US goes to war

[Evildead666]

Blair's trying to smooth out the waves created by Bush. He's gathering...

[drslump]

Originally posted by Gurm


You have a lot to learn. Plus you use the word "occidental" far too much. Methinks perhaps you are an "occidental tourist".

- Gurm, making a funny.

Sure I have lots to learn, I have almost everything to learn but I keep learning everyday.
Some people preffer to repeat again and again the same mistakes without learning from them.
If you drop a bomb you'll have one back. It'll stop the day that one of the two parts runs out of ammo or there is no one left to fire it.
Remember that when you get killed in a "real" war you don't respawn after 10 seconds by pushing your mouse button. Once you are killed the game is finished.

- Dr.Slump, making a post (it is what we do here, right?)

[Greebe]

Sure I have lots to learn, I have almost everything to learn but I keep learning everyday.
Some people preffer to repeat again and again the same mistakes without learning from them.
If you drop a bomb you'll have one back. It'll stop the day that one of the two parts runs out of ammo or there is no one left to fire it.
Remember that when you get killed in a "real" war you don't respawn after 10 seconds by pushing your mouse button. Once you are killed the game is finished.

and by taking the stance you are proclaiming will be repeating history that led upto WWII. Is that what you want?!

[Brian R.]

He is citing history, not advocating a repeat of it.

[KvHagedorn]

World Wars I and II were so bloody because the opponents were more evenly matched. If the US pounces on Saddam, who do you think will win.. in a matter of days??

[drslump]

and by taking the stance you are proclaiming will be repeating history that led upto WWII. Is that what you want?!

I guess it all depends on how you see it. Maybe in this case will be the US/NATO/UN the ones that will start a WW. Right now Saddam hasn't attacked another country (after the defeat in Kuwait of course).

[Greebe]

LOL d00d he's at war even in his own country... the ethnic cleansing and all... which makes me wonder, just how many tens of thousands of his own people who would decent, have to die before putting the rest of us at higher risk than we already are?! (albiet harboring Al Queda atm = 9/11)

[KRSESQ]

Saddam isn't really the problem. He is what could be called a "deterrable threat." The right show of military might can keep him relatively contained, because all he is really interested in, in the long term, is staying in power. The problem is, totalitarian regimes like his breed guys like the 19 who flew the planes on 9-11. They are "undeterrable threats" because they hate us more than they love life.

Replacing Saddam with a more stable, moderate, open government, one in which the people feel they have a say and at least some hope for economic gain, is a step toward improving the stability of the entire region. It's in the post-war nation building, not in the overthrow of Saddam, that the western world faces its greater challange. This is where the true nature and motives of the western world will be judged.

Kevin

[drslump]

Spain and Italy had a fascist dictatorship for many years, but nobody care then to defeat them. Even if Franco and Mussolini had heavy links with the nazi germany.
Even more, the US had/have military bases in spanish territory.

but anyway this is becoming and endless discussion. I'm not going to change my thinking easily and I'm sure for you it's the same.
At least we could agree that war should be the last resource to use. can we?

ivan

[Gurm]

Nope. Sorry. The LAST recourse is what EU are proposing - wait for "them" to kill some more of "us" before doing something. Sorry, I'm a bit more proactive than that.

- Gurm

[KvHagedorn]

If Franco had been building up a nuclear or chemical arsenal, I'm sure the world would have gone after him as well, but my impression was that he tended to mind his own business internationally. How were things during Franco's reign? Was he horribly abusive of his power? Did he gas whole towns like Saddam did? I'm just curious, since I haven't really heard that much about his rule.

[thop]

Gurm, that logic seems flawed to me. Couldnt they also say then, we better kill "them" before the kill "us"?

And you and they could be happily dancing in vicious circles then

[High_Jumbllama]

Someone shows the ability and intent to kill others in other countries plunging a region into chaos not to mention actually killing defenseless groups in his own country and you think we should wait 'til he kills more. WTF is the matter with you? You're saying we should let them kill us first? What if they killed your family member. You'd be the first person saying why didn't we do something about this before. WTF is the matter with you?

[thop]

Saddam wont attack anyone anywhere outside of his own garden. Even cyprus would withstand his invasion.

[High_Jumbllama]

Sometimes you have to prevent others from being killed. He has already attacked Israel. If he used chemical weapons, etc . . . it could have several orders of magnitude worse. Israel is our ally. She we sit by while our ally and the world economy is threatened?