Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

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

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Originally posted by Cam
I don't know about you man, but I would prefer if my nation's armed forces thinks about what they are about to do before they do it.

they do think about what they are about to do, but in a strictly military sense. what i ment by my comment is that the military follows the orders of the civilian government. it is the gov's job to fully think through the decision of sending in the military. the military's job is to carry out the orders of the civ gov.

I think you've confused nationalism with patriotism. Or maybe not--the American definition of nationalism has become skewed. If you compared nationalism in an American (New World) dictionary with nationalism in an English dictionary you'd probably notice that the American dictionary lacks the key piece: too great a love for one's nation.

well, my dictionary called nationalism extreme patriotism. and i don't see how someone could love thier country too much

Nationalism spawns feelings of superiority (as many proud Americans have exhibited in this discussion already) and in the past can be seen in examples such as Nazi Germany. It was one of the major factors of WW1 (or was it 2?). I don't know if they teach that in US high school level history classes though--since the American definition of nationalism is now synonymous with patriotism.

well, i was unlucky enough to have a history teacher who said that the normandy beaches were on the bay of biscay. but i do know that nationalism was one of the factors that made the armies of WW1 (and the napoleonic wars and WW2) so large, in combination with the draft. but nationalism didn't start WW1, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (sp?) of the Austro-Hungarian empire by serbian Gabrilo Princip (sp?) and the subsequent declarations of war (Austria-Hungary against serbia, russia against austria-hungary, german against damn near everyone, etc) started WW1. now, yes, Princip (sp?) was a nationalist, so i can understand how some people would say that nationalism started WW1

Perhaps being a nationalist isn't enough to make you a "wacko" but nationalist beliefs are certainly far more dangerous than patriotism.

and a gun is far more dangerous than a knife. it all matters on what kind of person is holding the gun, to see if they're gonna go kill someone or be a responsible person and only use it in self defense (unless they are in a job that might require them to use said gun offensively)

I chose the word nationalism just to see if anybody would respond in the way you did. If you are an example of the rest of American society, then many may not know this difference. Guess it's true what they say--history is doomed to repeat itself.

and i knew the definition of nationalism, i just didn't want to get into a definition debate. i am most definatly not an example of the rest of American society, i am an example of Aries. many would not know the difference btwn nationalism and patriotism cause CNN itself doesn't know the difference, and most people get their daily vocabulary word from CNN. yes, that is sad, and yes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as we are seeing with the iraq situation.
 
Originally posted by Cam


Nationalism spawns feelings of superiority (as many proud Americans have exhibited in this discussion already) and in the past can be seen in examples such as Nazi Germany. It was one of the major factors of WW1 (or was it 2?). I don't know if they teach that in US high school level history classes though--since the American definition of nationalism is now synonymous with patriotism.

See, the problem is that you naturally assume that such things as this nationalism is automatically wrong. I could equally argue that such feelings of nationalism did great things for people. (And even by your example, for a time, such feelings did great things for Nazi Germany-your assuming that it has to be good for ALL involved, and even patriotism doesn't do that.)
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Then you missed my point - they wanted this war. There is no other explanation. Do you really think that an organisation capable of planning and executing an attack as complex as what you saw on September 11th is too stupid to realise what the results of this attack will be? Do you think that Osama Bin Laden expected the US to surrender or withdraw from world affairs? If yes, then you are making the biggest mistake one can make in a war - underestimating your enemy.

so, Al Queda wanted the U.S. to drop the hammer on them? sounds pretty stupid to me. and overestimating you enemy is just as dangerous.


Ok, let's forget about the numbers of casualties. But let's forget the casualty numbers on both sides - after all, if we throw away one side of the equation, then the other side is also unnecessary.
Bush's response - bomb Afghanistan, let Osama Bin Laden get away.
Clinton's response - bomb Afghanistan, let Osama Bin Laden get away.

Hmmmm...

actually, it was
Clinton-bomb Afghanistan, didn't even try to get Bin Laden
Bush-sent ground troops to hunt down Bin Laden and bombed Afghanistan and Bin Laden got away. Bush didn't let Bin Laden get away.

No... the UN intervened in the drought. They brought in food. They distributed this food. Local forces made distribution difficult (and eventually downright impossible), but that was all that the UN was interested in. Yes, they had armed forces, but they were there to guard the UN staff and compounds. It was the US that decided to go after Aidid. The campaign that followed was run by the US military, not by the UN.

