Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Maniac II, Jan 17, 2003.

?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  1. Iraq

    16 vote(s)
    32.0%
  2. North Korea

    7 vote(s)
    14.0%
  3. Neither

    12 vote(s)
    24.0%
  4. Other

    3 vote(s)
    6.0%
  5. Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    12 vote(s)
    24.0%
  1. Maniac II

    Maniac II Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25,185
    Location:
    VA, USA
    IRAQ or N. KOREA? or niether?

    Which do you think on the situation of America (and possibey her allies) attacking Iraq, do you think we should hit N.Korea first? or hit niether, since we haven't proven much about either?vote, if you have other ideas please hit other and tell me your ideas:)
     
  2. TCSTigersClaw

    TCSTigersClaw Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200

    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    36,885
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    ????? HIT NO ONE.......


    have you ever heard about "PEACE"......
     
  3. ChrisReid

    ChrisReid Super Soaker Collector / Administrator

    Messages:
    14,144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    We should hit both at the same time.
     
  4. Meson

    Meson Swabbie
    Banned

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    35,135
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    We should strike both, but North Korea is the more important threat. Saddam may have weapons but he won't launch until we make a move. The Koreans are likely to launch theirs whenever they get an itch.
     
  5. LeHah

    LeHah 212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"

    Messages:
    7,889
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    59,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ixion, Helios System
    I'm with Chris. Though I think that fighting Iraq again is kinda silly, this North Korean crap is too much. Back out of the NPT, my ass. Time to start bombing them into the bronze age.
     
  6. Phillip Tanaka

    Phillip Tanaka Swabbie
    Banned

    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I vote neither, now. I'm all for taking out Saddam, but if Shrub feels that he has to wage war to do it, or if people have to die for him to get his own way, then he deserves everything he gets. Plus, of all the claims America have made about Iraq, they have not been able to back up any of them, and they're still going to war. Plus, I don't think America has offered to protect Iraq and North Korea from terrorism if they are willing to fight terrorism, have they?
     
  7. Maniac II

    Maniac II Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25,185
    Location:
    VA, USA
    Well i dont know about you guys, but i have heared that we KNOW N.Korea has tested nuclear weapons. so i say eliminate the biggest threat. as for Sudam, even though i say he deserves to be beheaded and proded in the streets, he isnt a direct threat to America so he can wait until later. I mean i saw someone with the signature: "fighting for peace is like f****** for virginity". well i have to disagree big time. I mean any Wing nut knows that the price of freedom is always high, and sometimes includes war. so i say take out N.Korea and move on to take the next threat.
     
  8. ChrisReid

    ChrisReid Super Soaker Collector / Administrator

    Messages:
    14,144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    I wish it would hurry up already. The sooner we get going, the sooner I'll be playing Conflict Desert Storm 2. I'll just have to decide whether to get it for PC or XBox.
     
  9. Maniac II

    Maniac II Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25,185
    Location:
    VA, USA
    Well, me personally, i would say Xbox (i like its graphics better) but i think i pefer futuristic games better ( part of the reason im a junkie, other than the fact that WC is completely addictive, and is contagious :))
     
  10. Aries

    Aries Vice Admiral

    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    32,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
    well, just cause we have info on Iraq doesn't mean we automatically give it to CNN. It may look like we can't back up anything we are saying, but i'd be willing to beat that we have all the info we need, it's just that showing that info will jepordize our sources, which we try not to do. anyway, didn't you hear that they found warheads built for chemical weapons that are in "good" condition that weren't listed in Iraq's weapons declaration.
    as for protecting Iraq and N. Korea if they fight terrorism, what would we have to protect them from? the terrorists? i really don't think that the terrorists would attack their supporters. after all, you don't see the terrorists attacking Saudi Arabia do you?
    as for the poll, i say hit em both at the same time, but because of the downsizing the Clinton administration did during it's time, that isn't really possible. so what i think is gonna happen, is that since all the focus is on Iraq, we're gonna hit N. Korea. that's what i'd do if i was commanding the military. so i will vote other.

    and Tiger'sClaw, not striking now may give us peace right now, but sooner or later, there will be the war. there is no preventing that. personally, i'd rather have the war now, while we have the advantage. if we wait too long, that advantage will shift to our enemies.
     
