I am just an average American with no political agenda and I do support our miltary and I love my country...but..... for just once I wish America would take a more passive approach, follow UN recommendations and just stand down for awhile. I am tired of the USA trying to be the "police" of the world. We need to listen to what the WORLD is telling us and the consensus seems to be "NO WAR WITH IRAQ". Anytime there is a Global conflict, no matter how many countries are involved, the US ends up being blamed for it. We should back down for now and respond or help when we are asked , or have undisputable reasons for war. And to be honest, I think Korea is a bigger threat rightnow, although I dont see any definitive, undeniable reasons to go to war with anyone right now. Those are just my opinions.

Whooooooo! Impeach George W(armongering). Bush! Yeah!

Alessa,
Reading your post makes me feel better ! I hope many american people think like you.

Alessa,

I agree unless we can prove that Iraq is capable and intending an attack any near as devastating as 9/11 on any friendly nation.

In the grand scheme of things, North Korea is less significant. North Korea, basically has no friends. In an event of any consequence, influence from neighboring China or Russia will keep them in line. If N Korea used any nukes then the whole country would be toast in a matter of minutes. They know that and thats why it will never happen. They're just using the nukes as political muscle. Iraq on the other hand is surrounded by rougue nations and allied alike. And if Sadam becomes "uncontained" with any kind of tactical power then you could have the makings of WWIII. Plus N Korea poses no direct threat to our allies Isreal, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain etc.... (read oil) Saddam does.

Originally posted by xingyiman
Iraq on the other hand is surrounded by rougue nations and allied alike. And if Sadam becomes "uncontained" with any kind of tactical power then you could have the makings of WWIII. Plus N Korea poses no direct threat to our allies Isreal, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain etc.... (read oil) Saddam does.

1- Name these allied of Iraq. I can't see one.
2- Iraq could be tasted in a mater of minytes too. Plus it doesn't have nuclear weapons.
3- South Korea, Japan are allied too, aren't they ?

"1- Name these allied of Iraq. I can't see one."

Niether can I , allies means OURS astropool.

"2- Iraq could be tasted in a mater of minytes too. Plus it doesn't have nuclear weapons."

What would it taste like I wonder? There has just been some strong evidence refuting the widely held dillusion that Sadam is harmless, brought to us by the personal aid that just defected.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30836

And if you don't like that news source there are plenty more out there to corroborate it.

"3- South Korea, Japan are allied too, aren't they ?"

Yes, but we have a permanent military presence in both of these countries that would more quickly negate a hostile action from N Korea. Every time something happens in the middle east we have major logistical issues as well as having to try to appease you spineless Europeans.

Prepare for war.

1- OK. But wha are the "rogue nations" ? Iran ? It is Iraq's biggest enemy after the USA. And propbably the key to Middle east stability after a war.

2- I meant " toasted" not tasted. If you consider that North Korea is not a threat because it can be nuked in case of war, I don't see why this would not apply to Iraq.

3- You also have a permanent military presence in the Gulf.

I still don't see why Iraq is a bigger threat than North Korea. Anything new to make me change my mind ?

No you, like most of the French, will never change your mind even in the face of undeniable truth. And I see no point in debating further with a bunch of Eurofags whose obviously "superior" culture exists today only because the United States of America chose not to take the same self-destructive stance of appeasement and let Hitler f### us and all of Europe up the A$$!

OK Xing I see you have nothing intelligent to reply to my post.

Then I'm still waiting for solid reasons to make war to iraq rather than N. Korea. Anyone else has something to say on that matter ?

What is going to happen is when we are in the middle of combat with IRAQ. N.Korea will jump in and attack S.Korea. They know that the US Military is already spread thin. But thinner is even better for them. Then they can jump in and take over S.Korea wipe out anyone in their way. Its really simple N.Korea and Iraq are talking back and forth. Anyone could see that.

astrapol2-

I've got reasons why the U.S. is focusing on Iraq rather than N.Korea right now for you: A) North Korea is more formidable than Iraq, therefore Iraq will be easier to deal with. B) Iraq has demonstrated for more open hostility towards the U.S. in the past decades than N. Korea. C) The U.S. already had invested a lot of time and money to deal with Iraq before N.Korea started to become a problem (which is probably why N.Korea picked this time to begin their hostilities), thus we'd be throwing away a lot of that investment if we suddenly changed course. D) The geopolitical situation is far more hostile to a U.S. attack. If the U.S. attacked N.Korea, our important Ally and trading partner, S.Korea, would take substantial and possibly enormous losses from N.Korea's retaliation (N.Korea has a gigantic artillery division poised to bombard S.Korea's largest city and capital, Seoul, in retaliation to any attack). Meanwhile, with Iraq, our allies in the nearby region will probably be unscathed.

Are those enough reasons for you?

Leper
A- Right.
B- Iraq hostility towards USA ? How do you define hostility ? Sure being bombed every day is an hostile act in the way that it makes you feel badly hostile !
C- Right but sad. If you've studied psychology, you may have seen that this kind of process is at the origine of many human mistakes.
The same when you wait for a bus that does not come. If you wait for a few minutes only, it is easy to decide to go by foot. But if you've been waiting for twenty minutes, it is very hard to leave because you feel these twenty minutes would have been wasted. Of course a rational decision would be to leave, since the longer you wait the more likely thaht there is no bus at all ! It is the same when one keeps on gambling and loosing, or in many siyuations. And it is one of the reasons why US got entangled into Vietnam war. You had invested so much that it seemed a big waste to stop it even when it was obvious that this war was impossible to win - every dead american soldier would then appear absurd. Only a change of gvt made it possible to stop this war since the new govt was not psychologically involved into it.
I suspect this is a major reason for a war against Iraq (the Bush family being psychologically involved in this war).
D- Right (same as A). So the lesson is : if a country is a real threat to America and its allies, it can do anything. Only a rather inoffensive country risks anything.

