nuke iraq till they bleed american - Page 4 - 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 02-04-2003, 07:35 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 03:28 AM
I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:35 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:28 AM
Youīre contradicting yourself STING2.

In the same paragraph you say
1) that the US is reserving the right... just like every prez since 1945, so you say no big deal.
2) its important to reserve the option...

why is it important if its no big deal?

Anyway, like I said, I think its only dogbarking. Maybe, so that then they can say: noooo, see we are NICE! We are only doing a conventonal conventionalists war!

Fuck the Pentagon with its dogbarking.

Its about time the average betrayed American consumer stands up for his rights. His human rights, his citizens rights, which donīt include to be roasted for the interests of the elite of this country.

Oops. And if got any nukes (which he doesnīt anyway) I guess he reserves this option in any scenario he feels its necessary.

Hope heīs not a madman, like Bush displays he is.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:39 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO
I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.
Nice wargames there, JOFO. Are you enjoying the show?

Hope I donīt insult you, I know I can be provocative. But are you from the Pentagon? If not how can you lay out such a scenario? Evidence, please. Its not about considerations. Considerations are no reason for a war. Umm, or maybe for the US they are.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:54 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Whenever I read something new from this administration, part of me believes we have got to liberate the American people from this lunacy.

I can't believe how flippant they are about the use of nuclear weapons. Like they're deciding on an entree - let's have a filet mignon, but a small one you see, we don't want our cholesterol raised too much. It's outrageous. There is such an arrogance and a flippancy from the people in charge, a total disregard for humanity. Shame on them.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:59 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Whenever I read something new from this administration, part of me believes we have got to liberate the American people from this lunacy.

YES! YES! YES!

Organize! Get up! Do it!!!

Shame on them IS NOT ENOUGH.

Liberation is the right word, at the right time.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:10 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


I think we can assume everybody here is outraged by Saddam's use of WMD and treatment of the Iraqi people. That's why I, for one, don't want anybody who calls himself the leader of the free world to destabilize the region, bring on a potential nuclear war and kill innnocent civillians in the process in order to prevent destabilization of the region, a potential nuclear war and the killing of innocent civillians.
I am not in any way saying I want to hurt innocent people. I am saying that if Chemical/Biological/Nukes are used or if intelligence indicates that they are about to be used on US Troops or any other group of people in the world by Iraq, I believe that all options should be explored. If that means a nuclear strike, so be it. I am not trivializing it.

All of the reading I have done on this topic, indicates he still hase WMD. He was inches from using them last time. GIven that there will be no next time if steps are taken to remove him, I fully expect him to use what he has.

I actually think he will not waste them on US troops. Israel is a sure target. I have not read anywhere where people do not think that he has them.

Thank you for responding respectfully.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:18 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:28 AM
HIPHOP,

Read what I have to say more carefully. Its important that the USA reserve the option to use Nuclear weapons if it become necessary because of the deterent effect it has. When I said it was "not a big deal" that is in reference to the uproar people have about what they mistakenly believe is some new policy which it clearly is not. There is no contradiction.


"Its about time the average betrayed American consumer stands up for his rights. His human rights, his citizens rights, which donīt include to be roasted for the interests of the elite of this country."

Please explain to me how I have been betrayed?


"Oops. And if got any nukes (which he doesnīt anyway) I guess he reserves this option in any scenario he feels its necessary."

He certainly has with nearly every weapon system he has ever had already.

Bush is attempting to enforce international law, while Saddam has broken every international law there is in the process killing 1.7 million people, yet you consider Bush Evil and are uncertain about Saddam.



Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:24 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO
I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.
I agree with this scenario, but not Saddam. I don't think he wants to be attacked at all. I do, however, think it's an ideal scenario for terrorist groups who'd love to see Saddam go AND have more reason to hate the U.S.

Which is exactly why I think we're making a huge mistake here.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:32 PM   #54
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
HIPHOP,

When I said it was "not a big deal" that is in reference to the uproar people have about what they mistakenly believe is some new policy which it clearly is not. There is no contradiction.
I've been into politics for quite some time and read quite voraciously. This is the first I've heard major newpapers talking about "little" smart nuclear bombs" and their use against an enemy in a conventional war. I understand reserving the right to use our arsonal, but that is not what this post spoke of.

QUOTE]Originally posted by STING2
Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not very respectful STING2. I don't think the Europeans have it bad. Well could use some of thier social programs and sensibility about violence versus sex in society. But sorry that's off topic.

Dreadsox,

Don't be sorry you posted. I don't think you are thought of as a warmonger ect. You are very calm and introspective in your posts. I do think that book has got you sucked in. He may know more than some, but it is still slanted towards his opinions.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:44 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine

Dreadsox,

Don't be sorry you posted. I don't think you are thought of as a warmonger ect. You are very calm and introspective in your posts. I do think that book has got you sucked in. He may know more than some, but it is still slanted towards his opinions.


LOL....sucked in eh??? I am 100% aware of the slant of the book.
I am 100% still in favor of working through the UN unless.....
Someone makes a better case than our President has.

