War on Iraq

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by mbunny, Mar 12, 2003.

  1. mbunny

    mbunny Guest

    I just think NTFS.org need to have a frank discussion. Flaming will ensue. But please for everyones sake. DO NOT resort to name calling and cussing. Lets keep this a serious discussion.

    Support your arguments with evidence (not made up ones please) .

    Sorry if we already have this thread. Anyway... heres my rant starting... NOW

    ------------------------------------------

    Just a point i'd like to have highlighted. Here we are talking about Iraq and how they can "POSSIBLY" have nuclear weapons while we have North Korea who has fired TWO nuclear missiles into the sea separating north Korea and japan. That filled a while 45 second slot on the news.

    Why has George W Bush not gone on about North Korea? Not only has NK Proven they have Nuclear Weapons, they are FLAUNTING the nuclear weapons. Yet i don't see any public effort by the US to do anything about the other Axis of Evil.

    Bush needs to detract attention away from the home and point it else where. Its all politics. It just happens Iraq was once demonised and has again been demonised. I am currently satisfied in the action that has been undertaken by the UN with the disarmament of Iraq. No-one should have weapons of mass destruction. So next month we had better damn well see America's weapons disarmed.

    A fact, America botched an assassination attempt in Nicaragua where a car bomb killed more people than was lost in 9/11. Its just that Nicaragua has no global impact and because people don't care. This people is called disneyfication. When something bad is covered up with only the sugar coating the only thing visible. (Can we say Black Hawk Down?)

    There is no point slandering the president. He is doing his job. We don't get to see what he sees. We could be here saying that we have no proof but he could have the proof but circumstances stand against him showing it to anyone. (ie It was America who gave them the nukes) Again its only an example so do not flame me on that one.

    War is inevitable now no matter what is said. With the number of troops stationed at the border of Iraq. POTUS will lose face if he withdraws. He will lose face in both situations but he will save some face if he takes down Iraq (assuming he is successful)

    Just a fact, US are the ONLY country to have used a Nuclear Weapon as an act of aggression. (France only tested same with Pakistan and India) US KILLED people with their bomb.
     
  2. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    points raised are valid... and the us is sending a small deployment to SK in order to hold excercises....

    I dunno how this will work other than to raise tensions with the north koreans... they have nothing to lose... and threfore they are more dangerous than Iraq... but unfortunately bush does not appear to have a personal vendetta against them...
     
  3. Jahya

    Jahya Guest

    Ok, first off, North Korea has NOT recently tested nuclear missiles. The missiles launced into the Sea of Japan were a test of a new type of rocket, which could potentially be armed with a nuclear warhead. Second, North Korea supposedly does NOT currently have operational nuclear weapons, though there is speculation they may have two plutonium based nukes (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/index.html). The issue w/ North Korea is over the fact that they have restarted their nuclear development and WILL have fully operation nuclear warheads within a years time, give or take (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/index.html). I would not put it past them to actually have them already, but the official word is NO.

    North Korea at this point is just sabre-rattling. They seem to want a conflict with the U.S.. They are taking every move the U.S. has made anywhere in North Korea's general region as preparation for a "preemptive strike" which may potentially be nuclear (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/february/0210_north_korea.shtml). They are spreading the word to their people to prepare for this. They are positioning their military to defend and have stated that they have missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/index.html). Again, supposedly they are not nuclear YET, but they have also stated any nuclear attack by the U.S. on North Korea would result in a nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea. That statement in and of itself indicates that they are actually nuclear at this point, though there is no actual evidence to support this beyond the fact that they currently have enough plutonium to make two nuclear weapons and the U.S. suspects they do have at least one, probably two.

    Anyway, next....

    The U.S. has been off and on destroying nukes over the past 10-15 years in cooperation with the former Soviet Union. Problem is, a few are destroyed and then the U.S. and Russia have a "disagreement" and it all comes to a halt. Then starts up again. Currently, the U.S. has so many nuclear weapons, it would take years to destroy them all. Not to say I agree with maintaining these weapons, but by the same token our government is not going to destroy them all as long as it is even suspected that another country, friend or foe, has even one nuclear weapon. Just a fact, it's not going to change, especially in light of recent world events.

    Not true, war is not inevitable. It is highly unlikely it will be avoided at this point, but the new amendment (benchmarks) that Britain has introduced today at the UN (http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0ql=crp) could potentially stop the war from taking place. Again, not likely but it is possible. It will all depend on the UN response to this. Personally, I think the U.S. would be happy with a peaceful solution (though I suspect that some of this is personal for GW since his father was unable to complete the task) to Iraq ao they can move on to other concerns like N. Korea with their full attention, but GW is not going to settle for anything less than Saddam's exile and a new regime.

