|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted November 20, 2002 05:41 AM |
|
|
All the naysayers demanded the USA congress to give it's blessing to Bush’s plan..and they got what they wanted.
All the naysayers demanded a UN resolution before regime change ....and they get what they wanted
All the naysayers demanded a coalition other than USA, UK, and Israel...and they get what they wanted
All the naysayers demanded inspections before regime change...and they got what they wanted.
Hmmmm...seems like they get all they demand yet still are unhappy and thinking the worse. Maybe it would of saved a lot of time if the naysayers would of just said "I am against a regime change no matter what the circumstances"...then we wouldn't of had to debate all previous fake pretensions.
As far as money goes…what could we spend are money on better than our own safety? As far as debt goes…well that is thanks to Clinton raping and depleting our military and granting Bush a great recession that started at the end of Clinton’s term. But like all deficits we have accrued in the past we will again pay this one off also after the temporary and cyclical recession is over.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 20, 2002 05:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As far as money goes…what could we spend are money on better than our own safety? As far as debt goes…well that is thanks to Clinton raping and depleting our military and granting Bush a great recession that started at the end of Clinton’s term. But like all deficits we have accrued in the past we will again pay this one off also after the temporary and cyclical recession is over.
I have to agree with this, Clinton really screwed up the military.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 20, 2002 06:14 PM |
|
|
I'm not against a regime change, I'm against the bombing of a country to remove the head of it. But tell me, if the inspectors go in and have unlimited access and find nothing, or not as much as America expects are you saying that america will just cancel her plans for removing hussain from power? I doubt that somehow, the inspections are the only way america can legitamise to the world an action in Iraq, but I honestly believe that no matter the results of these inspections the outcome will be war.
That's not to say I don't think he has them, nor do I doubt he will obstruct the inspectors, but I don't think America gives a damn if he has them or not to be honest.
Oh yeah and later I'll post something I thought was interesting in the press here, but I don't have the time right now.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 21, 2002 01:55 AM |
|
|
Who really won the war?
During the Gulf War...
George H. W. Bush is president of the U.S.
Margaret Thatcher is Prime Minister of G.B.
Saddam Hussein is "president" of Iraq
What happened to them...
George H.W. Bush is beaten in the 1992 election by Clinton
Margaret Thatcher is beaten in the G.B. election
And what of our old buddy Saddam...
Living in luxery in one of his 30 or so palaces and still in power.
So you have to ask yourself one question...
Who really won the war?
...
...
...
Well who punk?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 02:01 AM |
|
|
It's a technicality, but thatcher never lost the GB election as such, she was forced to resign after a leadership election struggle for her party leadership. Other than that the point is correct.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 02:34 AM |
|
|
|
But still, if you win the war you lose power, and if you lose the war you stay in power.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 02:51 AM |
|
|
On a seperate issue the following appeared as a article in the Daily Mirror on Tuesday:
George Bush wants to begin developing a new generation of nuclear weapon it was revealed yesterday.
Details of the president's plans were circulated in a secret memo to members of the Nuclear Weapons Council. It urged the US' three nuclear labatories to assess the risks of making bombs of making bombs without testing and to draft a plant to restart testing with 6 months notice. The memo comes a week after congress gave the go-ahead for the creation of a bunker-busting bomb - the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The US halted nuclear tests in 1992, but millitary chiefs believe America's arsenal is now outdated in the face of the war on terror.
Council chairman Edward Aldridge wrote "we will need to refurbish several ageing weapons systems. We must also be prepared to respond to new nuclear weapons requirements in the future"
Outraged opponents of the plan said last night it would spark a new arms race. Daryl Kimball, head of the US Arms Control Association added "Resuming testing would be an enourmous strategic blunder that would invite a new wave of proliferation that could swamp us"
Interesting indeed that America sees the need to forbid some nations from testing, and indeed has argued against future arms races, yet now is openly endorsing both ideas.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 05:21 PM |
|
|
|
Oh yeah and another thing I remembered, Thatcher was not in power in the gulf, that was John Major, her sucessor
|
|
StrongholdKe...
