Osama bin Laden is doing) through the al Jazerra network is a declaration of war, I would seriously examine your thought process and reasoning skills.
I hardly believe that Afgahnistan as a country is waging war against Americans. I, as probably a vast majority of the world, would think that it would be in "American intrests" to have a stable, rebuilt country. On the upside, if Afgahnistan were stable, Americans would be able to exploit it, I mean invest in it, with little fear of instablity causing them to loose money on their investments.
Think about it. Nation rebuilding would cost next to nothing to the United States. You could take 10% of the DoD budget (DoD should be named the War Department), incidentally the amount that Warren Buffet is worth, and create a Nation building/Democracy promoting Department that would prove to the World that the US stands for more than greed, power, intimidation and domination.
Now wouldn't that be a nice foreign policy. Rather than being the self appointed and only "super power" (implying that they care only for themselves and no one else) of the world, the US could be the "super do gooders" (implying that they could actually care for other's since they are so well off) of the world. Instead of putting all that energy and money into making the most lethal weapons in the world, only put 90% of that money in to making the most letal weapons in the world. That would leave you with a whooping $36 billion to spend on promoting democracy (ie. stability) to the rest of the world.
Oh yeah, one more thing, you're country in not being politically correct when it decides that attacking another country is not the first thing to do when dealing with a "rouge nation". They are being rationale and considering the consequences of all their actions. They are also keeping all of their possibilities open so they can choose the most appropriate one in the end.
Have you ever hear of the former Yougoslovia? Milosovec was an oppressive dictator. Guess who took him out. Wasn't the US military. It was the people that he was oppressing. The citizens of that country led a peaceful revolt.
I can only think of what situation we would be in if the entire US population was made up of people like yourself. The United Nations would be gathered trying to figure out a diplomatic solution to help lower American intolerance and ignorance about the rest of the world.
Before you think that you are the White Knight trying to save the world, you should educate yourself as to what is out there in that world. Becuase a little understanding can lead to more humility, in this case freedom from pride and arrogance.
|
komei
2/11/2003
21:34:03
[ report this post ] | cpocf...
Message:
'Al-quida'? Who is that. One of the first rules of war according to Sun Tzu is to 'know your enemy'. Al-Qaeda. Even now, the USA still can't strike effectively at them since they don't live in a state or a country. Many are in Pakistan, but not exclusively, and of course Musharaff is an ally. Any 'attack' on pakistan would have to be a special operation with spies or a small elite group of SAS-style soliders / assassins. Coincidentally, that is the only 'nice' way to take out Saddam if you realy really want to get him. There are a lot of doubles out there, for both terrorist Osama Bin Laden AND non-terrorist (but not liked guy) Saddam Hussain, so you might have to assassinate a few of each.
|
komei
2/11/2003
21:39:31
[ report this post ] | Tulip-pussy is right.
Message:
Well said.
It is time the USA LISTENED to its ALLIES instead of going gung-ho yee-haw into wars they pick and choose (for political and economic reasons, not to 'save the oppressed' as they usually claim lying).
|
drcorbett
2/11/2003
21:57:32
[ report this post ] | SAS Style?
Message:
Pff, the SAS owns any American copying joke they can come up with, unfortunately...
|
davinci
2/11/2003
23:18:37
[ report this post ] | Marshall plan II?
Message:
Tulip pussy is right...
After WWI, Germany was serverely punished for its part in the war. It was forced to pay a amount of money for the caused damage in the surrounding countries. During the crises (around 1930), the German people felt that it was them against the world and that they had nothing to lose. A man took advantage of that, with horror consequences.
After WWII, the allies wanted to end this cycle of war and the U.S. did an remarkeble thing, they send help to rebuild Europe (Marshall plan). This caused a very politically stable Europe, which we know today.
And about NK. Great effort was put in normalise relations with SK and the rest of the world, untill a certain president declared to be a nation with was part of "the axes of evil". They knew what the US did with their enemies (Afgahnistan, etc.) and they wanted to protect themself against the US, in their eyes, the agressor. Now NK leaders are talking about a preamtive strike against the US. We know that would never happen, but why does the US thinks it has the exclusive right to invade nations, which are a potentially threat?
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!