    While this is true that the U.S. is the only country to have used nukes, it was a choice that was made, not as an act of aggression, but as an act of defense and a means to end WWII. At the rate that the Japanese military was moving prior to the bombs being dropped, there would have been a full on warfront on the west coast of the U.S. within months. And seeing as we were also busy in Europe preventing most of the continent from becoming Nazis, the world could not afford to have the U.S. in involved in a war on its own soil. Why, because a U.S. warfront would have meant far less support for the war in Europe. Like it or not, without U.S. intervention in WWII, most of Europe would have been under Nazi control. The U.S. stayed out of that war for as long as possible (even though the European countries were begging), it was the bombing of Pearl Harbor that finally brought the U.S. fully into WWII. And even with all the tests done prior to actual use, I don't think anyone had any idea of the impact the three a-bombs dropped on Japan would have. Perhaps they should have, but.... It is something that was regretted afterwards. By then... Too late to change anything.
     
  4. Jahya

    Jahya Guest

    btw, the articles listed in my post are not necessarily the full article regarding the subject. I couldn't find all of that in my search for sources, I'm at work and just don't have the time for the full legwork to support my statements. I wish I did, this is a hot topic and I enjoy discussing it while hoping for a solution without violence.

    In regards to what Sazar said, unfortunately, I have to agree that Gw does not have the personal vendetta against North Korea that he does with Iraq. North Korea is the true threat to the security of the U.S..

    If Saddam flips out and starts blowing sh!t up, he has nothing capable of coming anywhere near the U.S. (maybe some U.S. interests abroad). It would be sad to see Israel blown to pieces, or any other nearby country that Saddam gets pissed at, but that's their problem, let them commit the resources to disarm Iraq. But in all fairness, IF the U.S. were to completely pull out of the Middle East and Saddam were to go apesh!t, who would get the blame for letting it happen? The U.S.. This point will be argued, I'm sure, but let's face the facts that the majority of the world hates the U.S. and doesn't want U.S. intervention, but when the sh!t hits the fan, these same countries blame the U.S. for not intervening.

    Well anyway, enough said, I'm way behind on what I should be doing at work now.... oooops. :eek:
     
  5. Un4gIvEn1

    Un4gIvEn1 Moderator

    Messages:
    1,084
    someone did their homework... (Jahya) :)

    I just happen to be one of those guys that cares very little about politics. I have never understood them. The parts in my brain that others use for politics, hold information about computers. I could not validly argue anything. I know that WE all put that man in office and gave him the gavel. What he chooses will probably be best for us when it is all said and done. Now, if you will excuse me I am going to run and hide before I get attacked by those "politicians" that are reading.
     
  6. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    ok... lets take this one @ a time.. NK is nuclear capable to teh extent that it should be able to... at a pinch... put together dirty bombs or perhaps one or two proper nukes with weapons grade plutonium...

    north korea... like I said.. has less to lose and therefore should be considered highly volatile as well and all efforts should be made to diplomatically resolve the issues @ hand...

    concernign teh start treaties... they were a bit of a joke to start with IMO...

    now with regards to iraq... the us has positioned itself in such a way that all we hear about on the news here is THE WAR ON IRAQ... there is no talk of PEACE or any diplomatic solutions on the news networks...

    the lobbying of the security council members and the way that the turkish state has been lobbied also hints @ a little bit of underhanded tactics.... the 'coalition' perhaps is not as BIG or as POWERFUL as we are continually lead to believe...

    now concerning the us/japan stance on wwII... it reminds me entirely of the situation between the carthaginians and the romans during the punic wars... its almost identical...

    in 'defense' rome went out and captured/brought under its control a number of free states/cities... all in the name of 'defense'

    and the pearl harbor situation was no different than the case of saguntum... below the ebro... beyond that I cannot for the life of me see how japan could have been planning a full scale assault on the US seeing as how a large number of their troops were held up in china trying to keep a control of that country as a 'colony' of their 'empire'... it would not seem feasible...

    war is never pleasant and this current affair is certainly not one that needs to happen... I have much respect for the soldiers of all countries that fight to defend their nations civil rights and freedoms... but this entire situation is getting a little too heated...

    down to the nukes.. :) 2.. not 3...
     
  7. Iceman

    Iceman Moderator

    Messages:
    2,695
    Sounds good, but history doesn't back up your statements.

    1. First of all the Japanese were in full retreat at the time the bombs were dropped, they were in no way shape or form capable of striking the west coast of the U.S. at this time.

    2. The war in Europe was already over by the time the bombs were dropped.

    Timeline:

    Apr. 30, 1945 - Hitler suicide

    May 7, 1945 - German surrender

    Aug. 6, 1945 - Hiroshima - 20 kiloton Little Boy killed 80,000

    Aug. 9, 1945 - Nagasaki - 22 kiloton Fat Man kills 70,000

    Aug. 15, 1945 - Japan Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day

    There were only 2 a-bombs dropped on Japan, so where you got your info about 3 I have no clue.

    The reason given for the dropping of the bombs was simply this, the taking of the Japanese Islands would have cost the US several thousands of US lives. The Japanese were firmly entrenched on the Islands and it was decided that it would be to costly in lives to take the Islands by force. So the decision to drop the bombs was made. There has been much debate on the outcomes of the dropping of the bombs, I for one think it was a tragedy to drop the bombs on civilians, (though there were military targets included in the kill area), though it's easy to play monday morning quarterback.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    well put ice..

    coupla points you will see dscrepencies with if you read about the sequence of events... but nothing that contradicts what you are saying..

    from what I have read... it would appear that the japanese @ the time actually were ready for surrender and only were holding out for better terms to the 'agreements' namely the rights of the emperor...

    also BOTH the bombs missed their intended targets and for the life of me I can't imagine WHY the second bomb was dropped... but hey... the war ended... and PR has covered it up pretty well since...
     