Adventuring Hero
IRC fan
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 05:37 PM |
|
|
Iraq will be disarmed!
____________
Barbarian rading party!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 05:47 PM |
|
|
|
And to hell with the thousands of civilians who die in the process huh?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 22, 2002 02:57 AM |
|
|
Sadly PH, I have to say you were right. Margaret Thatcher was out of parliment in 1989.
As for Iraq, just level it.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2002 05:24 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 22 Nov 2002
|
Quote
" the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator."
Didn't I see that on an episode of Babylon 5 Any B5 fans here?
Quote
"Outraged opponents of the plan said last night it would spark a new arms race."
Hmmm with whom with this race be run? What happened to the catastrophic liberal prophets of doom during the "nuclear arms" race? Was the world annihilated during that race? Nope. If anything that race was one of the best things to happen last century as it helped bring forth the fall of communist USSR. And if anyone doesn't believe USSR's fall wasn't one of the greatest things ever I would really question there knowledge about the USSR and what they routinely did to harm and control people
Quote
“Interesting indeed that America sees the need to forbid some nations from testing, and indeed has argued against future arms races, yet now is openly endorsing both ideas."
Are you saying USA can’t develop new weapons? Or are you just against any weapons that have a nuclear component.
To my recollection the most recent incidence of USA being against testing was in a very unstable part of the world given Pakistan’s and India’s problems. So yeah testing there doesn’t seem like a smart idea. Furthermore neither of those countries has anything approaching a progressive population…we are talking about people who have a caste system and people who have a strong extremist militant Muslim population.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2002 12:50 PM |
|
|
That's what it said, damned if I know what it is though 
Communism fell because of many reasons, the arms race being one of them, but during this time the 2 nations came close to nuclear war at least twice, so I do not like the notion of yet more nuclear weapons when America and russia has enough to kill the world's entire population many times over! Where's the sense in developing more weapons of mass destruction when you have enough already? What you need them to kill more people in less time? Where the hell are you going to use these weapons? If you don't use them why the hell build them over than to make other nations scared of you? Well that's nice and progressive!
Whether they are undemocratic or not is beyond the point. Hitler, Mussolini etc were elected under a democracy, and although america is unlikely to revert to a dictatorship, if that event occurred is it really wise to have an massive nuclear arsenal sitting there, pristine and up to date? How can you deny other nations, including Russia and France yet sit there and test yourselves? Does the various treaties on disarming these weapons mean nothing to Bush?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2002 06:23 AM |
|
|
PH first we may be arguing about a myth anyway…I haven’t seen any mainstream articles addressing the issue…but who knows.
Quote
“Where's the sense in developing more weapons of mass destruction when you have enough already? ….Where the hell are you going to use these weapons?
First why is it your concern. If as you say we already have enough weapons to destroy the world…then why are you concerned if we want to spend more money on it? Are you afraid that we will use them to kill the world 10 times over versus 1 time over?
Second…if there was an intruder in your house and you had a gun to defend yourself would you only load 1 bullet in the gun? 1 would be enough to kill the intruder but most people will load the gun as much as they can. I am not a big fan of overproducing weapons…but who is to say that if the time of need comes that they will all function properly or what if some terrorist finds a way to destroy or make ineffective many of our nukes before we can defend ourselves. Are nukes the only thing that you oppose a build up of? I am sure we have been in a “bullet race” for decades…I am sure we have been in a “tank race” for years…etc….etc. I am not an expert on military weapons so maybe we have “enough”…but defining what “enough” is I am sure will vary from person to person.
Quote
“ hell build them over than to make other nations scared of you? Well that's nice and progressive! “
You of all people should know that peace through strength is one of the fundamental truths about military defense. Granted with terrorism it changes some of our methods…but there are still enough nations that have a leaning towards upheaval/destruction that the theory is upheld.
Quote
“ Does the various treaties on disarming these weapons mean nothing to Bush?”
To my knowledge that is misleading. Disarming agreements with the USA were about decreasing the numbers of weapons (specifically nuclear)…but not in destroying all weapons (including nuclear).
