Vote

[»Ducky]

Interesting discussion indeed.

I could not reply to all the points if I had wanted to.

 

Tascar, you need to chill out mate. What happens here in the states effects the majority of the world. Same deal with any other country. Everyone may not be directly effected, but will be at some point. Soldier has claim over the subject even though he cannot vote.

 

Drake, had the supplier known about the intentions, he can be held accountable for conspiracy. The whole problem is proving the matter.

----

 

Its great that we are trying to eradicate terrorism and what not, but does anyone realize we can't keep it up forever? We put one "sweep" into action and it has cost us billions($) already. How many more sweeps can we handle? Three, four?

And after we are finished, How do we pay it all off?

Cut that ever so hated corporate spending? I am sure things like that won't take years to accomplish.

 

I can't be the only Riskâ„¢ player here. All players know that you aren't supposed to attack all adjacent countries on your first turn. If you do so, you leave yourself weak on all areas. While you spend turns trying to rebuild forces, the enemy chips away at your territory while gaining re-enforcements themselves. In that period of "downtime", near everything that was done the previous turns mean nothing.

Obviously after awhile, there will be a winner out of pure boldness/luck. But unlike Riskâ„¢, there isn't an infinate amount of troups and $'s we can send out. Sooner or later we need to stop for the welfare of the territories we already countrol.

 

My basic synopsis is as follows. I am pro anyone who has ideas to nip the war in the bud at the present moment and look back to our people. Talk of NK has me troubled. We can't put ourselves further in a hole, and frankly.. I see many worse outcomes from that battle. Yes we aren't done, but we have no chance of finishing it at the moment.

 

Besides, when has a president "Not -*BAD WORD*-ed up"? Its all trivial and pointless in the long run.

[Ancient Power]

rofl nintendo

[Tascar]

Tascar, you need to chill out mate.

Sorry. I get a little steamed over ignorant foreign kids....but then Polix goes and says that we deserved 9/11 so I realized we are dealing with total nut cases here. I'm unregistering from these forums so I don't give myself the opportunity to read this -*BAD WORD*-.

[»SD>Big]

Tascar, you need to chill out mate.

Sorry. I get a little steamed over ignorant foreign kids....but then Polix goes and says that we deserved 9/11 so I realized we are dealing with total nut cases here. I'm unregistering from these forums so I don't give myself the opportunity to read this -*BAD WORD*-.

please!

[Bacchus]

sorry. I get a little steamed over ignorant foreign kids...

Here goes the authority argument:"look, i'm older, bigger, stronger...i'm the one who knows stuff, stfu!"

 

ignorant kids? I'd hardly call Live or Soldier kids, same for about everyone else here. ppl sre still interested in politics...it's very re!@#$%^&*uring somehow.

 

 

You're a show tascar.

 

 

I'm unregistering from these forums so I don't give myself the opportunity to read this -*BAD WORD*-.

 

come one, grow up.

 

***

 

I'd still vote kerry.

[A Soldier]

QUOTE(Soldier) 

What are your opinions on the bombings by the way? We're they right to do so?

 

 

Well' date=' the situation faced by the military is a curious one. Every civilian casuality is one to many, but if we can drop a bomb on a suspected terrorist controlled building instead of sending troops in on the ground to clear it, Im all for it. Yes, this is shallow, but If I was to write out my full opinion it would be a novel, and I've got other -*BAD WORD*- to to right now, mabye later =)[/quote']

What's bizarre here is that the bombings occured almost daily; I have difficulty seeing that the true reason would be a terrorist threat being taken cared of when US forces have been dropping bombs for over 4 years in Iraq before invading the country. What comes to my mind right now is General William Looney's quote that I posted before... were the US and GB trying to keep a weak country weak to prepare the invasion? Well, that's just an !@#$%^&*umption I am making, but when I think of Rumsfeld that suggested straightly after 9/11 attacks to invade Iraq even though they had no proof, it's tough to not think of it. Last thing, how can most Iraqis think the coalition forces were there for their good when they've been bombed for 4 years?

 

 

 

QUOTE(Soldier) 

ok. Let's say there is you' date=' me and Mister X. You hate Mister X like -*BAD WORD*-. I give you the gun to kill Mister X. You kill him. Am I or am I not part of the crime?