  9. mike09

    mike09 Moderator

    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Washingtonville , New York
    i totally agree on the using of the nukes in WWII. the way the japanese were fighting it would have resulted in a massive US death rate cause the japanese were trained to fight till the death.

    the iraq thing. i dont know how people could think the whole reason why we are to war is fro oil. i think taht the reason the french arent going is because they are about to complete a deal with iraq for billions worth of oil (not sure on this but i think i heard it on msnbc or somwthing) we all no waht happened during the first war with iraq and i believe that going to war will be one of the ways to fix the problem. the other is if saddam will step down from office and a new gov't is set up.

    these are my 2 cents.
     
  10. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    I think the whole issue should be settled during a UN LAN event where they play counter-strike :D
     
  11. Iceman

    Iceman Moderator

    Messages:
    2,695
    excellent point, actually the Japanese people were ready to surrender, unfortunaly their military and emperor were not, and the military had orders to defend the Japanese Islands against all odds, there were some talks of surrender but their terms were not acceptable. A real tragedy anyway you look at it.

    In my opinion war should be the absolute last resort, and I am not convinced that we need or should commit war on Iraq at this time, but like I said this is my opinion, but there are other alternatives. But to me it appears Bush needs this war to increase his favorable points, I surely hope this man is not re-elected.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    fair points... and AFAIK it does appear that your last paragraph sums up the reasons for this taking place as it is...

    bush's agenda for the next elections were leaked and then pr'd out of the news but basically consist of 9/11 references and the on-going war on terror... bear in mind that the key notes are most likely to be delivered in h2'03 or in h1'04... which raises the question... who will he be fighting next ? north korea ? iran ? france ?

    btw... what do you think of a CS lan even @ the UN to resolve issues... its the closest to combat dubyah would ever come...
     
  13. Iceman

    Iceman Moderator

    Messages:
    2,695
    as far as CS @ the UN, I don't want Bush on my team.

    lalalalalalalaallalalalalla

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    I can just picture the custom models of saddam (huge moustache) and dubyah (blank expression on face)
     
  15. mike09

    mike09 Moderator

    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Washingtonville , New York

    welll the reason the US droped the second bomb was because first the US told the japanese that if they didnt surrender they would suffer great death if they didnt. after the US droped the first one they asked again to surrender but fell on dead ears in japan. after the second bomb they finally surrendered.
     
  16. Iceman

    Iceman Moderator

    Messages:
    2,695
    one word: Civilians

    non-combatants made up the majority of the 150,000 that lost their lives in those 2 bombs.

    had it been military personal, i probably wouldn't have a problem with it. Women and children and I do.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    exactly... and the president went on record to say that the loss of life of children to the extent which became apparent after the bombs were dropped... was unacceptable...

    I doubt they understood just how deadly these devices were or the side-effects...
     
  18. Friend of Bill

    Friend of Bill What, me worry?

    Messages:
    1,572
    The "Cold War" is over and we got bored. Now we have the "War on Terrorism." We were trapped in a "Cold War Psychosis" and did not know what to do with ourselves. By the way, have you seen the MOAB (Mother of all Bombs)? Looks pretty spiffy to me...:)
     
  19. Jahya

    Jahya Guest

    I've seen it mentioned by a couple people that there were only TWO bombs dropped on Japan to end the war.... I will have to do some homework to provide the proof (and the name of the city), but there were, in fact, THREE bombs dropped on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only ones ever discussed because number THREE was dropped "in error" because the message to cease did not reach the pilots in time (everyone was too busy celebrating Japan's surrender I guess...?). The Third bomb dropped did not have near the payload of the first two as I recall. I originally saw this on "History's Mysteries" or some other History channel show. Digging up the proof may prove to be a task, but I know if it made it to the History Channel there has to be something published.

    Next, and I know others pointed this out as well, including mike09, but as stated, despite the condition of the Japanese army at the time the bombs were dropped they were not going to surrender, the war was not over. There may have been divisions of the Japanese military prepared to surrender, but overall, they were pushing forward (as best they could) and had reinforcements coming (despite what may have been happening with China -- not familiar with this) and the U.S. was in a position that could have resulted in a Japanese landing on the west coast of the U.S.. As mentioned, Japanese soldiers are taught (or a better way to put it, raised with pride willingness to die for cause/country) "death before dishonour" and in this case, dishonour would be surrender.

    ... and in the end, the great Roman Empire still fell....

    Even as a natural born citizen of the U.S. I recognize the fact that this day will come for the U.S., hopefully it will be long after I'm dead and gone.

    edit: In regards to the third bomb, I hope I wasn't watching something like Fact or Fiction on TLC or something. LoL
     
  20. Tabula Rasa

    Tabula Rasa Stranger Than Kindness Political User

    Messages:
    3,233
    Location:
    Israel
    How about the fact that you needed to test it on someone?