Date: 2/14/2003 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 60945
I'm not against or for the war... but it would be pretty hard to disarm them without anyone getting hurt  |
Date: 2/14/2003 7:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
that is my point all together. War yes war is wrong, but how many times in your life have you done something wrong because you had no other choice, what I'm trying to prove is that every avenue has been attempted, how many last chances dose it take? We know what it's come to, so let it come to it. hang your yellow ribbons and accept it, the only people you are hurting are the people who will have to fight. I'll tell you what If troops come back being called a baby killers, you can not imagine the hornets nest you will be stiring  |
Date: 2/14/2003 8:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 47699
I'm with you, ELS. All other options have been exhausted to no avail. At this point, we have no choice but to forcibly disarm them.  |
Date: 2/14/2003 8:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 53689
I am genuinely curious as to who Iraq is take up arms against? And let me go ahead a say, if you start to insult me for thinking differently then you, I will not continue in this disscussion, on the other hand if you can talk to me about this with some maturity I will gladly participate.  |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 8:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
Iraq has threatend all Us allies in the region, turkey mainly, Kuwait secondarily, Isreal alway. I could go on but these are the countries mainly focused upon. Not to mention the threat against Saudi Government for allowing Americans on holy land |
Date: 2/14/2003 9:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 14226
If Iraq does have weapons of Mass destruction wouldn't war give them incentive to use them??? Why not send a few of the top notch comando type unit thingies in there, use your/our secret intelligence track down saddam and assassinate him (and any other in his company that follow his extremeist views). NOt take out the whole country. If you say we can't get Saddam that way then why will war make it so much easier? Im obviously no expert its just my thoughts. America's obviously a threat to Iraq so shouldn't we disarm them aswell, The USA has weapons of mass destruction and if you wish to disarm a country your going to war with shouldn't you disarm your country of these weapons first? Love,  |
Date: 2/14/2003 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I agree with Frankie-we must disarm Saddam.  |
Date: 2/14/2003 9:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19382
How about leaving them alone? What about allowing them to get the medicines for the treatments for cancer, and other more basic illnesses that we take for granted? How about we let them LIVE?! gee. hmm, I dunno... sounds to.... right to me.  |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 9:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
OK, let me start with eclipses, good idea, back in 97 we actually did try that, Clinton gave a stand down order. very little known fact. Aslo if you recall Granada, what happens if one soldier would happen to be caught. You would have a Us soldiers Public execution on Al Jizear TV, after public humiliation. not to mention assasination is against the US military Doctrane (I know but we tried it before, did we follow through?). Now for ship pagan, leave them be, I would forward you to another post "quit crying about this war being about oil" then I would say fi that is not the issue, look at the n. koreans, they are able to send a nuclear weapon as far into the west coast as Utah. how would you feel if soddam had the power to send a nuke to your house, and look around the free world, what leader could you see acctually willing to fire a nuclear weapon? In the world of warefare as we know it today, no country can afford leave it to chance and hope. he's still hitting the Kurds with Chemical weapons, weapons he "dosen't have" |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 9:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 19382
Bull. |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 9:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 19382
The united states used 'dirty bombs' in the gulf war. So i'd say the United states is willing to use them. That scares me more than Iraq. GWB scares me more than Saddam. |
Date: 2/14/2003 9:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Saddam needs to go, no doubt about it. I'm not anti war, I'm anti government as I feel they should tell us more that what they do, I feel they shouldnt be taking away all our God given rights, all the right that OUR people bought and paid for with their lives. I just dont wish to see another vietnam thing happen as that was the most senseless war of our time.  |
Date: 2/14/2003 10:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 41708
What kind of "dirty bombs" did we use in the Gulf Strike? BTW, just a tidbit of info: I heard(HEARD) that we will launch the same amount of missles at Iraq in the first day of our attack as we did during Desert Storm. That's a quater of our missles. I'd say we mean bussiness if it's true. Alpha-Zero  |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 10:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
no they used uranium depleted munitions for the MBT. Now for what you are talking about is called a Daisey Cutter, it has the effect of a nuke with out the radiation, we use them to clear obsticles such a AP and AT Mines, mountain passes, such as the ones in norther Iraq since we will undobtable have to roll track through there. now of the uranium depleted munitions, so one watched that movie with meg ryan and denzel, so congrats to you for remembering. the ammount of uranium is non factorable, it's used because it's the most useful weapon against Armor units. They are also armed on shoulder fired weapon systems, such as the javelin. |
|
Date: 2/14/2003 10:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
I know a way to end this war without a bullet being fired but you really wana hear the activists get worked up, so i'll refrain from stating the idea |
