|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted September 18, 2002 12:55 AM |
|
|
well I'm sure dargon will have something to say about it, but sadam's action does kinda pull the rug from under the american efforts. I still would like him removed, but America will find it very difficult to act without any support in the area itself
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 06:27 AM |
|
|
Yes, Saddam really did the unthinkable thing.
He allowed the United Nations Weapons Inspectors to come back to Iraq ao that his weapons and weapon factories can be inspected. But that does not mean that the United States and its allies will back down on attacking Iraq, nor Saddam and his allies are going to draw their arsenal and their plans for an Islamic holy war off their list.
May the inspection be safe...
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 08:40 AM |
|
|
Quote
“ Why should we have a UN in first place if they get ignored anyway when things are about to happend? The UN isnt there just to do nothing you know, they do have a purpose and atleast i think that they should try and fill that purpose aswell.”
As I stated previously they do have a purpose….a LIMITED purpose for debate, discussion, and cooperation. The UN is not sovereign for the US. We are sovereign. If your nation wants to surrender their sovereignty to the UN…well more power to you. Do NOT put your DEMANDS about what power the UN should have over the US on us. IF you want it to be all powerful for you…that is great…don’t force it upon others. A little respect for individual freedom is what I am talking about. I respect your freedom to surrender your power to them….I think you should respect our freedom to not surrender our God given rights to them.
Quote
“country who just want it their way and doesn’t give a crap about what the rest of the world says.”
That seems highly prejudicial and nationalistic with little basis with accurate history. But if you believe that…no amount of facts are going to persuade you differently.
In life I have found it much more easy to accept and understand that someone can both listen/care about what others say while at the same time choosing to do something else. That is called individuality…we are not some enmeshed mass that is symbiotic!
Quote
“ Because if you read all of it my comments will make sense, i promise.”
I have read ALL of your words and I try to never misinterpret…so if I have misunderstood any of your intentions that was not my purpose.
Quote
“ Just because you have elected a leader to your nation of your own your nation is entitled to do whatever it like?”
As I stated before….the cause must be moral/good. So no we can’t do “whatever we like” we don’t bomb this country or that county because we don’t like their style of clothing or what have you. Who judges what is moral/good….well that is an age old question that I don’t think can ever be fully agreed upon…but that is what is great about freedom…everyone can have the freedom to express their own beliefs and convictions.
Quote
”How do you think the EU would work if for example the French wanted to decide everything just because they have elected their leader?”
If your country wants to be part of the EU good for you. Again respect for each nation’s individual sovereignty to chose their own destiny. In the US we have 50 states….all part of 1 nation. The UN is not our nation. It would seem I want you to have your freedom of governance, but you don’t want to grant other nations the same dignity.
Fact is 2 weeks ago only England, Israel, and the US were the only ones seeing that strong action needs to be taken....thereafter…Bushes speech to the UN…. following most nations were then agreeing that strong action must be taken for inspections to resume….Russia, France, Canada, etc. ,etc. That would seem to justify my statement that “As far as world support...it grows stronger each day for president Bush's stance towards Saddam.”
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 08:44 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Well it seems that Iraq has agreed to unconditional weapons inspections.”
If you read the statement it isn’t actually unconditional…it mentions respect for the nations sovereignty etc, etc. That is a HUGE loophole for them to claim “oh you can’t inspect here or there…you are infringing upon our sovereignty.
Quote
“I can see no way Bush can attack Iraq now since his main demand is being met.”
That is totally incorrect. Right now we have a paper…that is all a paper…nothing has been met at this time….if there is unfettered and cooperative inspections at every turn…then the demands would be met. Also since one of the demands of both the earlier UN resolutions and Bush’s speech was that Saddam hand over all weapons of mass destruction…well everyone and there mother knows that he hasn’t done that! Demand been met???? I think not.
Quote
“sadam's action does kinda pull the rug from under the american efforts. I still would like him removed”
I don't think any rug has been pulled out from anything. If it wasn’t for the courage of Bush and Blair there would be no alleged return of inspectors. Saddam continually said no, no, no. Then days after Bush’s speech now we hear a different tune….That would seem to be quite an impact especially compared to the last 4 years of him denying any further inspections.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 08:46 AM |
|
|
Fool me once shame on you…fool me twice shame on me!
