Rossonero Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 It is the topic of the town all over the world. Do we support the US? Should the US go to war (invade) Iraq? Is America Power Hungry? Is GB a gready oil merchant? These might be some of the questions which may be surrounding you at this present time, regarding a potential war with Iraq. Personally I think that there should not be a war. There is an inprobable solution that I wouldn't mind seeing happen. Countries in dispute = Iraq and United States of America Solution = They BOTH (Not Just Iraq) Forfeit any of the weapons of mass destuction and have them destroyed. Also, the USA should allow weapons inspectors from Iraq to inspect the USA for weapons and Iraq should do the same. I know that is inprobable, but wouldn't it be a good solution. :feedback: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I haven't met anyone who opposes the war who fully understands the deception and failure to cooperate Iraq continues to display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossonero Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I haven't met anyone who opposes the war who fully understands the deception and failure to cooperate Iraq continues to display. try me btw i am due to start my major at university on the cold war. so try me more after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Iraq is not the only problem. It is the priority because of its potential danger. Remember 1 tbsp of Anthrax closing buildings up to congressional offices for over a year and then then think of saddam with hundreds of liters as just one example. We still have to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other, North Korea contained, try for peace in Israel and Palestine, and then we are just getting started finally with the continent of Africa. It sucks but we are our brothers keeper. We can't do anything from a postition of weakness, cus that's just the way the world is. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossonero Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by aman Iraq is not the only problem. It is the priority because of its potential danger. Remember 1 tbsp of Anthrax closing buildings up to congressional offices for over a year and then then think of saddam with hundreds of liters as just one example. We still have to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other, North Korea contained, try for peace in Israel and Palestine, and then we are just getting started finally with the continent of Africa. It sucks but we are our brothers keeper. We can't do anything from a postition of weakness, cus that's just the way the world is. Just aman It is the job of the UN sto oversee such things not the US. The US administration at the present, like the administration after President Wilson in would war two, is far to incompetent and unreliable to do such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 If the US steps back and lets the UN handle anything I've listed, then nothing will be handled. The UN has no power. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossonero Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by aman If the US steps back and lets the UN handle anything I've listed, then nothing will be handled. The UN has no power. Just aman Hmmm, that is not true. The UN has support of The combining nations which gives it it's authority. When the UN makes decisions, it makes them in agreeance with each member nations ambassadors. It is thus, the US that holds no real external jurisdiction over other nations, appart from its seat in the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 The U.N. is controled by power countires. These are (not exact) China, Russia, England, Germany, France, and the U.S. Also, these countires have veto power, but would never dare veto something propossed by the U.S. Even though the U.N. is the cooperation of all world countries, it's still a power (food) chain. The U.S. has as much power in the U.N. as it has anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 As far as I know the worst type of war there is is a religious type like in Israel because they dont stop until one or the other dosent exist. And if the Us goes to war with Iraq its been said it will be a Jihad it doesent matter if it aint in the Us point of view but it will be in The muslims point of view. And terrorist attacks could threaten America like they threaten Israel after war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I'd like to see them stop a War Bird firing missles at them from about ten miles away. People who fight until they can not physiclly fight anymore, were the Japennesse in WW2. That was different combat and they still lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Two things in ww2 we didnt fight a religious war second we didnt fight terrosism. its a whole nother ball game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Yea, we fought the craziest mother out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Correction *Mothers out there* Japennesse (kamakazies, Overall Fight to the death people) Nazies (need I say more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Yes but then was then. Back in the good all days when war was war I mean when it was over it was over. terrorism is not the same. I think I have already explained myself. and terrorism mixed with religion doesent help anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Terrosism is a State of mind. That is what America needs to address and will once they get the Middle East under control (Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia). I do have many opinions about this subject, but I'll wait until I open a thread regarding my thoughs about terrorism and how to resolve that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossonero Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by Piccolo Yes but then was then. Back in the good all days when war was war I mean when it was over it was over. terrorism is not the same. I think I have already explained myself. and terrorism mixed with religion doesent help anymore. back in the napoleanic times. I think we are all failing to grasp the meaning of this zazoo. 