Date: 2/15/2003 12:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 21867
One way: Send in a number of small, highly covert and highly mobile assassination sqauds...hit Saddam and his closest henchmen...cut the head off and you will kill the snake, or at least send it into a leaderless disarray and hopefully make any conflict/surrender less bloody. Use a scalpel rather than a sledge-hammer. Peace,  |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 1:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 19382
Oh but Agent Smith (Long time no see btw), haven't you head? That's against the "Unwritten Laws of War". *please lace generous helpings of saracasm to comment please* |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 3:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 19382
*haven't you heard |
Date: 2/15/2003 4:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
There is one thing that has not been tried. In past times, whenever we wanted a regime out of a region, we armed their enemies, and offered advisors to help them fight that regime. The Kurds have aksed to be armed so that they can fight Hussein's regime. Yet we have refused to do so. The fact is, there are not enough people in Iraq who actually oppose Hussein that the government feels they can trust. Which brings up another problem. If we go in and take him out, what is to say in 10 years time there will not be someone just as bad, or worse, taking over? As for the disarming of countries after war, Japan signed an agreement to maintain a home defense force, and was allowed to do so. That force includes a small Navy, complete with Perry class frigates. Germany was allowed to rearm, beacause of the Soviet threat. In fact, they have some of the best equipment in the world. Their MBT, was actually supposed to be a joint venture with the US. Instead, the two countries decided to build two seperate tanks, both highly capable. Ours is the Abrahms. The Tornado fighter-bomber is also a joint venture, between Britain and Germany. I do believe Iraq should be made to disarm to a point, but not beyond a point where they cannot defend themselves against other armies in the region. In fact, the one country in the region that Iraq sees as it's biggest enemy does have WMDs, including nuclear tipped missles. That is Israel. I do not see Israel being asked to remove it's nukes. In fact, for years, it has been Israeli policy that if there is a threat during war of the country being defeated, that they will launch their entire arsenal at every enemy state they can reach, whether that country is actively involved in the war or not.  |
Date: 2/15/2003 6:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 57225
..i'll admit,you're right, it'd be pretty near impossible to disarm them, but..i still can't get myself to 100% support this war, and i don't think i could fully support ANY war, just because thats me.  |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 6:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
in reguards of arming the kurds, the kurds are pretty much the taliban, that would be very bad for the people of Iraq not to mention it's neighbor Turkey who the kurds have been attacking for 10 years now. Say what you want about soddam, but if your loyalty isn't questioned he dose take care of those inside baggdad, else where howere, well that and the un loyal |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 7:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
And exactly where did you get your imformation on the Kurds? Some of the people I have served with have been on humanitarian missions to assist the Kurds. I have seen the pictures of their camps, and they are not like the Taliban. Also, if there is no one we can arm to fight Saddam, then who is supposed to take over once we are gone? I do not look just at the immediate threat, but at the long term consequences. Every time we have gone in and installed a government freindly to us, it has turned and bitten us back. This time will be no different. |
Date: 2/15/2003 8:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 52140
I don't fear the mass destruction. I know that some people think that the world might become barren and stuff like that, but I think that what will happen is (from a religious view) that there will be a war, maybe America will be killed, maybe not. BUT I don't think that it will be destroyed so no one can live on it. I think that Jerusalem's gonna last long enough to support AntiChrist and his campaign. THEN he is going to have all the stuff to do with nuclear mass destruction. I don't worry about it though. I am hoping that this will be the war that brings the return of Christ for His church and the rise of the antichrist for the world ::crosses fingers::  |
Date: 2/15/2003 10:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 21203
ELS, why dont you enlist?  |
Date: 2/15/2003 11:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 41067
Only one country has ever used weapons of mass destruction, on an enemy that was already asking for surrender terms. The only reason that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, or the capability for them is that the US sold them the things in the first place.  |
Date: 2/15/2003 3:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 61104
what about our weapons? we have not disarmed ourselves and i can almost guarantee we won't.  |
Date: 2/15/2003 8:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 1799
i'm not gonna fight. u can believe what u want, u'll never be able to sway me over. but i think that for the sake of humanity, its wrong. it just proves that people are power hungry..thats what i see this war is about...its just Bush trying to be a war time president..9/11 was bad.... but this will make things worse in my eyes.  |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 8:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 42310
give me one shread of proof that Iraq has these arms other than the word of the bush administration. |
|
Date: 2/15/2003 9:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 42310
