ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:57 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
The impending war with Iraq. For, against, and why.

Discuss.

Me? I'm fucking hungry. I'm going to go get some fuckin' grub.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
For. We can't stop N. Korea's bombing program because we created that problem, and it's too late to remove the information because they'll have backups anyway. That and if we attack without a SMD, they'll bomb US, and we'll bomb THEM, and WWIII will be off to a glowing start. However, Iraq's nuclear development is, as far as we know, still not developed. We can attack them and prevent another Korean disaster before it's too late.

(I am NOT rehashing all of Dubya's reasons . . .I don't have the time or patience. This is just my additional reasoning added to his reasons already.)

Yeah, it's short and not much there, but I'm not shooting for debating brilliance. I'll expand when someone (most likely KC or Pyro) yells at me for being an idiot.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2002 3:50 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
I say we bomb Saddam Hussein to kingdom come so we can console ourselves on not ever verifying Osama's death and try to create a diversion from the crappy economy to cheer us up.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:46 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
I don't know if we could verify Osamas death, if he died in Tora Bora he could be buried under tons of rubble and finding him would be damn near impossible. However, Osama isn't the only terrorist, so we shouldn't become so distracted in the search for Osama that we lose sight of other terrorists. Now, I don't know where Iraq is connected to terrorism, but the reasons Kitsune put forward are enough. If Saddam had nuclear weapons, it would greatly expand his power to blackmail his neighbors and if he loses power he might just set one off. I trust Bush with our nukes, I will never trust a tin pot dictator with nukes. I may not agree with him all the time, but he isn't evil like Saddam is.

Oh, and Kitsune, you want to know why N Korea has nukes? During the Clinton administration in 1994, We found that N Korea was developing nukes. Ex President Carter got into the mess, and negotiated a deal with the government. The deal was that N Korea stop developing nukes, in exchange for stuff to help them build nuclear power plants! This is like making a deal with a bandit that if he gives up his gun, you will give him all sorts of machining equipment and the training to use it! In the end he will just manufacture a new gun.

And they gave Jimmy Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2002 7:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
I KNOW how NK got nukes. It's one of the reasons I always point at Ex-Pres. Carter and laugh when I see him on TV.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:17 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Dude. First of all, Carter won, from an international panel of judges, the Nobel Peace prize. 'Nuff said.

Secondly, I have had a (somewhat obvious) revelation in my evil leftist non-election-winning (damn you, Dubya, for saying that "America is under Attack with a capital "A", and then taking time out to go on vacation AND campaign massively for your party) world. The US is a more appropriate candidate for Dubya's "Axis of Evil" than either Iraq or North Korea. They may have nukes (not even a confirmed fact yet in Iraq), but at least they don't boast the largest collection of nukes, weren't the only nation to actually use nukes against two civilian targets for purely political reasons (If Russia had used a nuke first, we *gasp* might have lost the Cold War to the evil commies), AND then still have the bravado to call other nations evil because they *might* have nukes. The Iraqis (again, *might) have supported terrorist cells in America. But we have our military in something like 140 of the roughly 180 nations in the world, with $350 billion, and growing, in support for said military. We blame Iraq for manipulating and undermining the UN, but we set up the damn thing, and it's effectively our puppet, with our money and our military. I could go on, but it's damn late, so maybe I'll edit this tomorrow.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:09 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
First of all, Iraq is a fucking dictatorship, and Saddam Hussien is EVIL! As much as I may not like Bush at times, he isn't evil. Therefore it is ok for us to have nukes. The USA used the nukes in WW2 because when we invaded Iwo Jima, the casualties were absolutely horrendus. We were poised to invade Japan and they still wouldn't surrender to us even though they were doomed. Intelligence showed that they were drafting large numbers of civilians to be suicide troopers, and even conservative estimates of the invasion put casualties for the USA into the hundreds of thousands, and Japanese casualties into the millions. This is the information that was presented to Truman, and at the time we also didn't understand the grizzly after affects of nukes either. Truman ordered the bombings in the hope that they might shock Japan into surrendering. After the bombings Truman sent a message to the Japanese promising a "rain of ruin" on them if they didn't surrender, implying that we had hundreds of these bombs available. The total casualties due to the bombings are currently about 200 thousand I think. That is a lot less than what could have been and it sure as hell saved the lives of many many American soldiers. So I think the bombings were very justified. Also, don't forget that what the Japanese did to the Chinese. The way I look at it they just got a taste of their own medicine.

Today, the Japanese are ok. Our occupation of them sure straightened them out. And another thing, Mystical whatever the hell the rest of your name is, I don't like Lefties very much. You are a liberal, AND a n00b! Not only that, but you have mystical in your name. I HATE mysticism too! I have an overpoweringly strong desire to brutally initiate you...

Edit: DAMNIT! Kuizero got there first!!! :-$


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Goldstandard on 2002-11-11 06:23 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 00:17, Mystical, Magical Low Quality Buckler wrote:
Dude. First of all, Carter won, from an international panel of judges, the Nobel Peace prize. 'Nuff said.

