Jusunlee.com Forums

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 34 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Iraq (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=5997)

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 09-20-2002 05:17 AM:

Ground war in Iraq

I believe it is all a scheme concocted by Bush to move in with his oil drilling company to rake in some cash since there will be no more Sudaam Hussein to act as a interloper.

:thumbup:

eh talking about iraq brings up nostalgic memories of the Iraq D/A

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

Posted by rhymester* on 09-20-2002 11:21 AM:

i think it's coz saddam has many weapons of mass destruction aimed at usa

p.s. oil was found in russia recently

__________________

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 09-20-2002 12:51 PM:

actually, i believe Iraq has many ICBM's, like 80 of some variety, and other stuff of which i have no idea of the name. But they only have like 3 launching stations, so they can't really attack anyone efficiently.

Why is US attacking iraq if so?

1)Bush wants to
2)continue what his father was doing
3)wants oil security
4)protect Israel from an Iraqi attack
5)they have a nuclear weapons program, but are ambiguous about the progress
6)chemical and bio weapons are present
7)they have ICBM's
8)Empirical conflics (gulf war)
9)Bush doesn't like Saddam, and this is the opportunity to get him...he needs some sort of justification to attack.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 09-20-2002 11:30 PM:

it is my belief that Bush is trying to extend the only area where he has been getting his support from: the war against "evil."

However, like surfing, if he rides these waves too long, he will fall and splatter.

Posted by castle outsider on 09-21-2002 12:24 AM:

america is really stupid right now...

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 09-21-2002 04:52 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
it is my belief that Bush is trying to extend the only area where he has been getting his support from: the war against "evil."

However, like surfing, if he rides these waves too long, he will fall and splatter.

Bush deserves more credit than that. He isn't that selfish, and myopic.

Posted by tm11 on 09-22-2002 03:48 AM:

Iraq doesn't have nuclear capability. They tried in the early 90's to develop a nuclear program that failed miserably. They do have chemical weapons, and I'm fairly sure they don't have biological weapons, but I'm not positive, that's the only point I'm not sure about, I keep thinking about hearing that they had anthrax, but my mind's a bit clouded now.
Anyways, Saddam really isn't interested in that stuff right now, what he wants are missles so that he can attack Israeli underground nuclear silos. They have crude versions of missles that go underground that were found by accident, because when they were testing some missle they forgot to replace a part in it before launching, and that part that was on the missle was filled with cement. When it hit the ground they found it had gone deep into the ground.

David's right about how they only have 3 launching stations, although they're not stations, they're mobile units of some sort. Anyways their launch capability is pathetic.

I would agree with victor on this issue, Bush is just using the war on terror to spin this toward his agenda of a regime change in Iraq. I think it's most convenient for him in this regard because if he succeeds he gets a new regime in Iraq, plus most of the reason David lists. His approval rating has gone down from the 70s to the 60s, and while that's still fairly ridiculously high, he's trying to milk this for all it's worth.

__________________
word is bond

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 09-26-2002 04:33 AM:

On another note

Sen. Daschle knows what the fuck he's talking about.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...p=1031119383196
How long will it take for the general Amerian public to wake up.

Bush is starting to yell in his speeches...perhaps he thinks it gives his words more weight haha

Posted by Zero-Sen on 09-30-2002 02:58 AM:

Iraq

Should we invade Iraq?

on one hand, if we don't they could attack us.

if we do, no one will like us. BUT we get oil.

on another hand no one likes us anyway.

on the other, bush is a moron, and why should we do what HE wants?

I think that we should, cause no one knows how america feels now. (besides israel) no one could possibly feel the paranoia created by terrorist attacks. If we invade iraq and get that out of the way, some people may be able to sleep better at night.

anyhow, i say we do it. and anyone who continues to protest can meet me in the back alleys were i wait with my baseball bat, cause protesters are madd annoying.

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 09-30-2002 06:57 AM:

http://jusunlee.com/forums/showthre...p;threadid=5639

The last thing America needs now is another of the ever-present warhawk movements.
Lets take a look at domestic problems first.