K how many times must we be FOOLS???
Lets take a brief review of history and inspections.
April 91 Iraq agrees to international inspections.
May-August 1991-Iraq blocks and harasses UN inspectors.
September 1991-Inspectors find nuclear weapon records.
October 1991-Iraq declares inspections illegal refuses to cooperate.
February 1992 Iraq refuses to destroy banned weapons, admits to making defensive biological weapons.
January 1993 Iraq refuse to allow UN inspection flights.
August 1995- Iraq admits to making offensive biological weapons.
September 1997-Iraq bars inspectors from eight “presidential sites”.
November 1997- Iraq demands all US inspectors leave.
February 1998- Experts report that Iraq has not allowed reliable inspections.
August 1998- Iraq say it will no longer cooperate with the UN.
December 1998- Last inspections.
All right there in black and white! Come on when are we going to wake up…this guy is a maniacal, lying dictator! Trust him????? Trust a piece of paper? How many times for him to break his word will it take before people wake up and see he is a LIAR.
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 18, 2002 12:42 PM |
|
|
Agreed!@
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 03:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Agreed!@
Did we ever have a controversial discussion about Saddam Hussein´s integrity?? Of course he is a liar, he would be that even without Dargon stating that obvious thing in capitals and Hexa shouting "agreed". I doubt that there´s anyone here on the forum who wouldn´t like to see Saddan Hussein replaced by someone else.
Only problem, this would have at least these two consequences:
1. Thousands of Iraq´s citizens will die.
2. Alliances in the middle east will crumble, people there will become more radical, more fundamentalistic, America´s "unprovoked agression against one of them" (that´s how it will be perceived) will further the popularity of people like OBL and organisations like Al-Quaeda.
The subject is too difficult and complex to just say:"Saddam is a LIAR, bomb him!" Even after a succesful replacement of the dictator, the danger of terrorist attacks might as well be worse than before.
Quote:
As I stated before….the cause must be moral/good.
To find out whether your cause has a chance to be moral/good at all, it might help to become a little bit abstract. Dargon, if these bombs had to be thrown on US cities, and if the victims of this war, soldiers and citizens, were 99% Americans, would you still support it? Would a majority of Americans support it, and would Bush support it?
____________
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I stated previously they do have a purpose….a LIMITED purpose for debate, discussion, and cooperation. The UN is not sovereign for the US. We are sovereign. If your nation wants to surrender their sovereignty to the UN…well more power to you. Do NOT put your DEMANDS about what power the UN should have over the US on us. IF you want it to be all powerful for you…that is great…don’t force it upon others. A little respect for individual freedom is what I am talking about. I respect your freedom to surrender your power to them….I think you should respect our freedom to not surrender our God given rights to them.
This isnt about surrendering any powers to someone else, this is about making decisions together and get support behind them instead of saying
"Second...though we would like support from others we don't have to have it"
If a country is to be attacked today which obviously holds really dangerous weapons and therefor can be a threat to everyone ONE nation should not have the power to do as they like. To me this is much of what its all about, you may be one of the leading countries in this world but that does not give you the right to do whatever you like. And as ive said before, the UN does have a purpose and should be listened to whatever they say. Not only if there are something that sounds acceptable to you.
Quote:
Quote
“country who just want it their way and doesn’t give a crap about what the rest of the world says.”
That seems highly prejudicial and nationalistic with little basis with accurate history. But if you believe that…no amount of facts are going to persuade you differently.
If i believe that? lol thats more or less your words but hey, feel free to tell the differences about these two sentences:
"Second...though we would like support from others we don't have to have it" - your starting sentence
and
“country who just want it their way and doesn’t give a crap about what the rest of the world says.” - my version of your sentence.
Im gladly waiting for a reply on that one...
Quote:
In life I have found it much more easy to accept and understand that someone can both listen/care about what others say while at the same time choosing to do something else. That is called individuality…we are not some enmeshed mass that is symbiotic!