 

 

 

If you gave me the gun with the knowledge that I was going to use it to commit a crime, you were a part of it. If you provided me the gun without knowledge that I was going to be bad with it, then you werent. If you want to try to make the arguement that gas was provided to Saddam when the US knew it would be used to gas kurds, good luck.[/quote']

No. Kissinger selling out the Kurds would have been the gun given... Logically, after the insurrection failed because of the US administration that decided to remove their support, Saddam must have been pissed real bad. And if he killed a lot of Kurds after that, I consider that being part of the crime.

 

Like Slate says, Kurds getting screwed is now a tradition. :/

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079592/

http://www.google.ca/search?q=kurds+sellou...F-8&hl=fr&meta=

[A Soldier]

For all Bush supporters, don't forget to buy your republican ketchup!

 

http://www.wketchup.com/

[MonteZuma]

Drake, had the supplier known about the intentions, he can be held accountable for conspiracy.  The whole problem is proving the matter.

I haven't read the whole discussion, but I think this point can be taken at least one step further. It should also be an offense to hand a weapon to anybody who you reasonably know to be dangerous, incompetent and/or unlikely to use the weapon within the law - even if you have no knowledge whatsoever of any actual intended crime.

 

Its like giving a packet of razor blades or a box of matches to a child and then complaining when people get cut and things get burned.

[»Ducky]

No need to read the discussion, you hit the nail.

[Aileron]

Tascar is right - you people are too much sometimes, especially Bacchus. You people are not trying to persuade, you are trying to judge. Why should Tascar want to spend his time to put himself through this - especially when the jury is biased to begin with.

 

 

Look, Saddam's when came from wherever he could get them, and since we took Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war alot came from us. However, we are not part of the problem, because we thought that the weapons would be used on the Iranis, which at the time deserved it.

 

We also didn't give Saddam WMDs, we gave them missles-which he converted into WMDs by changing the warheads.

 

 

However, that bears no bearing on the current situation. Bush was elected after Hussein was in power, and how Hussein was created bears little relevency to the question as whether or not he should have been removed.

 

This is what Tascar is talking about folks - this arguement is not meant to prove Bush is wrong, it is meant to prove that the United States is evil.

[»nintendo64]

Remember Aileron, You judge yourself by your intentions, but People judge you by your actions, the same holds true for countries.

 

-nintendo64

[MonteZuma]

Look, Saddam's when came from wherever he could get them, and since we took Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war alot came from us.  However, we are not part of the problem, because we thought that the weapons would be used on the Iranis, which at the time deserved it.

 

We also didn't give Saddam WMDs, we gave them missles-which he converted into WMDs by changing the warheads.

 

However, that bears no bearing on the current situation.  Bush was elected after Hussein was in power, and how Hussein was created bears little relevency to the question as whether or not he should have been removed.

 

This is what Tascar is talking about folks - this arguement is not meant to prove Bush is wrong, it is meant to prove that the United States is evil.

Bah. What justifiable interest did the US have in the Iran/Iraq conflict?

 

The US was blatantly irresponsible in its handling of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. The support extended from the export of weapons grade poisons and raw ingredients and included !@#$%^&*istance in deploying the gas most effectively. This directly controvened the 1925 Geneva accords, to which Iraq was also a signatory.

 

It was a war crime. Commited by the US and by Iraq.

 

You don't think cyanide, mus-*BAD WORD*- gas, botulin poison or anthrax are potential WMDs? Your government disagrees - and went to war on that basis. Your government sold them to Saddam. And then there are the $5 Billion in unreported loans to Iraq that were earmarked to be spent on lots of industrial projects - and were eventually thought by US intelligence to have been used as seed money to support an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

 

Of course the US was part of the problem. Pfft.

 

And this little piece of history has a huge bearing on the problem today. You deny this by saying that Bush wasn't in power at the time. Well Rumsfield was. He was Reagan's friggin envoy. He had a key role in the whole debacle. No wonder he was so convinced that the WMDs were there. He personally signed the receipts. Its a shame that nobody listened to the weapons inspectors and the defectors who suspected that there were no more WMDs (ie chemical weapons) to be found. History also teaches us what happens when you meddle in foreign affairs without fully understanding the consequences of your actions. There is a lesson still unlearned.

 

Bush and everyone who supported him WAS wrong. Whether or not the US is evil is a matter of opinion. Although I think most would agree that some of its actions in relation to Iraq have been evil. Selling anthrax to a maniacal dictator might be considered an evil act if you knew one of the victims.

[Aileron]

Good recovery, but not enough.

