Weapons of MASS destruction. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by splck
I guess time will tell, but I doubt this action will make the middle east more stable. I am certain that the US is hated a bit more around the world, how this makes you guys safer in the long run, I don't know. Like I said..time will tell.

hehe...now thats funny...thanks for that It's amazing how differently people see things...wow.

I am sure we were hated right after we bombed Japan but I dont think the world hates us anymore for that. 20 years down the road when Iraqis are watching HBO, getting fatter and enjoying a stable nation, terrorsits will have much fuel for their fire.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
THE DIRTY WORK????

Are you on crack?

THIS IS THE DIRTY WORK.

Blowing the shit out of Iraq was easy. You got to test some of your nice weapons, use them up so you need to order more from Lockhead Martin, and help feed the bottomless pit that is the industrial military complex.

Now building Iraq, that's a whole lot messier. It's going to cost WAAAAAYYYYYY more money, its already cost more americans their lives than the war, and it's going to be a quagmire.

Thanks George for letting us foreigners have a second chance. I really appreciate it. Your short myopic strategy for peace through war has enflamed an already unstable region and fed the flames of international terrorism.

The dirty work was getting the world ready for war. It was HARD and drity to go in. It was easy and clean to say fuck it, let Saddam mess with the world, and play games untill he is ready to wage war on his terms. Bush could have done it, and he would have been loved for it. Just like Clinton did with Saddam and N Korea. But he did the the dirty work, he took out a problem before it was a major blow out. Now when helping out is the most logical conclusion, the world reluctantly is doing what is should have helped do at first.

eple · 10-26-2003, 10:43 AM

A little raid in the middle east that turned bad is not exactly comparitable with WW2. And please, spare me for that wack logic making it NOrway's problem that you guys destroyed Iraq's infrastructure.

Let me give you a brief overview of my opinios here, so you won't need to pin any on me:

You guys attacked that country on dodgy evidence and fucked up, now you need money, and come begging to the UN including Norway for help even though you earlier told us how useless we were. I am opposed to us giving any support to your agendas, I want my tax-money to do better things than cleaning up your fucking mess.
The fucking end.

eple · 10-26-2003, 10:45 AM

I agree on the "dirty work" tho, lying to the entire world and spreading bs to justify the war must have been hard, and it certainly was dirty.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 10:47 AM

And that is why Norway is a second rate nation with no real contribution to the world theater. When you need a hand though, feel free to call on the US, we will most likely help you out. Its what we do.

eple · 10-26-2003, 11:50 AM

We contributed with fighter jets in Afghanistan (fucking stupid right-winger government). And some mine-seekers and oter post-war personell in Iraq. Even that is something in a war which has nothing at all to do with our interests or responsibility. Twist and turn it any way you want, the US did a war, now you must pay the bill. It's that fucking simple.

archer2371 · 10-26-2003, 12:17 PM

O.K. first off, we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We haven't been proliferating nukes or nuclear materials to other countries, unlike a few suspected others. Let me say this, the Iraq War was not about just the WMD. It was about freeing an opressed nation that would help serve our interests. It's that simple. We felt that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a threat to us, we are eliminating that threat as we speak. We are still searching for WMDs, they will be found, which is part of that threat. Stabilizing the Middle East is a goal for the United States, because of a free Iraq, the MidEast will be able to become more stable without such a rogue nation there. A stable MidEast gives a chance for the Roadmap to Peace to work better. Those are just a few items of what benefits the United States and the region around Iraq. Believe me when I say this, you may not like the fact that we're there, but we are, and we will continue to be there until the job is done.

archer2371 · 10-26-2003, 12:20 PM

Can we please stop the Norway flaming as well, Norway has traditionally been a neutral country and I would like to keep them that way, because they can bring some very good perspectives and ideals to the table when discussing things like peace.

eple · 10-26-2003, 12:46 PM

Well, that's all hunky dory about you finishing the job an' all, but I believe the point here is that you will have to take the bill. In Norway (I will, at some point stop referring to Norway in every post, but this time it felt right), we have a saying that goes "if you want to play, you'll have to take the pain" (it rhymes in Norwegian, that makes it more snazzy). The US should have known that this could be the outcome, and they should be able to handle it without the help of us "useless" countries. Surely they didn't go to war without calculating some losses? I am sure many European countries will be happy to hand out emergency aid if needed, but the burden of the reconstruction of Iraq belongs to the ones who started the war in the first place.

splck · 10-26-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
And that is why Norway is a second rate nation with no real contribution to the world theater. When you need a hand though, feel free to call on the US, we will most likely help you out. Its what we do.