Secondly, I have had a (somewhat obvious) revelation in my evil leftist non-election-winning (damn you, Dubya, for saying that "America is under Attack with a capital "A", and then taking time out to go on vacation AND campaign massively for your party) world. The US is a more appropriate candidate for Dubya's "Axis of Evil" than either Iraq or North Korea. They may have nukes (not even a confirmed fact yet in Iraq), but at least they don't boast the largest collection of nukes, weren't the only nation to actually use nukes against two civilian targets for purely political reasons (If Russia had used a nuke first, we *gasp* might have lost the Cold War to the evil commies), AND then still have the bravado to call other nations evil because they *might* have nukes. The Iraqis (again, *might) have supported terrorist cells in America. But we have our military in something like 140 of the roughly 180 nations in the world, with $350 billion, and growing, in support for said military. We blame Iraq for manipulating and undermining the UN, but we set up the damn thing, and it's effectively our puppet, with our money and our military. I could go on, but it's damn late, so maybe I'll edit this tomorrow.



You sir are obviously an idiot. We used the weapon twice. We weren't sure what the effects would be besides a really big explosion. They frightened us enough that we have refused to use them again. If we found a way to make clean nukes then MAYBE they would every be used again except by people like Saddam. Even North Korea has no intention of using them. They are exclusively for deterent purposes. Do you want Saddam to have the same deterent capabilities?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 12:09 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
The only reason no one's used nuclear weapons against another country is because of the instant-threat status that will be conferred upon them by the other countries. If they use nukes, the other nations will nuke them to keep the country from ever posing a threat to their populations.

However, some countries are backward enough and crazy enough to not care. Saddam, for example, doesn't care if we bomb the hell out of the citizenship. He'll find a way to get out. So if he gets nuclear capability, what's there to stop him from using it?

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 12:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Actually, his most likely plan is to get nukes, take over kuwait again, and say that if anyone interferes he nukes them. Allows him to expand without giving us an excuse to nuke him, and keeps us from using our armies because if we do, he nukes them.

THAT is the worst-case scenario, if Hussein gets nukes. He gets a free hand in the middle east.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 2:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
Actually I think what scares most people in the U.S government is the idea that once he gets nukes he is going to pass them to terrorist that he knows will hit their target and leave no trail back to him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 2:55 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1095
Location: Hell a.k.a. Georgia
He would most likely do both. Yeah, there's no overt evidence showing saddam is connected with the terrorists and such, but it IS widely known that he is one of the craftiest mofos out thee, and is quite good covering his backtrail. What do you think he did back in the days before he was a higher up in the Ba'ath party? He was a hitman, and a heavy. He learned how to cover his ass like a pro. And he got to the head of his party not by being a nice guy and well liked, but by being the most crafty and ruthless of a bunch of a bunch of dictator wannabes. I don't want to take out the civilian populace, they're not at fault, and most of them would as soon cap Saddam in theb ack of the head as look at him if they had the chance. But the man has got to go, and most of his flunkies need to get the big boot as well. As far as a new govt there, I don't know. I honestly don't know what would work, as most govts don't seem to work all that well to begin with. But the democracies seem to be doing the best so far.

_________________
"Like a game of pick up sticks,
played by fucking lunatics"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 3:01 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Arise, liberals, and defend your position on foreign affairs? Please? Anyone?

Seriously though, by insulting me twice on totally irrelevant topics such as leftism (I don't argue the liberal side, per se, because we at this forum, unlike politicians, have no obligation to go along "party lines", I simply argue my ideas), being a n00b (it is widely said that a n00b has no direct affect, especially not here, on what we say, simply that n00bs are more likely to say stupid things) and my damn name (which is a joke poking fun at Diablo 2 addicts), you guys have worsened your side, and shown your bias against my ideas.

Okay, first of all, that wasn't the true reason why we nuked Japan. I don't want to make this into another, "Mass media: good or evil?" debate, but the "fact" that we nuked Japan to prevent bloodshed has been so force-fed to everyone by the media that it's taken as rote. In fact, at the end of the war, we were much less concerned by Japan and the Axis powers than by the Soviet Union. We were pissed at the Soviets for signing a peace treaty with Germany early, for being Communist, and having nuclear weapons. So to show the world that we were better than them, we used our nukes first. It worked; we won the Cold War. Is that any better than what Saddam might hypothetically be trying to do in the Middle East? Yes, apparently, because the Middle East has Oil. And we want Oil. And they might not give us Oil if they take over the Middle East. And that's Bad. We even supported Saddam when we were pissed at Iran, and he was still a dictator then. What has changed? He might not sell oil to us now, so we suddenly don't like the fact that he gassed his own people years ago, and that he oppresses his own people. And on a related note, while I don't want Saddam to have nukes myself, I'm okay with it on principal. If we use our nukes as a deterrent, why shouldn't any other nation be able to, especially if said nations are in less stable regions than ours, and as such are more open to invasion?

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 3:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Meh. I hate foreign policy, but this I have to respond to.

