ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:35 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:37 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
1 and 2 are good. True of Hussein as well.

Your other points are false. You can't assasinate everyone, and there are A LOT of bad guys in any one regime itching to be crowned head honcho. Also, due to #3, military intervention is nessesary as the only way to 'fix' violatile countries is to come in and keep the peace so any democratically elected officials arn't just overthrown by the remnants of a bad person, or some other lesser evil that we didn't notice because we were concentrating on the big bad guy.

All in all, war is still the only viable option if we really want to regulate the weapons production, instill democracy, and keep our own assets safe.

For the arguement I know is coming that 'its all about the oil':

We could have had a lot more oil than Iraq has. In Kuwait, we came in, swept out the Iraqis, fixed their oil wells (which were set on fire) and then gave it back to them to sell to us again. It would be impossibly bad PR if we didn't do the same in Iraq.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 12:09 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 912
Location: Velvet Sea of San Angelo
(steps down off of his Pacifist High Horse)

Look I think the War on Terrorism is suspicious at best and I hate the concept of war, but even I agree Saddam has to go.

And face it, the Middle East is a powder keg that no one in the EU has the balls to go in and defuse. Sure we're gonna catch some hell, but there's enough problems with fundamentalists and fanatics down there. Getting rid of a despot isn't going to hurt anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 12:48 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Evansville, IN
Perhaps I should clarify slightly (bad chicken, no posty late at night): I do not see a problem with entering a war to achieve point number three, and I do not equate armed forces with civilians most of the time. If things were as simple as "kill all the bad guys," international war would be less a careful and often messy exchange of troops and more like a glorified game of Counter-Strike. Or, to use a lighter example, a battle of ninja death squads.

Am still somewhat supportive of my third point, but understand and respect your counterpoints. Who else has thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I misposted, sorry. I agree with point #3.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:27 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Quote:
On 2002-12-12 00:18, The Goldstandard wrote:
No, he didn't. You simply proved that debate with you is useless, because you are closed-minded.


Am I the only one that sees the humor in this? Here, let's take a look at it in two parts:

Quote:
debate with you is useless...


Factual statement. No modifiers or conditions. Set in stone, as far as the poster is concerned.

Quote:
because you are closed-minded


Likewise an unmodified and unconditional factual statement.

My definition of close-minded must be mistaken. So far I've just been assuming that it means, essentially, someone who sees the world in absolutes governed by their own view point. However, by this definition, Goldstandard could not have made his post without demonstrating his own close-mindedness, and I doubt that was his intention. Could someone clarify with a better definition, please?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:08 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Quote:
On 2002-12-12 00:40, Kills Commies wrote:
Funny, but in the end stupid. I got my data from scientific resources, fuck you very much, but I fail to see a reason to have to go track down the various books/websites (which I do not have on hand) that you can find yourself. Perhaps after finals week, but not now.


Those what want to can beleive you...I'm just not convinced that we're getting a complete picture of the feasability of defending against biological or chemical strikes relative to nuclear ones (see below for expansion on this skepticism). Suppose I'll have to do a little research on my one. Assuming I can find time, of course...you're not the only one with finals, you know.

Quote:
Secondly- your own words seem depressingly idiotic. Killing tyrants isn't okay?! We have to have a REASON to kill tyrants now?


Um...yes. Yes, a reason to kill people is generally a good thing. And I know you go on to explain what our reason is in the next quote, so please don't jump on this as an example of me misinterpreting. Just pointing out that it is generally considered appropriate to provide a reason for killing someone before doing it. Or at the very least, shortly afterward.

Quote:
Hey, how about this one: they're tyrants! They pissed us off and have (as the French have said) ties to Al Quida. Under his rulership people are tortured and killed, and he destabalizes the entire region. Thats damn well good enough for me.


These make Saddam Hussien a terrible person, with a terrible government (well, except for the "pissed us off" bit...first off, not everyone in the US is all that pissed at him, and secondly, personal dislike is usually not considered justification for murder, at least not in the US). I don't think they make him a good target for the US. Please, stop trying to convince me that Saddam Hussien deserves to die. I don't particularly disagree (although, tychoseven's point that no one should have make that judgment for another man is still pretty much unanswered). What I'm not convinced of is the idea that the US needs to do the job, and do it now with a military invasion.