Again, it's amazing how some people see things. You do realize that most people love thier country and don't want to be anything like the US? I know I'd rather live in a country that was liked and respected rather than on that was feared and loathed.

Quote:

When you need a hand though, feel free to call on the US, we will most likely help you out. Its what we do.

Not unless it's full of conditions, but I can accept that.

Quote:

I am sure we were hated right after we bombed Japan but I dont think the world hates us anymore for that. 20 years down the road when Iraqis are watching HBO, getting fatter and enjoying a stable nation, terrorsits will have much fuel for their fire.

I'm not sure how you managed to link that, but I don't see any similarities at all

You really think Iraq is going to look like this in 20 years? Hardly a lofty goal. Give me a break dude.

archer2371 · 10-26-2003, 02:04 PM

Oh no, I agree with you eple, but it does kind of disgust me that some countries, like FEL said, would rather be right than willing to help. And feel free to make references to your country man, we Americans do it all the time, why shouldn't you? I was trying to stop all that crap that had the "Norway sucks!" undertone to it, which it doesn't, that's what I meant about the Norway flaming.

eple · 10-26-2003, 02:09 PM

This is a question of billions of dollars, not being right or wrong. Countries who opposed to the attack in the first place are in their full right to refuse to partake in the reconstruction. It's not like these countries are neglecting a responsibility. Sure, we will offer aid if emergency strikes, but the reconstruction shall be done by those responsible for the attack, which will probably earn good money when the reconstruction is done. This isn't a pissfight, this is real politics, should we waste money on reconstructiong an american oil colony or not?

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
We contributed with fighter jets in Afghanistan (fucking stupid right-winger government). And some mine-seekers and oter post-war personell in Iraq. Even that is something in a war which has nothing at all to do with our interests or responsibility. Twist and turn it any way you want, the US did a war, now you must pay the bill. It's that fucking simple.

Ok but when the world is more peaceful remeber YOU didnt want to help make it that way.

eple · 10-26-2003, 02:22 PM

Heh, jesus, do you ever stop....

Peace, war, unrest, terror, disaster, wonder, any general changes in the world the next few hundred years will be related to the role of the US. Norway have mainly involved itself in global affairs trough attemps at negotiations for peace (Oslo-agreement etc), or involvement in global envirolental treaties (f.e.Johannessburg) our ways are not trough millitary intervention, nor funding of such. If this should turn out to be all in vain, so be it, but I won't regret supporting our role as a peaceful nation(more or less, if you don't count those supposedly killed by our 5 fighter jets in Afghanistan).

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 03:00 PM

Fine, we could sit as people are being killed and claim to be peacefull too, but our president took the hard, tough stance and attempted to make the world better. Its easy to be on the high horse when you are not risking anything.

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Well, that's all hunky dory about you finishing the job an' all, but I believe the point here is that you will have to take the bill. In Norway (I will, at some point stop referring to Norway in every post, but this time it felt right), we have a saying that goes "if you want to play, you'll have to take the pain" (it rhymes in Norwegian, that makes it more snazzy). The US should have known that this could be the outcome, and they should be able to handle it without the help of us "useless" countries. Surely they didn't go to war without calculating some losses? I am sure many European countries will be happy to hand out emergency aid if needed, but the burden of the reconstruction of Iraq belongs to the ones who started the war in the first place.

Wow, your English is excellent and even better than a lot of American posters on this board. Is English an official language of Norway?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Heh, jesus, do you ever stop....

Peace, war, unrest, terror, disaster, wonder, any general changes in the world the next few hundred years will be related to the role of the US. Norway have mainly involved itself in global affairs trough attemps at negotiations for peace (Oslo-agreement etc)

So tell me Eple did those Oslo accords work??? Oh yeah thats right...