You are confusing the campaign to get Aidid and the general UN attempt to stop the fighting. The campaign to get Aidid was American, but the UN did intervene in the Civil War, got both sides to stop fighting (at least until the US Marines went home and the 10th Mountain div was relegated to back up duty) and did the food distribution. The US decided to go after Aidid on our own cause the UN couldn't catch him. His group was declared an outlaw faction by the UN, but every attempt to get him failed, so we sent in Delta and the Rangers to get him.

If you count the number of dead Americans, it was indeed a nearly-irrelevant incident. But it was a debacle because of its wider ramifications - the UN got the blame, and the US has been reluctant to help out in UN operations ever since.

so people not being smart enough to distinguish btwn a UN mission and a US (it was said many times that Task Foce Ranger was strictly an American group and wasn't under the control of the UN) mission and the US letting other countries take up more of the military burden qualifies as a debacle?
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel
Killing in self-defense is murder?


It is when you are in a place illegally.
By attacking iraq, unless we have un permission, we will be attacking them in violation of international law, and will be the attackers, meaning that it is the Iraqis that are acting in self defence, while we would be the agressors, not the other way around.

In the OBL example, id shoot him, but it would be murder if i was the one attacking him, and attacking his country and was the one who had no right to be where i was.
 
Well why didn't you say so? In that case I feel that America can not justify an attack, but they (maybe I should blame Bush rather than America) are going to war anyway. But we, I think, believed you were saying that soldiers were murderers full stop.
 
Originally posted by Aries
so, Al Queda wanted the U.S. to drop the hammer on them? sounds pretty stupid to me. and overestimating you enemy is just as dangerous.
Yes, they wanted the US to attack. I think, however, that they didn't expect the Afghan population to change sides so quickly - they were probably hoping that the US would send ground forces in almost immediately, and that these ground forces would get into a Vietnam-like situation. In other words, Al Qaida made the same mistake you're making - they underestimated the enemy.

actually, it was
Clinton-bomb Afghanistan, didn't even try to get Bin Laden
Bush-sent ground troops to hunt down Bin Laden and bombed Afghanistan and Bin Laden got away. Bush didn't let Bin Laden get away.
It amounts to the same thing. At any rate, why should casualties be disregarded in the first place? We know that Clinton would have reacted like Bush had something like the WTC attack happened to him. We also know that Bush, like Clinton, did not consider those earlier attacks to be worth such a powerful response. Essentially, what it comes down to is that you're praising Bush because during his presidency, there was an attack so huge that he couldn't ignore it.

You are confusing the campaign to get Aidid and the general UN attempt to stop the fighting. The campaign to get Aidid was American, but the UN did intervene in the Civil War, got both sides to stop fighting and did the food distribution.
First up, there was no "both sides". The country was divided into many different factions. Second, the UN tried to stay out of the actual fighting - UN forces are never authorised to shoot unless they're under attack.

so people not being smart enough to distinguish btwn a UN mission and a US (it was said many times that Task Foce Ranger was strictly an American group and wasn't under the control of the UN) mission and the US letting other countries take up more of the military burden qualifies as a debacle?
I don't mind the US sending its forces back home, the command problems these forces cause are never worth it. But the result of people, as you say, not being smart enough to distinguish between a UN and a US mission, has been even more complaints about the ineptitude of the UN - the US screwed up, and the UN gets all the blame.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Yes, they wanted the US to attack. I think, however, that they didn't expect the Afghan population to change sides so quickly - they were probably hoping that the US would send ground forces in almost immediately, and that these ground forces would get into a Vietnam-like situation. In other words, Al Qaida made the same mistake you're making - they underestimated the enemy.

