look, when a guy ATTACKS another guy, who is the agressor, the attacker or the defender?

Originally posted by necro99
look, when a guy ATTACKS another guy, who is the agressor, the attacker or the defender?

It depends.When the agressor has a good reason...Stopping Saddam to have MD weapons is a good one.

USA HAS ENOUGH NUKES TO END LIFE ON EARTH 10 TIMES

Originally posted by necro99
USA HAS ENOUGH NUKES TO END LIFE ON EARTH 10 TIMES

[size=-2]Yep, but they will not use them, excpet f they are under attack. It's not like saddam, who will not hesitate to use MD weapons, even if he has just 1 bomb.[/size]

No, we do not have that, that is left wing 70's misrepresentation.

Besides, it doesn't make a difference.

I am armed, well armed. I also have thousands of rounds of ammo. I am no danger to my neighbors, though. Jeffery Dahmer was armed with a fork and a knife and an appetite, and was deadly to many people. Don't compare us two, as there is no comparison.

And, as I've stated before, for those who are slow to learn and understand, the U.S. is a nation of laws, not a nation run by a murderous despot.

Yelling, by the way, only brings more attention to your erroneous posts. That's why I abstain from it and you should, too.

Right - shame we have nukes at all - but we do, and how we deal with them is really what counts.

TC's right you know. There's a world of difference between possession and use.

The fact remains, Saddam has a bad history and steps need to be taken to prevent his avowed use of such weapons of mass destruction.

My prayers are with the innocents.

Like I said, my prayers are with the innocents General.

I choose not to believe everything I see and hear about this issue.

Diplomatic solutions are always the preferable option in my opinion.

I was under the impression that Russia had stated its reasoning to stand against such a decision. Iraq owes them money - lots of it - and if war IS declared, they have very little chance of being repaid. Russia needs to collect so that it can, in turn, pay back debts owed elsewhere. Is that a good enough reason, in your opinion?
Not in my books.....
Politics is a dirty game at best.


But I DO believe that without the support of the UN, the US is probably about to make the greatest mistake in its history.

I would love to see diplomatic solutions work,but it will never happen with Saddam.

I,ve said it before and I'll probably saw it again,do we want to sit around and do nothing and hope for the best,or do we cut the head off the snake?
.

[Edited on 01-08-2002 by nyeff]

I think Necro99 will be happy only when we'll be defenceless.

He think that Saddam is a nice dude who'll not use his MD weapons. He saw USA like a fachist country. Hey necro99, it's the opposite man.Change your glass.

can anyone seriously give any proof that saddam will use nukes? i'd like to see any of you prove the future ....

as for the u.s. not using her nukes, heres a wake up call that lupe and i have posted many times: the u.s. is the ONLY country on the face of the planet to have detonated a nuke in anger.

does that not show a willingness to use them?

add to that the pre-emptive strike clause signed into u.s. military policy.

now i'm not saying that saddam is a nice guy. i'd love to see him lose power. but removing him through force is not democracy: its dictatorship.

to get back to the original post and topic of the thread. so saddam is rallying allies. what is NATO if not the west doing (or i should say, 'have done') the same thing?

- qo.

Your point about America with nuclear weapons, and having used them, is still lame, quiet one. The fact still remains that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by the use of the nuclear weapons, and by the fact that we had them afterwards.

Saddam's past shows his future. Chamberlainian blindness to the facts won't help the future.

Democracy isn't a point with Iraq at this time, as it has no democracy. It has a thug dictator that invades and rapes neighbors, gasses entire communities of his own country, and is calling for homocide attacks against my country now. He would do more than that if he had the weapons and the delivery systems.

Quiet One, you feel pretty secure in Ireland, now, huh? I'm curious how you'd feel if another nation was calling for your death. And they call for your death because you are a democarcy with a free market economy.

I'm surprised that any liberal would stand with Hussein, since he commited the worst crime against the enviroment ever, and he did it on purpose.

Thomas Crowne:

"Your point about America with nuclear weapons, and having used them, is still lame, quiet one. The fact still remains that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by the use of the nuclear weapons, and by the fact that we had them afterwards."

your point that saddam should not be allowed to have nukes is still a lame one, by the same reason. we cannot say what iraq would do with nukes if they had any. its entirely impossible. and since you have just neatly expressed your opinion that its possible to use nukes in a positive way (one i am highly sceptical, but not entirely dismissive of) you therefore can't argue against saddam having them.