Furthermore we don't get oil from Iraq, all in all we get about 15-20% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Also if anybody hates the U.S. they can piss off. If memory serves if it weren't for us Norway and the rest of the civilized world would either be eating brats and Drinking Heinkens, or cow-towing to the A-Japs.

filtherton · 10-26-2003, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Also if anybody hates the U.S. they can piss off. If memory serves if it weren't for us Norway and the rest of the civilized world would either be eating brats and Drinking Heinkens, or cow-towing to the A-Japs.

That is right, we singlehandedly defeated the nazi/japanese menace. So piss off all of you america hating, free speech expressing A-jap cow-towers.

If we want to be unilateral asses now, you really have no right to complain, because, decades ago, in the process of looking out for ourselves, we found it convenient to also liberate you. Its been a long time since WW2, but i clearly remember all of europe agreeing to give up its right to criticize the U.S. for ever after. So piss off.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 06:42 PM

Ask any former Eastern Block National how Europe would have let them get rolled over by Soviet Tanks. It took the threat of American bullets to save them. We have a long standing tradition of bailing Europeans out, WAAAY before we are directly threatened. And as per usual, we never ask for thanks.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 06:56 PM

All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak). Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military. And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them. Also Iraq was a hub of terrorism, if not al-queda there were several other well noted terrorist organizations and celebrities there (Abu Nidal, Ansar Al- Islam, ANO, various support for Palestinian terrorist organizations... http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html). Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S. THe U.N. is a joke and wouldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. seeing as to we foot 25% of the bill for it as well as man support for its various operations. Bush sent the U.N. to the plate and in very convincing fashion they struck out looking. Like he said on the eve of war "THe World shares our assesment of the Danger posed by Saddam, but not our resolve".

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak). Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military. And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them. Also Iraq was a hub of terrorism, if not al-queda there were several other well noted terrorist organizations and celebrities there (Abu Nidal, Ansar Al- Islam, ANO, various support for Palestinian terrorist organizations... http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html). Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S. THe U.N. is a joke and wouldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. seeing as to we foot 25% of the bill for it as well as man support for its various operations. Bush sent the U.N. to the plate and in very convincing fashion they struck out looking. Like he said on the eve of war "THe World shares our assesment of the Danger posed by Saddam, but not our resolve".

What on earth is a "cock block?"

If it's such a delusional stance to think that there were no WMDs in Iraq then why even look for them? Everyone should "know" they're already there, unless everyone is delusional. It must be tough living in a world of delusional people and delusional countries...

Jojo_PeiPei, why doesn't the US just threaten to pull their funding if the UN doesn't just agree with everything the US say? Surely the UN can't go one without the US's 25%, right? I mean, why fund a joke?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 07:27 PM

1) cock block is when someone stops you from getting ass, usually seen when a girl stops her friend from getting freaky with a guy she doesn't approve of.

2) U.N. inspectors missed/didn't find weapons when they were there. Once people started defecting the weapons came out. Do you really put it past Saddam to halt weapons programs? I mean for Christ's sake he had programs running when there were inspectors in his country, again, would you put it past him to have them running when the inspectors were gone? 17 resolutions violated over 10 years, pretty shaky record if you ask me...

3) Part of the reason the U.N. is a joke is because of the way the U.S. is able to use it for its own purposes. It's not a bunch of "nations" coming together for the common greater good, its a bunch of regimes coming together to try and keep there shit on lock down.

Besides we fucking started the band, why should we have to leave it when the dysfunctional members start bitching? And they can't go on without U.S. funding, the U.N. almost went under a few years back, they nearly closed the New York branch becasue they couldn't afford, who was it they bailed them out... Oh yeah thats right the U.S.

filtherton · 10-27-2003, 06:01 AM

Quote:

All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak).

It is probably also spit in the face to squander the international support that the us had as a nation post-9/11 on a war that many people, many americans, still feel was unjustified.

Quote:

Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military.

