So you're saying that if Iraq used a WMD tomorrow and killed a large chunk of our troops in the Gulf you wouldn't be upset? You would be fine with the fact that all those Americans died?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If Iraq does use WMD on US troops the sentiment will change in the country, people will want us to punish Saddam, we will want retribution for those acts.
That doesn't make sense. You break down my door and punch me in the nose. I kick you in the groin. You pull out a .44 and put a round through my chest.
You can call me a community annoyance but you have no proof I've done ANYTHING to you. But somehow you not only have the right to try and hurt me b/c I might do something to you or help someone else hurt you in the future . . . but you also reserve the right to use any means necessary to subdue me after you enter my home.
That scenario is down right medieval . . . do you wonder why we have to buy or intimidate our allies?!
Originally posted by: zoiks
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
NEVER and No where . . . that's the when and where! Saddam shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons b/c they should NEVER be used. That was the point of the conventions on biological and chemical weapons. The NPT exists for the same reason. We've learned a lesson . . . these weapons CANNOT be used responsibly . . . the primary reason being they are difficult to control once released hence they tend to act as weapons against civilians NOT legal combatants.The President of the United States doesn't have to be crazy to use nukes, he just has to know when and where to use them properly.
We don't need bunker busters. If we are so damn certain they're in a bunker or keeping their stash underground who cares? Let 'em crap in the corner and eat organic MREs (cockroaches) . . . they can stay there forever. If we really want them out then arm the natives and let them do it. If the natives aren't friendly we need to go home.
The case is the same for nukes as well. Once set off it cant be undone either. If we dont want Saddam to have nukes then maybe we shouldnt have them either right. You think we are responsible? I dont think so with our history. We are now issuing blunt statements about bombs and pushing countries around in the world. It used to be the middle eastern nations but now its France and Germany as well. We can do what we want right now but maybe later on in the future we may be alone. The UK may stop kissing ass at any point too in time.
I also think that maybe Bush wants this over soon so that this doesnt haunt him next year when he's up for re-election.
Oh, well, I'll call Saddam up right now and tell him that BaliBabyDoc on the Internet said he shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons, so he needs to give them up RIGHT THIS SECOND!
You have it backwards...Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That doesn't make sense. You break down my door and punch me in the nose. I kick you in the groin. You pull out a .44 and put a round through my chest.
Originally posted by: TheEvil1
Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!
SWEET
Nuclear winter here we come!
No I'm saying don't invade Iraq then you don't have to worry about a large chunk of our troops being exposed to WMD. Maybe you're new to the forum or just plain slow. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine where advocate aggression against another. Saddam and the US are never going to be friends. But we could be real friends to real democracy growing in Iran. We could tell the Kurds to Cry Freedom . . . granted we would have to speak softly b/c our ally, Turkey, has a tendency to gas Kurds when they get uppity. We could become a real force for peace between Israel and Palestine instead of a rubber stamp for Sharon imperialism. Regardless, the death of any person is unfortunate but I have less compassion for aggressors than defenders. I fully support US troops but I definitely oppose the current course of civilian leadership.So you're saying that if Iraq used a WMD tomorrow and killed a large chunk of our troops in the Gulf you wouldn't be upset? You would be fine with the fact that all those Americans died?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No I'm saying don't invade Iraq then you don't have to worry about a large chunk of our troops being exposed to WMD. Maybe you're new to the forum or just plain slow. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine where advocate aggression against another. Saddam and the US are never going to be friends. But we could be real friends to real democracy growing in Iran. We could tell the Kurds to Cry Freedom . . . granted we would have to speak softly b/c our ally, Turkey, has a tendency to gas Kurds when they get uppity. We could become a real force for peace between Israel and Palestine instead of a rubber stamp for Sharon imperialism. Regardless, the death of any person is unfortunate but I have less compassion for aggressors than defenders. I fully support US troops but I definitely oppose the current course of civilian leadership.So you're saying that if Iraq used a WMD tomorrow and killed a large chunk of our troops in the Gulf you wouldn't be upset? You would be fine with the fact that all those Americans died?
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: TheEvil1
Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!
SWEET
Nuclear winter here we come!
