Would you support.... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Would you have supported wars against Iran or North Korea
Yes 5 20.00%
No 20 80.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2005, 03:52 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Would you support....

Wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq ~ so go back to 2002 and 2003 and instead of Iraq the focus was on Iran or North Korea.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 04:40 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:41 AM
The question rests on a false premise. You are assuming that all of us support war. I reject the basis of the question.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 04:43 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:41 AM
You could just vote no, this is independent of Iraq.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 04:44 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:41 AM
Oh right sorry, I thought you were asking us to vote between Iran and NK. Fair enough, I voted no. Happy now, babycakes?

Edited to add: it's still a loaded question
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 09:15 AM   #5
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:41 PM
No.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 03:41 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:41 AM
No. The reason primarily is that the case that made war against Saddam a necessity does not exist in the case of North Korea and Iran.

North Korea

1. As brutal as the country is to its own people, North Korea has not invaded another country in over half of century. This is the direct opposite of Saddam who invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years and threatened the planets energy supply with sabotage and siezure.

2. North Korea may have produced every general type of WMD known to man, but how many times have they used this WMD against other countries? NONE Saddam on the other hand has used WMD more times than any leader in history!

3. Any attack on North Korea would have to consider some of the unique and unavoidable consequences of any such attack. Unlike any other place on the planet, North Korea has massed the planets largest artillery force in the mountains along the DMZ, less than 30 miles from South Korea's largest city Seoul, with 10 million people. North Korea has thousands of large, well hidden and defended, artillery pieces, that could rain down thousands of artillery shells in a matter of minutes all over one of the largest cities on the planet. The number of people that could be killed in the FIRST DAY of any conflict just from North Korean Artillery being fired at the city of Seoul is in the "hundreds of thousands". While the US military and South Korean military could gradually destroy much of this artillery, it would probably take many days or weeks to completely destroy every piece of North Korean Artillery in range of the South Korean capital. Considering the number of people that would die the first day, several weeks later, the numbers would be unbelievable.

4. Then, if #3 was not enough, you have to consider the fact that North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons since 1994. North Korea probably has a few dozen nuclear warheads that are or can be fitted to short or medium range ballistic missiles that can hit any part of Japan, North Eastern China, and Eastern Russia. This gives them the capability to wound or kill over a million people in less than 15 minutes.

5. To sum up, North Korea has had a very benign and conservative behavior compared to SADDAM in regards to international invasion and attack of other countrys, and in that sense do not represent a threat. BUT because of their capabilities un democratic and hostile behavior to their people and disagreements with other countries on nearly everything, the World must be prepared to fight North Korea if it decides to use its capabilities against any other country. Because any conflict could potentially lead to millions of deaths within the first few weeks, disarming North Korea through military intervention is not an option, in the current situation. Only a rather unique situation where the costs of continuing containment was greater than the cost of intervention, would military intervention then become a necessity. As it stands right now, North Korea appears to have no interest in war with the Wests as long as the United States, South Korea and other countries keep their military guard up. North Korea has not invaded any country in over half a century and despite is militant tone, is unlikely to do so any time in the near future as long as South Korea and the United States maintain a large and strong military force.






1. Iran, like North Korea has not actually launched an unprovoked military invasion of another country in a long time. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1856 to find Iran actually engaging in the same behavior(launching an unprovoked invasion of another country) that Saddam did four times while he was in power. Iran for a very long time after World War II was an ally of the Western World. Its only been since the Iranian revolution of 1979, that extremist anti-western elements have hijacked the country. Saddam's unwise invasion of Iran in 1980 and the military setbacks Saddam suffered created the potential for the new Iranian extremist government to defeat Iraq and then prey on the smaller Arab nations that were south of Iraq and contained a majority of the planets energy supply. Iran was never that strong though and never really had handle on Saddam where they could truely envision going further than Iraq. Eventually they were defeated.


2. Iran's conventional military and power projection capability has always been rather weak and and was not a match for Saddam's reduced and defeated military following the 1st Persian Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's military maintained a conventional military force that still had twice as many armored vehicles and other weapon systems as Iran did, even after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War. Although Iran has purchased new military equipment from Russia and other countries, most of its military equipment remains outdated and some of it is still old outdated American military equipment from the days of the Shah.

