Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?
- Thread starter Maniac II
- Start date
it's not about oil, it's about China, if u attack NK, u attack China, and quite frankly, even I don't have the bladder-control to do that. to my knowledge, china has the worlds, largest standing army. so the idea of another land war in NK is not so good.
but in responce to Napoleon about the US military being a group of so called baby-killers, when a civialian or group there of, attacks a soldier of any nation, they are no longer noncombatents, they then become combatents.
If i were in combat, and ran into a 12yr. old kid with a sniper rifle shooting at me or my unit, thats a dead 12yr, old.
Actually they're not "hard numbers". They're studies based on a representative number of people in a given population which has statistical significance. It's also subject to personal interpretation so ...
You realise that the US would then get nuked in return? And phillip, you're not even in the US! You'd be nuking yourself.
I can't believe that people in this day and age would condone the use of nuclear weapons because as someone put it "... tired of pussy-footing around ...".
Well, size does still matter, kind. But when it comes down to it we have the upper hand with technology.However in the end, both the US and China would probably just nuke each other, and there would be no more capatalist super power, or a huge communist country.... the world would be in chaos
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Quarto
Well, you see, steampunk, I think it's a safe bet that Phillip was being sarcastic...
Yup. Personnally I can't wait for something to happen to make Shrub lose his massive raging hard on to wage war. His kids being killed because of a military foul up, perhaps. Not that I would wish for that to happen, but I do wish that something would to make him think twice. I doubt now that anybody would back America if they go to war, not without the UN.
Aries
Vice Admiral
i've said it before and i'll say it again....the US DOESN'T want to go to war, but we will if we have to. Saddam doesn't respect anything but a show of strength, and that is exactly what postitioning the military for war is....a show of strength. if it wasn't for bush's "massive raging hard on to wage war", the weapons inspectors wouldn't be in iraq right now, and the world would still have to take saddam's word that he doesn't have any WMDs, when he most assurdly does or is in the process of attempting to get them.
as for no one backing america if we go to war without the UN, it seems to me that britain at least would back us up (mabye not the public, but the gov). but if it comes right down to it, nobody backs us up and iraq doesn't comply with the UN sanctions, we will and are fully able to go it alone
as for no one backing america if we go to war without the UN, it seems to me that britain at least would back us up (mabye not the public, but the gov). but if it comes right down to it, nobody backs us up and iraq doesn't comply with the UN sanctions, we will and are fully able to go it alone
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
I agree that every time we push Saddam, he concedes. And certainly, if America go to it alone it would be capeable of doing the job. However:
For what reason is there to wage an unprovoked war on Iraq? Take out Saddam? Give me a sniper rifle and paid expenses and I'd happily do it without the need to go to war. What else?
Would you be willing to reap the whirlwind if America wage an unsupported war?
For what reason is there to wage an unprovoked war on Iraq? Take out Saddam? Give me a sniper rifle and paid expenses and I'd happily do it without the need to go to war. What else?
Would you be willing to reap the whirlwind if America wage an unsupported war?
No you dont understand, im saying that all soldiers of all militaries across the world are murderers, their job is to go around killing other people, and there is always collateral damage, especially in bombing missions, making air force dudes murderers too.
Aries: if you dont think bush and his friends want this war you are highly delusional and im sorry for you, they invented this war out of thin air and now have been pushing for it for months, to think that they dont want war is to be blind
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
I'd be able to do the job. I think most people could if they knew what they were doing. But certainly, there's diffirences that seperate good snipers from great ones. Anyway, if I was to assassinate Saddam, I'm confident that, with a tripod to steady my aim, I could do it. But that's off topic. Take out Saddam, sure, but you don't have to wage war to do it.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Well now, you must have killed countless Kilrathi. That makes you a murderer too.
Please...don't go on with how soldiers are murderers. Soldiers are trained to kill, true. Soldiers do kill, true. But the diffirence between a soldier and a killer is that soldiers let you live to badmouth them. Killers wouldn't.
Chris Blair
Spaceman
The Kilrathi aren't real they are computer data and who said killing computer things is murdering.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
You are correct, Chris. However, if Napoleon wants to make a case on soldiers being killers, then I think it's only fair to include video games as well, especially since the killing there is for fun.
Aries
Vice Admiral
it would not be an unprovoked war. the 16 UN resolutions that Iraq has broken state that if iraq doesn't comply, there would be military action taken. since the UN isn't interested in enforcing it's own resolutions, it is up to someone to enforce them. the US just happens to be a country that has both the will and capibility to do just that. as for taking out saddam, that would just be one objective, and i agree: if the war were to be just about taking out saddam, i could do it with a rifle, or a SEAL, Special Forces, Delta, Force Recon, or Ranger team (just to name the US ones) could go in and take him out. but the war would be to force them to comply with the resolutions. you can't do that with a lone sniper from a thousand yards away, you would HAVE to send in infantry and tanks, if iraq refused to do it the peaceful way. the war would also prove to the international community (expecially N. Korea, if the UN votes to put sanctions on them) that UN resolutions are to be followed, not ignored whenever someone decides that he doesn't like them, which is what saddam has been doing for the past 12 years. as for reaping the whirlwind if we wage an unsupported war, yes i'd be willing to, because forcing iraq to comply with the UN resolutions is important enough and mabye it would show the UN that it has a responsibility to back up what it says.
Chris Blair
Spaceman
Or playing the video game is to pass time if you have nothing to do.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
I feel that for America to break UN resolutions to enforce UN resolutions is hypocritical, and would only enforce the conception some people have that America is the evil empire who rules the world and does what it wants. And fact is, people will just break resolution when it's inconviniant for them to follow it, and for most it's inconviniant.
K1nG Gr4H4m
Spaceman
I think it's going to be a 3 steps program.
1. Attack Irak.
2. Attack North-Korea
3. Attack the evil metric system
1. Attack Irak.
2. Attack North-Korea
3. Attack the evil metric system
Aries
Vice Admiral
murder, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language is:
the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killin done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery.
now, during war, soldiers killing enemy combatants is LAWFUL, hence, soldiers killing soldiers isn't murder. by the above definition, collateral damage isn't murder either. so, before you go about calling soldiers murderers again, i just want to remind you that hundreds of thousands of those 'murderers' died to give you the right to call them murderers, so why don't you have a little more respect when you talk about the military.
so bush and his friends invented Iraq breaking the resolutions? bush and his friends invented the 14 chemical warheads that the inspectors have found so far in iraq? bush and his friends invented the iraqis shooting at our planes? all bush is doing is attempting to enforce the UN resolutions that were passed and iraq has openly broken. if iraq complies with the resolutions peacefully, there will be no war. if they don't, their gonna get the shit kicked out of em. that is what the UN said would happen when they first passed the resolutions, but they haven't done anything when iraq breaks the resolutions. bush and friends arn't responsible for this mess, saddam and the UN are. saddam for ignoring the resolutions and the UN for not enforcing them.
for the UN to pass a resolution and not follow through is hypocritical and would lead more countries to ignore the resolutions than the US breaking them. do you think that the US would contemplate breaking a UN resolution if the UN backed up what they said? no. but if the UN backed up what it said, we wouldn't be in this situation. and as for people thinking that America is the evil empire who rules the world, people already think that.
and we can't attack the metric system. the other is harder to use
