The begining of the New World Order or a Police State?(long read)

Originally posted by shockwaves



As for the Gulf War, I believe that the treaty was unfair, and if I were Iraq, I wouldn\'t respect it either.  So what if they lost the war, if an unfair treaty is imposed on a nation, they still probably aren\'t going to accept it.  You think if America lost a war, we\'d accept something like a no fly zone in our nation?  Not a chance, we\'d do the same thing.  Why people always treat other nations differently from America is amazing.

I also never said no one would ever nuke the US.  I said no nation would.  That would be suicide, and foolish for them.  Terrorists are a different thing entirely.  9/11 wasn\'t the action of a government, it was the action of terrorists.  A nation would never do what those terrorists did on 9/11 either.  If a terrorist group is developing nukes, then of course you stop them.  But Iraq isn\'t a terrorist group, they are a nation.  If you can\'t see that there is a difference between the two, then that is pretty bad.

Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security.  I would do the same if I ran the nation.  How about, instead of laughing at it, you actually address it, and tell me why it\'s so invalid?

 

Are you forgetting something here shockwaves?  Iraq invaded Kuwait.  Annexing territory is against international law.  Iraq was defeated and as a punishment they were to be disarmed.  As part of that, the UN also designated no fly zones to protect the minorities within Iraq from the wrath of Saddam.  I am beginning to wonder if Saddam isn\'t paying you $10,000 just to post this nonsense.  :rolleyes:

Iraq is a terrorist nation.  What makes you think otherwise?  They have used chemical weapons on the Iranians and their OWN people!!!!!  They looted Kuwait - raping and killing as they went.  They are trying to obtain nuclear weapons to use quite possibly against Israel.  What do you not see here?

" Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security.  I would do the same if I ran the nation. " - shockwaves

You are nuts shockwaves.  Your statement right there says it all.

shockwaves = :nut:

Originally posted by ooseven



your an Idiot if you think the UK would follow Bush blindly.......if there is a reason for us to attack IRAQ along with you then we will do it...unlike the *coff**coff French*coff**cofff*

please note that it is the United kingdom or UK & not England which is one part of the Union (that would be like me calling the US ......Alaska)

Also we havn\'t always seen eye to eye

Remember Veitnam ?

oh yes we followed you blindly then didn\'t we :rolleyes:........



:rolleyes:

IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.

Calm down there ol\' chap, I was only f*cking kidding with you, jeez!!!

Originally posted by ooseven



IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.

Yes, the "Thin Red Line" scared the hell out of the Soviets :rolleyes:

The UK ceased to be a superpower after World War 2.

Originally posted by GigaShadow


Yes, the "Thin Red Line" scared the hell out of the Soviets :rolleyes:

The UK ceased to be a superpower after World War 2.

Yeah but they would of Nuked us First (because we have most of your early warning systems on UK soil) which would of given you 6 more min\'s to get to the old bomb shelters

only j/k

I was of course talking about intelligence/ counter intelligence as well as a large range of strategic insulations that added in the “defence of Europe”

it was a cold war after all

Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait.  I never said I support Iraq.  But even if what they did was wrong, that doesn\'t mean that how we treated them for it was right.  I am in no way pro Iraq.  I just don\'t support the way we go about relating to them.  

A terrorist nation and a terrorist are also two very different things.  Once again, I don\'t think I should have to explain this difference to you.  A terrorist nation has something to lose.  It has its nation that it has to think about with everything it does.  A terrorist doesn\'t have the same responsibility.  

And yes, they need it for their security.  Once again, as I have posted several times, why is that so hard to believe?  If it is so obvious, it shouldn\'t be hard to prove, should it be?  Yes, they need it for security.  We are a hositle nation in their eyes, as we should be.  We are threatening to go to war with them, afterall.  So if you know that a conflict is coming, why would you not try to arm yourself, even if it is with weapons you don\'t intend to ever need?  This war has been coming since we imposed an unfair treaty on them after the Gulf War.  The nukes aren\'t to use against another country, but to get other nations to respect them and their military power a little more, in order to avoid war.  Tell me, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?

By the way, you say that I\'m young and naive, and insult me, and discount my arguement because of it, but you are by far acting like the less mature person in this arguement.  I am posting facts, reasoning, and I even posted sources.  You are posting very few facts, and relying mainly on personal attacks towards someone you\'ve never met.  I ask you, read over the thread, and tell me who has acted more mature.  You may be older than me, but if it weren\'t for the posting of birthdates, a person would never guess it.

Flee

Originally posted by shockwaves
, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?

Take the UN weapon inspectors hostage.. use them as human shields and then launch everything we have at Israel......

/me realises that everyone is now looking at me


What ?

you did ask what would you do if you were him....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by shockwaves


A terrorist nation and a terrorist are also two very different things.  Once again, I don\'t think I should have to explain this difference to you.  A terrorist nation has something to lose.  It has its nation that it has to think about with everything it does.  A terrorist doesn\'t have the same responsibility.  

And yes, they need it for their security.  Once again, as I have posted several times, why is that so hard to believe?  If it is so obvious, it shouldn\'t be hard to prove, should it be?  Yes, they need it for security.  We are a hositle nation in their eyes, as we should be.  We are threatening to go to war with them, afterall.  So if you know that a conflict is coming, why would you not try to arm yourself, even if it is with weapons you don\'t intend to ever need?  This war has been coming since we imposed an unfair treaty on them after the Gulf War.  The nukes aren\'t to use against another country, but to get other nations to respect them and their military power a little more, in order to avoid war.  Tell me, if you were in Saddam\'s position right now, what would you do?

Once again your reasoning behind why Saddam needs a nuke is insane.  Hell, why not hand a nuke out to every country for the sake of "self protection".  You can not have a detent with Iraq.  It was possible with the USSR because of mutually assured destruction, but these people in Iraq will think they are martyrs.  

