Hey

[witakr]

Hey.. No news.. just letting yall know im still alive.. I just haven’t been able to play t2 or post much in the last couple weeks.. im out of town and this isn’t my computer and I don’t like spending a lot of time on it... besides.. its only a 56k :).. Here’s a topic: The ongoing anti terrorist efforts taking place in afganyland.. Is it a waste of time or are their efforts not in vain?.. Discuss amongst your selves. I'm feeling veclempted... ...Ok i am watching too much SNL... later

[Ghryphen]

:D Thanks for the update witakr.

A: Efforts not in vain.

[Aluscia]

Efforts *very* much in vain.... Who are they chasing after again? No, the Afghanistan campaign is just a foothold against Iraq, when they finally decide that it's time to ignore what the rest of the world is saying.

[Cerberus]

hehe, Canadians are such isolationist's.

[Aluscia]

We are... I don't deny that. But really... Does the US need to launch a major war to get rid of "storehoused weapons of mass-destruction"? I don't think so... that just gives Saddam an excuse to use them. With all the resources the US has, it could launch a huge SS attack and begin the inner desintegration of Iraq if they so pleased. (And who knows, maybe that's underway....) This second Gulf War is just a legacy project... a way for the States to flex their military might and "make the world further indebted to the awe-insiring might of the world's greatest nation." Not to mention son mopping up for father's spill.

[Cerberus]

The last part is probably more true than you think. We really did, (although at the beshest of the UN) leave things unfinished in Iraq. So frankly, the regime just needs to be removed. I would prefer an assasination, but since the sixties there is an executive order forbiding the CIA to assasinate world leaders. So we have to do it the old fasion way. War. No biggie really we would be in and out in about 6 months, problem is the stabalization force which is why we want/need world support becuase we are willing to Free Iraq by ourselves, but we don't want to have to keep it that way alone. Becuase that is what we are talking about here. Freeing oppressed people who have no idea what is REally going on in their own country or the world. One of the benefits of a free press in our country. They don't have that and get only Government news. blah blah blahb a////////

[Stang]

Hey Witakr :gwave:

I was just asking Gryphon if hes heard from you :). Good to see ya around.

Hmmm Im so tired of this subject. Wish we could go in and just assinate the bastard, lets make an acception :), I mean look at what hes doing to his own people and what Saddam did to his people. Nobody should have to live like that. I agree with you both so I guess Im in the middle. I think if we go in that will just let him use his weapons but freeing people too is an upside.

Im glad we live where we can express ourselves freely :usa: .

[lynxbat]

well.....the US government still does assisinations but only in black operations on lower profile targets. The problem with that 1960's law is that we sometimes have to declare all out war to bring down a threat. This leads to civ. casualties. So which is better? If you have to take him out, do it by stealth or do it by force? Which is better for us and which is better for Iraq?

[Xenocidez66]

Personaly I think we shoul "Nuke 'em till they glow and use their babies as runway lights" but there is always that fallout thing to worrie about. To bad.

[XRogue]

If Saddam wants to use that stuff, Laur, he will find a lesser excuse than war with the US if he has to. Anyone who would use his own people to test chemical agents is not someone I personally want in power.

[Aluscia]

Saddam will not use his weapons until the US hits him first... trust me. If he uses them first, the world will turn against him... (and if he had nukes, he would've used them a long time past). Look at the economy generated between Iraq and Russia, or Iraq and other asian nations... The whole world doesn't bear a grudge against Iraq... I understand it's the person in power, but people have a natural life span... and there are many more options available to antagonists of Iraq than simply declaring war and seeing what shiny toys Saddam had piled up (simply because I refuse to believe that Bush has all this secret intelligence information, and that it's completely accurate... It's like offering someone a car tomorrow for their $1000 today). War is *NEVER* the answer.... it's just what humanity often sees as the last resort.

[XRogue]

Nonsense, of course he is willing to use his weapons first if he sees any advantage to doing so. The last time, he waited to use them and it got him absolutely nowhere.

