State of the Union (WAR?)

[gvox]

Scarletwine,
The only weapon of mass destruction that the USA has in active use are nuclear weapons.

Well considering that they haven't 'actively' deployed a nuclear weapon yet, I would say that their entire arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapon's of mass destruction are on a fairly even playing field in terms of 'active use'. Surely you won't try to deny that the US has these types of weapons in it's possession.

The risk of military action against Saddam once he has a nuclear weapon would dramatically increase

I guess that's why their using 'diplomacy' on North Korea. Saddam's got nothing, so we can threaten him with whatever we want, he can't do shit anyways. We can't threaten N Korea, for all we know they could kill a coupla billion people just to show what they've got.

If something is not done, Saddam will eventually rebuild the military strength he lost in the first Gulf War, and this time he will likely have a nuclear weapon or several nuclear weapons. One way or the other, this cannot be allowed to happen.

Yeah, after all, he might use it on the oppressive Israeli regime or something.

A mass destruction attack from Iraq or terrorist supported by Iraq could kill millions.

A mass destruction attack from the US WILL kill millions and likely billions if it precipitates a third world war like some have predicted.

The USA is working to have a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians but this will take time.

This will never happen while the US hypocritically continues to bomb and march into countries whenever it feels like it.

The mere fact that Israely troops are stationed in the West Bank threatens No one but terrorist seeking to kill people.

I could swear this has been reworked from a Heston NRA speech. Or maybe you saw it at a concert and decided to apply it here.

That's right, I forgot, the Israeli army hasn't killed or abused any innocent Palestinians.

The UN resolution passed against Israel ordering them to withdraw from the West Bank was passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations. Under Chapter VI rules, enforcement can only come about through diplomatic means. All resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules which require the use of force to bring about compliance with the stated resolutions.

Totally correct, just proving how hypocritically the UN deals with some oppressive regimes ) as opposed to others. OH! But wait, of COURSE we cant use force to ensure Israel complies, THEY ARE A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER!!!! How could I have overlooked that??

 

[Dreadsox]

You all are making me violate my Sebatical from posting. Please read my original post and stop debating UN VIOLATIONS and US WMD.

My point was......The OCTOBER RESOLUTION authorizing force is an insult. There is clearly no imminent danger to the United States or the President would take action YESTERDAY.

I am asking if people are willing to say to their Congressman and Senators enough!!!!!!!! Take back the October resolution and vote for WAR if that is what we need. DECLARE WAR! An actual Declaration of War, the 1st since 1941, may actually force these people to think about sending the troops into harms way.

That said...If the UN does not want to enforce its own damn pieces of toilet paper then so be it. We are not responsible for doing it for them.

If the President, who still has not made his case to us, cannot prove to me that I, my Family, my boarders are in danger, then he does not have the right to invade IRAQ without a Declaration of War.

Please, can we stick to the intent of this thread, and debate the UN/ USA WMD stuff elsewhere.....I am so tired of the US WMD thrown out on the one side....and the UN Violations on the other.

Back to my peace and quiet Sebatical.......I am trying to just read an listen and enjoy. Start another thread to argue this stuff.

Hugs and kisses to both sides....HEHEH

MATT

 

[gvox]

There is clearly no imminent danger to the United States or the President would take action YESTERDAY.
.
.
.
If the President, who still has not made his case to us, cannot prove to me that I, my Family, my boarders are in danger, then he does not have the right to invade IRAQ without a Declaration of War.

MATT

Wow, we are so close in opinion (I think) on this it's not funny.

Can the US declare war on a country tho? Won't that be seen as a world war style act of aggression?

I mean this seriously, I didn't think we allowed countries to invade other countries anymore, so basically the only way to justify war is for self-defense or a peacekeeping initiative, which we know this situation is neither.

It's really quite astounding, we are at a real turning point in history if you ask me.

 

[Scarletwine]

Aww. Sorry, thought you had come up missing.



Have a good one.

 

[Dreadsox]

Wow, we are so close in opinion (I think) on this it's not funny.

Can the US declare war on a country tho? Won't that be seen as a world war style act of aggression?

I mean this seriously, I didn't think we allowed countries to invade other countries anymore, so basically the only way to justify war is for self-defense or a peacekeeping initiative, which we know this situation is neither.