If you don't know anything about the subject why not try learning before posting?
1) I do not believe that nukes are under any consideration for Iraq. If anything that report was leaked for one reason and one reason only, to put pressure on Saddam not to get crazy with the chemical weapons that he has.
2) We are talking about small tactical nukes. Much smaller yields than even the first bombs that were exploded. It has nothing to do and would not contribute to nuclear winter.
3) BTW, I thought the earth was warming, wouldn't cooling it off be a good thing?
sorry i thought my sarcasm mode was working
You have it backwards...
12 years ago you broke into my house and assualted me and my family.
I got a restraining order against you that said you were not allowed to play loud music. You continue to play loud music...
Ok, so that makes no sense, but my point is, Saddam did the bad thing first, he broke the rules, he gets punished...
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You have it backwards...
12 years ago you broke into my house and assualted me and my family.
I got a restraining order against you that said you were not allowed to play loud music. You continue to play loud music...
Ok, so that makes no sense, but my point is, Saddam did the bad thing first, he broke the rules, he gets punished...
Do you read? If not try the History Channel . . . just turn away from FOXNews it's rotting your brain.
No one broke into your house . . . they didn't even break into a neighbor's house (Canada/Mexico). . . they broke into the house of some guy you really didn't care about (Kuwait)who lived next door to the guy with the best power tools (Saudi Arabia).
The sorta friendly neighbor (SA) with the power tools let's you borrow as much as you like for a nominal fee but he's really kind of a prick . . . beats the wife, kicks the dog, and teaches his kids to hate people like you. The perp (Saddam) and his first target (Kuwait) are not particularly friendly to you but they've got nice tools and loan pretty liberally as well. Truth is . . . you really don't like any of them but you really need access to their tools. Essentially the least prickish of the group (SA) offers tool-loan-for-life in exchange for getting the perp to back off. Once in the neighborhood the invaded prick (Kuwait) offers a similar deal to kick the perps arse. You comply and now your two less than neighborly pricks intermittently kiss your feet and curse you.
Time passes and nothing changes. Your distant not-quite-friends still have the best tools but their neighbor is still a prick. But turns out the prick has nice tools, too. So you decide that maybe you should just kick the prick's arse and take his tools. If the neighbors don't like it you might take their tools as well. What could be better than improved access to the best tools plus being able to tell your new neighbors the truth . . . "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . .
In the meantime, Community Watch offers assistance . . . your response, "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . .
Other community members ask if there's another way . . . you respond, "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . .
A minority in the community supports your efforts . . . your response, "get your damn hand out of my pockets . . . wait for the crumbs you punk beotch" . . .
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Do you read? If not try the History Channel . . . just turn away from FOXNews it's rotting your brain. No one broke into your house . . . they didn't even break into a neighbor's house (Canada/Mexico). . . they broke into the house of some guy you really didn't care about (Kuwait)who lived next door to the guy with the best power tools (Saudi Arabia). The sorta friendly neighbor (SA) with the power tools let's you borrow as much as you like for a nominal fee but he's really kind of a prick . . . beats the wife, kicks the dog, and teaches his kids to hate people like you. The perp (Saddam) and his first target (Kuwait) are not particularly friendly to you but they've got nice tools and loan pretty liberally as well. Truth is . . . you really don't like any of them but you really need access to their tools. Essentially the least prickish of the group (SA) offers tool-loan-for-life in exchange for getting the perp to back off. Once in the neighborhood the invaded prick (Kuwait) offers a similar deal to kick the perps arse. You comply and now your two less than neighborly pricks intermittently kiss your feet and curse you. Time passes and nothing changes. Your distant not-quite-friends still have the best tools but their neighbor is still a prick. But turns out the prick has nice tools, too. So you decide that maybe you should just kick the prick's arse and take his tools. If the neighbors don't like it you might take their tools as well. What could be better than improved access to the best tools plus being able to tell your new neighbors the truth . . . "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . . In the meantime, Community Watch offers assistance . . . your response, "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . . Other community members ask if there's another way . . . you respond, "you guys are a bunch of punk beotches" . . . A minority in the community supports your efforts . . . your response, "get your damn hand out of my pockets . . . wait for the crumbs you punk beotch" . . .You have it backwards... 12 years ago you broke into my house and assualted me and my family. I got a restraining order against you that said you were not allowed to play loud music. You continue to play loud music... Ok, so that makes no sense, but my point is, Saddam did the bad thing first, he broke the rules, he gets punished...