  11. Maniac II

    Maniac II Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25,185
    Location:
    VA, USA
    Hey Aries, i agree with you, however i dont think America has the fire power (or the will for that matter) to fight two enemies at once (especially after Clinton's handiwork). Ya i would like to see Sudam bite the dust, and see that N.Korea gets stopped (which i voted for). But the fact is both of them are likely to fight dirty. I mean usually i would be like "to hell with them" or "nuke the bastards" but the thing is, they have nasty weapons too, and it would hurt us alot more to get hit by a "dirty bomb" then it would hurt them. Not to mention the fact that N.Korea is likely to be aided by China and possibly vietnam. So i think we are going to have to be careful (and trust me when a maniac says "we should be careful" you ought to be paying attention!). To add on to our problems, we are likely not to get aid from europe (well MAYBE England and POSSIBLY Germany, but that is all)So i honostly dont think anybody is going to be at war with anybody too soon. Which in my opinion is unfortunate, they both deserve at the very least a bloody nose.
     
  12. Phillip Tanaka

    Phillip Tanaka Swabbie
    Banned

    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    XBox, definetly. I'm putting all my money into my Gamecube now, and am ignoring all the PC games I'd like to get.

    CNN, so I heard, is one of the best sources of intelligence. Every terrorist should watch it. But you're probably right. America may have evidence that it's not willing to share. I would think, however, that if America wants support then it would give evidence.

    What I meant was that the link between Saddam and Al Quada could not be backed up. Saddam has allowed UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq has given up it's arms details. There have been no World Massecring Devices found. But America is still going to war. What gives?

    Maybe.

    No. I've been without a computer for a few days, forced to rely on one at the library. Do you have a source for this?

    Sounds impossible, doesn't it? Well, the word impossible does not exist. Improbable, sure, but if Binladen and Saddam are enemies like someone pointed out, then I'm sure that sooner or later Iraq would become a target for the Taliban. We've already seen what they can do to America, which was considered an inpenetrable fortress. It is not entirely inconcievible for terrorists to hire a plane loaded with explosives or maybe any biological or nuclear materials they may have and ram it into downtown Baghdad.
     
  13. LeHah

    LeHah 212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"

    Messages:
    7,889
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    59,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ixion, Helios System
    You want us to save the villians from themselves?
     
  14. Aries

    Aries Vice Admiral

    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    32,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
    mabye we already have given out the info. remember, we're just the citizens. the gov doesn't tell us everything

    just cause we're sending troops over doesn't mean we're gonna go to war. all it means is that if the war comes, we won't waste time getting our military into position. now, that being said, sending troops over usually means that there will be war, but it is never a guarentee

    CNN

    agreed, Saddam and Bin Laden don't like each other. but remember the old maxim....the enemy of my enemy is my friend. right now, the US is the enemy of both Al Queda and Iraq, and most of the world is the enemy of Al Queda. it wouldn't take much for Saddam and Bin Laden to get together and say, "lets both kill infidels, then we'll fight each other later"
     
  15. Ghost

    Ghost Emperor

    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    51,885
    Location:
    Buenos Aires,Argentina
    Re: IRAQ or N. KOREA? or niether?


    Let the new Rambo movie decide
     
  16. Napoleon

    Napoleon Spaceman

    Messages:
    2,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I vote to not attack anyone. It is hipocritical, we have all the weapons we are claiming as cause to attack these people for.

    Plus to attack north korea is about as stupid as possible, they dont want a fight, THEY WANT TO EAT. they are using their nuclear abilities as a bargining chip to try to get food and energy. The us under a 1994 treaty promised to provide them with their energy needs in exchange for them decommisioning a reactor. 8 years later we werent meeting the terms of the treaty so they reactivated the reactor. Likewise we promised them lots of stuff in exchange for them to not develope nukes. We havent fufilled our side of the deal, why should they?
    North Korea is no threat, period. You want them to stop developing nukes, feed them, give them heat so they dont continue to freeze to death. that is how you win there.


    Iraq, 72% of americans according to a recent poll are against war in iraq with good reason. First off the united states are not the world's police, we have no right to do ANYTHING against any other country unless we are attacked first, if we do, we are engaging in an aggressive war which is a warcrime. If there is any action to happen in iraq (or north korea) it must be done with the full concent of the United Nations Security COuncil, or one of the two of them must strike first, otherwise it is an illegal war and we are the ones in violation of international law.

    More importantly, most of the people who will be killed are the civilians of these respective countries. Just look back to the first gulf war, we killed something near 50,000 iraqi civilians (that was the last count i heard at least). Look at afghanistan, we've killed more noncombatant civilians (so you dont misunderstandme i mean the average joe, who has no connections to al queda, the taleban, or any other military or paramilitary organization) than were killed in 9-11.