Posted by KeN VeRsUs RyU on 09-30-2002 07:06 AM:

Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen

I think that we should, cause no one knows how america feels now. (besides israel) no one could possibly feel the paranoia created by terrorist attacks. If we invade iraq and get that out of the way, some people may be able to sleep better at night.

anyhow, i say we do it. and anyone who continues to protest can meet me in the back alleys were i wait with my baseball bat, cause protesters are madd annoying.

i dont really follow politics al that well.. but i'll say something anyway

whats the direct connection between terrorist attacks in america and invading iraq.

how would invading iraq make people sleep BETTER at night. war is always the answer for sleep?

i dont really see your point in really invading iraq except your points stating that bush is an idiot and people will feel better about themselves.. so i cant really object or agree to what your saying.

and that baseball bat comment isn't really appropriate

__________________

xanga.com/an1_mixtape

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 09-30-2002 07:12 AM:

Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen
if we do, no one will like us. BUT we get oil.

on another hand no one likes us anyway.

nobody likes Bush (and his lackeys), you mean. Except for Blair who takes it up the ass from him.
c/a my statements on Bush's popularity agenda.

Posted by huby40 on 09-30-2002 08:22 PM:

imo a reason were invading iraq is to protect our oil resoruces in the middle east. sure, sudam is a threat, but oil is another big motive too. many politicians that support attacking iraq r involved with big oil companies. (bush and cheney r)

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 09-30-2002 11:59 PM:

Threads "Iraq", and "Ground War in Iraq" have been merged.

Posted by Zero-Sen on 10-01-2002 12:16 AM:

Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by KeN VeRsUs RyU

whats the direct connection between terrorist attacks in america and invading iraq.

how would invading iraq make people sleep BETTER at night. war is always the answer for sleep?

i dont really see your point in really invading iraq except your points stating that bush is an idiot and people will feel better about themselves.. so i cant really object or agree to what your saying.

and that baseball bat comment isn't really appropriate

iraq technically does not require many launching pads for it to attack us successfully.

we thought al qaida did not have the technological resource to make a major attack on america before september 11th.

al qaida instead used our own technology against us. What if a certain iraqi man declares his wish to come to the US so that he may have political amnesty. Then he brings over some knowledge on the biological weapons that Iraq has been developing and makes it in the US spreading into major cities. (note: many islamic fundamentalists have already attempted this. what makes iraq any different?)

as for sleeping better at night, w.e. figure of speech.

as for the baseball comment, meh. personal opinion on how to deal with protesters.

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 10-01-2002 12:27 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen

al qaida instead used our own technology against us. What if a certain iraqi man declares his wish to come to the US so that he may have political amnesty. Then he brings over some knowledge on the biological weapons that Iraq has been developing and makes it in the US spreading into major cities. (note: many islamic fundamentalists have already attempted this. what makes iraq any different?)

What you don't understand is that Al-Queda and Iraq operate differently. Terrorists, such as Osama Bin-Laden, have no "home", per se. They have no fear of getting their house destroyed or their financial districts blown up. That allows them a wide breadth of choices and attack possibilities.

Sadaam is a whole different situation completely. He has a territory to defend. If he makes a mistake, he and his territory will be put at risk. And being Sadaam Hussein, his greatest wish is to maintain power over his land, his country. Thus, he would not do anything stupid, (e.g. attack the US or put bans on oil shipments to the western world) because he cannot take that risk.

Thus, this eliminates our need to "attack the greatest threat in the world."

Posted by Zero-Sen on 10-01-2002 12:44 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter

What you don't understand is that Al-Queda and Iraq operate differently. Terrorists, such as Osama Bin-Laden, have no "home", per se. They have no fear of getting their house destroyed or their financial districts blown up. That allows them a wide breadth of choices and attack possibilities.

Sadaam is a whole different situation completely. He has a territory to defend. If he makes a mistake, he and his territory will be put at risk. And being Sadaam Hussein, his greatest wish is to maintain power over his land, his country. Thus, he would not do anything stupid, (e.g. attack the US or put bans on oil shipments to the western world) because he cannot take that risk.