It's really quite astounding, we are at a real turning point in history if you ask me.

Everytime I think I am out, they pull me back in. Sorry it is the Sicilian in me.

1. Yes we agree on this point.
2. The US Constitution states that only Congress can Declare WAR

*the last time Congress did this was 1941.

3. I will 100% Support the United Nations if they authorize the use of force and I think they must.
4. I will also 100% Support the troops in almost anyway I can if WAR breaks out no matter the circumstances. (Unfortunately I am no longer the 180 lb young lad that could run two miles in 10:30. Shoot I get winded walking up the stairs. I think I would hurt the cause.) This means I support doing everything within reason to prevent unecessary US casualties and civilian casualties.


The thread was created more to address my concerns over point #2. I was a soldier. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I do not believe this situation is a situation in which the United States should invade another nation without a formal Declaration of War. Our Congress authorized the use of force in October with or without the UN. I think this is wrong. I believe that if we are to act without the UN and there is NO evidence of "Clear and Present Danger" the President needs the Congress to Declare War.


Now....I am returning to my Sebatical. I was trying to make it 7 days. My journal is getting thick. LOL

Peace

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

The USA did have extensive stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons, but much of this has been destroyed and the rest waiting to be destroyed as per treaties signed with the former Soviet Union in the late 80s and early 90s. There are no Chemical or Biological weapons deployed with US military forces ready for use. If any stockpiles exist, they are locked away waiting for destruction. But there are of course an exstensive stockpile of Nuclear Weapons. Chemical and Biological weapons are esentially useless against the protective features that US military and other modern military forces have. They are a threat though to defenseless civilian populations and militaries that do not have modern protective equipment.

The problem with North Korea without debating the two Nuclear weapons that they might have is the massive amount of conventional artillery that they have that is in range of the South Korean capital of Seoul. There are thousands of pieces of conventional artillery that could get off several salvos before US and South Korean forces could stop them. A lot of this artillery has been built into the mountainsides which are only 20 miles from the South Korean capital of Seoul. They could cause hundreds of Thousands of civilian deaths in Seoul in the first couple of days of any conflict. This unique situation where a large metropolitan area of 10 million people is in close proximity to the world 4th largest army does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Another large difference North Korea has with Iraq is Behavior. Unlike Iraq which has invaded and attacked 4 different countries over the past 20 years, North Korea has not invaded or attacked any countries in 50 years! Their only act of aggression was the 1950 invasion of South Korea, 2 years after both countries were formed. The past 50 years have shown North Korea to be very passive compared to Iraq or even Syria and Iran. Their possession of weapons is a threat, their past behavior in foreign policy is not relative to a lot of other countries.

"Yeah, after all, he might use it on the oppressive Israeli regime or something."

I'm sure are interference members currently living in Israel would be interested to here this one!

The United States is not going to use nuclear weapons precisely because of the risk involved in using them and also because there are conventional weapons that can accomplish what ever difficult mission there is like destroying bunkers that are deep under the ground which is the only possible reason nuclear weapons would be used. There conventional weapons that can achieve the destruction of a deep underground bunker. Nuclear weapons are not needed.

"This will never happen while the US hypocritically continues to bomb and march into countries whenever it feels like it."

The US does not hypocritically bomb or march into countries whenever it feels like it! If that were the case, the "Axis Of Evil" would have ceased to exist over a decade ago. Also, the USA made some of its best progress on Israely/Palestinian issue right after the first Persian Gulf War.

"I could swear this has been reworked from a Heston NRA speech. Or maybe you saw it at a concert and decided to apply it here."

Why do you decide to make things so personal? I don't see how the above two sentences contribute anything to your point of view but, oh well.

Certainly invidual Israelies have committed crimes against Palestinians, but it is not the policy of the IDF as a whole to target Palestinians on the West Bank. If it was, the Israely Military could have killed everyone on the West Bank decades ago. Compare that with the Palestinian terrorist, who do TARGET Israely civilians, and would if they had the means, kill everyone in Israel!

"Totally correct, just proving how hypocritically the UN deals with some oppressive regimes ) as opposed to others. OH! But wait, of COURSE we cant use force to ensure Israel complies, THEY ARE A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER!!!! How could I have overlooked that??"

