Poll on War

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2003-02-25 06:22pm

welcome to SD.net

:::: pokes newbie:::

i am pro war because i belive that saddam is going to keep killing his own people unless somone stops him a war would be my absolute last option though because there are other methods (assination, revolt ect.) that would cause fewer civilian casualties

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-02-25 06:26pm

Darksider wrote:welcome to SD.net

:::: pokes newbie:::

i am pro war because i belive that saddam is going to keep killing his own people unless somone stops him a war would be my absolute last option though because there are other methods (assination, revolt ect.) that would cause fewer civilian casualties

I believe that the more often we go to war the more we are going to kill our own people.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-25 06:34pm

I believe that the more often we go to war the more we are going to kill our own people.

What if we do what Clinton did and attack only with Cruise Missles and UAVs?

Of course some poor crewman might win a Darwin award by sleeping the Missle Tubes or similar...

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-25 06:34pm

As for do we need to send troops? I think so. Sometimes that is all that we can do. Sanctions against various dictators have proven ineffective and public scolding rarely does any good. And in the Yugoslavia situation, it cannot be argued that we didn't give Milosivec chance after chance to act civilized. Only when we (the West, it was NATO not just US action) bombed him did he start to simmer down.

Force, and types of force, are some of the many cards in the deck a country has to play. It probably should not be the first card played but it also cannot be ignored. I think we've been very patient with Saddam and tried many methods to deal with him, all for naught. It looks like he will be one of the guys that will respond only to the stick and ignore the carrot.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-02-25 06:42pm

Coyote wrote:As for do we need to send troops? I think so. Sometimes that is all that we can do. Sanctions against various dictators have proven ineffective and public scolding rarely does any good. And in the Yugoslavia situation, it cannot be argued that we didn't give Milosivec chance after chance to act civilized. Only when we (the West, it was NATO not just US action) bombed him did he start to simmer down.

Force, and types of force, are some of the many cards in the deck a country has to play. It probably should not be the first card played but it also cannot be ignored. I think we've been very patient with Saddam and tried many methods to deal with him, all for naught. It looks like he will be one of the guys that will respond only to the stick and ignore the carrot.

I will pull a Mr Bean and ask "Why?"

Bean - STFU.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-25 06:45pm

Funny Verilon, No to pull a Mr Bean you need to toss a joke in there somewhere and also ask for Justification/And or a nice calzone

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-25 07:01pm

verilon wrote:
Coyote wrote:As for do we need to send troops? I think so. Sometimes that is all that we can do. Sanctions against various dictators have proven ineffective and public scolding rarely does any good...

Force...probably should not be the first card played but it also cannot be ignored...
I will pull a Mr Bean and ask "Why?"

Why what? I pretty much answered it, that we've tried sanctions, scolding, laws, mandates, treaties... all of which have been ignored, mocked, or used against the people while ignoring the leaders. My stance is that all the peaceful and non-warlike attempts have been made, I cannot see any other actions or inactions we can take that will see this through.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-02-25 07:04pm

Maybe we haven't gone through them all, though. I'm not going to say I have any ideas, mostly cos I don't, but also because I am beginning to get a migraine, and need to get off the Net. But I ask why is it so important that we send troops? Why is it so important, if they might get killed? Have you no morals as far as this? Would you rather have a bunch of people sent off to their death rather than do everything possible to get things done peacefully?

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-25 07:12pm

verilon wrote: But I ask why is it so important that we send troops? Why is it so important, if they might get killed? Have you no morals as far as this?

Of course I do, why do you imply that I do not? I would say that it was moral to defeat the Nazis and clearly Hitler was not going to be stopped by anything less than armed force. Would it have been more moral to let him do as he pleased?

Would you rather have a bunch of people sent off to their death rather than do everything possible to get things done peacefully?

Bear in mind I do not say this in a vacuum. I am very likely to get The Letter to mobilize at any moment. If I am sent over there I will be right on the front line myself, either as a Combat Engineer plowing through minefields or as an Infantryman with rifle in the trenches. I most assuredly do not want to die any more than anyone else, but a lot of other innocent people will die if somebody doesn't stop Saddam. We have some responsibility for Saddam being where he is today. It is up to us to rectify the situation.

Maybe we haven't gone through them all, though. I'm not going to say I have any ideas, mostly cos I don't, but also because I am beginning to get a migraine, and need to get off the Net.

Dude, get some sleep or at least some rest. I'm not gonna talk to you any more 'till you at least try to take care of yourself. We'll be here when you get back and this is in no way a concession by you. I'd rather wait than have you go into hell just for a few minutes' more...