[Spinning Hat]

War is an aceptable answer. It is a political action, every bit as much as diplomacy is. Problem with diplomacy, tho, is that the real truth never seems to come out. War is a lasting, final reminder, and often the best way to remove someone from power.

[Xenocidez66]

There is very little that can't be solved by the proper application of high explosives.

[Ghryphen]

:rocket:

[Aluscia]

This is what scares me... I don't know whether there's any point in my involvement in this discussion any longer... "Lasting, final reminder..."....what? So leaving charred remains of what was once a nation is the solution to ousting their leader? Forgive me having a slightly less violence tinged view on life, and for having more faith in the power of many over the power of one, but I cannot even begin to imagine the repercussions if everyone thought that war was the perfect way to solve a situation. I don't necessarily agree with everything the UN has done, but I think steps are being taken to avoid conflict with Iraq... Rogue, your response serves my argument very well. It is no longer in Saddam's best interest to use his weapons. The proof of this is that he didn't decide to launch attacks on the US after the Taliban declared Jihad (which would have given him a religious reason to attack, if not an excuse). What point is there in attacking Iraq? To serve ego? To "free the people of Iraq (if our terrible aim doesn't kill them all first)?" I don't think I'll ever understand pro-war reasoning... There are always other options.

Being part of a family that nearly *didn't* escape Europe during the late 30's gives me a slightly different vantage over this I suppose. Forgive me for my "ignorance," or my "naivity."

[XRogue]

Tell Saddam it's not in his best interest, Laur. *I* already know.
He has proved himself very willing to do violence, and he is obviously not going to listen to diplomacy. Yes, I know he has said he will allow UN inspectors into the country, and will let them go anywhere they deem necessary, at any time. He's been saying the very same thing for years and reneging on it. I don't believe he intends to back down and stay down this time either.
Since diplomacy has failed, and you don't think war is appropriate, what would you suggest as the third alternative?

And nobody has said you were either naive or ignorant. Your sarcasm is right over my head, I'm afraid. (then again, I'm only five feet tall, so that is usually the case. ;) )

Since you already appear to be aware of the possible bad outcomes of appeasement, I'm surprised at your reaction.

[Stang]

Saddam will not use his weapons until the US hits him first... trust me

What do you know him personally? :D

Dont feel like you have to stop talking Laur, its your right to express your feelings. Even if people dont agree with you, its going to happen.

I agree with Rogue, what should we do for a third alternative? This guy will push that button, I dont see how you think he wont. This is the guy that tests his weapons on his OWN people. That is a sick man. He backs down year after year not letting the UN come in (probably cuz hes got to find new hiding spots for his weapons). How long are we suppose to let him play this game with us and all the other countries (UN)? Its like playing a kiddy game or like putting out that cheese on a string and then pulling it away.

People were killed in Afganistan when we went over there, wish none of them had to die, but it put them on the road to freedom for their country.

I dont want us to go to war either cuz I dont think its right and I dont want to see us loose anymore of our soldiers. But I also dont want this guy to keep playing these childish games and us following. As I said Im in the middle but leanig more towards us.

Dont stop posting cuz you feel like people are ganging up on you. We are just expressing our feelings like you are thats all.

:hug :hug :hug :hug :hug :hug Love Ya :hug :hug :hug :hug :hug :hug

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

I think that if Saddam has nukes, he would not use them.

Why? Because he could only test them in his own country (no one else would want to test it in theirs), and once he tests it, he is out the fissile material AND that spot of land that he tested on and any fallout for a couple hundred miles. Iraq is not that big.

He could afford to use chemical weapons on people living in his borders because they break down over time. And anthrax? Well, it's naturally found in sheep, cattle, and other hooved animals. Any testing could be called an "outbreak". We know he has used mustard gas, and he has a significant stockpile of weapons-grade anthrax, from what I have heard.



