I've reached a conclusion on war. Update: Conclusion not reached

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

But if we dont get the support than we do nothing--great soultion

.

Is it true? Is ignorance bliss. You seem to be the person to ask.

Think about why we aren't getting support. Is it because the rest of the world is stupid and the USA is smart?

Chew on this one. Why aren't you so eager to attack North Korea? Why aren't they like Germany? They have nuclear weapons and have threatened us and Japan. Why is Iraq the target but not NK? If you want to equate every current issue with history, go right ahead. Just make sure you carry it through.

I should add that until now I was loosely in favor of the US disarming Iraq by force, as soon as possible. I've been where you all are. I know it's not wrong. I know it's not right either. Only now do I realize the danger and likelihood of a world war. If North Korea wasn't in the equation I might be wholeheartedly in favor of the USA carrying out its crusade.
Tell me of a historical situation similar to the current one we face with the "axis of evil". Did Italy have nuclear weapons?

So according to you the majority is always right. So slavery was a good thing because the majority of the world thought it was a good practice. So acccording to you slavery was good once. Dont yell at me i'm using YOU logic.
And if we kick saddam's @ss it will show NK that we are willing to go the distance.
Thanks for bring up NK. You know people said we should give NK a chance, we gave them money to stop their nuclear program, we tried diplomacy to the nth degree and what do they have--nukes. Which just proves that we must deal with saddam now more than ever.

Did Italy have nuclear weapons--OMG just because the two situations are not completely alike doesn't make them completely different. My god your dumb. You must of fallen from the dumb@ss tree and hit every branch on the way down.

So answer my question: Is it true WinkOsmosis? Is ignorance bliss. You seem to be the person to ask.

 

[przero]

I went to your website. Now I understand.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

But if we dont get the support than we do nothing--great soultion

.

Is it true? Is ignorance bliss. You seem to be the person to ask.

Think about why we aren't getting support. Is it because the rest of the world is stupid and the USA is smart?

Chew on this one. Why aren't you so eager to attack North Korea? Why aren't they like Germany? They have nuclear weapons and have threatened us and Japan. Why is Iraq the target but not NK? If you want to equate every current issue with history, go right ahead. Just make sure you carry it through.

I should add that until now I was loosely in favor of the US disarming Iraq by force, as soon as possible. I've been where you all are. I know it's not wrong. I know it's not right either. Only now do I realize the danger and likelihood of a world war. If North Korea wasn't in the equation I might be wholeheartedly in favor of the USA carrying out its crusade.
Tell me of a historical situation similar to the current one we face with the "axis of evil". Did Italy have nuclear weapons?

We are currently dealing with NK, or do you deny that?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Grey
NORTH KOREA IS CHINA"S PROBLEM!!!!!!! Bush and his administration have flat out said it a hundred times already. I believed the term they used is that it's a regional issue! If China won't do anything about a nuclear arms race in their backyard why should the US? They don't want us taking care of the Iraq issue but attack N korea!

If the US pulled out of the Iraq situation and surrounded N. Korea all you damn liberals would start screaming "but NK hasn't actually dont anything yet!" and the whole thing would start again. Use your damn minds people jeezus I am gonna have a heart attack!

I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. They have threatened us. But you're right. The usual anti-war crowd would be opposed to it. Not my fault. I stayed in class when UT had that walkout, and I would do that again, despite the fact that I'm leaning heavily toward anti-war. When there's an unjust war I'll protest. In case of dangerous war, Inef about it here.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: przero
I went to your website. Now I understand.

I'm glad you gained insight from my dreams and encounter with the dog.

 

[przero]

WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war. I shouldn't have just mentioned NK when talking about the holocaust. There are other nations that could support Iraq. Even our allies, France, Germany, etc are hostile toward the idea of attacking Iraq. How do you think they would feel about attacking NK?

There is a difference between disarming by force and defense. Has Iraq threatened us?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yeah, but i figured it out: WinkOsmosis is a dumb@ss.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war.

Jesus do you understand anything? You must not understand asian countries. Asian countries have this idea called: if it's not on my land, it aint my problem. No way in he!! would NK join in a war with iraq.

 

[przero]

What ? LOL!

 

[przero]

Are you french?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war.

According to you iraq would join a war with NK if we attacked NK.
Jesus do you understand anything? You must not understand asian countries. Asian countries have this idea called: if it's not on my land it aint my problem. No way in he!! would NK join in a war with iraq.