 

So, you are saying that we shouldn't vote for Bush because Rumsfeld was a part of the Iraq/Iran war? The majority of Bush's cabinet have a whole lot of nothing to do with the Iraq/Iran war, or atleast as much as Kerry's cabinet (after it gets decided) would have.

 

We need to vote for the future, not the past.

[Dr.Worthless]

The US was blatantly irresponsible in its handling of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. The support extended from the export of weapons grade poisons and raw ingredients and included !@#$%^&*istance in deploying the gas most effectively. This directly controvened the 1925 Geneva accords, to which Iraq was also a signatory.

 

It was a war crime. Commited by the US and by Iraq.

Bush and everyone who supported him WAS wrong.

 

Was wrong about what, WMD's? I thought I had just read that we sold them to Iraq in the years previous. What happened to the ones we sold them? Oh yeah, Saddam probably followed the UN command to destroy them, we all know Saddam always followed UN laws.

[PoLiX]

We need to vote for the future, not the past.

Sadly the past can sometimes show what could happen in the future.

[MonteZuma]

Good recovery, but not enough.

 

So, you are saying that we shouldn't vote for Bush because Rumsfeld was a part of the Iraq/Iran war?  The majority of Bush's cabinet have a whole lot of nothing to do with the Iraq/Iran war, or atleast as much as Kerry's cabinet (after it gets decided) would have.

 

We need to vote for the future, not the past.

Indeed. That is why it is time for Bush to go.

 

The world is no closer to being free of terrorists or the potential of attacks by terrorists with WMDs than it was before Iraq was invaded. Iraq was a disasterous waste of time and resources.

 

Its time to acknowledge the mistakes made by Bush and his team and move on.

 

Go Kerry!

 

[MonteZuma]

Was wrong about what, WMD's? I thought I had just read that we sold them to Iraq in the years previous. What happened to the ones we sold them? Oh yeah, Saddam probably followed the UN command to destroy them, we all know Saddam always followed UN laws.

Heh. Yeah. Isn't that just the funniest thing? He DID destroy them.

 

Wow. If only somebody listened to the Iraqi defectors and the weapons inspectors and followed up on their suspicions we could have avoided the whole war.

 

Wow. If only the US listened to the UN, including the French and Germans there would be 1,000 less US dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives would also be saved. Gas prices would also be cheaper.

 

Gee. maybe war wasn't such a great idea after all.

 

[Bacchus]

Its time to acknowledge the mistakes made by Bush and his team andmove on.

 

agreed!

[Manus Celer Dei]

I voted for tic tacs.

 

Every empire falls eventually.

[Dr.Worthless]

Heh. Yeah. Isn't that just the funniest thing? He DID destroy them.

So wait, you're telling me that Saddam, who invaded kuwait, who openly supported suicide bombers, who activly participated in genocide, who terrorized his own citizens, (must the list go on?) decided to listen to the UN and destroy the weapons. Heh, I bet.

 

Well, With further consideration I guess UN laws are really effective and no doubt would have stopped Saddam from doing anything in the future, and surely caused him to destroy all weapons he had. Laws always work, just consider how well making suicide illegal worked, oh and lets not forget outlawing sodomy.

 

 

Wow. If only somebody listened to the Iraqi defectors and the weapons inspectors and followed up on their suspicions we could have avoided the whole war.

 

The weapons inspectors were constantly being given the run-around. Blix on multiple occasions was only allowed to inspect sites when Saddam allowed him to. He was also denied access to sites multiple times.

 

 

 

Wow. If only the US listened to the UN, including the French and Germans there would be 1,000 less US dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives would also be saved. Gas prices would also be cheaper.

 

Add "The French and Germans would be getting $$ for the arms dealings/who knows what else that they were engaged in."

 

Saddam Clicky Action.

 

Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

 

So, lets cut the number at 360. Taking the low number, leaving Saddam in power would have cost about another 25,200 iraqi lives, the high end is of the tune of 45000.

 

What I want to know is, how did the US become the evil here? -*BAD WORD*-O PEOPLE, read the numbers, have you forgotten the sick -*BAD WORD*- Saddam did while he was in power? 25,200 - 45000 > 10,000. KThx, stop trying to make the civilian casualities of this war into some huge attrocity. While every civilian casualty is a tragedy, guess what, SADDAM DID THIS -*BAD WORD*- FOR A DECADE +. But then again I guess all the liberals were right, Iraq was clearly a much better place before the invasion than it currently is, and for Christ sakes who gives a -*BAD WORD*- about the average Iraq jo, our gas prices are higher because of this!!

