Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2004, 07:32 PM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It would be irresponsible for any administration to ignore multiple other national security risk to focus on only one. That logic makes no sense.
I'd agree with you if there was imminent threat.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:23 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
That's true. Same way you shouldn't ignore someone who said he has nuclear weapons that could take out Seattle. But you're making it sound that to put off attacking Saddam for one more minute until we caught the guy who ran the group that actually attacked our country would have been irresponsible. Couldn't we have waited and focused our resources on bin Laden rather than jumping into a new fight?
Should we have waited to defeat Japan before getting involved in the war against Germany?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:35 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'd agree with you if there was imminent threat.
At anytime, Saddam could invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, using what ever he had in his arsonal, potentially sabotaging or damaging the planets energy supply.

The United Nations new this in 1991 which is why in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, the criteria under which military action would resume against Saddam would be based on his non-compliance with UN resolutions.

If there was no reason for military action based on Saddam's failure to comply with the UN resolutions, the United Nations would never have approved resolutions authorizing the use of military force if he failed to disarm.

The United Nations looked at the situation in March 1991 after the first Gulf War and agreed that military force would be needed to insure the security of the region if Saddam failed to meet his obligations.

The vast Majority of people believed that Saddam would not invade Iran, but he did. The Vast Majority of people believed that Saddam would not invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but he did. Many believed he would not directly attack Israel, but he did.

These facts forced the UN to develop a policy where renewed military action against Saddam would be based on whether or not he met his obligations. A prudent policy I might ad in light of the previous 10 years of history.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 10:18 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:47 AM
And you also have to realize that if the regime collapesed internally the entire country would disintegrate with no stabalizing force, the result of such a situation would either be Afghanistan Redux in the heart of the Middle East with WMD or an Iran invasion, if the Iranians could hold Iraq and Annex the Basra Oil Fields then there would be nothing to stop them making a move against the Gulf Sates, if that happened you would have a nuclear Islamic superpower in control of most of the worlds oil, that is not good for anybody and by removing Saddam on our terms that scenario has been removed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 10:18 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


You wouldn't call the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 a "Major Terrorist Attack"? Ok, the results of the attack were not the same, but if the terrorist had used more explosives, they could very well have killed more people on that day than were killed on 9/11.
I do believe you just put words in my mouth. While I respect your passion for your beliefs you really should be careful with the way you do this. It is not the first time.

I did not say 9/11 was not major, and having connections to three people who died that day, it really pisses me off that you did this. I have shoveled dirt in a peace garden amd played golf with one victems father.

There have been no major attacks on the US soil before 9/11 and none since 9/11. I was arguing a point that someone made that we are somehow more safe since 9/11 because of the Bush administration. I do not think that the absence of terrorist actions here in the US in the three years since proves that. There are far more years in which there were no terrorist actions before the Bush administration. That is my point.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 10:20 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Oklahoma City Bombing I think that that counts?

Seriously though, it is difficult to quantify your safety, these groups can sit back and wait, meticulously planning a major attack, I dont think that it would be right to say that we are definitely safer because of Bush however you also cannot definitely say that we are less Safe.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 10:26 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:47 PM
My apologies, Oklahoma City slipped my mind, I was not thinking home grown.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 11:27 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I do believe you just put words in my mouth. While I respect your passion for your beliefs you really should be careful with the way you do this. It is not the first time.

I did not say 9/11 was not major, and having connections to three people who died that day, it really pisses me off that you did this. I have shoveled dirt in a peace garden amd played golf with one victems father.

There have been no major attacks on the US soil before 9/11 and none since 9/11. I was arguing a point that someone made that we are somehow more safe since 9/11 because of the Bush administration. I do not think that the absence of terrorist actions here in the US in the three years since proves that. There are far more years in which there were no terrorist actions before the Bush administration. That is my point.
I never said that you said 9/11 was not major! Please read my post carefully!

Do you remember the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? It was during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. That was a terrorist attack, a major one that could have resulted in even more deaths than 9/11 if it had succeeded.

You claimed there were no major terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, but see there being two, the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing as A_Wanderer just mentioned.