Didn't you read my posts? I said if NK wasn't involved, attacking Iraq would be alot less risky. Same goes for attacking NK. But the dfiference is that a first strike against North Korea may actually be necessary. Is attacking Iraq immediately necessary?

Fighting either country today is not necessary. But what puzzles me is why so many of you are in favor of attacking Iraq but not NK? NK did threaten us, so "it's none of our business" doesn't apply. Is it because you see the delicacy of the situation? Why doesn't this apply to Iraq as well?

 

[ToBeMe]

Chew on this one. Why aren't you so eager to attack North Korea? Why aren't they like Germany? They have nuclear weapons and have threatened us and Japan. Why is Iraq the target but not NK? If you want to equate every current issue with history, go right ahead. Just make sure you carry it through.

• The Associated Press March 7, 2003
  
  North Korea likely to further raise tension in nuclear dispute
  
  By Christopher Torchia; Associated Press Writer
  
  North Korea's increasingly bold military maneuvers in recent weeks have heightened fears of an armed clash, whether by design or accident, amid tension over its suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
  
  U.S., Japanese and South Korean authorities also worry that North Korea is preparing to take the most serious step yet in its efforts to push Washington into dialogue: the reactivation of a nuclear reprocessing facility that could enable the production of bombs within months.
  
  A North Korean decision to restart the plant that extracts weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel rods would fit a pattern of raising tension in an attempt to win concessions from its No. 1 enemy. To counter North Korea, Washington ordered heavy bombers to Guam in what it called a defensive measure.
  
  "There is a kind of tit-for-tat pattern that's getting nasty here, but is still somewhat restrained," said Leon Sigal, a security analyst at the Social Science Research Council in New York City.
  
  Many analysts believe North Korea is speeding up its so-called brinkmanship strategy because of U.S. plans for war against Iraq, possibly this month. According to this theory, the North Koreans believe Washington is more likely to compromise now to avoid a second crisis in Northeast Asia, but would be tougher on North Korea if it conducts a successful campaign against Saddam Hussein.
  
  "They're doing everything they possibly can to get the attention of the U.S. military," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based research center.
  
  "This is part of the larger effort to ratchet this crisis up to the point where the U.S. will decide to sit down and have a discussion with them," he said.
  
  President George W. Bush's administration has chosen not to negotiate with North Korea, saying it will not be bullied into giving the communist country what it wants: a nonaggression treaty and economic aid. The strategy has been criticized by leading U.S. Democrats who say direct talks offer the only chance of defusing the nuclear crisis.
  
  Northern actions in the past two weeks include:
  
  - The dispatch of a MiG-19 warplane across the South's western sea border. The plane quickly retreated after South Korean jets flew to the area.
  - The test-firing of an anti-ship missile on the eve of the inauguration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.
  - The reactivation of a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor that is part of a suspected weapons program.
  - The interception by MiG-29 warplanes of a U.S. reconnaissance plane in international airspace off North Korea's east coast.
  North Korea's next step might be to switch on the reprocessing plant at the Yongbyon nuclear complex north of Pyongyang, a possible prelude to the manufacture of several nuclear weapons by this summer. That would involve the transfer of 8,000 spent fuel rods in stainless steel canisters from a cooling pond to the plant.
  
  All the North Korean actions appear to have been carefully planned to avoid confrontation, but the threat seems higher than it has been in years.
  
  "What worries me the most is the possibility of miscalculation and accidental outbreak of hostilities on the account of escalating nuclear tensions," Alexandre Mansourov, a Northeast Asian security expert, said in a commentary released by the Nautilus Institute, a Berkeley, California-based research group.
  
  Sigal, the analyst in New York, said the start this week of an annual U.S.-South Korean military exercise called "Foal Eagle" has heightened tension with North Korea. Communist forces are also engaging in winter training.
  
  "We're at a point in which the propaganda in the North is pretty high-pitched, which means the armed forces are hyper-vigilant, hyper-attentive," Sigal said.
  
  "On our side, I assume people are being hyper-careful," he said. "But things happen. Armed reconnaissance happens in the DMZ, Apache helicopters do stray, certain intelligence operations do possibly penetrate real air space."
  
  In 1994, a U.S. Army helicopter was shot down after straying into North Korean airspace during a training mission near the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, that separates South and North Korea. One pilot was killed, and the other was captured and released two weeks later.
  
  The DMZ was once the scene of frequent infiltrations and armed clashes, but such incidents have dwindled in recent years. Even if a clash occurs, the possibility that it would lead to full-scale war is doubtful, partly because the Koreas realize a conflict would devastate both sides.
  
