US run by psychopaths

[Zero 9]

Originally posted by Alexvrb@Mar 11, 2003 @ 07:59 AM

You're right, we shoulda stayed out of WWII. That was pretty stupid of us.

Uh no. You don't allow a country to bomb you severely without doing anything. Japan was desparate because we dropped their supply of oil, so they decided to blow people up. This was either just out of spite, or some moronic thought htat it would scare the United States into start sending aid again?

The people hit by the atomic bombs did not have the option of surrender. They were, in effect, being punished for their government's military policy. Are you sure that this isn't a problematic approach to war?

It is onfortunately true that the bombs were dropped on civilians. In theory it was to destroy major factories and ports, but of course, the civilian aspect was probably the main reason for surrender. It was an extreme tactic against the even more extreme government of Japan, which if had the chance would have done the same, and worse.

 

[Curtis]

Iceman, do you believe that that news article you posted is 100% accurate? Why would Saddam do anything like this - it simply does not make political sense. It undermines his position of "we are a poor nation, surrounded on all sides by enemies - we have nothing to hide".

I, for one, am totally sick and tired of all the attempts to link the war with Iraq with past terrorist incidents. There has been no credible evidence that there are any links what-so-ever with Al-Qaeda terrorists, no evidence that Iraqis had anythin to do with September 11 or other recent terrorist activities. Yet this is the line that the politicians are pushing. "We will kill Saddam, and there will be a lesser chance of terrorists attacks". It won't work like that - that is a fantasy. Whatever the final outcome of this action is, this will not be it.

Best case scenario is that Iraq is quickly invaded, defeated and "liberated". Anti-Western sentiment surges to an all time high in the Muslim world and terrorist activities skyrocket. This is not my idle speculation, but the advice of a high ranking Australian advisor who recently quit his job in protest over our Government's stance. The war, if it comes, would be sheer folly.

Iraq is a broken country after the last war. Their military forces are a fraction of the size they were 12 years ago. The information that I've seen suggests that any WMD program they have is disorganised and inefffective. Iraq does not have the capability to be a threat to anyone...unless Saddam is pushed into a corner and is force to play what ever trump card he has.

Worst case scenario is that Saddam uses his remaining WMD against the invading forces and/or Israel. Lots of people die, but the west proves its point.

 

[mal]

Hopefully the President still takes advice from his father

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action

 

[Alexvrb]

Originally posted by Zero 9+Mar 12, 2003 @ 11:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zero 9 @ Mar 12, 2003 @ 11:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alexvrb@Mar 11, 2003 @ 07:59 AM

You're right, we shoulda stayed out of WWII. That was pretty stupid of us.

Uh no. You don't allow a country to bomb you severely without doing anything. Japan was desparate because we dropped their supply of oil, so they decided to blow people up. This was either just out of spite, or some moronic thought htat it would scare the United States into start sending aid again? [/b][/quote]

Zero, you obviously missed the sarcastic tone. I am sick of people knocking us because we used the atomic bomb on Japan. Besides, Japan's strategy was excellent, they destroyed much of our fleet. However, they did not blow up nearly as much oil as they would have liked, and our carriers weren't there to be bombed at the time.

If we have a Democrat in office who uses military action to remove an evil dictator (Milosevic), he's doing it for the good of the world. If a Republican president wants to use military to do the same, he's a warmonger and a big meanie. Ol Saddam never did anything wrong, why don't those mean Americans leave him to his own devices. Almost makes me wish Gore DID win, if he was forced into action against Saddam than nobody would have stood in his way. Saddam would be dead or in custody and it'd be behind us.

 

[antime]

Alexvrb, you're forgetting that the people running the show now are the same people who helped Saddam during the entire Iran-Iraq war despite knowing who he was and what he did. The US knew he used chemical weapons as early as 1982 and that use of nerve gas began in 1984, but that was apparently OK. After the now-famous gassing of Kurds in 1987-88, the US Senate were sufficiently upset to pass big sanctions against Iraq but they were killed by the White House so apparently that was OK too.

Although Iraq got the majority of its weapons from English and German arms dealers the US supplied them with chemicals for their nerve agents along with biological agents such as anthrax even though they knew fully well what they would be used for. He didn't turn into a bad guy until he invaded Kuwait, when he suddenly became the ultimate evil. All this sums up to a nice fucking credibility problem. The current shenanigans of bugging UN delegates and faking records of uranium purchase aren't helping either.

We know Saddam isn't a nice man and we know what he's capable of, but we also know that the US government aren't nice people and we don't trust them either.

 

[Alexvrb]

If it's entirely our fault (which it isn't), then let us fix it. We'll take care of Saddam. Oh wait! They don't WANT us to. So it's perhaps not so much about trust, as it is about avoiding war? I knew the French would shoot down the British proposal as well.

 

[ExCyber]

Oh wait! They don't WANT us to.

I don't think they object to the US fixing it, I think they object to the US being the sole interest represented in the country post-war and using its influence to set up economic dependence and thus control over resources (airspace, water, oil, etc.). A prolonged military presence in a post-war Iraq is nearly a certainty also. It could be argued that they want the cure without the side effects, but that would assume that we have to choose between "let Saddam do whatever he wants" and "bomb the hell out of Baghdad". I suspect that those aren't the only options, and that very few people are seriously suggesting the former.

 

[cww80]

Anyone else wish the whole Iraq thing would end.

With the latest news of increasing troops there, we're probably going to have to wait till Bush is out.

 

[dibz]

Yeah, I also think we're going to end up waiting until Bush is out unfortunately. I really don't see a clear direction for this war either.