I thought the us was a big supplier of hardware to iraq. Wait, no, that was after he had gassed his own people, but before he reached "evil dictator" status so i guess its fine. Besides, its not like the us would ever let an abusive government or two slide on sticky issues if we didn't want to deal with the consequences... ahem pinochet... ahem saudi arabia... ahem china.

Quote:

And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them.

Well, he did have a vial of botulism. As for delusional, well you're right, saddam was obviously only 45 minutes away from launching some kind of devastating bioterror attack on the us or its allies, just like our leaders said he was.

Quote:

Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S.

A little over simplified. Maybe they saw that the us was lying to its citizens and the world. Maybe the knew that the idea of iraq as a credible threat to anyone was laughable. Maybe they just believed, like many americans, that this war was a foolish political move for a president having economic problems and trouble reigning in corporate deceptions. Dismissing it as simply a cock block maneuver is silly when there are so many other reasons to not support this war.

almostaugust · 10-27-2003, 06:30 AM

I think its funny how those of you who praise the invasion of Iraq take the moral highground now about freeing the opressed peoples of Iraq (now that no WMDs are to be found). Well, how come this wasnt an issue when they were at war with Iran? Sorry i just dont buy it.

prosequence · 10-27-2003, 06:35 AM

I think I missed something.... some of you are posting that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.... really? When?

As far as freeing the people....how exactly has their life changed?

eple · 10-27-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
Wow, your English is excellent and even better than a lot of American posters on this board. Is English an official language of Norway?

Why thank you. English is a second language here, we are taught english from age 7. We hardly dub any movies, and are one of the countries in Europe most influenced by the US, so most Norwegians speak pretty good English.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So tell me Eple did those Oslo accords work??? Oh yeah thats right...

Furthermore we don't get oil from Iraq, all in all we get about 15-20% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Also if anybody hates the U.S. they can piss off. If memory serves if it weren't for us Norway and the rest of the civilized world would either be eating brats and Drinking Heinkens, or cow-towing to the A-Japs.

Heh, I said I am pleased with our role as a a nation which seeks peaceful solutions, not that it always work. And it's not like earlier military campaigns like Iraq2 has done great things for world peace either (Vietnam).

And please, stop tryng to pin some "anti-american" badge on my chest. I do not hate America or American citizens. There is a great difference between respecting a country and it's culture and zealously endorsing every policy enforced by it's government.

As far as oil is conserned, it's not always about what you gain, but maybe what others don't gain....There have been made speculations on wether the main goal was to restrict France and Germany's easy access to oil purchased from Saddam's regime. Thus revealing the whole thing as a way to further tilt the power balance between the growing EU and the US in favour of the US. This may sound like paranoid speculations, but from an historical perspective, it wouldn't really be too surprising.

Sparhawk · 10-27-2003, 08:06 AM

Okay... I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down for a minute. You know a thread is going bad when we're at the "my granddad saved your granddad's ass in WWII" argument.

As for the original topic, Russia and the US both routinely inspect each other's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, it's part of one of the START treaties, I can't recall which one. Suffice to say that the US is very honest and forthright about its nuclear capabilities.

edited for bad grammar*

edited again for misspelling grammar

Killconey · 10-27-2003, 08:51 AM

Amen Sparhawk! Man, I don't even know what thread I'm posting on anymore. I was going to say that I firmly agree that the United States (and every other member of the UN for that matter) should indeed be audited and required to destroy any and all weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that we don't need them, we're not going to use them and they damage our credibility when we're trying to boss the rest of the world around by telling them they should destroy theirs. Weapons of mass destruction are a ridiculous fancy of the past; we have much more practical ways of slaughtering our enemies now.

reconmike · 10-27-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killconey
Amen Sparhawk! Man, I don't even know what thread I'm posting on anymore. I was going to say that I firmly agree that the United States (and every other member of the UN for that matter) should indeed be audited and required to destroy any and all weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that we don't need them, we're not going to use them and they damage our credibility when we're trying to boss the rest of the world around by telling them they should destroy theirs. Weapons of mass destruction are a ridiculous fancy of the past; we have much more practical ways of slaughtering our enemies now.

More practical way to slaughter enemies? How much more practical can you get than using a 100 mega-ton warhead to erase a whole nation.