Tent-

No, I don't know a lot about the Korean War. One thing's for sure however; and that is our war with Iraq was just over ten years ago (really still continuing over the skies of the "No-Fly Zone") and the war with Korea was over 50ish years ago. Relations with Korea seem to be trending upward in recent history (except VERY recently of course) while relations with Iraq are trending downward. I have no doubt that makes a huge difference in how you deal with a country.

astrapol2-

"B- Iraq hostility towards USA ? How do you define hostility ? Sure being bombed every day is an hostile act in the way that it makes you feel badly hostile ! "

Yes, sentiments of revenge are a form of hostility. Whether you want to argue Iraq was the start of hostile relations or the U.S. was, the fact is that Iraq surely has hostile feelings toward the U.S.

"Show proof when and where Iraq ever threatened The U.S. proir to the fiasco of the Gulf War."

No need. We're talking about post-Gulf War, and there's been plenty of hostility since to make my point.

"Biasness", Tent? Surely a perfect god such as yourself would know that the correct word to use is "bias".

Um, Tent? "Bias" is a noun all by itself. You can't add a -ness onto a noun to make it a noun as it already is a noun.

Tent,

Once again you respond without reading what you respond to. The person you should be addressing is Borghunter, not I.

Ok, so not having oil is America's problem.

Theoretically, they saw this problem coming at least a couple of decades ago.

If that's the case, the US government has invested a whole heap of money in trying to control oil reserves. And it's now investing all that money into a war so they will have power over oil reserves in the Middle East(??)

Wouldn't it have been more productive to invest that money into finding an environmentally viable alternative to oil??

Originally posted by astrapol2
OK Xing I see you have nothing intelligent to reply to my post.

Then I'm still waiting for solid reasons to make war to iraq rather than N. Korea. Anyone else has something to say on that matter ? If intellegence were a prerequisite to this post you probably would not have been allowed to start it in the first place. And why are all you "eurofags" so keen to point the finger at the United States as being the aggresors. I seem to recall this whole thing being started back in the early 90's by the invasion of Kuwait by who? That's right boys and girls, Iraq. And as part of the agreement to a "cease fire", Iraq agreed to a lot of things they are not holding up to. So before we point the finger, can we at least read about our worlds history before we make stupid comments about such? Maybe im asking too much there, i dont know.:confused:

Havok
You need not insult me to make your point, need you ?

Actually I supported the Gulf War. Iraq was the aggressor.
It is not the case any more.

I still don't see the point of dealing with Iraq for "being a threat" while not addressing North Korean threat which is much bigger.

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Leper,

Your inability to get beyond your biasness destroys the value of any opinion you might have.

You cheapen your intellect by contending that the problem is about Iraq after the Gulf War. It is apparent that you know nothing of the history of Iraq as it relates to the U.S. For your information the war between Iraq and the U.S. has been going on since the early 1950s.
Attempting to cover your ignorance by stringing together words is a flawed gambit.

Tent-

Here is my post to which you respond:

"Show proof when and where Iraq ever threatened The U.S. proir to the fiasco of the Gulf War."

No need. We're talking about post-Gulf War, and there's been plenty of hostility since to make my point.

"We're talking about post-Gulf War" - We're talking about the present situation w/ Iraq, so this is a FACT.

"there's been plenty of hostility since to make my point" - Hostility between the U.S. and Iraq has not ceased since the Gulf War, so this is a FACT.

Another FACT: You label me biased and ignorant simply for stating FACTS, therefore you do not know the meaning of bias or ignorance.

No insults here. Just facts.

Tent-

Nope, you're only getting facts.

I've concluded that there is no point being rational with you anymore. You can't admit when you're wrong even when two of your own contradictory phrases are placed next to each other. You dodge most questions, answering only the ones that don't challenge your position. You respond to debates with insults of ignorance and idiocy so frequently that the terms and their variations have lost their meaning (e.g. everyone on this board would be an idiot except you). When you can no longer defend your position, you seek refuge in a semantic arguments. So don't expect me to present something to you in a "rational format," since rational formats are only understood by rational people.

Leper, you are right on target.

I predict that Tent will come back with a witty retort either involving you being a freak/genetic defect/moron/redneck, or instead will say that he is a "god" and as such is above such petty remarks. Actually, he probably won't, as he doesn't want to prove me right. In any case, Tent, we really wish you'd come up with something rational to say rather than insults.

LMAO

Back to the subject...


"So the lesson is : if a country is a real threat to America and its allies, it can do anything. Only a rather inoffensive country risks anything."

Astra-

Well, I wouldn't say "it can do anything," but I would say it can get away with more. That's just a natural effect of an uneven distribution in power. You can go to your local high school and see this effect. Popular Jock A says, "You're a dick," to Popular Jock B and you might have some ill will but probably no violence. Now if Unpopular Geek says, "You're a dick," to Popular Jock B, he's liable to get his head beaten in (or at least humiliating treatment....thrown in the Girls' bathroom perhaps?). This is just natural. (i.e. You weigh the risks before you get involved in violence)

For those of us who can't work it out for themselves, the cause is "the uneven distribution of power," the effect is unequal treatment. I'm suprised you can't figure that out with your 170 IQ.

Sigh. NOW I'm an idiot; I know better than to try to explain anything to Tent. If anyone else is confused, I'll elaborate. Tent, all I'm going to say is "The information is there. Figure it out on your own."

Tent, may I laugh now??