My honest concern, is that we may very well be unable to make the case. I do not believe that any person in the administration or the military wishes to use Nuclear Weapons. So where does that leave me.

Hypothetically, I am earnestly hoping we have many teams of CIA and Special Forces hidden deep in Iraq. I hope that these people are working to get into places where they can eliminate any threat of WMD use. If these people are there, and they reveal too much to the UN tomorrow, they are in danger.

Maybe this sounds too James Bondish. But I hope they are there and I hope they get the job done early.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:51 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Nice wargames there, JOFO. Are you enjoying the show?

Hope I donīt insult you, I know I can be provocative. But are you from the Pentagon? If not how can you lay out such a scenario? Evidence, please. Its not about considerations. Considerations are no reason for a war. Umm, or maybe for the US they are.

I can lay out the scenario by giving my opinion on what I think could happen in this situation. I don't have evidence of anything; I don't work at the pentagon. all I'm saying is:
1. if saddam uses WMD, the u.s. says it reserves the right to respond with nukes
2. if the u.s. responds with nukes, the rest of the world is going to turn against us. (not that they're with us anyway).

as I've said before, the u.s. should come forward with all it's evidence, let the world see it, and then proceed from there. if that means invading iraq to force the removal of saddam, it should be with full u.n. backing.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:53 PM   #57
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox




LOL....sucked in eh???
Nah, I just know that when I read a book I think is brilliant, it takes a while to get centered again. LOL.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Hypothetically, I am earnestly hoping we have many teams of CIA and Special Forces hidden deep in Iraq. I hope that these people are working to get into places where they can eliminate any threat of WMD use. If these people are there, and they reveal too much to the UN tomorrow, they are in danger.
I do hope Powell can make a case to convince me and the UN if Bush is hell bent on war. And not James Bond at all. I mean, I hope we do have people in there for covert ops. But then why don't they have Sadaam eliminated if we have them in there? I mean an American President announced to the world that we have eliminated Terrorists in one way or another. What's one paid assasination?
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 09:09 PM   #58
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 136
Local Time: 03:28 AM
Saddam Hussein does NOT have nuclear weapons. The 'dossier' on iraq claimned that he had been trying to get materials to make them but had failed. Even if he could get them it predicted that it would take 10 years to develop a nuclear weapon. So thats out of the window immediately.

As for chemical and biological weapons. We know he had them, we have evidence he may still have them. Thats not enough to warrant an invasion though, let alone use of nuclear weapons.

I dont think Saddam Hussein wants to start a world war. I think he wants to stay in power as long as possible. He wants weapons because, as milosevic recently claimed and is being proven in North Korea, the US is vastly less agressive if you have. Its defense against the expansionist western ideals of liberalism and corrupt democracy that drives people to weapons development. And before anyone says the west is not expansionist just look at the last 50 years of wars. They have all been in promotion of liberalism. The ideals of the west. The cold war may be over but the west is still fighting for every victory.

Saddam doesnt want a war, but terrorists around the world DO. It will make it far easier to drum up anti-american feeling and will provoke greater attacks, not fewer. No matter how much destruction, regime change and mass killing you submit the region to.

So here's the connundrum. For a war to be viable it has to achieve 3 things. It has to prevent greater loss of life and destruction that it causes, not subject the local population (that is supposedly being liberated) to deadly radiation or mass slaughter from invasion or bombing, and reduce the threat of future terrorist attacks.
It is clear that a war in iraq will do none of these. By attacking iraq, no matter how much damage and destruction we do it will only increase hatred of the west - and thus the threat of terrorist attacks. Even the 6000 people killed in the World Trade Centre attacks is small fry compared to the deaths in a prospective successful invasion and regime chance, and thus subjects a local population to attrocities, not liberation.

So how can war be justified? I have NO idea!

Finally, Nuclear war would set a precident for fighting terrorist worldwide. I have no doub that if western nations were subjected to as much terrorism as israel is that they would react as harshly as Sharon does but this would simply give him another weapon with which the palestinian people can be controlled.
And as has already been said, where does this stop.

No war is a good war. All war is wrong. But some are more ridiculous than others. And this is one of those.
Say NO to war and demonstrate on Saturday 15th Feb accross the world against bush and blair's 'power trip' war.

Group Hug Everyone.
The world is going to pot and we may not have long left.
Sudenly 'Walking to Hawaii' by Tom Mcrae is looking worryingly prophetic
__________________
The Absent One is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 09:10 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914.
You got my name wrong, and I do not live in Europe either.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-04-2003, 09:23 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Woohoo, go, The Absent One!

Well said.

As for the discussion of nukes-I've heard some people out there say we should just nuke them right now. I've mentioned that that would pretty much be a murder/suicide on our part, because of the nuclear fallout and all that spreading around the world and eventually killing off everyone and everything...but they don't seem to get it-they think the nukes would only kill the people we aim them at, and the rest of the world would be fine.

That kind of ignorance...really frightens me...

Thank god people like them aren't running our country.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
 

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 10:28 PM.


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