3. It appears Iran has placed much of its money in getting nuclear weapons as opposed to developing a large well equipped conventional military force suited for invading and occupying large area's as Saddam used to have. Their Chemical and Biological warefare capability is far behind what Saddam once had and has rarely if ever been used.

4. The two things that make Iran a threat despite its major shortcomings in capabilities and benign behavior in the situations above, is its support for Terrorism primarily against Israel through (Humas and Hezbolah) and its intense pursuit to develop a nuclear weapon.


5. To sum up, the chance that there could be war with Iran in the future is a lot higher than any chance there would be war with North Korea. Although the Mullah's in Iran are a lot less militant than they were 25 years ago at the start of the Iranian revolution, they still have views and idea's that are cause for serious concern. Their actions and crackdowns on Iranian democratic movements is a huge concern. How far they are willing to go in terms of building a nuclear weapon and what they would be willing to do with such weapons is not known and is a huge cause for concern.

To the degree that Iran's connections to terrorism are confined to Humas and Hezbolah and that those organizations terrorism is confined to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, US military internvention in Iran is unlikely even with the development of Nuclear Weapons. The problem is that situation could change overnight. To what degree would Iran use its Nuclear Weapons technology to aid any terrorist organization? In addition, once Iran has nuclear weapons, the costs and risk to military intervention to disarm Iran dramatically go up.

A strong case can be made for the need to intervene to stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons, but because Iran has been rather benign in so many area's where SADDAM was a hostile monster, its weak military capabilities excluding its nuclear program, its greater distance from vital energy reserves in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the unknowns about its connections with terrorism, I would have to say that for now, military intervention should not be attempted. There are still a lot of diplomatic and economic options that could be used against Iran that could have a positive effect. In addition, while the Mullahs have contained or are containing the democracy movement in Iran, it is still there and their numbers are growing. Iran is about to experience a population explosion in the next 20 years and its going to be increasingly difficult for the Mullahs to maintain their grip on power.


Any military intervention in Iran would have to be an all out military internvention to remove the government and disarm the Nuclear problem. Airstrikes while they could hurt Iran would not end or stop the nuclear problem even if they were successful at hitting key centers for development. It could delay the development of a BOMB if the strikes were successful, but thats it. The only thing that would insure that a Nuclear Weapon would not be developed would be the replacement of the government and the Mullahs.

Hopefully, over the next 25 years, Iran will eventually develop into a democracy. Iran is very different from SADDAM's Iraq where one person was running the whole place and had the greatest internal security operation to prevent any revolution or overthrow of his power. In Iran, like in Serbia a few years ago, Iran's conservatives have the power, but it is on very shakey ground and a variety of things could make it fall apart.

For right now, the case for military intervention in Iran is not strong enough, but could be in the future if certain things were to change. This is without considering the fact that the US miltary already has a lot on its plate with Iraq/Afganistan and its other military committments around the world. Another problem will be if and when military intervention becomes a necessity, will Iran by then have the "BOMB" and what costs and problems would military intervention under those conditions entail?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-20-2005, 08:17 AM   #7
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 04:41 AM
no. i would never condone war to further a nation's agenda.

'war is mass murder unless it is waged for the very survival of your nation'

"TO LET PEOPLE SLAUGHTER EACH OTHER ALLEGEDLY WITH THE OBJECT OF MAKING MANKIND HAPPY IS BOTH INHUMAN AND DEPLORABLE IN THE EXTREME."

"EVERY NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND PROPER TREATMENT AND NO COUNTRY SHOULD VIOLATE THE TERRITORY OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY."