"Good night!"

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-02-25 07:28pm

The question basically boils down to, "Does the status quo help or hurt Saddam Hussein?"

If you say yes it helps him, then you're much more likely to support a potential war effort. If you say no it hurts Hussein, then you're probably more likely to be anti-war.

I'm more inclined to think that the status quo DOES in fact help Hussein in the long run. We already have sanctions in place, we already do what we can to help the iraqi people through the UN oil for food program, we already keep Hussein hemmed in with constant patrolling of No fly zones, and we try to keep tabs on his weapons programs through an inspections regime.

What have we gotten over the last ten years? The sanctions have done little to erode the strength of Hussein's government. The oil for food program has resulted in illegal money transfers from the UN accounts, presumably to Iraq's military or other weapons programs. The fighters patrolling the NFZs are constantly harassed and fired upon by Iraqi air defense systems. The inspections have failed to conclusively establish Hussein's WMD capabilities, and have completely failed to disarm him.

Hussein is still a dangerous regional threat to the countries around him, and he is still at the head of a relatively powerful military that brutalizes iraq's population and threatens its neighbors. Despite international pressure to disarm, Iraq has managed to acquire and deploy missile technology in direct violation of UN mandates. Iraq is still a militant nation intent on regional dominance through force, and this picture can only be changed with Hussein's removal from power.

I really can't think of a peaceful solution to Saddam Hussein. We've tried a lot of things, and we're pretty much where we were right after we signed the cease fire to Gulf War I.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-25 07:48pm

Don't forget one of the ignored Resoultions was the Oil Embargo, France/Germany have been buying Oil from them desite the ban since as early as 95

Also as has been pointed out before the real reason France is opposed is they get quite a good deal from Saddam on the Oil they buy and the fact his Nuclear Weapons Program was started and helped along by the French and its been suspected his Chemical(If not Biological though the second is dimissed as very unlikley) Weapons programs as well

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-25 07:49pm

Maybe we haven't gone through them all, though. I'm not going to say I have any ideas, mostly cos I don't, but also because I am beginning to get a migraine, and need to get off the Net. But I ask why is it so important that we send troops? Why is it so important, if they might get killed? Have you no morals as far as this? Would you rather have a bunch of people sent off to their death rather than do everything possible to get things done peacefully?

All the peaceful routes have tried and failed. Now is the time for action.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-02-25 07:52pm

Despite the rhetoric, despite the 'get Saddam out" movement, I see this war as nothing but certain politicians stirring up trouble to make sure they get re-elected. I see no reason for them to send my co-workers and friends overseas, when Bush hasn't even managed to catch bin Ladin with the first waves of troops he sent out.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-25 07:57pm

I see this war as nothing but certain politicians stirring up trouble to make sure they get re-elected

I find this amusing, He's violated every Resoultion, Devolped WMD and if he Gets Nukes he can not be attacked or we face Economic Devisation to make the Depression look Piddely and it will be Gobal(Remeber the Gas lines of yesteryear? That was caused by a simple one percent drop, imagin what a ten percent drop will do to our economey..)

I see no reason for them to send my co-workers and friends overseas, when Bush hasn't even managed to catch bin Ladin with the first waves of troops he sent out.

Oh so we are the Omnipotent US Army are we now?

Has it ever occured to you that maybe Bin Ladin is a greasy Smear somewhere? There has not been a single Video Recoding of him since we invaded and aside from some Audio Recordings which we can't be sure if its him or not thanks to low quality....

2000 Pound Pentrators don't leave much

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-25 08:30pm

To me, what it comes down to is. If we keep waiting and waiting and then finally walk away, it sets a dangerous precedent. Every 2 bit despot and tyrant can just snub his nose at the Un and the security council and say F-you. 12 years of this has got to mean more than just another round of inspectors. There needs to be some teeth in 1441..

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-25 08:33pm

Bin Laden is dead, folks, or in a coma, or otherwise incapacitated. Otherwise, why would he make an audio recording instead of a video?

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-25 09:45pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Bin Laden is dead, folks, or in a coma, or otherwise incapacitated. Otherwise, why would he make an audio recording instead of a video?

Because technology is the tool of the devil.

And I think that you are hideously mistaken if you believe bin Laden is dead.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-26 10:01am

I am personally becoming increasingly apathetic on this issue, since the war seems more or less unavoidable. Even if the USA aren't getting the UN's support, I doubt that Germany and France will declare war on the USA.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Poll on War

War or Anti War