Then try and show that individuality instead of accepting and doing everything your goverment wants you to believe.
Quote:
As I stated before….the cause must be moral/good. So no we can’t do “whatever we like” we don’t bomb this country or that county because we don’t like their style of clothing or what have you. Who judges what is moral/good….well that is an age old question that I don’t think can ever be fully agreed upon…but that is what is great about freedom…everyone can have the freedom to express their own beliefs and convictions.
Good point, and who made you americans and only you americans the judge of it then? As stated above my opinion in all this is that this should be something that will be worked out together, not by one nation.
Quote:
Quote
”How do you think the EU would work if for example the French wanted to decide everything just because they have elected their leader?”
If your country wants to be part of the EU good for you. Again respect for each nation’s individual sovereignty to chose their own destiny. In the US we have 50 states….all part of 1 nation. The UN is not our nation. It would seem I want you to have your freedom of governance, but you don’t want to grant other nations the same dignity.
This wasnt about us being a part of EU, i just took as an example to show you that having a democracy in your own country doesnt mean you can be dictator in rest of organisation/world.
And if that freedom of yours is bombing another country only based on your own will and support then no - then i dont want your nation to have that freedom.
Quote:
Fact is 2 weeks ago only England, Israel, and the US were the only ones seeing that strong action needs to be taken....thereafter…Bushes speech to the UN…. following most nations were then agreeing that strong action must be taken for inspections to resume….Russia, France, Canada, etc. ,etc. That would seem to justify my statement that “As far as world support...it grows stronger each day for president Bush's stance towards Saddam.”
Yes but this wasnt about "inspections to resume", this was about you attacking another country only based on your on will and dont care about rest of world nor their opinons or support. Please stick to the subject. thnx.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 05:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2. Alliances in the middle east will crumble, people there will become more radical, more fundamentalistic, America´s "unprovoked agression against one of them" (that´s how it will be perceived) will further the popularity of people like OBL and organisations like Al-Quaeda.
I've been sitting out on this debate for a little while, but I am going to take exception to this statement of which you seem quite certain.
I assume you refer to governments like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and their somewhat on-off uneasy alliance with the US. The scenario I guess you're imagining is a fundametalist Islamic revolution that sweeps the Middle East and leaves the western world trembling at the prospect of a united Jihad. Admittedly, possible, but I don't think it's at all likely. These allegedly fragile monarchies are anything but -- look at Jordan -- the monarchy was humiliated by Israel in 1967 and lost both east Jerusalem and the West Bank -- no popular uprising. The monarchy then made an extremely unpopular move by making "peace" with the Israelis in 1994 -- no popular revolution. Egypt survived the assasination of Sadat by islamic militants without being taken over by a fundamentalist regime - in fact, power passed, as it was supposed to, to Mubarak. Despite the rhetoric, popular uprising in the middle east really only happened in Iran.
As I recall, Pakistan was supposed to be in fundamentalist hands now -- after all, helping the US was supposed to ensure a popular revolt. It didn't happen - especially after there were people dancing in the streets of Kabul and lining up around barber shops to get their beards shaved.
It's also probably true that there's a certain amount of "Saddam may be a bastard, but he's our bastard," sentiment in the middle east, but at the same time, Arabs aren't stupid -- they know that it's not particularly pleasant to be Iraqi and they know that Saddam isn't entirely innocent in this matter. Would dancing in the streets of Baghdad incite them to Islamic revolution?
You gave one possible scenario, I give you another - the US victory is quick and involves minimal (well, minimal relative to the number of casualties caused by Saddam while he's been in power) casualties. Impossible you say? Given the success of the US in the last gulf war as well as in Afghanistan, isn't the "US is a paper tiger" argument wearing a bit thin? No, quick victory or even victory at all is not assured, but it is a bit naive to keep saying that the US is incapable of winning a war. The US then provides aid on a Marshall plan scale and a fledgeling democracy blooms in Iraq. This DOES destabilize governments like Saudi Arabia's, but in a good way -- who says popular revolution has to be Islamic?