1. Israel + Palestinians isnt a holy war, it is a territorial dispute. i havnt got much time atm, but i will post 2 to 10 a bit later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastermold Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I have to believe that a leader of most countries must be relatively intelligent to reach and maintain their position... especially a person who is multi-lingual (you should see an old interview with Saddam Hussein.. I think it was with Dan Rather) and Saddam spoke almost flawless and astute English. And I also have to believe that he only spouts the religious nonsense because it is good for his peoples' morale. (Just like Bush with his "God bless America," Saddam has his, "may Allah protect us.") But I also have to believe that any deity out there is not favoring any specific country (especially not the U.S. which is guilty of more than its share). So, now we have.. two intelligent people (Bush may not be, but his cabinet is.. haha ) who are going to send people to fight each other. And for what reason? We can argue about weapons... we can argue about human rights... we can argue about a dictatorship and the push for Democracy.... and we can even argue about resources and protection for neighboring countries... but when I look at it, I only see a pointless struggle because in the end, people will be angry, homeless, and some or many will be dead. But we all live on the same Earth, which means we cannot travel far enough to escape our crimes and mistakes. If we attack Iraq without overwhelming International support, then we will lose our innocence forever. The U.S. will keep the Gestappo (Homeland Security) and terrorists will always have a shot because they will be even angrier than ever, and their children will remember the 'unprovoked' attack by America. The key to defeating terrorism (one of the points of our invasion) is not proving our overwhelming power to destroy... it is in proving our overwhelming power to accept and enjoy, to love and to honor, and above all... to excercie humility in our own roots because we are so young and came from a revolution ourselves. I am embarrassed of an America that declares a country an "axis of evil" and then complains when they disobey nuclear arms treaties (N. Korea) because of our own arrogance. We need to apologize for our arrogance to N. Korea and I guarantee they will be willing to talk.. we need to apologize for the two girls killied by drunk marines in S. Korea and they will assist us even further... and we need to apologize to Iraq for our distrust (as legitimate as it is) and begin to talk with Saddam... to understand his intentions and goals. It all may sound too Utopian and Ideal, but I believe all is within reach. As for oil, I say if only we were born with more foresight, we would understand the futility of SUVs, overpopulation, and pollution... but unfortunately we don't.. so we will continue to squander one of the Earth's most precious resources until it's all gone and there will be nothing left... Bush promises his hydrogen cars, but it will be prohibitively expensive, just like electric cars, until a DEMOCRATIC congress pushes for tax benefits and other incentives for companies and customers. So.... I don't think we should go to war, but I would bet $1,000,000 we will go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by Mastermold I have to believe that a leader of most countries must be relatively intelligent to reach and maintain their position... especially a person who is multi-lingual (you should see an old interview with Saddam Hussein.. I think it was with Dan Rather) and Saddam spoke almost flawless and astute English. And I also have to believe that he only spouts the religious nonsense because it is good for his peoples' morale. (Just like Bush with his "God bless America," Saddam has his, "may Allah protect us.") But I also have to believe that any deity out there is not favoring any specific country (especially not the U.S. which is guilty of more than its share). So, now we have.. two intelligent people (Bush may not be, but his cabinet is.. haha ) who are going to send people to fight each other. And for what reason? We can argue about weapons... we can argue about human rights... we can argue about a dictatorship and the push for Democracy.... and we can even argue about resources and protection for neighboring countries... but when I look at it, I only see a pointless struggle because in the end, people will be angry, homeless, and some or many will be dead. But we all live on the same Earth, which means we cannot travel far enough to escape our crimes and mistakes. If we attack Iraq without overwhelming International support, then we will lose our innocence forever. The U.S. will keep the Gestappo (Homeland Security) and terrorists will always have a shot because they will be even angrier than ever, and their children will remember the 'unprovoked' attack by America. The key to defeating terrorism (one of the points of our invasion) is not proving our overwhelming power to destroy... it is in proving our overwhelming power to accept and enjoy, to love and to honor, and above all... to excercie humility in our own roots because we are so young and came from a revolution ourselves. I am embarrassed of an America that declares a country an "axis of evil" and then complains when they disobey nuclear arms treaties (N. Korea) because of our own arrogance. We need to apologize for our arrogance to N. Korea and I guarantee they will be willing to talk.. we need to apologize for the two girls killied by drunk marines in S. Korea and they will assist us even further... and we need to apologize to Iraq for our distrust (as legitimate as it is) and begin to talk with Saddam... to understand his intentions and goals. It all may sound too Utopian and Ideal, but I believe all is within reach. As for oil, I say if only we were born with more foresight, we would understand the futility of SUVs, overpopulation, and pollution... but unfortunately we don't.. so