"Saddam's past shows his future. Chamberlainian blindness to the facts won't help the future."

not so. if a person's past dictates there future then there can be no concept of rehabilitation. criminals would be locked up for life without chance of peroll, or simply put to death, as they could not possibly change, and would be a danger to the community if released. the same goes for saddam. he's done terrible things in the past, and needs to be watched and dealt with if necessary, but you cannot pre-emptively judge a man for something he hasn't done.

"Democracy isn't a point with Iraq at this time, as it has no democracy."

no, but it is a point with america and the west. we stand here and say that dictatorship and tyranny is evil, and democracy is good. at that same time we are looking to forceably removal a head of state. is that a democratic process? no it is not. a war on iraq contradicts every basic principle of the free, 'enlightened' west.

"It has a thug dictator that invades and rapes neighbors, gasses entire communities of his own country, and is calling for homocide attacks against my country now."

he is? i've head no such calls. anyone else? rally neighbouring countries for support against a u.s.-led invasion doesn't count as that is a defensive measure, just like NATO.

"... He would do more than that if he had the weapons and the delivery systems."

once again, you can't prove that. saddam has never even attempted to lauch an attack at the u.s. he simply wouldn't have the capability if he wanted to. more importantly, what does it get him? saddam, like hitler, is despicable, but not mad.

"Quiet One, you feel pretty secure in Ireland, now, huh?"

firstly, i'm not in ireland. never have been.

"... I'm curious how you'd feel if another nation was calling for your death. And they call for your death because you are a democarcy with a free market economy."

once again, saddam is not doing so. and don't kid yourself that america has a free market economy. free market economies do not have economic taxes, embargoes, etc. they do not subsidise industries. there isn't a country in the world with a free market economy, and its certainly not the reason that a lot of groups are pissed off with the west.

"I'm surprised that any liberal would stand with Hussein, since he commited the worst crime against the enviroment ever, and he did it on purpose."

i don't stand with him - and i'm not a liberal - and as i've said above, i'd love to see saddam out of power. i just can't condone a war to that affect.

- qo.

"TC's right you know. There's a world of difference between possession and use."

yes he is.
thats why I'm not particularly worried that saddam might make an atom bomb as he's never shown any evidence of having the desire to or commitment to drop one in the past, whilst the US has dropped 2 killing thousands, perhaps millions of civillians in the aftermath.

tell me, if thomas owned a gun and had in the past decided to randomply shoot several thousand people would you feel safe knowing he was still at large and still in possession of a gun?

Will the US stand to gain anything by knocking Saddam off his perch and implementing a more "business friendly" democratic leader

financially yes,geographically yes, lots.
I thought thats why we were doing it?
you don't seriously believe all this "weapons of mass destruction moral crusade" bullpoo do you?

...for those on the board in other countries, we have something called the Radical Right Wing in America. They are usually the ones beating the drum the loudest for war, yet, very rarely do they serve in our military, thus never fully understanding the size of an exit wound a tumbler round leaves or the devastation of a Claymore - in essence that War is Hell to be avoid at all costs; it's video game violence to them. They also tend to be extremely paranoid, often subscribing to the Militia mentality as well as blindly falling in lockstep behind 'their' leaders. Lastly, they will always adopt a 'win at all costs' philosophy that relies heavily on painting their opponents with a negative label while wrapping themselves in the Flag. Case in point, in our state of Georgia the Republican Congressman Saxby Chambliss accused Sen. Max Cleland of violating his sacred oath to "protect and defend" his country, because he voted against a mindless initiative. Chambliss is a chickenhawk who got multiple deferments from serving in Vietnam, Cleland is a decorated war hero who happens to be a triple amputee BECAUSE of his service to his country in Vietnam. Chambliss was standing next to Cleland in his wheelchair when he made the comment.
This Iraq issue is a misdirection close to an election to shift our nations focus off the raping of our country by the Industrial Military complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and the total mismanagement by an unmandated administration. This crap about 'gassing his own people' was in 1988 and it was the Kurds, whom Iranian Sunnis would also like to see dead AND there is evidence that it was a type of gas used by the Iranians. The US supports much worse dictators & rouge states with much more advanced WMD capabilities.
Anyone saying that it's for anything more than domestic political distraction AND Oil Imperialism is too high on their own demagoguery.

I think i read somewhere that the likelihood a 'rehabilitated criminal' will reoffend is something like 60% (in Australia anyway).

If we are talking about serious crimes, on a personal or national scale, 60% is too big a risk for my liking.

About the criminal, repeat offender thing? A tie into Saddam or another point entirely?