 

Give me a break.

[kill]

iraq and kerry is gay

[PoLiX]

In reply to Dr. Worthless. There was actually a report done by some guy, forget his name now, we discussed it in class a few months before the war. But all his possessions were gone through, he found his room tapped, and some of his film went missing before he left. They were told they could go anywhere, and see anything they wanted, and yet when they'd try to go somewhere they wanted, they were denied and told there was nothing interesting there.

[MonteZuma]

If the weapons weren't destroyed, where are they?

 

Blix was given the run around, but at the time of the invasion Blix had unprecedented access to Iraqi installations. He wanted to continue his search. The access issue was improving at the exact time that the US decided to invade. The situation wasn't deteriorating. Why go to war?

 

The US, UK, USSR/Russia, France, Germany, China and others all supplied arms to Iraq - and much of this trade was reprehensible (eg the Osirak nuclear reactor - sheesh), but this ceased in 1991 because of UN resolutions. I guess the German and French position might have been partly economic, but it wasn't because of post 1991 arms trading. Some of the claims that trades with german firms included products that could be used in WMDs (eg ultrasound machines that could be used as nuclear triggers and refrigerated trucks that could be used as mobile chemical weapons factories) have proven to be false because the weapons and the infrastructure to make them just don't exist.

 

Discounting everything that happened before the Gulf War, the US would be the good guy if it acted to support the UN, rather than dump on it. Now the US is simply seen as an arrogant unilateralist that makes the world more and more dangerous every day.

[Aileron]

The US did support the UN! We supported the UN for twelve years, and in that time we could not get proof the weapons were dismantled. BTW, we DID find some samples of gas in Iraq, so Hussein hadn't got rid of all of it.

 

Before we went in, Blitz was frequently given the run-around and Iraqis frequently threatened the lives of the UN inspectors. We had good reason to think Hussein had WMDs.

 

This wasn't some idea cooked up by Bush - most foreign leaders as well as the US Congress was convinced Iraq had WMDs.

 

This list apparently included Kerry. When Kerry was presented the same intelligence that Bush saw - KERRY VOTED FOR ACTION IN IRAQ.

 

 

The US is seen as dangerous and utilateral because the world media wants the US to seem dangerous and unilateral. If you disagree with me, tell me what the current situation is between France and Chirac? You can't - Chirac never makes the news. If he did, one could easily see why the US had to go around the UN.

[Dr.Worthless]

The US did support the UN! We supported the UN for twelve years, and in that time we could not get proof the weapons were dismantled. BTW, we DID find some samples of gas in Iraq, so Hussein hadn't got rid of all of it.

 

Before we went in, Blitz was frequently given the run-around and Iraqis frequently threatened the lives of the UN inspectors. We had good reason to think Hussein had WMDs.

 

This wasn't some idea cooked up by Bush - most foreign leaders as well as the US Congress was convinced Iraq had WMDs.

 

This list apparently included Kerry. When Kerry was presented the same intelligence that Bush saw - KERRY VOTED FOR ACTION IN IRAQ.

 

 

The US is seen as dangerous and utilateral because the world media wants the US to seem dangerous and unilateral. If you disagree with me, tell me what the current situation is between France and Chirac? You can't - Chirac never makes the news. If he did, one could easily see why the US had to go around the UN.

Amen, Amen, AMEN!!.

 

Just like he said above, we supported the UN for years, when it came to a point where the UN would do nothing but continually say "You better not Saddam!", something had to be done.

 

If the weapons weren't destroyed, where are they?

 

The million dollar question. Some could still be hidden in Iraq under 100 feet of sand. There was plenty of time to ship them out of the country. -*BAD WORD*-, mabye he even made a last-minute-deal with some folks, and traded military forces for weapons? Who knows. Just because we haven't found anything does not mean they do not exist.

 

Discounting everything that happened before the Gulf War, the US would be the good guy if it acted to support the UN, rather than dump on it. Now the US is simply seen as an arrogant unilateralist that makes the world more and more dangerous every day.

 

Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can make the arguement that the world is more dangerious without Saddam as a leader. Removing a sadistic tyrant with a known itch to invade other countries maliciously surely was the complete wrong thing to do, it only makes things more dangerous!!

 

BTW, Newsflash. When we capture Osama, guess what, there will be terrorist retaliations for that too. So when those occure, will you say the same thing? "Man, Capturing Osama was the worst thing we could have done, It's made the world more dangerous!!"