we will continue to squander one of the Earth's most precious resources until it's all gone and there will be nothing left... Bush promises his hydrogen cars, but it will be prohibitively expensive, just like electric cars, until a DEMOCRATIC congress pushes for tax benefits and other incentives for companies and customers. So.... I don't think we should go to war, but I would bet $1,000,000 we will go. Really, well said. That's exactly the way I see this whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Hitler was smart. Saddam has the power to put fear in people's hearts and uses that power to contol his people. Saddam said he would dissarm after the Gulf War (were it wasn't really fare to attack him because kawait did take his oil), but he has had chances to cooperate with the U.S. If he is building weapons of mass destruction just to distroy us. That isn't smart. What about helping his own people. Saddam took over leadership in Iraq by force. He is an aggressive man, hence not to smart in a looking towards the future way. America isn't great, but Saddam isn't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastermold Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 So Matzi, You are over in Germany? I hope now you can tell some of your friends that not ALL Americans are stupid. hahaha I am pretty ashamed of some of the ignorant people who live here, but I guess all countries have their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Anyone who is dumb enough to fire Nuclear weapons deserves to die. This is why Iraq and the U.S. are going at it. Iraq would fire a nuclear weapon, you want to country like Isrial dealing with Iraq or you want to country that can isolate a nuclear threat quickly. America is supported by many (almost every) nation, even if the nation don't show it. If America wanted to go to war tomorrow, then countries like Germany, Britian and Russia would so, "Ok. We don't agree, but we will help you". They know what dealing with Iraq is not easy and America has the forces of taking him out very quickly. This war may or may not happen. We will find out in the next two weeks. Proof is to be given by the U.S. After this proof; Saddam may slowy begins to cooperate because he sees that he has no chance against American Forces and he is just milking it all the way to the end. You know how a criminal will holdout until all his wishes are meet. I hope we do not go to war. P.S. *As for N. Korea, they use their weapon capabilities for political gain. They want U.S. forces to leave S. Korea. Unification is eventually the outsome in Korea. What is important to undrstand is that the Asian Culture is very complex and Asians are very good at dealing with eachother (better then American dealing with N. Koreans). I don't know why China or Japan don't get involved in the Korea sistuation. Just another example of the U.S. needing to the the Police of the world.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Originally posted by Mastermold I am pretty ashamed of some of the ignorant people who live here, but I guess all countries have their share. Very true! We have plenty to go around in the UK. I think it's a powerful ability, to be able to recognise the weaknesses of one's own country. It doesn't help that the public face of politics and certainly the media realise this and aim to influence the lowest common denominator. 'Dumbing-down' is a real problem here, and all the jingoistic, (largely) unsustantiated acusations and promises to 'defend what is good against the threat of evil' is designed to sway the opinions of people who believe what they are told by their government and the media is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Having said that, it appears that around 75% of the population of the US and 82% in the UK are opposed to war in the absence of more substansive evidence. I suspect that most of the political manoeuvering and shouting being done on both sides of the Atlantic is an attempt to change this. Unfortunately (in my opinion), those who are shouting the loudest are not actually those who will have to pick up weapons and 'do the deed'. I suspect the world might be a queiter, more peaceful place if they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Don't know why people are blind to the fact that Saddam is a threat. I understand why British or German soilders don't want to fight a war, it has nothing to do with the. But the fact is Saddam (no the Iraqi people) is a threat and if you do some research on Saddam you will see that. America is a Great satan, they want to put the world on stings and puppet it for their own gain. Why isn't America threatened by India or Pakastain, where we know they have Nuclear weapons? If America was such a evil, wouldn't we have shown our might against those countries. Gulf War? Saddam was asked to disarm. What did he do? Spend his nations money for rebuilding to buy weapons from Russia and equipt himself with the latest radar technology from China (made by the U.S.). Japan agreed to disarm after WW2 and America help them become the second largest GNP country in the world. America isn't great, but Saddam isn't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Ok then what is your arguement because you wrote above I hope we dont go to war but the way you write seems like you do. and I will say this it doesent take a rocket scientist to to at least think of the possibility that saddam is working with the terrorists. But I think at the point we are in the sooner we attack them the sooner we get attacked simple. So I would go by doing things undercover(bay of pigs style lol but better). And iLL be dammed if I wanna live my life like an Israeli( watching out for suicide bombers) so no I dont wan war in other words Bush should shake hands(not saying he should like it) with Saddam because we dont need Jihad in US soil. no this doesent mean I will pay your neighbor Mastermold lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 So I guess then we he finally attacks us we should surrender to avoid fighting. Damn leftists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now