If you ask me this is an agressive war on our part sos we can get it cheaper at the pump. and we do it in the name of "freedom" in the form of a lie. If I see some substancial proof that Iraq has theese arms then I will have no problem with going to war. But I just have not seen the proof. and evin then oil would probably be a determining factor in us going to war. When are we going to get off this sause? |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:36:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
By taliban like, I do not mean the way they treat thier civilians, I mean the choice of lifestyle. I don't belive in advancment, that the way things are are the way things should be. Now you want to put that in place in a technolical, educated, and econmical mecca? that's what I was implying, I should have made it clearer, i'm sorry |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:37:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
to answer the question why I don't enlist, it's because I already have :-). |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
tandris, correction they got a small stock pile of blister agents from us, blister agents are no leathal (yes in WWII they wer leathal but that wa because of the lack of medical attention and capability a soldier was able to recieve), as for nukes, they've been buying elements of a nuclear program through the black market |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:42:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
Why would we dissarm, the countries that have dissarmed have been so because of aspirations of world domination, they have proven they are not worthy of the trust needed to have such weapons. |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:50:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
emi I respect the opion that war is wrong, I really do. But I also belive you are uninformed if you belive Bush is a president seeking war, he inherited a country from Clinton that made many enemies (anyone rememeber the bombings of Afganastan and Pakastan while Clintons empeachment trial was going on?, that event has been ignored by the Us media but Al Jizear has clamed that provoked the attacks on 9/11. He also inheritated the back lash of Clinton administrations failor to hold N. Korea and Iraq to thier dissarmerment agreement. Nobody wants war, but only a brave man can thrust himself into it if it is morally correct. That it's self I find has become the issue, many people belive this is a son holding true to a father, or a puppet for the oil company (now why would oil companies want this war the high the demmand the higher the price, but that a diffrent tale). People as a majority are ignoring the concrete evidence, I think not because they don't see a need for us to go in to iraq, but because it's too soon after the dethroning of the Taliban in Afganstan. |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:53:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
well what about the recorded conversations where they are talking about evacuating modified weapons, how about this: In 92 everyone knew they had them right? right after desert stom everything we found through inspections was inventoried, they haven't been able to supply any proof of those weapons being destroyed. One thing that makes it hard to prove that they are producing is this, you know the diffrence between pen ink and mustard gas? on filtration process, one hose not being hooked up while inspectors walk through |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 8:57:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
All your responses have made very much sense and I do understand like I said the not beliving in was entirly. but the original post was put up in hopes that one person agains to give an avenue to dissarming peacefully, I've only heard one and that was the arming of the Kurds, but the only diffrence there would be the kurds would be the spear head and war would still insue. That was my opinoin also until I talked to a lebenese uncle who told me about the kurds practices. I do enjoy and take to hart all the insight, your comments are not falling on deaf ears. |
Date: 2/16/2003 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, then would he not be most likely to use them when the US comes for him? i mean, he'll have nothing to loose.  |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 4:35:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
except his symothy ticket he's got right now |
|
Date: 2/16/2003 4:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
*sympothy |
Date: 2/17/2003 6:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 53314
You have no proof that can convince me sadaam has weapons on mass destruction. Doesn't it seem to a little strange to you that that right after the Shuttle crash, Secretary of defense comes out and says he has all this "Undeniable proof" And what if they call the draft back in..You would be willing to die because of what someone else tells you? That's like me telling you your girlfriends cheating with him, go beat him up.  |
|
Date: 2/17/2003 7:24:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 51530
rowley rowley rowley my good man, so you thinking the shuttle crash is linked to the war, well ya I could see it since there was an isrealite on board as it crashed in Palestine, TX hmmm Isrealie suicide bomber? come on. As for the no proof issue, If I give you a million dollars right, then I come back to you a month later and ask you if you bought with it and you tell me no, then I ask you if you still have it and you say no, then I ask you if you destroyed it, and agin you say no. then i ask if you got rid of it in any fasion what so ever, and again you say no. But you swear up and down you don't ahve a peeny to your name. Soemthing wouldn't seem odd about that? |
Date: 2/17/2003 5:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
kill saddam and all his look alikes WAHH  |
|
Date: 2/17/2003 6:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 41067
I'll stand corrected on that point then, but only in what was sold. I still stand by the first part of my comment. |