Iraq sponsors terrorism.  Proof - the Iraqi government handing out checks to the suicide bombers families in Israel.  If they will pay for someone to blow up a few Israelis why is it so hard to believe the won\'t find a willing participant to deliver a nuclear payload to the US?  There is no logic behind anything you have posted regarding the right for Iraq to posses weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by ooseven


Yeah but they would of Nuked us First (because we have most of your early warning systems on UK soil) which would of given you 6 more min\'s to get to the old bomb shelters

only j/k

I was of course talking about intelligence/ counter intelligence as well as a large range of strategic insulations that added in the “defence of Europe”

it was a cold war after all

Of course you were there ooseven!  I totally forgot - you were the man in Dr. No.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Flee

*shakes head in disgust*

Anyway, There are many points here, so I\'ll just go over some uncovered information.

Yes, Bush has hed behind 9/11 to push is own agenda. If you haven\'t read the Newspaper or picked it up from somewhere, he just created a cabinet position for "Homeland Security", which will place wiretaps and other "spyware" if you will, on people that they see fit need to have it on. Not only is it the first Cabinet position created in 31 years, but it\'s the biggest, and along with that, it violates the privacies of Americans. That we have to rely on the governments word of mouth just to retain our privacies is ridiculous.

How else has he? He sees Iraq as a "Terrorist Nation", so he plans to go after them, saying that to eliminate Terrorism, Iraq is a place that he must hit hard. Basically, you answered your own question there, Giga, when you stated that Iraq was a terrorist nation.

And on a more broader scale, he has bought the Nation with the way he handled it. If 9/11 doesn\'t happen, the Democrats not only retain the Senate, but quite possibly could have won the House. Bush visited states that his fellow men were losing in, shaked a few hands, got on TV a couple times, and voila, bought the public.

Oh, and just to update everybody -- the man he soely blamed for 9/11 is still alive. Last I checked, Bush hasn\'t said anything at all about Osama, and has directed his entire attack on Saddam Hussein...what happened to the "Osama Bin Laden -- Dead or Alive" statement?

As for you bashing young people, if we\'re young, you have to be the most senile person I\'ve ever had to talk to. See? I can make personal attacks, too. Now, if you\'re going to debate, fine, but if you\'re going to act like an 8 year old, don\'t throw the "you\'re young, thus insignificant" card in our face -- take a look in the mirror.

See Yuz.

Originally posted by GigaShadow


Once again your reasoning behind why Saddam needs a nuke is insane.  Hell, why not hand a nuke out to every country for the sake of "self protection".  You can not have a detent with Iraq.  It was possible with the USSR because of mutually assured destruction, but these people in Iraq will think they are martyrs.  

Iraq sponsors terrorism.  Proof - the Iraqi government handing out checks to the suicide bombers families in Israel.  If they will pay for someone to blow up a few Israelis why is it so hard to believe the won\'t find a willing participant to deliver a nuclear payload to the US?  There is no logic behind anything you have posted regarding the right for Iraq to posses weapons of mass destruction.

Ideally, I don\'t think anyone should have nukes.  But if we are going to be hostile towards a nation, and we have nukes, then it is perfectly logical for the other nation to try to develop the same types of weapons.  

And once again, I don\'t see how you make these connections.  Suicide bombers in Israel are different.  We aren\'t going to retaliate the same way for something like that.  But if they were to nuke us, we would retaliate with incredible force...probably by nuking them back even worse.  That\'s the difference.  Once again, I don\'t know how you can\'t see that.

Why is it that you are discounting my opinions because of my age, and yet I know several people who have posted in this topic, on BOTH sides of the arguement who believe you are the one who needs to grow up. I post reasoning and facts, even with sources at one point, and you respond with questions (not counterarguements of your own), and personal attacks.  Also, despite the fact that you respond with questions after each of my posts, you refuse to answer the questions I ask you.  Way to show your maturity.

Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right.  You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush.  You have not provided one piece of evidence suggesting Bush has always wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.

The sad fact of the matter is Clinton let Saddam violate numerous UN resolutions and turned a blind eye.  Now that we have a president who will stand up to him you are upset.  Typical liberal mass hysteria.  Iraq was a terrorist nation way before Bush came into office.

Maybe if the Democrats had taken care of this issue when Clinton was in office we wouldn\'t be having this conversation right now.

I\'m only 19 does this make me wrong, I\'m not siding or saying anything I\'m just posing a question?

Originally posted by shockwaves


Ideally, I don\'t think anyone should have nukes.  But if we are going to be hostile towards a nation, and we have nukes, then it is perfectly logical for the other nation to try to develop the same types of weapons.  

And once again, I don\'t see how you make these connections.  Suicide bombers in Israel are different.  We aren\'t going to retaliate the same way for something like that.  But if they were to nuke us, we would retaliate with incredible force...probably by nuking them back even worse.  That\'s the difference.  Once again, I don\'t know how you can\'t see that.

Why is it that you are discounting my opinions because of my age, and yet I know several people who have posted in this topic, on BOTH sides of the arguement who believe you are the one who needs to grow up. I post reasoning and facts, even with sources at one point, and you respond with questions (not counterarguements of your own), and personal attacks.  Also, despite the fact that you respond with questions after each of my posts, you refuse to answer the questions I ask you.  Way to show your maturity.

You have yet to say anything enlightening about this topic shockwaves.  Who has taken your side?  Maybe ROL?  Thats really about it.  I don\'t think ANYONE will agree with your statement that Iraq should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Anyway I must go... have fun.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right.  You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush. .

you do realise Giga that if he wasn\'t a US national, then his Attatude would be considered "normal"