Quote:
Now, I already said- Hussein should be killed because of his human rights violations alone. You all agreed that killing him would be all good and such, but yet you say we shouldn't go to war...because tyrants are people too? I'm wondering here, aside from all other arguments, whats the possible reason why everyone should just jump in gleefulness at the thought of this guy biting it? What is the problem here?


If you'd read, the arguments against war can hardly be summarized as "tyrants are people too." Convince me that other countries latching on to a US invasion as justification for "preemptive" attacks of their own is unreasonable, or that the US can stand a PR debacle both in foriegn countries and in our own national media, and the case for war becomes much stronger than what is is now ("The effects of an invasion don't matter, because he's a bad person").

Quote:
Flimsy reason (in your wrong opinion) or no, why is anyone complaining that this guy is going to die? I'm wondering here...because the Iraqi people are evil?


See above...I personally am not objecting to the idea of Saddam Hussien biting the big one, assisted or not. I am objecting the the US launching a military strike against Iraq. See above for why I am still not convinced that we are the appropriate agent of action, nor that this is the proper time to invade.

Quote:
Maybe...I dunno...you think that some weird, hypothetical situation where some other country uses this as an excuse to attack another, is more important that freedom for the iraqi people and death for this ass?


1. Saddam using nukes as a shield for his evil expansion plans is about as likely as someone like China saying "Hey, the US just invaded a weaker nation on the grounds of preemptive striking...why don't we do the same?" Neither is right out, nor is it dead certian. I'd say both are more likely than not, but I'm a cynic. At any rate, I don't think you can say something like that is terribly hypothetical, at least no more so than other reasonable conjectures we're drawing here...I'll grant the likelyhood of your scenario; do me the courtesy of doing likewise when there is no evidence to the contrary.

2. Assuming the likelyhood of this, I would say that letting Saddam Hussien kill and opress his people all he likes is indeed prefferable to granting agressive nations the right to invade neighbors on the flimsiest of pretexts (or denying them said right after exercising it, and having to exercise constant military force in every dictatorial shit-hole in the world).

Quote:
So hold on, lets see here. On the one hand you feel that tyrants can't be taken out unless we have a reason ("he's a tyrant and he actively hate us and will jump at the chance to aid in hurting us" isn't a good enough reason any more.) On the other, you have a person who is up there with the worst human rights abusers on the planet, who made war on his neighbors, who hates the US, has ties to Al Quida, and is trying to develope nuclear weapons.


Going on to say that I'm quite convinced Saddam Hussien is a scumbag who deserves to die but that I don't think we need to be the ones doing it would be redundant at this point. All the arguments in this excerpt are adressed in other replies of mine.

Quote:
Lastly, the bio/chemcial weapon comment- biological and chemical weapons are both cases like this.

Biological weapons can be defended against. Vaccines, as I mentioned, are very effective against biological weapons (as most people in Israel will be lining up for vaccines pretty soon, I'd imagine.) We know the kinds of diseases he has a hold of- therefore it would be theoretically easy to defend against. Additionally, biological agents are never 100% fatal. Even in the crappiest conditions ever, the black death only wiped out 1/3rd of its victims, after all.


First, a quick close-up:
Quote:
...,I'd imagine


Please don't accuse me of coming up with weird, hypothetical situations and then suggest that the Israeli government is anywhere near capable of getting its citizens to line up for vaccines, much less get its hands on enough vaccine in the first place.

My other point...ah, the Black Death. You're right, that wasn't so bad. Just keep in mind that it's now acceptable losses for Saddam Hussien to wipe out "only 1/3" of a continent's population. If this is the kind of scale you're working on, it shouldn't matter whether or not he gets nukes...no way he could hide enough to do that before even the thickest UN inspector twigged. Of course, I personally have to say that I don't think the worst of all despots could wipe out that many people no matter how agressivly he expanded, so if pressuring him to use his weapons by invading will we should let him have his invasion, and give him our blessings with it.