    Murdering civilians isnt the answer. Violating international law isnt the answer. Screwing up our own economy isnt the answer (the united states has never been in any armed conflict that has not caused inflation), especially at a time when the government's debt is rising at an alarming rate and we are in a major deficit spending cycle.

    The Chicago city council said it best, the cost of 1 cruise missile would solve their educational problems for the next year. The cost of deploying that battlegroup that just left san diego, would be enough to solve the educational problems of the state of Illinois for the next decade.

    The world is against these proposed actions.
    Morality is against these proposed actions.
    Our own best interest is against these proposed actions.
    Most americans are against these proposed actions.

    If we do go to war, it will be vietnam part 2, it is foolhearty for any nation ever to go to war when it doesnt have an overwhelming majority of its citizenry to support the war.

    Basically the only beneficiaries of this war are Bush's best friends, the oil companies.

    Dont be mistaken any attack on iraq has NOTHING to do with saddam, has NOTHING to do with WMDs, and has nothing to do with anything except black gold, oil.
     
  17. ChrisReid

    ChrisReid Super Soaker Collector / Administrator

    Messages:
    14,144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    So maybe police officers shouldn't go after crazy gun nuts or radicals hoarding explosives or whatnot. It's hypocritical since police have all sorts of weapons too.

    You have your recent history screwed up there. North Korea didn't flaunt its nuke program as a bargaining chip, the US uncovered intelligence information about a secret North Korean nuke program and confronted them about it. After that, the US declared them in violation of the treaty, THEN cut off energy shipments. Then North Korea restarted their reactor.

    For a couple more years until they want more again. It's called appeasement. It didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Korea. If we don't learn our lessons from history, history will repeat itself.
     
  18. Phillip Tanaka

    Phillip Tanaka Swabbie
    Banned

    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sure places like Iraq would have a number of enemies. White supremists, extreme left and right factions (sounds like No War On Iraq Committee versus Government if you ask me, but anyway), anti Islam terrorists and such were people I was thinking of.

    True.

    Something tells me that Saddam will worm his way out of war at the last minute.

    You're right. Remember how I said that nothing's impossible? Well it's not impossible. In fact when America said they had proof that there was a connection (proof it never showed, by the way) I was fully convinced. But somehow I don't think Saddam is brave enough to take part in actions against the US.

    Yes, exactly. Why say 'disarm your nuclear weapons otherwise we will use nuclear weapons on you'?

    Funny we haven't heard anything about this.

    I think you'll find that now most of the world is against Bush and America. I just wish it was possible to be against war and be neutral.

    No, America does not have the right to parade around as the world's police force. But they are the only superpower left.

    Damn straight.

    I just hope that Shrub will listen.

    I don't really hold to that theory. The amount of oil that would be used in war wouldn't be worth it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Now yes, Shrub is war hungry and such, but idiots arn't elected President. Noy Shrub, not anyone.

    'Crazy' gun nuts. I think that the police farce are entrusted with these weapons because they will, for the most part, use them responsibly. Sure, about as many civvies would as well, but there is a hard fact I like to call Phillip's First Rule of Reality: Sometimes the minority will ruin things for the majority.

    Hmmmmm...like not continuing the War on Terrorism to appease Binladen, you mean?
     
  19. Maniac II

    Maniac II Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25,185
    Location:
    VA, USA
    Danm. When i made this thread i thought a couple of people would vote, maybe one or two people will cast an opinion on a post. But this, i must of struck a gold mine in the debate world... damn, im good for a newbie!:D


    As for my opinion i voted N.Korea. The thing is, we've proven they have nukes. We proved this with the shock wave a nuke sets off when it's being tested (and scientist can tell the difference between a nuke and an earthquake.) And all this about it being a barginning chip. WEll dont they have alot of rice fields? Have they never heared of trade???No, the nukes arent for reasurence, they're probably for a premptive strike on who knows where. Even if i am wrong, president are supposed to be good negotiators, why doesnt Bush just negotiate with ( who ever is in charge of N.Korea right now). If he isnt a terrorist then there is no problem with negotiations.
     
  20. LeHah

    LeHah 212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"

    Messages:
    7,889
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    59,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ixion, Helios System
    But none of those people you listed are lead by a tyranical dictator who's killed thousands of his own people and (slightly or otherwise) threatens western civilization.
     

Share This Page