Thus, this eliminates our need to "attack the greatest threat in the world."

why does that limit saddam to non-terrorist attacks? evidently he can deny it. there are plenty of other terrorist groups he could blame.

saddam works like a terrorist. in the persian gulf war his strategy was to tie downed american pilots to his tanks so that american war planes could not blow them up.

he uses fear to keep his political opponents from rising up. is that not terrorism?

he has almost all of the islam world on his side. half of britain. many peoples who do not support war with him. HE has POWER. etc. etc.

not to mention his ambigous behavior towards developing weapons. Denying UN weapons inspectors. He doesn't have to attack directly or take blame.

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 10-01-2002 12:52 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen
saddam works like a terrorist. in the persian gulf war his strategy was to tie downed american pilots to his tanks so that american war planes could not blow them up.

he commits genocide, is that not terrorism?

not to mention his ambigous behavior towards developing weapons. Denying UN weapons inspectors. He doesn't have to attack directly or take blame.

looks like you need to focus your definition of terrorism a little more. There is a difference between an established state and a terrorist organization, however let me go to the line by line to show you the ambiguity of your points.

1) I fail to see the connection between tying your enemies to tanks and acting like, per se, an Al-Queda member. In fact in war, that sounds like a pretty damn good idea.

2) Milosevic commited genocide. He is not recognized as an International Terrorist.

3) Most countries are ambiguous about their weapons development. China, Russia, Mexico, Ecuador, the list goes on. No country NEEDS to disclose information about their weapons developments to the UN. So what are you going to do? Whine like a baby and accuse him of being a terrorist so you can continue your "war on terrorism?"

Posted by Zero-Sen on 10-01-2002 12:55 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter

looks like you need to focus your definition of terrorism a little more. There is a difference between an established state and a terrorist organization, however let me go to the line by line to show you the ambiguity of your points.

1) I fail to see the connection between tying your enemies to tanks and acting like, per se, an Al-Queda member. In fact in war, that sounds like a pretty damn good idea.

2) Milosevic commited genocide. He is not recognized as an International Terrorist.

3) Most countries are ambiguous about their weapons development. China, Russia, Mexico, Ecuador, the list goes on. No country NEEDS to disclose information about their weapons developments to the UN. So what are you going to do? Whine like a baby and accuse him of being a terrorist so you can continue your "war on terrorism?"

connections betweeen them are that they hate america and will do anything to break it down.

milsovec in my eyes IS a terrorist. so is hitler.

what are we gonna do? leave him alone? let him develop his weapons and kill millions of people who didn't want to fight him?

if we fight this war he will not be able to bother us again, we get oil, we get bases in the middle east, we protect israel. win win.

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 10-01-2002 01:10 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen

what are we gonna do? leave him alone? let him develop his weapons and kill millions of people who didn't want to fight him?

if we fight this war he will not be able to bother us again, we get oil, we get bases in the middle east, we protect israel.

Here's what we do: Send the weapons inspectors in. This is a fluid situation, the outcome should be determined by their reading of the situation.
An interesting fact to note is that one of the head weapons inspectors to iraq declared that the attack would be "unjustified in every way."

1)if we fight this war he will not be able to bother us again: No we'll have a whole bunch of even more pissed off arabs. It has been empirically proven that civilians of an attacked country would turn against the attacking country no matter the cause. This is attributed to weapons accidents, mistaken targets, the list goes on.

2)we get oil: And the world's opinion of the US would turn to shit. With that mentality, lets get some troops into kuwait and try to get direct control there. Politics don't work that way.

3)we get bases in the middle east: The bases' function? To carry out more crackass campaigns for the "war against terrorism." Thus, no real function.

4)we protect israel: we protect israel anyways.

quote:
Originally posted by Zero-Sen

milsovec in my eyes IS a terrorist. so is hitler.

Nobody cares about you. It is all about the international community's opinion. The large majority does not find him to be a terrorist.

Again, what you don't understand is the complexity behind attributing to the issue and the causes of the issue. It is not as simple as 1, 2, 3. There are consequences to consider, consequences that Bush, his cabinet, and you, either overlook, ignore, or simply don't care about; and in this post-modern world, caring about the consequences is the difference between victory and defeat in the long run.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 34 posts from this thread on one page