Nukes are now a deterrent against these little nations with their 1 or 3 litlle bombs.

The US has more than enough bombs, and the UN and the rest of the world knows how many there are.

filtherton · 10-27-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

More practical way to slaughter enemies? How much more practical can you get than using a 100 mega-ton warhead to erase a whole nation.

Nukes are impractical because you can't drop just one. MAD is still in effect so if anyone uses nukes you can bet that that person is going to recieve the collective scorn of the rest of the world and is also probably going to get nuked themselves. They also create incredibly toxic clouds of fallout and can also render entire areas unlivable for years. Hardly a practical solution to anything.

archer2371 · 10-27-2003, 12:25 PM

Nice reconmike, I love your perspectives on the military and military related posts. Anyways, yeah, the United States and Russia frequently check up on each other, so there isn't really a need for the UN to audit the United States, because whatever we find in Russia, and whatever Russia finds here is made public. Plus, the P5 of the UN can't really do anything without being under a microscope anyways.

mml · 10-27-2003, 01:10 PM

WOW!!!

The posts on this thread got a little overheated and off subject. As far at the poll, no I do not think the U.S. should be audited for weapons of mass distruction(does anyone else HATE this term?) by the U.N. The U.S. has not signed any U.N. treaty requiring that they allow such inspections and in my opinion, no nation should be required to give up parts of its sovereignty at the mere whim of the U.N.

That being said, if a nation or group of nations can convince or coerce a nation to agree to such inspections, then they have every right to do so. As has been said, Russia and the U.S. do have scheduled and regular inspections. These inspections exsist becaue they are in the best interests of both countries. Iraq agreed to inspections after the Gulf War. The U.N. carried out those inspections as they should have.

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
You miss the point, which as i see it is the fact that, it is hypocritical for the US to attempt to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1. The US opened that particular can of worms and 2. The US still has enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet THIRTY NINE TIMES OVER.

Yes we should let every 3rd world nation, ruled by who knows what kinda of psychopath, hold a trump card over us.

Last time I checked, I dont' have 39 lives, so a country that can kill us one time is one time to many.

filtherton · 10-27-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes we should let every 3rd world nation, ruled by who knows what kinda of psychopath, hold a trump card over us.

Last time I checked, I dont' have 39 lives, so a country that can kill us one time is one time to many.

Do me a favor and tell me it is not hypocritical. Then you will actually be addressing what i was saying in my above post.

mml · 10-27-2003, 01:30 PM

While I don't think the U.S. should have begun a policy of unilateral, preemptive agression, it would be foolish to not try and keep the genie in the bottle. Nuclear weapons and chemical/biological weapons are horrific and every attempt should be made to prevent the further development and proliferation of them. The U.S. recently destroyed old stockpiles of WMD's stored in Alabama(I think it was Alabama) and there are ongoing reductions in our nuclear arsenal. Can the U.S. do more? Of course we can, but we did not build up the arsenal overnight and we will not be getting rid of it anytime soon. To not try to limit proliferation would be "Ostrich Politics" , just sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the best - not a reall good plan when the stakes are so high.

eple · 10-27-2003, 02:10 PM

Heh, why don't you just hire some Iraqi experts? It seems those guys are great at getting rid of supposed WMD's incredibly fast.

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Do me a favor and tell me it is not hypocritical. Then you will actually be addressing what i was saying in my above post.

This isn't a nice game of chess. If you think the US is the moral equivalent of North Korea then you are far removed from reality. I'm sorry I don't address what YOU want addressed, but there is more to this issue then what just YOU think is important.

seretogis · 10-27-2003, 02:35 PM

I don't understand some peoples logic:

1) They admit that we, the US, gave Saddam WMDs.
2) They also claim that Saddam never had any WMDs.
3) They claim that because Saddam never had any WMDs, though we gave him some, the war is not justified.

What?

If nothing else, the war in Iraq is the US cleaning up the mess that it started years and years ago. It should serve as a learning experience for our higher-ups to not make deals with murderous dictators.

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 02:48 PM

Lets not forget that the US also stopped our dealing with Iraq, while many of our 'allies' went for the money.