Is it just me or am I one of the only ones that recognizes that since the creation of nuclear/atom bombs there has not been ANY WORLD WARS in more than 50 years…coincidence????? Peace through strength….stay proud!
That name “robust nuclear earth penetrator” still has me chuckling. I have to think that is fake or one of the funniest sounding weapons ever created….who came up with that name….either some pornographic distributor or someone who watches way too much science fiction
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 23, 2002 07:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for Iraq, just level it.
Come on, now. That's 23 million, mostly innocent, people we're talking about. Hitler only killed 14 million in the holocaust. Should the US go down in history as having perpetrated a worse crime than Hitler?
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 23, 2002 03:36 PM |
|
|
One question then Dargon, where and when will you use a nuclear weapon to fight terrorism? Enough is IMO enough to kill the population of the entire world if they all are aimed correctly. Why make more? How is it not my concern that anyone is buidling WMD and then dictating to the world who can and cannot?
Disarming/Destroying, if you build more you are doing neither, just increasing the amount. As for peace in the Cold war World War was on the brink in the middle of the cuban crisis and during the fighting in 1973 between Israel, Egypt and Syria. It would only have taken one of the two leaders to have been unhinged or unchanging and BANG no more human race. What a nice thought that is.
And as for science fiction, well you need to do some research. I put that name into a search engine and got this result (amongst others) http://www.fcnl.org/issues/arm/sup/min_earth-pentratr5102.htm. Science Fact methinks!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 24, 2002 02:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for Iraq, just level it.
Come on, now. That's 23 million, mostly innocent, people we're talking about. Hitler only killed 14 million in the holocaust. Should the US go down in history as having perpetrated a worse crime than Hitler?
-Laelth
For the purpose of this conversation: yes
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 24, 2002 05:34 AM |
|
|
Well that's justified and reasnoble! I geuss as long as the enemy is dangerous to you any result is good to stop him then wolfman?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2002 08:53 AM |
|
|
Quote
“One question then Dargon, where and when will you use a nuclear weapon to fight terrorism?”
I never implied nor stated that nukes would be used to fight terrorism directly. In fact I said just the opposite. Hopefully nukes will never be used ever. But as I stated nukes are very effective in restraining violence by rouge nations.
Quote
“How is it not my concern that anyone is buidling WMD and then dictating to the world who can and cannot? “
So you are for total disarmament of all nukes. I think that is not a smart at all given my previous statements about nukes leading to downfall of USSR, nukes (atom bomb) leading to the end of WWII, nukes providing an environment that there has never been a world war in over 50 years, etc.
Nukes are of course a dangerous weapon that can be misused….but they are intensly more dangerous when a dictator and/or lunatic factions/leaders obtain them. The technology already exists…so how exactly do we uncreate a technology…you can’t. So disarmament of the USA will only lead to other nations/groups that eventually create them and then the USA will be defenseless or have to engage in endless wars and deaths to capture the nukes that are made by other rouge nations.
Quote
“As for peace in the Cold war World War was on the brink in the middle of the cuban crisis and during the fighting in 1973 between Israel, Egypt and Syria. It would only have taken one of the two leaders to have been unhinged or unchanging and BANG no more human race. What a nice thought that is.”
Two key words/phrases you correctly used….”brink” meaning nothing happened and “it would of” again meaning nothing happened. We can predict doomsday scenarios about nukes over and over, but the reality is that after thousands upon thousands of such predictions…none….not one of them has come to fruition. So how many times must we regurgitate those weak sentiments?
Now it is ironic that you seem irritated that USA does not want/allow certain nations to build nukes…yet on the other hand you predict world annihilation by nukes….well those arguments seem to oppose each other. If you want to see world annihilation by nukes then just allow any and all nations that want nukes to develop them…then your doomsday predictions will most certainly come true.
And BTW I never said that the penatrators didn’t exist. I just said that I have never heard of them and that if they do exist it is the funniest name I have ever heard of…and that of course stands What is the next weapon they are going to create going to be called….maybe the “super duper shrinking ray dominator”….lol
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 24, 2002 08:05 PM |
|
|
Ok ok, I got carried away. Why can't Saddam just die.
____________
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