Now is my scenario going to happen? Almost certainly not, but I actually think that it's more likely than the horror story that you're stating as fact. Because here's the thing - we'd like to think of the Arab world as a bunch of foaming at the mouth fundamentalists who are poised to topple their governments and lash out at the great western satan, but the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Arabs are just trying to raise their kids, scrape up a few Rials so they can go on a short holiday maybe and keep their heads down. While some may look the other way or even wink and nod at the suicide bombers, they ain't gonna strap the bombs to themselves.
All that said, I repeat my earlier position of -- the US can act unilaterally if and only if it has clear evidence that Saddam/Iraq is helping/harboring significant portions of al Qaeda. The UN, but NOT the US can, and probably should, act on the violation of the surrender terms. However, if the UN decides to sit with their thumb up their ass, there's not a lot that the US can do since the surrender wasn't to the US, therefore there isn't grounds for an attack. I also very strongly feel that if any sort of attack is made, the world or the US, depending on who's doing the attacking needs to be prepared to give extensive amounts of aid, because otherwise we'll be back again in 20 years.
Unlike Dargon, I don't have a problem with the UN. I just wish their damn delegates would learn to drive, stop parking illegally and jamming the streets or at the very least pay their parking fines (I'm sorry, but diplomatic immunity is not meant to let you park wherever you please) and stop backing up traffic in a 15 block radius whenever they have a freakin' summit or something.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 06:30 PM |
|
|
Bort, you misinterpreted me. Besides, I said what tendency can be expected, you created horror scenarios out of that  .
I´m not an English native speaker, maybe the word "crumble" was too strong, but the relationship to the other middle east states will surely be damaged. All of them (including Kuwait) are against an American attack. It will strenghten their fundamentalists, who always warned of the American "crusaders".
For example the Iran - it´s hard to convince people there to open themselves towards western freedom and democracy, if the US, lacking any international right, start such a "preventive" war.
Quote:
Would dancing in the streets of Baghdad incite them to Islamic revolution?
It´s not all dancing in the streets. The Taliban are more popular now then ever before, when they were in power.
____________
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 07:08 PM |
|
|
Offtopic where did I shout Lewis?@
I just think that Sadam is postponing the enevidible ... again ...
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 18, 2002 11:16 PM |
|
|
Bort
Just to say the war against Iraq now would be a much different prospect to the one of 10 years ago. this war would see the Iraqui army fighting on it's own soil in cities and towns, a lot different to much of the terrain fought over in Kuwait. Also any invasion will almost certainly have to attack from a distant island due to the lack of support they will get from the neighbouring countries due to the reinstatement of weapons inspectors. To destroy an army in open battle is one thing, to force it from it's cities and towns is another (just ask the germans who fought at stalingrad)
Don't get me wrong, with the right will and the Brits backing you (You don't seem capable of winning when we aren't there) you could win such a conflict, but you would have to expect heavier casualties than before and be prepared to accept them rather than bail out when casualty lists get too high to warrant the risk in popularity.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 12:18 AM |
|
|
@ Hexa
I interpreted that your post has been written in an emotionalized state of mind, so I called it shouting  .
That´s because Dargon´s post that you "agreed" with suggests that people here who are against a war do think that Saddam were trustworthy and honest.
No offense intended  .
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 05:54 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Did we ever have a controversial discussion about Saddam Hussein´s integrity?? Of course he is a liar, he would be that even without Dargon stating that obvious thing in capitals and Hexa shouting "agreed".”
Uh actually yes! many people have been trying to implicitly say Saddam is a man of they can trust…thus statement in this thread and in the world such as “hey we got a paper signed that allows inspectors back…so no need to pass further resolutions or take military action”…that would indicate that many uninformed individuals do not grasp the basic fact that his word cannot be trusted….so the paper is as useless as a used piece of toilet paper.
Quote
”Alliances in the middle east will crumble, people there will become more radical, more fundamentalistic, America´s "unprovoked aggression against one of them" (that´s how it will be perceived) will further the popularity of people like OBL and organisations like Al-Quaeda.
That is a leap of logic. Interestingly the exact opposite currently happened…the world has been sitting idly by allowing Saddam to accrue WMD and defy his terms of surrender….and yet wait what happened…..9/11 happened…so current history would seem to strongly deny your theory.
