StarDestroyer.Net BBS

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:A smart person who would kill you for not voting YES.

As opposed to one who will declare wars to get you to vote YES?

As opposed to one who will declare wars to get you to vote YES?

Bullshit, Iraq should have been delt with in 1991, The fucker broke every single UN Resoultion ever set opon him from day 1 he was selling Oil illeagly and obtained everything under the sun not to mention those "Palaces" which where declared off-limits
Yes the 12 SM of Off-limits areas where according to defectors Saddam has enough Chemical and Bio Stockplies(Mostly Chemical) to easly take care of the Enitre Easter-Sea board, PLUS the Nuclear Materals from what we can tell he only needs the Enriched Uranium to build himself a bomb, he has everything else



Oh and Olrik if you want a President to Start Wars to get you to vote for him
VOTE CLINTON

Colonel Olrik wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:A smart person who would kill you for not voting YES.

As opposed to one who will declare wars to get you to vote YES?

Vote YES on what?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: Vote YES on what?

brrt. On him instead of the other candidate. I guess Bush is still a bit better than Saddam.

I guess Bush is still a bit better than Saddam

Off the Top of my Head I can't think of any times Bush shok Osama's Hands or order the Testing of Chemical Weapons on Kirds

Or later the now Tested Chemical Weapons to be used on more Kirds

Or to attack the Civilian popluation of Isreal

Or invaded another Country "Because he can"
And to be fair Bush is still a ways off from this one, Iraq is a valid target and after we succed few think that Afganastan was a valid one either

The only valid one after that is either Pakstan or Iran, anyone else would be "because he can"

Mr Bean wrote:

As opposed to one who will declare wars to get you to vote YES?

Bullshit, Iraq should have been delt with in 1991, The fucker broke every single UN Resoultion ever set opon him from day 1 he was selling Oil illeagly and obtained everything under the sun not to mention those "Palaces" which where declared off-limits

Yeap, I agree with you. I've said many times I think Saddam deserves a war. And it wusn't me who began comparing the two

Mr Bean wrote: Bullshit, Iraq should have been delt with in 1991, The fucker broke every single UN Resoultion ever set opon him from day 1 he was selling Oil illeagly and obtained everything under the sun not to mention those "Palaces" which where declared off-limits
Yes the 12 SM of Off-limits areas where according to defectors Saddam has enough Chemical and Bio Stockplies(Mostly Chemical) to easly take care of the Enitre Easter-Sea board, PLUS the Nuclear Materals from what we can tell he only needs the Enriched Uranium to build himself a bomb, he has everything else



Oh and Olrik if you want a President to Start Wars to get you to vote for him
VOTE CLINTON

First off, the reason why Saddam wasn't finished off was that the US' only reason for going into the Gulf was the oil, when they gained control of Kuwaits oil, and could control the export from the region, they finished.
Second, the one country that should be attacked because of UN resolution breaking, kill Israel, they break practically every single UN resolution dealing with them.
Third, what proof do you have of Saddam being able to contsruct those weapons? Besides government spouted bullshit? And the only reason why Saddam has the chemical and bio weapons is that the US supplied them to him.

Back! And now to respond(I had to dip into my emergancy Vodka and Caffine supplies so a trip to the story was in order )

First off, the reason why Saddam wasn't finished off was that the US' only reason for going into the Gulf was the oil, when they gained control of Kuwaits oil, and could control the export from the region, they finished.

Indeed so the fact that Iraq had invaded a Forgien Country, threated to Invade a US Ally had nothing to do with it?
Yep we went to War in Korea cause of all that oil. you know... Oh WAIT

Second, the one country that should be attacked because of UN resolution breaking, kill Israel, they break practically every single UN resolution dealing with them.

I see so Isreal is the only one we should attack because they broken ALMOST every single UN resolution dealing with them but we should not Invade Iraq because they broke EVERY single UN Resolution dealing with them

WHAT BULLSHIT TWISTED LOGIC IS THAT TED! DEFEND YOUR POSTION!

Third, what proof do you have of Saddam being able to contsruct those weapons? Besides government spouted bullshit? And the only reason why Saddam has the chemical and bio weapons is that the US supplied them to him.

First off Goverment Bullshit? I see so the goverment is completly lieing to us? Second its Bullshit that he has them, but its not Bullshit that we gave them to him? WTF? Pick a Position Ted, Does he not have weapons and the goverment is lieing to us or does he have Weapons and we gave them to him?

Third on the issue of weapons, To my Knowledge we never supplyed him with Musterd or Saren Gas yet he has them, The Athrax he recived from us was non weapons grade CDC material sent out by them. Thirldy we never gave him any Nuclear Material yet we blow up some of it in 91 that they recived from Russia and China and we have the fucking defectors coming out of his country montly telling us the same things at the same places that Saddam has everything from the Techology to slap them in War-heads to build everything else he needs, the two things he lacks are decent long-range missles and the enriched uranium to make up the primary

Now then Ted on the first defend your postion on the Second PICK a fucking Position

Ted wrote: First off, the reason why Saddam wasn't finished off was that the US' only reason for going into the Gulf was the oil, when they gained control of Kuwaits oil, and could control the export from the region, they finished.