"A nation which makes the final sacrifice for life and freedom is never beaten"

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

http://tadevrimi.sitemynet.com/ingilizce.htm

was iraq war a 'provoked military invasion of another country'?

does US has a better record in usage of WMDs and initiation of 'provoked military invasion of another country' than iraq? dont forget US got away with the mass destruction on its largest scale in hiroshima and nagazaki. in the last 50 years US invaded vietnam, afghanistan, iraq and committed its forces for long term occupation. US meddles with other countries' internal affairs way too much. south america always proves to be a good example. wasnt pinochet supported by the US.

i understand all the arguments about saddam being a bad man and having a record of brutality, but so did MANY dictators who were SUPPORTED by the US, but hey, they were snuggly with the white house, so who cares? such hypocracy(ive got a feeling thats misspelled.. oh well)

does being a democracy make bombing, invading other countries and torturing their people OK?
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:42 AM   #8
Refugee
 
Pero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 2,089
Local Time: 03:41 AM
Damn you people, hell yeah!!!just kidding, as much as i'm a pacifist, i would rather kick someones ass then going in the war,
NO MORE, NO WAR
__________________
Pero is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:44 AM   #9
Refugee
 
Pero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 2,089
Local Time: 03:41 AM
Damn people, you sure don't know what'a cramp in a hand.
If would write so much, my hand would fall of.
__________________
Pero is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:33 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:41 AM
No.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:42 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 08:41 PM
No.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 12:00 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:41 PM
Re: Would you support....

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq

~ so go back to 2002 and 2003 and instead of Iraq the focus was on

Iran or

North Korea.

wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq

~ so go back to 2002 and 2003


the American people would not have supported a war on Iraq in 2002 or 2003

without being out and out lied to by the Bush Administration.



Iran ?

It would have been harder to fake the evidence of danger with Iran

Ironically the Al Queda link is more plausible, however the booty was in Iraq.

North Korea. ?

this would just be stupid.

the last thing South Korea wants is this to move too fast. Their plan is something like a gradual reunification.

Plus the neocons that run this Administration love N K. It is their trump card for their worthless phony SDI, star wars program the will suck 100s of billions of dollars out of taxpayers pocket and into the accounts of their blood sucking cronies, the so-called defense contractors.


Iraq was always the only card that WOULD be played in the axis of evil deck.

It requires only the smallest amount of reasoning and honesty to admit that the TWO most responsible terrorist regimes get a past from this Administration. Dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 03:31 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Re: Re: Would you support....

Quote:
Originally posted by deep



wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq

~ so go back to 2002 and 2003


the American people would not have supported a war on Iraq in 2002 or 2003

without being out and out lied to by the Bush Administration.



Iran ?

It would have been harder to fake the evidence of danger with Iran

Ironically the Al Queda link is more plausible, however the booty was in Iraq.

North Korea. ?

this would just be stupid.

the last thing South Korea wants is this to move too fast. Their plan is something like a gradual reunification.

Plus the neocons that run this Administration love N K. It is their trump card for their worthless phony SDI, star wars program the will suck 100s of billions of dollars out of taxpayers pocket and into the accounts of their blood sucking cronies, the so-called defense contractors.


Iraq was always the only card that WOULD be played in the axis of evil deck.

It requires only the smallest amount of reasoning and honesty to admit that the TWO most responsible terrorist regimes get a past from this Administration. Dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
The criteria for war with Saddam has always rested on whether he was complying with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire and the 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. No ONE LIED and its time this liberal fantasy was put to rest. Most Americans like how the Bush administration has handled Iraq which is why they gave Bush the first majority in an election any President has had since 1988!


SDI technology is NOT worthless! I have friends that are alive today because this technology was used to intercept Iraqi ballistic Missiles fired into Kuwait in March 2003 at the start of the war! The Army will soon have the ability to intercept Artillery Shells and Mortar rounds fired on the battlefield which up until a few years ago was thought to be impossible.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 03:37 PM   #14
The Fly
 
earthshell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Local Time: 01:41 AM
"as long as the bush administration does it!" ~ typical republican jackass

their evil administration lies everyday, and it's costing us thousands of lives. if bush wants to keep his wars going, he can strap on his cowboy hat and boots, slap on a holster, and do it himself. i won't stand for it.

no i say.
__________________
earthshell is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 04:50 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by earthshell
"as long as the bush administration does it!" ~ typical republican jackass
typical stereotyping
__________________

__________________
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 08:41 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