That is why I asked if you didn't consider the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to be a major terrorist attack. Yes, it did not fully succeed in its intentions, but if more explosive had been used, more people would have been potentially killed than on 9/11.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 11:52 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Wasnt the flaw with the Trade Center bombing that the urea nitrate bomb was parked in the wrong area of the carpark, or the building had changed from the schematics the cell had, instead of gutting the building and collapsing it the explosion hit a lot of concrete which prevented total disaster. The explosives themselves were well made care of Ramzi Yousef, the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 12:08 AM   #85
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States just like any other country has multiple security risks that they have to deal with, and I do not know where one gets the idea that one has the luxury to deal with them one at a time. There was a push at the start of World War II by some to focus only on Japan, thank God that idea was stopped.
This is, again, where you and I differ on opinion.

I fully understand and recognize that it isn't prudent to deal with legitimate threats exclusively one at a time, but I do not believe Saddam was as big a threat at that time as the administration made him out to be. We had Kim Jong Il waving nuclear weapons around, basically taunting us to do something, and Saddam not fully complying with weapons inspectors. It's clear in my mind which was the more immediate threat at the time.

I also think it is a huge stretch to compare Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany. At the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany was involved in massive military operations against virtually the whole of Europe and was clearly bent on world domination. Of course it would of been foolish to concentrate fully on Japan with Germany already clearly in the process of trying to conquer Europe. In contrast, Saddam's post 9/11 Iraq had not even hinted or threatened at an attack on it's neighbors, or anyone else for that matter, and it is a matter of debate whether he was even capable of exerting much force on his neighbors. Was it a (remote) possibility? Sure. But I don't like the idea of going to war based on hypotheticals.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 12:18 AM   #86
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen



I also think it is a huge stretch to compare Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany. At the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany was involved in massive military operations against virtually the whole of Europe and was clearly bent on world domination. Of course it would of been foolish to concentrate fully on Japan with Germany already clearly in the process of trying to conquer Europe. In contrast, Saddam's post 9/11 Iraq had not even hinted or threatened at an attack on it's neighbors, or anyone else for that matter, and it is a matter of debate whether he was even capable of exerting much force on his neighbors. Was it a (remote) possibility? Sure. But I don't like the idea of going to war based on hypotheticals.
Massive stretch.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-04-2004, 12:31 AM   #87
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Dang it, I had written a reply and then noticed that Dieman had already said it for me. And he'd said it better.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 01:11 AM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


This is, again, where you and I differ on opinion.

I fully understand and recognize that it isn't prudent to deal with legitimate threats exclusively one at a time, but I do not believe Saddam was as big a threat at that time as the administration made him out to be. We had Kim Jong Il waving nuclear weapons around, basically taunting us to do something, and Saddam not fully complying with weapons inspectors. It's clear in my mind which was the more immediate threat at the time.

I also think it is a huge stretch to compare Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany. At the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany was involved in massive military operations against virtually the whole of Europe and was clearly bent on world domination. Of course it would of been foolish to concentrate fully on Japan with Germany already clearly in the process of trying to conquer Europe. In contrast, Saddam's post 9/11 Iraq had not even hinted or threatened at an attack on it's neighbors, or anyone else for that matter, and it is a matter of debate whether he was even capable of exerting much force on his neighbors. Was it a (remote) possibility? Sure. But I don't like the idea of going to war based on hypotheticals.
North Korea is a very different case from Iraq.

#1 North Korea has not invaded any country in over 50 years! That is a MASSIVE contrast to what Saddam has done in invading and attacking 4 different countries unprovoked over the past 20 years. Can you name another dictator that has invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years?

#2 Not even getting into the situation about Nuclear Weapons, consider this fact: North Korea has the nearly 10,000 pieces of artillery, many built into large fortifications in the mountains along the DMZ. Seoul, the Capital of South Korea is only 20 miles from the DMZ. South Korea is a capital of 10 million people and is in easy range of the largest artillery force in the world. The North Koreans have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans within hours of the start of any military conflict with just Conventional Artillery. This unique and unusual situation, where one of the largest population centers in the world, is in easy range of 10,000 artillery pieces is not found anywhere else in the world. The North Koreans have spent decades building this capability. It would take weeks of airstrikes and ground operations to completely destroy all the artillery in range of Seoul do to the well fortified and often hidden positions they have in the Mountains.