Quote:
Chemical weapons are also not 100% lethal most of the time (remember the chemical attack in the japanese subway? not a lot of deaths, just lots of dehibilitations,) are hard to deliver (missiles are bad carriers for both bio and chemical agents, btw- the impact and explosion often ruin the load.


1. I guess crippling half the country isn't enough of a stick to wave at us, then. I'm still not convinced he doesn't have the threat nessecary to make his theoretical expansions already.

2. You earlier in this thread posted all manner of methods for delivering a nuclear warhead without using missiles, and against which there are no real defenses. Please cross-apply these to your argument that missiles won't effectivly deliver his biological or chemical weapons.

Quote:
Though the data is available in several books (I think) the only source I can cite with confidence right now on that is a history channel special on said weapons (bio/chemical weapons) and are dispersed fairly quickly and easily (thats basic chemistry, so yeah, I feel no need to cite.)


Quick dissapation is not going to save the people in the city he hits. Remember your evidence on the nukes earlier--there's tons of undetectable ways to deliver these weapons, and the city he hits would have no warning. Redundant though it is to say it, I still don't see how, if he wants to expand under the threat of devastating strikes against his neighbors, he can't do it already.

Quote:
Nuclear weapons- have none of these problems. As well, gas masks can't defend against it so that they're effective battlefield weapons. Would YOU endorse an attack on a country knowing that at some point our forces may have a nuclear weapon leveled against them? Most people would not support essensially sending their soldiers to die in large numbers.


No...I don't support sending large numbers of troops against weapons they can't defend against. But, as you pointed out, we can't really defend against Saddam's methods of delivery. So I'd hold that sending troops now is still sending them against certain death (or, by your scenarios, certain death for 33% of them or, if Saddam uses those wimpy chemical weapons, only disfigurment and crippling).

To crystalize:

Yeah, Saddam Hussien deserves to die. But

1. Invasion puts the lives of our own troops and all the Israeli citizens he would theoretically hit with nukes at risk of biological and chemical stikes, which can be defended against with intense and expensive preperation and protection which we will not have the time to establish (you proved it, remember--he's got foolproof, detection-safe delivery methods for his nukes, so he should be able to send differnt warheads through this route as well), nor the Israelis the money or the internal stability to.

2. The media will have a field day with the fact that the US is great at establishing dictatorships (see my earlier post for a bunch of great examples), but only removes them when it controls rich oil fields. You can argue that that doesn't matter, but other people will argue that it will, and I don't think we want to start a war that's going to encourage internal division and external criticism. We been done there before, and it sucked.

3. I don't think it much of a leap of logic to say that other countries will launch "preemptive strikes" of their own to gain control of territories they desire. The US then has to allow it, or prevent them from doing it by threatening and invading until the cows come home. Is removing one of hundreds of abusive dictators really worth that?

4. The idea of invading to prevent Saddam Hussien from gaining nukes that would allow him to expand and threaten opposition with nukes (or nuking Israel) is kind of reliant on the assumption that he doesn't already have the capability to take out huge ammounts of people. And I just don't buy that yet. And apparently neither does the DoD, or they wouldn't have been shitting themselves sideways about a harmless little biological weapon like anthrax.

So, basically, stop trying to prove that Saddam Hussien deserves to die, and convince me that we should kill him and invade his country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I believe he was referring to the points you didn't concede nor did you sufficiently rebuke them. Usually you cite that you 'need more definite information' or something like that. What I wonder aloud is exactly how much information you need. This is the information we have to work with. The three outcomes are we go in and disarm the country, we don't and nothing happens (which everyone admits is unlikely given Hussein's record. Plus, it allows more human rights abuses to go on when we have an opportunity to make it stop) or we get attacked in some way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:15 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Whoops, completely forgot to hit the gas mask thing...sorry about that. There was a lot to cover in that reply. In short, that's what nerve gases were invented for. A gas mask is all well and good, but I wouldn't be a big fan of having all of my face except the bit covered by the mask (not to mention all the rest of my exposed skin) paralyzed in blinding agony while some nutcase is shooting at me from the next shitty little sand dune over.