As for whether we should go invade Iraq or not. Honestly, I'm split. On the one hand, yes Saddam is a bad person, and it would greatly enhance stability in the region if he were removed from power. On the other hand, doesn't it seem kind of odd that we never thought anything of Iraq until recently? You never heard anything about it, never heard the president hint at anything. Yet we hear all this stuff about how it would be good to attack Iraq in an election year, when Afghanistan is not fully set up (we still have to maintain a presence there), and when it seems that it COULD be possible that Bush Jr. is trying to fix daddy's mistakes.


I am wary of committing soldiers in a war that I have doubts about pursuing. Soldiers dying is inevitable in war; I just want those deaths to not be meaningless.

[Xenocidez66]

The only to end all this is to send in a sniper and get rid of this homicidal loon. I was in the Air Force for 10 years and was kicked out at 10 under a technicality in the weight standards. The military (before 9/11) was looking for reasons to rid its self of people. Just think if we sent the same number of troops back to the desert that would be half of the entire military force.

the only good answer is seeing Sadams head on a pike in the White House rose garden. We don't have the man power for anything else than small unit work. War with Iraq will just cause a hole nother generation of muslums to hate the U.S.

Belive me I am one that belives in extream violent force and that there is no such thing as overkill but I think that going into Iraq is insane. Makes me glad that I live where I do because if that happens no where in the U.S will be safe. For anyone.

[Aluscia]

:hug I know, Stang... It was just feeling like I was screaming against a crowd... I hate that, because I believe very strongly in my opinions regarding this.

Rogue, I'm aware of the bad side of appeasement, but don't you think Hitler could have taken Czechoslovakia and Poland anyway? Saddam is not *nearly* as powerful, or as charismatic.

Playing a game is what this is all about... Saddam is *trying* to lure the Americans into action. Don't you think he's aware that he can't win a war? No, he's going to try to grandstand this and turn it into PR for him globally. The only problem is that the US gov't wants his head terribly, and is willing to blunder into his political ploys...

Saddam never had any reason to comply with the UN before now. No one did anything before when he denied the inspectors access. Think of the situation now... If Saddam refuses them entry, he basically invites the US to do something about it. An invitation that would spell certain doom for him.

So no. I don't think war is in the best interests of anyone.

[XRogue]

Actually, neither do I. I just want Saddam out of power, because he's nuts, IMHO, and a danger to his own people as well as the rest of the world. His own people can't/won't take hime out, and Xenocide's idea of a covert op is a good one, if it's doable.

War is sometimes necessary, however. That I will never back down on.


As to Hitler, yes he could have taken Czechoslovkia and Poland, it was always his plan. He only hid behind a screen of diplomacy to buy time. Conservation of his own resources and manpower. And Hitler didn't have nukes. Saddam might be able to acquire them, if he already hasn't.

OTOH, yah I think Bush Jr has some baggage.

[Xenocidez66]

Ok this is all grand but on a lighter note

How does a Terroist have safe sex



they paint X's on the sheep that kick

[Spinning Hat]

Xeno- ROFL...

There really isn't a 3rd option other than War or a Covert Op. Economic Sanctions don't seem to have affected Saddam directly, only the prople who live there. He does not care about his citizens. He only cares about himself, his Power, and his hatred of Americans, and the Western world at large. He's very isolated in that part of the world, Iran is indifferent to his situation, Obviously Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have nothing short of malice for Saddam. I believe it is time for Saddam to be removed. GB Sr screwed up, he should have given the order to eliminate Saddam, and had the US attack Bagdad. The Gulf War was all about Oil, not freedom of Kuwait. And Oil, is the basis of every western economy. It was a smart thing to free Kuwait, but Saddam should have died 11 years ago.

Bill Clinton is an idiot. He could have ousted Saddam too. If GW wants to do it now, fine. The UN inspectors aren't going to find anything of real value, because an intelligent person is smart enough to hide their WOMD.

That's my view.