  The difference now is that North Korea could soon manufacture nuclear weapons, a concern in a 1994 crisis that led former President Bill Clinton to develope plans for bombing the Yongbyon complex. Some U.S. officials believe the North already has one or two atomic bombs.
  

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war. I shouldn't have just mentioned NK when talking about the holocaust. There are other nations that could support Iraq. Even our allies, France, Germany, etc are hostile toward the idea of attacking Iraq. How do you think they would feel about attacking NK?

There is a difference between disarming by force and defense. Has Iraq threatened us?

Yeah he tried to assassinate George Bush senior. Jesus do you know any facts, cause ever rebutal you make leads to more facts that lead us to the conclusion that iraq must be delt with.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war.

According to you iraq would join a war with NK if we attacked NK.
Jesus do you understand anything? You must not understand asian countries. Asian countries have this idea called: if it's not on my land it aint my problem. No way in he!! would NK join in a war with iraq.

Didn't you read my posts? I said if NK wasn't involved, attacking Iraq would be alot less risky. Same goes for attacking NK. But the dfiference is that a first strike against North Korea may actually be necessary. Is Iattacking Iraq immediately necessary?

Letting Saddam continue in his defiance can only be seen as encouraging N. Korea.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war.

According to you iraq would join a war with NK if we attacked NK.
Jesus do you understand anything? You must not understand asian countries. Asian countries have this idea called: if it's not on my land it aint my problem. No way in he!! would NK join in a war with iraq.

Didn't you read my posts? I said if NK wasn't involved, attacking Iraq would be alot less risky. Same goes for attacking NK. But the dfiference is that a first strike against North Korea may actually be necessary. Is Iattacking Iraq immediately necessary?

No you said if we attack iraq then NK would join with them. I can read can you? He!! i'm quoting you.

 

[przero]

You disarm a threat by force, so you don't have to attack in defense.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
WinkOsmosis - Whoa! Let me get this straight.
You said: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Am I missing something?

Yes. A war with North Korea would be self defense, and seen as such by the world. Attacking Iraq causes a split, not too different from splits that caused WWI, and would result in a nations supporting Iraq (like NK) and more widespread war.

According to you iraq would join a war with NK if we attacked NK.
Jesus do you understand anything? You must not understand asian countries. Asian countries have this idea called: if it's not on my land it aint my problem. No way in he!! would NK join in a war with iraq.

Didn't you read my posts? I said if NK wasn't involved, attacking Iraq would be alot less risky. Same goes for attacking NK. But the dfiference is that a first strike against North Korea may actually be necessary. Is Iattacking Iraq immediately necessary?

No you said if we attack iraq then NK would join with them. I can read can you? He!! i'm quoting you.

Sorry I didn't make my opinions clear, and went off on a reactionary rant. My post made it look like I want to attack NK... I only want to attack them as much as I want to attack Iraq.

 

[przero]

Stop. Now you make no sense. First you say: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Now you say: "I only want to attack them as much as I want to attack Iraq. " Do you read what you post?

Have you really reached a conclusion and what is it?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: przero
Stop. Now you make no sense. First you say: "especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). "

Then you say: "I wouldn't be opposed to war with North Korea. "

Now you say: "I only want to attack them as much as I want to attack Iraq. " Do you read what you post?

Have you really reached a conclusion and what is it?

Okay fine. I'll admit that I haven't reached a conclusion. This thread was a lie. I'm still trying to decide, and I can't. There is no clear answer. Sorry for wasting your time. I can easily find myself seeing both sides of an issue, and that is not good for decisiveness.

I didn't reach conclusion in the past year, why did I think I did this morning??? Note to self: stop starting threads.

 

[przero]

Well said. It is a dilema for us all.

 

[Loralon]

The threat from Iraq clearly doesn't lie in it's ability to attack us directly. Rather, the foundation of that threat lies in that an Iraq with Saddam Hussain at the controls has compatible political motivations to those of Al Qaeda. Both want to see the reunification of the Islamic world under their own respective banners: tyrannical dictatorship on one hand, and a Taliban-styled theocracy on the other. The interests of the United States in this region clearly stand in the way for either party. The real concern is that these two parties will overcome their own inherent political antagonism towards one another and unite in a common cause against the United States. Only with a retrenchment of U.S. foreign policy with an isolationist-bent, would their long-term political aims be a possibility. To those who believe that no link exists now, or could ever exist between these two organizations I only need to remind you that the same could have been said about an alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1941. These two nations didn't have much in common, except that they shared a common enemy.