Then there're also gases too heavy for conventional masks to filter, forcing soldiers to rely on canister rather than filter masks, which give them a very limited combat range or, alternativly, weigh them down with an obscene ammount of compressed air canisters.

In short, an invasion defending against this sort of weapon is worth slightly more than one defending against nukes. Slightly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
That he poses a threat to us is self evident, both by his weapons program and his proximity to the oil that our economy depends on. Therefore, we should attack him.

That about sums it up. All other arguements are tangents.

Besides that, I'm sick of this 'well why should WE do it?' I don't see a reason not to, because the europeans have always had a low opinion of America and will whether we take over Iraq or not. China has the economic muscle to not need to bother with needing a legit reason.

Someone DOES need to do it. Why not us, who are threatened by him being in power as he destabalizes the whole region?

Another important points is that this sets the standard for how to deal with rogue nations developing WOMD. Either we set our foot down here and say 'we won't allow it' or we can say any old dictator can get it if they want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Nuclear weapons are valid, compact weapons that can be used on the battlefield. Vast quantities of chemical weapons are required to be effective on a battlefield level. In addition, they are subject to chancy things- the winds, etc. The vast quantities required to be effective would also make it a large, easy, very tempting target to any airplanes or patrols.

Biological weapons take a long time to take effect etc.

As a terror weapon, nuclear weapons are clumsy and no thx in the short term. As military weapon (which is what they're supposed to be used for and is most likely how he'll threaten us- don't invade or I'll nuke your troops, etc) it is superior.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:34 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Tree, lets not play wordgames, ok? I called you closed minded. If you don't know what I mean, I will tell you. (Jesus Christ, this debate is about whether or not we invade Iraq, not semantics!)

No matter how many reasons we give you for invading Iraq, you will never be convinced. This is not because our reasons are bad, but rather because you continuously evade the facts and try to distract us all from what really matters.

This is the case for war:

1) Saddam is a dictator, he oppresses his people and subjects them to inhuman atrocities, and threatens his neighbors.

Conclusion 1) It would not be a bad thing for Saddam to be removed, it would in fact be a good thing. Even if we don't kill him, as his actions prove he deserves, and lock him up for life, the threat will be removed.

2) Saddam has tried to acquire nukes in the past, and he has an extensive Bio/Chem weapons program. He may be able to get nukes in the near future if we don't do something to prevent it.

Conclusion 2) Saddam wants WoMD. He wants Chem weapons, he wants Bio weapons, and he wants Nukes. Saddam would want these weapons for no other purpose than to threaten his neighbors, and perhaps even use them on them. He used them before against Iran and his own people. This makes him very dangerous.

3) Saddam openly hates the US and would love to do all sorts of things to harm us.

Conclusion 3) Saddam is our enemy.



Final conclusion) Saddam is a cruel and brutal man. Saddam has a WoMD program, and if he isn't stopped he may get nukes. If Saddam gets nukes, he will want to put them to use, so he will threaten his neighbors, and destabilise the region. We depend on this region for our oil, if we allow Saddam to dominate the region, we will lose our oil. Everyone will suffer, everyone except Saddam and his supporters, of course.

We will have to deal with Saddam sooner or later. The sooner we deal with the problem, the easier it will be for us, our soldiers, and the Iraqi people. It is in our national interest to oust Saddam. That is the case for war.

Now, if you want to be taken seriously, tell me how these three arguments for war are false. Don't tell me about what the Europeans think, don't tell me about what mistakes we made in the past, don't tell me about hypothetical situations which have no bearing on the choice we face now. Tell me why these arguments are wrong, if you can.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Goldstandard on 2002-12-13 04:37 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:36 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Are those the only reasons? What I mean is, are we going there only to remove Saddam or do we have other motives (in addition to those you mentioned) for invading? I don't think that we are going to neglect our business interests in Iraq. Perhaps western oil compaines have a vested interest in a friendly, free market Iraq?

One more question: so far, all we have on Saddam is an intent to aquire WoMD. How do we know what he's going to do once he gets them? We assume that he will use them, but do we have any assurance of this? He might just want them for self defence, because he may feel that we are going to attack him no matter what. Has Saddam said, "I will use these weapons against others."? I don't really know, as I go to a school without any TV or radio reception, and news comes late to us, if at all.

