SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

US run by psychopaths

mal - Mar 7, 2003

< Prev

Next>

		ExCyber		Mar 7, 2003
			Speaking of the mini-nukes, have you heard of this supposed "e-bomb" that's supposed to wreck electrical infrastructure by sending out an EM pulse? Some people have found it relevant to point out that - surprise! - nukes do something like this... So as to not heat up things too much, here's a fairly unemotional summary of what I think at the moment: - Saddam's government is illegitimate and brutal. - Bush's government is marginally legitimate, but at least he's got Congress (even if the Democrats are too spineless to really stand up to him when it comes to a vote) and a few Supreme Court justices to balance it out a bit. - The war isn't solely about oil, nor is it solely about disarming Saddam and/or liberating the Iraqi people. I'm sure that these goals are not trivial to the administration, but I very much doubt that either is the primary motivation. More likely Bush intends to sacrifice the short-term stability of a contained Saddam for the long-term strategic benefit of having a decidedly US-friendly regime in a central location in the region. Or maybe he really does believe that he's doing the Right Thing. Who knows? - A war will most likely increase anti-American sentiment and possibly terrorism in the short term. What happens in the long term depends very much on what happens after the war (cf. Germany after WW1 vs. Germany and Japan after WW2). - IIRC, White House officials have repeatedly stated that they don't want to get involved in "nation-building". They don't seem to specify exactly what they mean by that, and the vagueness is just a little unsettling. - Eric Eldred should have won Eldred v. Ashcroft... - not relevant to the war as such, but the implications are a bit scary anyway. Plus, I don't like Ashcroft. - David Rees... rocks. Catharsis is good.

		Lyzel		Mar 7, 2003
			If the US was doing this only for the oil, then they would have already done so. But some of you are so misguided that you will believe anything, so telling otherwise it's just not worth it. Just like these other stories about going to war to help the economy. That has to be the most stupid reason I ever heard. I mean, do the math. It doesn't match???? It's all about what Saddam is capable. He may not be that much of a threat to your country, but he is definetly a threat to U.S security. He gassed and killed his own people, and use chemical agents in the Iraq/Iran war. He has defied the UN for over 12 years now. What makes him want to comply now?? As for there not being much support in the U.S?? Who said?? There are 150+ million people in the U.S, the only stupid ones that go out and protest the war are less than 500,000. Just because there are loud protest doesn't mean that they are the majority, and war must stop.

Lyzel

Mar 7, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by crystalmethod@Mar 8, 2003 @ 02:20 AM



 There has been recnt evidence to suggest that North Korea has been developing weapons of mass destruction. Why doesn't Bush go stick his nose there?



Because the Koreans will give them a HELL of a fight.

Um, you're wrong. The big difference between Iraq and North Korea is that North Korea admits it has them, while Iraq says they don't. There is enough intelligence to suggest they do have them. With North Korea you can be ready, but you can't say what Iraq would do.

mal

Mar 7, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by ExCyber@Mar 8, 2003 @ 01:33 PM



More likely Bush intends to sacrifice the short-term stability of a contained Saddam for the long-term strategic benefit of having a decidedly US-friendly regime in a central location in the region.

Yeah, but Saddam used to be US friendly.

So was Osama bin Laden...

The US really needs to take a long hard look at what it's meddling foreign policy has acheived over the years and reconsider what it's doing now.

mal

Mar 7, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by Lyzel+Mar 8, 2003 @ 01:51 PM-->QUOTE(Lyzel @ Mar 8, 2003 @ 01:51 PM)It's all about what Saddam is capable. He may not be that much of a threat to your country, but he is definetly a threat to U.S security. [/b]

How is he a threat to the US?

He gassed and killed his own people, and use chemical agents in the Iraq/Iran war.

He used weapons supplied by the US back when he was considered useful.

He has defied the UN for over 12 years now. What makes him want to comply now??

Many other nations defy the UN. Perhaps the US should invade Israel next...