Completely incorrect. THE US's only goal was to oust Saddam from Kuwait and restore the sovreign ruler. However the only reason this was our goal was due to our allies. It was out of deference to the coalition that Baghdad was not attacked. Oh yes and taking Baghdad would have:
1) Placed us as an occupying power
2) Have us as an occupying power who exceeded the authority of the UN authorization, thus making us guilty of waging a war of agression.
3) Made us responsible for rebuilding the whole damn country.

Second, the one country that should be attacked because of UN resolution breaking, kill Israel, they break practically every single UN resolution dealing with them.

As much as I think Israel must be dealt with more harshly than we do they are the only freely elected government outside of Egypt in that area. The only Democracy in a region of dictators and Kings, yup they certainly should be invaded.

Third, what proof do you have of Saddam being able to contsruct those weapons? Besides government spouted bullshit? And the only reason why Saddam has the chemical and bio weapons is that the US supplied them to him.

How do I know Saddam can build them? Because I...let me repeat I could build them if I had the chemicals available. The same with nuclear weapons: I could build one if I had some Uranium or Plutonium.

I heard the news on the radio while I was driving downtown. My first thought was "Man, they can't even rig a vote in a believable way!". Who the hell does Saddam think he's going to fool with THAT? And those stories about people signing voting cards with their own blood, promising that they will fight to the last when all hell breaks loose...it could be funny if it was an article in the Onion

CmdrWilkens wrote:Completely incorrect. THE US's only goal was to oust Saddam from Kuwait and restore the sovreign ruler.

Well, that AND the oil fields. You can't deny the US DID care for the Kuwaiti oil.

CmdrWilkens wrote:The same with nuclear weapons: I could build one if I had some Uranium or Plutonium.

Hmm...are you a nuclear physicist? It's not that easy to build an a-bomb in your garage, even if you somehow acquired all the materials...but Saddam has resources of an entire country to boot, and it's cheap enough to get some of the horribly underpaid specialists from the former Soviet Block.

All in all, I agree with Olrik. He deserves a war.

Hmm...are you a nuclear physicist? It's not that easy to build an a-bomb in your garage, even if you somehow acquired all the materials...but Saddam has resources of an entire country to boot, and it's cheap enough to get some of the horribly underpaid specialists from the former Soviet Block.

He's not but then I can do it too being that there is a near complete step by step book avaible(No idea who wrote it) for how the Fokes at the Manhatten Project went around building Little Boy if I remeber correctly, Also there are TONS of Leaked how tos by Soviet Scienctists, some delbratly some not because the censors had no idea what they where reading and oked it because frankly they don't make idiots Nuclear Physists but for the job of censor its the perfect kind of person for that line of work.

From what I've seen, the ballots were phrased as such:

Do you agree with the re-election of Saddam Husain?

[]YES
[]NO

Hmm... With that kind of voting method, I really wonder what would happen if the vast majority voted "no" (I know that that would never really happen, but it's just a hypothetical question.)

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:From what I've seen, the ballots were phrased as such:

Do you agree with the re-election of Saddam Husain?

[]YES
[]NO

Hmm... With that kind of voting method, I really wonder what would happen if the vast majority voted "no" (I know that that would never really happen, but it's just a hypothetical question.)

They would call for a recount!

I'm fucking serious.

" Well, that AND the oil fields. You can't deny the US DID care for the Kuwaiti oil."-Pezook


Of coarse, thats the reason they are our allies. You seem to think that there is some sort of nefarious conection there. They sell us the oil that runs our country, that makes us their allies, and when they were threatend we defended our interests and allies.

Again I have heard people infer that defending our "supposed allies" is only because of the oil. YES, they are our ally because of the oil they sell us. They wouldn't be our ally for anything else I can think of.

Knife wrote: Of coarse, thats the reason they are our allies. You seem to think that here is some sort of nefarious conection there. They sell us the oil that runs our country, that makes us their allies, and when they were threatend we defended our interests and allies.

Again I have heard people infer that defending our "supposed allies" is only because of the oil. YES, they are our ally because of the oil they sell us. They wouldn't be our ally for anything else I can think of.

I'm not making any nefarious connections. I don't think that defending your strategic trade partner is something wrong - on the contrary, it is the right thing to do. I don't get it why some people consider fighting for an ally selling you strategic resources bad.

Simple
THEY WOULD BE SHOT Spanky

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your point but it seemed to infer a negitive as I read your post. I have heard the inference before and it enrages me badly. IMO it goes back to, if America does something its bad and if America does nothing its bad routine.

Let me just throw in my experiences real quick.

Yes this is an appeal to authority, so take it with a grain of salt if you like. But I know one of the former weapons inspectors. I have seen slides of some of the pictures he took while carrying out his duty in Iraq. I've seen pictures of machinery used to create chemical and biological weaponary. I've seen pictures of unearthed stockpiles of weapons, and of course the UN blowing them up. I've also seen 1950s era equipment being used in making nuclear weapons. One of the funniest things I saw was a picture of a UN guy and an Iraqi civilian inspecting some chemical weapons. The UN guy is all decked out in full NBC gear, while the Iraqi guy is wearing plain clothes. Pretty funny.

If I could ever get a hold of these pictures, I'd be sure to share them, but it is unlikely that will ever happen. Ah well, go back to your debate.

Spanky: Hussein would whistle, burn the cards, and then have new ones written up and forged.

Oh, and a few thousand ppl would be crucified.