It is a fact that the Empire of Japan surrendered after the United States of America dropped two low-yield atomic weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is also a fact that the Empire of Japan had showed few signs of willingness to surrender prior to said atomic weapons, despite the fact that the vast majority of their armed forces had been destroyed, their military industry was capable of producing only a few dozen heavy vehicles per year, and parts of the Japanese home islands (Okinawa) had already been taken over.

It is not a fact (i.e. not conclusively proven) that the Empire of Japan had been training women and children as parts of a self-defense force; however, Japan was heavily fortified at the time. The effects of an invasion are anyone's guess, although Department of War estimates at the time typically went up to several million combined casualties. Said figures may or may not have been internal propaganda in support of the dropping of the bomb.

I personally dislike arguments to the effect that the United States is evil for using atomic weapons on a military basis. Atomic weapons are extremely destructive, but are no more a human rights violation than any number of other actions by both sides over the course of the Second World War. Moreover, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets (or at least as legitimate as targets for massively destructive bombing get). If you feel the need to harp on the United States' supposed evil, the firebombing of Dresden is a much better example than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

That is all.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 14:01, Mystical, Magical Low Quality Buckler wrote:

In fact, at the end of the war, we were much less concerned by Japan and the Axis powers than by the Soviet Union. We were pissed at the Soviets for signing a peace treaty with Germany early, for being Communist, and having nuclear weapons.



You sir need to go to history class. We had our issues with them but you might want to leave the part out about them having nuclear weapons out.

The Soviets didn't even TEST their first nuclear weapons until almost a decade after the United States toasted Japan.

There is only one place the soviets ever beat the United States. They put something into orbit first. Other than that they were usually about 5-10 years behind.

Also it might be prudent to note that Japan was unwilling to even discuss surrender or loss until AFTER the second atom bomb was used. They thought the first attack was a fluke, a mistake that couldn't be reproduced. When we not only reporduced it with Nagasaki but used a different material as well, we finally scared the Japanese enough to make them surrender. We likely would have kept dropping nukes on them till they surrendered or were essentially extinct.

(For those of you who don't know. Hiroshima was a Uranium based weapon while Nagasaki was a plutonium based weapon. Hence why Nagasaki provided a bigger yield with less size. Nagasaki was a smaller city though so less casualties.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:42 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 14:28, Pyromancer wrote:
I personally dislike arguments to the effect that the United States is evil for using atomic weapons on a military basis. Atomic weapons are extremely destructive, but are no more a human rights violation than any number of other actions by both sides over the course of the Second World War.


I was readin an Ayn Rand book a while back and found this really interesting quote: "...it makes no difference to a man whether he is killed by a nuclear bomb or a dynamite bomb or an old-fashioned club."

Would you care if it was a nuke that killed you rather than an ordinary bomb?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Okay libs, let me lay it out for you, nice and simple.

We have 2 options- go or not go. What can happen if we go?

Iraq's military is at approximately one quarter strength it was at the time of Gulf War. The technology gap between the US and Iraq has also widened. We have battle plans relevant to the area. Defeat isn't just unlikely, its virtually impossible.

Iraq is also developing nuclear weapons (as the defector who was in charge of Hussein's nuclear weapons program told us.) Will they get them any time soon? The simple answer is 'I don't know.'

Now, lets see. Almost assured victory if we go, and also an assurance of one less dictator and one less country who hates us having nukes. If we don't go in there, its a coin toss between if he'll use the nukes to extort the world now or later.

The two choices have two very simple consequences- in one, the United States and her allies do the old tyrannicide thing, set up a stable democratic government in Iraq and in general bring peace to the region. In the other, we have a country able to take over and control countries we depend on for oil.

Obviously, the best thing is to attack Iraq.

And stop on this 'well we helped him out before, blah blah blah' BS. That was a different time, a different place, and more importantly a different administration.

See, surprise surprise, countries have what I like to call 'interests.' And if something is a threat to those 'interests' it is the country's job to make sure that something is no longer a threat to their 'interests.'

If it irks you that before we were more concerned about making sure the soviets didn't conquer the whole world than how happy the people of any one place were, I'm sorry, but we really didn't have the authority to go every place we helped overthrow soviet rule and make it right, nor did we have the power to run in there and fix it ourself (especially in the middle east, which could easily be seen as us just trying to get another place to aim missiles at the soviets from.)

I blame the commies.

Edit: and if I see ONE MORE Ayn Rand quote, I'm going to pull a Jihad of my own on Goldstandard.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kills Commies on 2002-11-11 16:08 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 15:31, Lifyre wrote:
We likely would have kept dropping nukes on them till they surrendered or were essentially extinct.




Actually I think we only had two.It was a dangerous bluff,but it worked.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:28 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Becides that one little outburst about the Ayn Rand quote, KC was right on the money. I will continue to use Ayn Rand quotes I find interesting, no matter if you declate Jihad or not. And if you keep bitching about it I just might put some up just to spite you. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I'm sorry, but any philosophy that decrees that greed is good is inherintly flawed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group