And really, Bush is in a no win situation. If he does not attack and show the force he intends to show, especially after all of his talk, then Bin Laden would show that the West is vulnerable, and the Jihad can win against it. If Bush does attack, then America would be seen as the evil Empire.
But is the world really that gullible, Master Phillip-san?
You would hope not. But how many times have you heard of someone getting into strife for retalliation? Same principle here. Plus, when it was thought that Adolf Hitler was becoming too powerful, he was done away with.
But the Al Qaeda were retalliating against what they felt were was wrong against them, Master Phillip-san
By their attacks on the USS Cole and the Embassies, I can understand, if not agree, with that point of view. Even their attacks on the Pentagon and their attempts to strike at the White House and Camp David. But what military value has the World Trade Centre? None. Sure, it gives political influence, but by striking here, the Taliban have shown that they do not care for anyone in the world, Eastern or Western.
Why, Master Phillip-san?
Because, the WTC was for the world. Even Afghanistan. And you remember how the Taliban came in to make life akin to the Kilrathi Illudium slave mines for the Afghani people.
Do those who fight Jihad really believe they could win against the West, or more specifically, America and Britain, Master Phillip-san?
The point is they really have nothing to lose. They are willing to die, and yes, maybe die needlessly. Soldiers are sent out to die if they are to serve a greater good in their death. But soldiers would not be sent out to die for any other reason than to serve a greater good for their people. Those who fight Jihad, however, that their death fighting Jihad will mean that they will live in Paradise with Allah. And yes, that means things such as genocide on nonbelievers, or myrtering themselves to bend some to their will. You know of those who threaten to commit suicide unless things are made better or they get their way, don't you? You may have seen illegal immigrants at the detention centres in Australia, trying everything from violence to mass hunger strikes and suicide to, in essence, blackmail the country into giving into their demands. Same principle here.
And they can't very well be allowed to get away with that, can they Master Phillip-san?
You are correct. They can't give into violence, because much like fighting terrorism despite Bin Laden saying to leave them alone on the threat of more terrorist attacks, if illegal immigrants are given what they want after they are violent, they prove that the system is weak. And allowing them to go on hunger strikes and kill themselves would earn them as big a black mark as Bush has developed with some people.

I hope that answers a lot of questions. Though I suspect not.
 
If I had to choose who was the biggest threat?

I'd say North Korea.

They actually said during a press-announcement that if we even attempted to put sanctions on them, they would interpret it as a declaration of war! How the hell is the UN supposed to work if countries say they'll declare war on other countries if they attempt to lay sanctions on them? North Korea is out of their mind.

In my opinion, the instant we found they were even planning on making nuclear weapons, we should have flown straight over Pyongyang, dropped a nuke and vaporized them all before they could even get a nuclear weapon BUILT! Some would say this is aggressive because it would kill innocent people. So? They'd kill us without hesitation, and I believe that it's okay to do whatever your enemy would do to you. They'd kill our people? We get to kill theirs.

Some would say "turn the other cheek". I don't play by that game, I play "you hit me, I kick your f*cking ass". After 9/11, I said in revenge for the terrorist attacks that we should have taken a 747, automated it like a drone, and fly it into Mecca. Kamikaze the Dome of the Rock and make it ascend just like Mohammed! Just like 'ole Hammurabi's code.

But we can't even let them hit us once! The price is too high. One hit with a nuke and we've just lost a whole city. We can't even let them develop the tools on WHICH to hit us with.

And let's be honest, it would be a quick death, one flash and they're all clouds. Sure, the ones that don't get cooked right away will die shortly later and those who survive will have 3 legs. Hey, look on the bright-side-- they might do good in the olympics!

Now that we've allowed them to develop nuclear weapons, we're probably going to have to spend the next 40 years in an arms race with them and it's Cold War all over again.

So while Dubya's picking a fight with Saddam Insane to avenge a personal vandetta (Saddam Houssein allegedly attempted to kill George W. Bush's dad), North Korea's building nukes with which they'll fry us with.

-Concordia
 
Very interesting Concordia....agree with most of it. But I think we should take both Iraq and North Korea. What I don't get is that all those naturalistic liberal wackos are blaming Bush for waging war on Sadaam Insane because of oil. I know it's not the reason. But if they don't want us going to war for oil...why don't they let us drill in our own friggin land!?!?!?!?!?
 
You're either a troll, or terrifying...

Originally posted by Concordia
They actually said during a press-announcement that if we even attempted to put sanctions on them, they would interpret it as a declaration of war! How the hell is the UN supposed to work if countries say they'll declare war on other countries if they attempt to lay sanctions on them? North Korea is out of their mind.

If their reasons for saying this don't make sense, your brain probably isn't working too hard... Korea doesn't want sanctions, therefore they threaten, as it's currently the only good bargaining chip they have. Threatening like this doesn't necessarily mean that they're internally contemplating actually going to war, it's more than possible they're just using the threat to try and motivate the rest of the world. It makes a large amount of sense from their position in the world right now. It'll be hard for them to lose any more people who would be on their side, and it gives them something to use to hold off things that would be economically devestating to their country.

There's also the fact that any sanctions would have to be backed up with a blockade, which is considered by most of the world to be an act of war. There may be things written into various UN treaties or precidents of various sorts, but even then, the legality's definitely arguable.

I don't particularly like what's going on, but it's definately not a sign that people are out of their minds.