BTW those missles that hit the hotel in Baghdad the other day were made in France.

prosequence · 10-27-2003, 03:24 PM

Psycopaths in charge? How about coke heads? Even a stroke victim, not everything can be firing right in the thought plant after one of those.

View Poll Results: Should the US be audited for weapons by the United Nations?
Yes, I think they should.	44	61.97%
No, they should not	27	38.03%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

10-26-2003, 12:17 PM	#47 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	O.K. first off, we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We haven't been proliferating nukes or nuclear materials to other countries, unlike a few suspected others. Let me say this, the Iraq War was not about just the WMD. It was about freeing an opressed nation that would help serve our interests. It's that simple. We felt that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a threat to us, we are eliminating that threat as we speak. We are still searching for WMDs, they will be found, which is part of that threat. Stabilizing the Middle East is a goal for the United States, because of a free Iraq, the MidEast will be able to become more stable without such a rogue nation there. A stable MidEast gives a chance for the Roadmap to Peace to work better. Those are just a few items of what benefits the United States and the region around Iraq. Believe me when I say this, you may not like the fact that we're there, but we are, and we will continue to be there until the job is done. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-26-2003, 12:20 PM	#48 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Can we please stop the Norway flaming as well, Norway has traditionally been a neutral country and I would like to keep them that way, because they can bring some very good perspectives and ideals to the table when discussing things like peace. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-26-2003, 12:46 PM	#49 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Well, that's all hunky dory about you finishing the job an' all, but I believe the point here is that you will have to take the bill. In Norway (I will, at some point stop referring to Norway in every post, but this time it felt right), we have a saying that goes "if you want to play, you'll have to take the pain" (it rhymes in Norwegian, that makes it more snazzy). The US should have known that this could be the outcome, and they should be able to handle it without the help of us "useless" countries. Surely they didn't go to war without calculating some losses? I am sure many European countries will be happy to hand out emergency aid if needed, but the burden of the reconstruction of Iraq belongs to the ones who started the war in the first place. Last edited by eple; 10-26-2003 at 12:49 PM..

10-26-2003, 02:04 PM	#51 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Oh no, I agree with you eple, but it does kind of disgust me that some countries, like FEL said, would rather be right than willing to help. And feel free to make references to your country man, we Americans do it all the time, why shouldn't you? I was trying to stop all that crap that had the "Norway sucks!" undertone to it, which it doesn't, that's what I meant about the Norway flaming. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-26-2003, 10:43 AM	#43 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	A little raid in the middle east that turned bad is not exactly comparitable with WW2. And please, spare me for that wack logic making it NOrway's problem that you guys destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. Let me give you a brief overview of my opinios here, so you won't need to pin any on me: You guys attacked that country on dodgy evidence and fucked up, now you need money, and come begging to the UN including Norway for help even though you earlier told us how useless we were. I am opposed to us giving any support to your agendas, I want my tax-money to do better things than cleaning up your fucking mess. The fucking end.

10-26-2003, 10:45 AM	#44 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I agree on the "dirty work" tho, lying to the entire world and spreading bs to justify the war must have been hard, and it certainly was dirty.

10-26-2003, 10:47 AM	#45 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And that is why Norway is a second rate nation with no real contribution to the world theater. When you need a hand though, feel free to call on the US, we will most likely help you out. Its what we do.

10-26-2003, 11:50 AM	#46 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	We contributed with fighter jets in Afghanistan (fucking stupid right-winger government). And some mine-seekers and oter post-war personell in Iraq. Even that is something in a war which has nothing at all to do with our interests or responsibility. Twist and turn it any way you want, the US did a war, now you must pay the bill. It's that fucking simple.

10-26-2003, 02:09 PM	#52 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	This is a question of billions of dollars, not being right or wrong. Countries who opposed to the attack in the first place are in their full right to refuse to partake in the reconstruction. It's not like these countries are neglecting a responsibility. Sure, we will offer aid if emergency strikes, but the reconstruction shall be done by those responsible for the attack, which will probably earn good money when the reconstruction is done. This isn't a pissfight, this is real politics, should we waste money on reconstructiong an american oil colony or not?