#3 Multiply the number of people killed above in #2 by several times if the North Koreans decide to use shells filled with WMD instead of just normal explosives.

#4 Now add in the fact that North Korea has Nuclear Weapons and the ability to deliver them to anywhere in South Korea as well as Japan, and now potentially Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast of Canada and the United States.


In North Korea, we do have a country that indeed currently has the capacity to kill far more people do to its capabilities as well as the proximity to large Urban centers. But North Korea has not invaded any countries in over 53 years. Simply having the capability to do certain things is not enough to justifiy action. Rather, its have the capability and a past behavior in engaging in certain acts with that capability that is the threat.

Despite the dangers in going to war that Saddam has forced his country and himself to experience, this has never detered him. North Korea on the other hand has shown the opposite behavior of Saddam and has done virtually nothing outside of its territory for over 50 years now. Saddam never seemed to be able to see, the problems and dangers for Iraq and himself with his attacks and invasions. Even in the face of certain defeat and eventual death or capture, as we saw recently, Saddam thought differently.

In North Korea we have a country that has developed enormous capabilities, but never used them. In Saddam, we have a leader that is all to willing to take certain actions regardless of what it means for his country, himself, the region, and the world.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that North Korea is about to launch an invasion or an attack on anyone when it has not done so in half a century and has a leadership group that is several generations removed collectively from the one that launched North Korea's only invasion in its history in 1950. Saddam of course was the leader that attacked and invaded four different countries unprovoked, used WMD more times than any other country in history, threatened the entire Planet with economic ruin through the siezure and sabotage of the Persian Gulf Energy Reserves, and murdered 1.7 million people, many of whom were foreigners.

North Korea is not nearly as much a threat as Saddam because they have not behaved in any way like Saddam in regards to international actions, for over 50 years. In addition, the cost of a war with North Korea given its unique capabilities and proximity to one of the worlds largest urban area's, make the cost of disarmament through military force, simply to large. In Saddam we had a threat, a threat that could and needed to be handled through military force. In North Korea, we have raw capabilities that are enormous, but no threat of attack as demonstrated by the past 50 years. Since North Korea has essentially been a peaceful country in regards to its international actions concerning war for 50 years, and the cost of using military force to disarm them is so high, diplomacy and other means are the best course of action with North Korea.






My comparison to Germany and Japan was mainly to point out that it is unwise to simply focus on one threat. Saddam did though have the capability to do things that Germany never did in World War II. Saddam borders one of the most energy resource rich area's in the world and his siezure or sabotage of this small area would dramatically impact the entire planet that no similar German or Japanese action ever could. The oil fields in Saudi Arabia or mostly within 100 miles of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border and some wells are pratically on the border. Kuwaits are of course near the Iraqi border, and most of Iran's are in the South West corner of the country near the Iraqi border.

In addition, the Germans and Japanese never had many of th the WMD capabilities that Saddam had nor did they have have the ballistic missiles and other means to deliver them.

Iraq prior to the start of the war in March 2003 had the worlds 13 largest military, and over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, unknown number and type of Ballistic Missiles that they had failed to hand over to the United Nations. This is not a hypothetical but a fact!

After the 1991 Gulf War, the criteria for whether there would be renewed military action was conditioned on Saddam's compliance and fullfillment of the requirments stated in the UN resolutions, not simply the invasion of another country or the threat to. After the invasions and attacks on four different countries in the region in the few years earlier as well as the largest use of WMD by any leader in history, to have had less strict requirments or means of enforcement would have been irresponsible. This is the context under which the use of military force against Saddam must be viewed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 01:40 AM   #89
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:47 PM
We get the criteria, honestly we do. However, the difference in opinion stems from whether Saddam not following the regulations of 1441 constituted an immediate threat that should've been dealt with at the time it was dealt with, or if the problem was not great enough to require a full military occupation.

Some of us believe that there still has to be a proven threat to justify the scale of military force we used in Iraq, resolution or no, and some of us feel that there wasn't enough of an actual threat to put our men and women in harm's way.

Obviously we have very differing opinions on this, so can we just agree to disagree?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 09:31 AM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:47 PM
My apologies sting...I misread.


I do not count Oaklahoma, that would be homegrown, as opposed to Al-Qaeda.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com