I was just reading an article saying that the U.S. considers Iraq's weapons declaration "far short" of complete. Saddam claims he has declared them all, and we say he hasn't. If the UN inspectors didn't find anything, there really is no way to be sure short of combing every square inch of the country. I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I think we want at a war at any cost. I don't know who is telling the truth, us or Saddam. But it doesn't matter, because it is not up to the common people to decide. We either support what our leaders decide or we don't, and unless many, many more people oppose war, we are going in there after Saddam.
_________________
The air tastes so much sweeter when you dance to the sound of your pounding heart.
<img src=http://crimethinc.com/downloadsgraphics/preview/bullet.jpg>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-12-13 15:50 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:03 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Aww... Come on, lighten up. What's the fun in having the world's greatest military if you can't use it to stomp over people you don't like? It's like buying a sports car and never taking it out of the garage because you don't want to scratch it up. Carpe diem!

Besides, low oil prices + war = GOOD for economy.

Moaning and bitching about human rights = BAD for the economy.

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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: veritron on 2002-12-13 16:07 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
What human rights would the US military violate, Veriton, in such a grevious amount that taking Saddam's human rights abuses that he routinely allows under his regime becomes a viable option?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Ahh, I discovered another gem of intelligence in Tycho's post. Ranks right up there with the julius caesar "quote."

Quote:
I don't think that we are going to neglect our business interests in Iraq. Perhaps western oil compaines have a vested interest in a friendly, free market Iraq?


Whats the problem with the country also being made a free market in addition to a democracy, again?
I don't know if it ever hit you, Tycho, but just because corporations also have an interest in seeing Iraq as an open market does not automatically mean that we shouldn't invade Iraq. Its as stupid as saying we shouldn't have gone to kill Hitler because US Businesses just wanted a free europe to trade with.


Quote:
One more question: so far, all we have on Saddam is an intent to aquire WoMD. How do we know what he's going to do once he gets them? We assume that he will use them, but do we have any assurance of this? He might just want them for self defence, because he may feel that we are going to attack him no matter what.


Uh...Tycho, take a look at who you are talking about. Please, saying he will not use them aggressively at some point is just pure self denial. Get your head out of your ass, because there is no evidence to support anything BUT that he will use them in an attack on his neighbors.

Quote:
I was just reading an article saying that the U.S. considers Iraq's weapons declaration "far short" of complete. Saddam claims he has declared them all, and we say he hasn't...blahblahblah


Sigh...either you quote without context, or you're taking a source that was quoted without context. We are talking about stuff the UN Weapons Inspectors found weeks before they left, but never dismantled. Iraq never mentioned these in its report, and so we call them on it. Comprendes?

Quote:
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I think we want at a war at any cost. I don't know who is telling the truth, us or Saddam. But it doesn't matter, because it is not up to the common people to decide. We either support what our leaders decide or we don't, and unless many, many more people oppose war, we are going in there after Saddam.


1st off: You have vast quantities of information justifying war with Iraq, but you think Saddam, a person who actively hates us and would love to redo the Gulf War minus the US butting in, is in some way telling the truth?

What, exactly, is wrong with you Tycho? You fail to address ANY points and merely claim 'there isn't enough information.' Why? Tell us why the above information- which shows that Hussein is a threat to us and needs to be taken down and which you have yet to contradict- isn't enough to go to war.

Secondly: the last part of your paragraph contradicts itself. It doesn't matter what the "people" think, but if a lot of people are against the war in Iraq, then it won't happen. Let me rephrase that to what you MEANT.

Quote:
...but it doesn't matter, because its not up to movie stars, poorly informed idealists and blame-america people to decide. Its up to our leaders, who were elected by the will of the people, drat it all. Unless those bozos immediately agree with me, war will go forward.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kills Commies on 2002-12-13 16:32 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:13 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
We should not deny Saddam Hussien his human rights. We should let him have all the biological and chemical weapons he wants so he can kill as many people as he can possibly can in a spree of meglomania, and we should sit on our lazy American asses and turn a blind eye to whatever that asshole is doing until it's too late.