In my opinion, the instant we found they were even planning on making nuclear weapons, we should have flown straight over Pyongyang, dropped a nuke and vaporized them all before they could even get a nuclear weapon BUILT! Some would say this is aggressive because it would kill innocent people. So? They'd kill us without hesitation, and I believe that it's okay to do whatever your enemy would do to you. They'd kill our people? We get to kill theirs.

Wow, I like how you can read people's minds and are willing to kill because of this...

Some would say "turn the other cheek". I don't play by that game, I play "you hit me, I kick your f*cking ass". After 9/11, I said in revenge for the terrorist attacks that we should have taken a 747, automated it like a drone, and fly it into Mecca. Kamikaze the Dome of the Rock and make it ascend just like Mohammed! Just like 'ole Hammurabi's code.

This is just insane... Your solution to terrorists is to destroy a religious site with a plane? Not only is a plane a stupid way to do it as even an incompitent air force can shoot a passenger plane down, but it doesn't accomplish anything. It both angers any muslim terrorists, and pisses off every other muslim in the world along with anyone with an ounce of sense.

But we can't even let them hit us once! The price is too high. One hit with a nuke and we've just lost a whole city. We can't even let them develop the tools on WHICH to hit us with.

Although I can see where you're coming from, I'll have to question your reasoning. What you just said is like saying that when your neighbor tries to buy a gun, you should shoot him before he gets the weapons to do the same to you.

And let's be honest, it would be a quick death, one flash and they're all clouds. Sure, the ones that don't get cooked right away will die shortly later and those who survive will have 3 legs. Hey, look on the bright-side-- they might do good in the olympics!

Oh good, you killed a huge number of people... but it's OK! They died quickly... except for those who died slowly and painfully, of course... oh yeah, and those other ones who get to live a long, painful life!

Now that we've allowed them to develop nuclear weapons, we're probably going to have to spend the next 40 years in an arms race with them and it's Cold War all over again.

First, the US doesn't need to race anyone... Korea's so far behind that it's not even funny. The US has many, many more nukes than are needed to wipe North Korea off the map. Secondly, the attempts to build a stupidly large number of nukes to use against the USSR wasn't necessary either... It ended up being a numbers game. Instead of looking at tactical realities, it became about who had more nukes (or, rather, who had more nukes than their intellegence reported the other had).

Even if somehow it became an arms race, because the US misplaced all it's weapons, or something, North Korea has only a small amount of the industrial and nuclear capacity of the US. North Korea would be racing, while the US would only need to walk slowly along to keep up.
 
Originally posted by T8H3X11
But if they don't want us going to war for oil...why don't they let us drill in our own friggin land!?!?!?!?!?

Gee whiz, maybe it's because the US is not as rich in oil deposits *gasp*. Not to mention all the ecological nightmares you might end up causing.

Yes and when you nuke N.Korea, S.Korea and all the surrounding countries that are NOT a problem will have to deal with the fallout and the US just made more enemies. Do you even know how a nuclear device works and what the consequences are? Geez.

Once again this is NOT the US' problem alone and the US has NO right to do whatever it wants.

Use your noodle.
 
You're right, it doesn't. I would not be opposed, however, to have Patriot defence missiles deployed along the Demiliterised zone between North and South Korea and along the edge of China.
 
TC said almost everything that needs to be said. I'll just fill in one little detail...

Originally posted by Concordia
Some would say "turn the other cheek". I don't play by that game, I play "you hit me, I kick your f*cking ass". After 9/11, I said in revenge for the terrorist attacks that we should have taken a 747, automated it like a drone, and fly it into Mecca. Kamikaze the Dome of the Rock and make it ascend just like Mohammed! Just like 'ole Hammurabi's code.
The Dome of the Rock isn't even in Mecca, it's in Jerusalem. Before you express any further opinions, please find out a bit about what you're talking about.
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
You're right, it doesn't. I would not be opposed, however, to have Patriot defence missiles deployed along the Demiliterised zone between North and South Korea and along the edge of China.

i believe Patriots are already on the DMZ, we wouldn't put them in china even if they'd let us, and i'll assume that you ment deploy the Patriots to take care of the N. Korean nukes. there's just one problem...IIRC the Patriot ain't designed to kill a ICBM, which N. Korea has and which would carry the nukes.

Originally posted by steampunk [/i]
And I wouldn't want to piss off China ...


why? China ain't nobody
 
Originally posted by Aries
why? China ain't nobody
Hehe. I seriously doubt that the US would want to get into a fight with China - even if the US won, American losses would be astronomical.
 
Back
Top