Quote
“To find out whether your cause has a chance to be moral/good at all, it might help to become a little bit abstract. Dargon, if these bombs had to be thrown on US cities, and if the victims of this war, soldiers and citizens, were 99% Americans, would you still support it?”
I hope that was a hastily written sentence that doesn’t capture your moral view. Are you really trying to say that there are equitable moral grounds between bombing the USA versus bombing Saddam? I hope you are not.
Secondly to use your logic if someone would “like” being bombed….that is a nonsensical argument…that is like asking would someone like to be raped.
Third….to use that logic we should not of bombed the Nazi’s either in WWII…because they wouldn’t of liked it?
quote
“This isnt about surrendering any powers to someone else, this is about making decisions together and get support behind them instead of saying “
To you it is not surrendering because you want to do it....to others it would be a big surrender.
Quote
“If a country is to be attacked today which obviously holds really dangerous weapons and therefor can be a threat to everyone ONE nation should not have the power to do as they like.”
That is a reasonable statement....where we can disagree.
“To me this is much of what its all about, you may be one of the leading countries in this world but that does not give you the right to do whatever you like.”
I keep repeating myself….we do not have the right to do whatever we like…. your characterization is too broad….we are not bombing any country we don’t like just for the heck of it….to rephrase your statement in my opinion…yes everyone has the right to pursue moral good as their conscience and nation's conscience dictates. Everyone has the right to protect themselves…which is fundamentally what this regime change is all about.
Quote
“ And as ive said before, the UN does have a purpose and should be listened to whatever they say. Not only if there are something that sounds acceptable to you.”
Again they have no sovereign power over my nation nor any nation. If you want to listen to them…fine I respect that…but again don’t force your government on my nation.
quote
“country who just want it their way and doesn’t give a crap about what the rest of the world says.” - my version of your sentence.“
I don’t mean this as a put down but you seem to struggle with this subject…I would highly recommend you read some psychological books about individuality and differentiation. This is egocentric thinking at its highest….psychologically it is one of the basic stages we must grow out of. Just because someone listens and cares about what the other person has to say DOES NOT mean they have to follow what the other person says. I suggest a look at enmeshment and symbiosis…they are both killers to growth, relationships and happiness in general.
quote
”Then try and show that individuality instead of accepting and doing everything your government wants you to believe.“
Oh I see so I am brainwashed and you are enlightened? There is a huge debate about this in my country…so much for that theory….what country do you come from? Do they support freedom of speech and ideas? I hope so…and if so you know there is no brainwashing going on here.
Quote
“this wasn’t about "inspections to resume", this was about you attacking another country only based on your on will and don’t care about rest of world nor their opinions or support. Please stick to the subject. thnx.”
Actually you are incorrect again…they were completely connected. This was about resuming inspections or there will be a military action….its in all the newspapers…check it out.
Quote
“my opinion in all this is that this should be something that will be worked out together, not by one nation.“
Well I guess that sums up our differences. I doubt we will get much further in changing each others basic world view about the subject. I respect your freedom to chose and you should respect my freedom to chose.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 05:56 AM |
|
|
Bort excellent post and historical analysis. We obviously disagree about the UN..but your thoughts are logical in my opinion.
Quote
“with the right will and the Brits backing you (You don't seem capable of winning when we aren't there) you could win such a conflict,”
LOL…I guess vice versa right back at you buddy I tell you one thing…in US I think respect for England has grown immensely given Blair’s testicles of steel. I got to give him credit and admit I didn’t like him at first…but he has shown to me his integrity and courage.
Quote
“rather than bail out when casualty lists get too high to warrant the risk in popularity.”
I don’t think this has happened often when we have actually declared war ….in fact we should of bailed out of some situations much earlier (and got involved in fewer in my opinion)….or I guess I should say not got involved without all of our might.
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
posted September 19, 2002 07:14 AM |
|
|
shocking
How one year of medical school and Melissa becomes a brain lol. Im shocked she started this thread.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 08:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Uh actually yes! many people have been trying to implicitly say Saddam is a man of they can trust.