It's not inherently a bad thing that our economy will benefit by kicking Saddam's ass. It's downright idiotic to fight wars that won't benefit us in any way.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:13 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
The Threatening Storm: The case for invading Iraq

I heard this book lays down the case for invading Iraq excellently.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-12-09 15:50, Kills Commies wrote:

A nuclear weapon, in contrast, blows up, kills a good deal of people, and makes the region around it uninhabitable for generations, as well as screwing up the genes of a lotta innocent bystanders. In short, its worse.



Sorry for digging up old posts, but this is not entirely correct. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only two cities that have ever been nuked, are both still inhabited. The cancer and radiation sickness rates there, barring those (a significant number) caused by direct fallout, are not much higher than the rest of Japan.

You could build a nuclear weapon that would render an area uninhabitable for centuries, and, unless I'm mistaken, some countries (notably the United States and Russia) have indeed built such "dirty bombs". But it's definitely not inherent to all nukes.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-12-13 19:56 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:29 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-12-13 16:31, Kills Commies wrote:
Whats the problem with the country also being made a free market in addition to a democracy, again?
I don't know if it ever hit you, Tycho, but just because corporations also have an interest in seeing Iraq as an open market does not automatically mean that we shouldn't invade Iraq. Its as stupid as saying we shouldn't have gone to kill Hitler because US Businesses just wanted a free europe to trade with.


I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. It just hadn't been mentioned yet, not by our leaders, or by anybody on this board with the exception of Pyro.

Quote:
Uh...Tycho, take a look at who you are talking about. Please, saying he will not use them aggressively at some point is just pure self denial. Get your head out of your ass, because there is no evidence to support anything BUT that he will use them in an attack on his neighbors.


I was only...fuck it, nothing I say matters.

Quote:
Sigh...either you quote without context, or you're taking a source that was quoted without context. We are talking about stuff the UN Weapons Inspectors found weeks before they left, but never dismantled. Iraq never mentioned these in its report, and so we call them on it. Comprendes?


http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/13/sproje ... index.html

Happy now?

Quote:
1st off: You have vast quantities of information justifying war with Iraq, but you think Saddam, a person who actively hates us and would love to redo the Gulf War minus the US butting in, is in some way telling the truth?


The possibility cannot be ruled out. You use an <i>ad hominem</i> to "prove" that Saddam is lying. Statements stand or fall <b>of their own merit</b>, regardless of who makes them.

Quote:
What, exactly, is wrong with you Tycho? You fail to address ANY points and merely claim 'there isn't enough information.' Why? Tell us why the above information- which shows that Hussein is a threat to us and needs to be taken down and which you have yet to contradict- isn't enough to go to war.


I never intended to address any points. I was stating my opinion. I am not privy to the information that I would require to decide whether or not to invade Iraq. Nor are you. You only know what we have been told by our leaders. And I think that even you will agree that they are not telling us the whole story.

Quote:
Secondly: the last part of your paragraph contradicts itself. It doesn't matter what the "people" think, but if a lot of people are against the war in Iraq, then it won't happen.


It doesn't matter what the people think, unless a sufficient number of the people think it and are willing to act on their beliefs. If 90% of the people in the US were opposed to war, and protested or otherwise demonstrated their displeasure, Bush and his administration would not be in a good way if they ignored the people. It would be the same if the citizenry wanted war and the leaders did not. The problem is that people can be manipulated and brought around to side with the administration, even if they are initially opposed to what our leaders want. Thus the people are in control of the country, and are also powerless unless they think for themselves instead of swallowing what they're given.

_________________
The air tastes so much sweeter when you dance to the sound of your pounding heart.
<img src=http://crimethinc.com/downloadsgraphics/preview/bullet.jpg>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-12-13 21:30 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
You can only lie so much before I stop believing what you say. Saddam has long ago crossed the line where you can realistically believe what he says.

Additionally, I have presented information and you have not countered it. If you do not wish to address the points I made- valid ones in the favor of going to war- feel free to not post again, as I don't give a crap what 'your opinion' is.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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