Or perhaps its proof that the UN understand Israely security concerns which prompted Israel to occupy the West Bank in the first place back in 1967 and do to Israel's difficult security situation understand the the situation must be resolved through negotiations. Iraq's violations threatened global security and obviously resolutions against it were passed under Chapter VII rules.

 

[Dreadsox]

Aww. Sorry, thought you had come up missing.



Have a good one.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks

 

[sharky]

well, some people may think this is imminent danger. Iraq could hurt us...supposedly....even though I haven't seen the proof.

but we've done it before. thank god we went in to Vietnam to stop the communists' domino effect in southeast asia.

thank god we sent soldiers into Afghanistan long enough to push the taliban out for a couple months.

so let's see...we lost the vietnam war, we started a war in Iraq that we didn't finish and today the Taliban has control of Kandahar, Afghanistan. this "military action" is going real well.

 

[STING2]

I have a friend who just got back from Kandahar, Afghanistan and the Taliban are not in control.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Only Saddam and his regime will benefit if the USA and UN fail to do what the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement calls for given the current situation.

So you're saying ONLY Saddam would be hurt by the US bombing Iraq? If only that were the case...

 

[STING2]

I didn't say that at all. In the long term, a net number of Iraqi lives would be saved by regime change.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i think even more lives would be saved if there was a regime change in north america.

 

[Zoomerang96]

well, some people may think this is imminent danger. Iraq could hurt us...supposedly....even though I haven't seen the proof.

but we've done it before. thank god we went in to Vietnam to stop the communists' domino effect in southeast asia.

thank god we sent soldiers into Afghanistan long enough to push the taliban out for a couple months.

so let's see...we lost the vietnam war, we started a war in Iraq that we didn't finish and today the Taliban has control of Kandahar, Afghanistan. this "military action" is going real well.

alright, i must be out of the loop on this. explain this taliban thing to me.

 

[mug222]

I haven't read this thread, so excuse the seeming irrevelance of this: an insider tip holds that Bush will make a "major" announcement tonight concerning AIDS funding. Worth watching for that off-chance alone.

 

[Sicy]

Er am I the only one that thinks its annoying that everyone keeps clapping after every word he says?

 

[Dreadsox]

Ummm...Yah...I am annoyed to....But he needs time to read and translate.

 

[deep]

Nixon just went to China.

Hydrogen cars

 

[mug222]

$15 billion for AIDS over 5 years. Not enough, but I'm quite impressed.

edit: This was inconceivable just two years ago. I think much of the credit for this announcement should go to Bono and Prof. Sachs.

 

[U2Bama]

I think the clapping is some old tradition. Does anyone remember the old Saturday Night Live segment where Dan Quayle kept looking to Rep. Foley to know whether or not to stand?

He did mention the African AIDS funding, along the lines of $15 billion, including $10 billion in new money. But since I am watching it on FOXNews, it is probably just biased media spin and he didn't really say that.

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

That was one extremely funny skit! We must be old! LOL

I am watching it on fox too....I heard it.

Nice to see ya Bama!

 

[pub crawler]

hahahaha, quite right bama, quite right.

 

[anitram]

I think the clapping is some old tradition.

It is akin to what went on in all those Communist countries the USA found so distasteful.

Those of us who lived in them know that political speeches were full of these ridiculous claps. Very similar to the huge crowds gathered to cheer on the president (the workers would be given paid days off to attend, and yes, attendance was mandatory).

My mother watched the speech tonight, and laughed. Brought back memories of Eastern Europe, that's for sure.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[U2Bama]

Well, I guess they could make it a little less Communist by putting on powdered wigs and jeering at each other like those feisty Commons and Lords do in London.

~U2Alabama

 

[deep]

I But since I am watching it on FOXNews, it is probably just biased media spin and he didn't really say that.

~U2Alabama

Is it true that in Alabama T Vs are sold with the dial glued to the Fox channel?

 

[Dreadsox]

Speedracer and NB are preparing posts I can feel it.

They are too busy clapping with the TV..hehe!!!!

 

[U2Bama]

We do not have TVs or electricity in Alabama. I had to drive my tractor to California in order to watch it.

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

Bama...in boot camp we powered the TV in the barracks with treadmills.

 

[deep]