But I thought you said that Saddam didn't have any WMD. Now you are saying that we shouldn't invade so we don't have to worry about him using them on our troops.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But I thought you said that Saddam didn't have any WMD. Now you are saying that we shouldn't invade so we don't have to worry about him using them on our troops.
Let's try two versions: 1) Assume Saddam has WMD. Let inspections continue for several months. If he has a lot go kick his arse (with friends), if inspectors find very little then keep looking and plan for future means of monitoring for compliance.
2) Assume Saddam has no significant/readily deployable WMD. Don't invade PERIOD.
Pretend I'm a chickenhawk cheerleader . . . the ONLY reason President Bush would take the war option would be to destroy Saddam's extensive WMD program. Hence, if Bush invades the program exists. And if the program exists it is possible Saddam will use it against US forces. In that case the US has to be prepared to use all weapons at its disposal . . . including nuclear.
Back to thinking individual . . . if the ONLY scenario under which nukes would be used is a significant chemical/biological strike against invading US forces . . . wouldn't the intelligent action be to find a different means of disarmament than unilateral invasion?
<FONT size=2>Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's try two versions: 1) Assume Saddam has WMD. Let inspections continue for several months. If he has a lot go kick his arse (with friends), if inspectors find very little then keep looking and plan for future means of monitoring for compliance. 2) Assume Saddam has no significant/readily deployable WMD. Don't invade PERIOD. Pretend I'm a chickenhawk cheerleader . . . the ONLY reason President Bush would take the war option would be to destroy Saddam's extensive WMD program. Hence, if Bush invades the program exists. And if the program exists it is possible Saddam will use it against US forces. In that case the US has to be prepared to use all weapons at its disposal . . . including nuclear. Back to thinking individual . . . if the ONLY scenario under which nukes would be used is a significant chemical/biological strike against invading US forces . . . wouldn't the intelligent action be to find a different means of disarmament than unilateral invasion?But I thought you said that Saddam didn't have any WMD. Now you are saying that we shouldn't invade so we don't have to worry about him using them on our troops.
You missed the part where the perp got put on probation and was told to clear his house of all weapons. 12 years later he is still breaking that probation which you are having to pay to keep enforced. Soon that probation will be over and he will be getting huge windfall of dollars to spend on more weapons. He still doesn't like any of his neighbors and he's really pissed at you.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You missed the part where the perp got put on probation and was told to clear his house of all weapons. 12 years later he is still breaking that probation which you are having to pay to keep enforced. Soon that probation will be over and he will be getting huge windfall of dollars to spend on more weapons. He still doesn't like any of his neighbors and he's really pissed at you.
It doesn't cost us a dime to keep the perp on probation. We spend money supposedly for that purpose but we really want to get our hands on his power tools. His tool is so long and so strong . . . and rumor is he can go real deep. When probation is over we will have to pay his price (along with his buddies) to use their tools. We don't like the price. We would like to set the price.
I don't care how pissed he may be. Not my problem. I will be friendly with the decent people (Jordan, Egypt, Turkey) and more friendly with the marginal people (Iran) and tell the others to kiss my arse . . . but let me borrow their power tools. We could even offer our arse kicking service in exchange for power tool access. The perp will learn his lesson not to mess with us too much and we will learn the lesson that everything comes at a price . . . and as long as it belongs to someone else the price will be on their terms.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Someone set us up the bomb
I dislike bullies. Bush is a bully. Saddam is a bully. Saddam at least has the good taste not to pretend to be noble . . .I'm not slow but you just seem be trying too hard to show your distaste for Bush and his actions.
We don't know all the facts that the government knows, and I doubt Bush would invade Iraq with the world against him over oil, the US has enough
sway in the oil industry as is. For all we know Iraq could pose a legitimate threat to the US and Bush is acting in our best interests.