On what planet? I´ve never seen or read anyone say such a thing. Sorry, that smells like intentional misinterpretation and propaganda to me.
Quote:
That is a leap of logic. Interestingly the exact opposite currently happened…the world has been sitting idly by allowing Saddam to accrue WMD and defy his terms of surrender….and yet wait what happened…..9/11 happened…so current history would seem to strongly deny your theory.
Logic? What does 9/11 have to do with Sassam´s regime?
All I´m saying is that a US attack will make the middle east stand closer together, and help the fundamentalists. Can anyone who follows current history seriously doubt this?
Quote:
Quote
“To find out whether your cause has a chance to be moral/good at all, it might help to become a little bit abstract. Dargon, if these bombs had to be thrown on US cities, and if the victims of this war, soldiers and citizens, were 99% Americans, would you still support it?”
I hope that was a hastily written sentence that doesn’t capture your moral view.
No, it wasn´t hastily written by me, it was hastily read by you. Purely abstract, if the victims of the bomb war were Americans instead of Iraqi, would it still be considered a "good" cause?
I think reflecting on such a question is a good way to find out what moral grounds you are standing on.
Quote:
Are you really trying to say that there are equitable moral grounds between bombing the USA versus bombing Saddam?
"Bombing Saddam" sounds funny. But sadly, no matter how war propaganda calls it, those bombs are not thrown on a single person, but on inhabitated land.
And yes, I think that an Iraqi life is worth no more and no less than an American life.
Quote:
Secondly to use your logic if someone would “like” being bombed….that is a nonsensical argument…that is like asking would someone like to be raped.
It´s not about "liking being bombed", you have strange ideas. And you´ve just compared a US attack against the Iraq with a rape. I wouldn´t go that far ...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 10:34 AM |
|
|
Dargon
LOL
Nice to see you taking that part of my argument as it was meant in the right way m8!
On blair mmmmmmm interesting as a fair percentage of the people here don't like what he is doing over Iraq and indeed see him as Bush's poodle! Personally if he finds a way of removing Hussain without killing thousands of Iraquis as well I support him. He, being a labour party leader is in a bit of trouble right now as the traditional supporters of Labour, the unions are largely against any conflict or intervention in Iraq so I geuss some people see it as brave, others as ignoring the will of people. Which you believe of course depends on whether you support him or not.
And on the casualties thing I just meant that like Vietnam Americans (naturally don't get me wrong) do not like to see bodies coming home in bags during their wars and this leads to ill feeling amongst the population and a lack of support for the conflict. Sure Nam ended for many different reasons, but you can be sure that if the wrong tactics are used and thousands of people in Iraq and/or Hundreds of American and British Soilders die then popular support, which is already not exactly overwhelming in either country will drop rapidly. I for one don't want to see us get involved in a war only to have to leave with only half a job done, like what happened at the end of the gulf war (although that was for other reasons admitedly).
Oh and on the earlier rug point I merely meant that the Americans now only have british support, which weakens their ability to invade, but should not weaken their resolve. I think I didn't really state that clearly enough sorry.
Oh and HEY! We HAVE won wars alone recently! errrrrrrrrrrrr Falklands for one, but errrrrrrrr it's a while before that before any other serious conflicts............
DOH!
Lews
You make some interesting points which are in my opinion being blown up out of all proportion. I think it is right to say that a countries public such as america or britain would feel much more strongly about boming land if it would endanger their own people, but unfortunately that is the way of public opinion. Whilst no-one I think is suggesting bombing America or England, the idea of bombing Iraq is something that the public care less about than if they were bombing say France or Canada. Fortunately even in the public there is a strong cry for not bombing the Iraquis at all and I support this. America and Britain's fight is with Hussain and his supporters and NOT the people of Iraq. Even those supporting Hussain, well when you bomb civilian areas that Hussain calously puts his millitary in you are unfortunately bound to hit innocent civilians, some of whom hate Hussain. that is why I do not support bombing, but removal of Hussain by other means.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Flamin8Ball
Tavern Dweller
Die young, stay beautiful.
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 05:41 PM |
|
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 06:00 PM |
|
|
And that statment would be?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