10-26-2003, 02:22 PM	#54 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Heh, jesus, do you ever stop.... Peace, war, unrest, terror, disaster, wonder, any general changes in the world the next few hundred years will be related to the role of the US. Norway have mainly involved itself in global affairs trough attemps at negotiations for peace (Oslo-agreement etc), or involvement in global envirolental treaties (f.e.Johannessburg) our ways are not trough millitary intervention, nor funding of such. If this should turn out to be all in vain, so be it, but I won't regret supporting our role as a peaceful nation(more or less, if you don't count those supposedly killed by our 5 fighter jets in Afghanistan).

10-26-2003, 03:00 PM	#55 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Fine, we could sit as people are being killed and claim to be peacefull too, but our president took the hard, tough stance and attempted to make the world better. Its easy to be on the high horse when you are not risking anything.

10-26-2003, 06:42 PM	#59 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Ask any former Eastern Block National how Europe would have let them get rolled over by Soviet Tanks. It took the threat of American bullets to save them. We have a long standing tradition of bailing Europeans out, WAAAY before we are directly threatened. And as per usual, we never ask for thanks.

10-26-2003, 06:56 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak). Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military. And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them. Also Iraq was a hub of terrorism, if not al-queda there were several other well noted terrorist organizations and celebrities there (Abu Nidal, Ansar Al- Islam, ANO, various support for Palestinian terrorist organizations... http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html). Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S. THe U.N. is a joke and wouldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. seeing as to we foot 25% of the bill for it as well as man support for its various operations. Bush sent the U.N. to the plate and in very convincing fashion they struck out looking. Like he said on the eve of war "THe World shares our assesment of the Danger posed by Saddam, but not our resolve". __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-26-2003 at 07:03 PM..

10-26-2003, 07:27 PM	#62 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	1) cock block is when someone stops you from getting ass, usually seen when a girl stops her friend from getting freaky with a guy she doesn't approve of. 2) U.N. inspectors missed/didn't find weapons when they were there. Once people started defecting the weapons came out. Do you really put it past Saddam to halt weapons programs? I mean for Christ's sake he had programs running when there were inspectors in his country, again, would you put it past him to have them running when the inspectors were gone? 17 resolutions violated over 10 years, pretty shaky record if you ask me... 3) Part of the reason the U.N. is a joke is because of the way the U.S. is able to use it for its own purposes. It's not a bunch of "nations" coming together for the common greater good, its a bunch of regimes coming together to try and keep there shit on lock down. Besides we fucking started the band, why should we have to leave it when the dysfunctional members start bitching? And they can't go on without U.S. funding, the U.N. almost went under a few years back, they nearly closed the New York branch becasue they couldn't afford, who was it they bailed them out... Oh yeah thats right the U.S. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-26-2003 at 07:30 PM..

10-27-2003, 06:30 AM	#64 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	I think its funny how those of you who praise the invasion of Iraq take the moral highground now about freeing the opressed peoples of Iraq (now that no WMDs are to be found). Well, how come this wasnt an issue when they were at war with Iran? Sorry i just dont buy it. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

10-27-2003, 06:35 AM	#65 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	I think I missed something.... some of you are posting that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.... really? When? As far as freeing the people....how exactly has their life changed? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-27-2003, 08:06 AM	#67 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Okay... I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down for a minute. You know a thread is going bad when we're at the "my granddad saved your granddad's ass in WWII" argument. As for the original topic, Russia and the US both routinely inspect each other's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, it's part of one of the START treaties, I can't recall which one. Suffice to say that the US is very honest and forthright about its nuclear capabilities. edited for bad grammar* edited again for misspelling grammar __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." Last edited by Sparhawk; 10-27-2003 at 09:23 AM..

10-27-2003, 08:51 AM	#68 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	Amen Sparhawk! Man, I don't even know what thread I'm posting on anymore. I was going to say that I firmly agree that the United States (and every other member of the UN for that matter) should indeed be audited and required to destroy any and all weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that we don't need them, we're not going to use them and they damage our credibility when we're trying to boss the rest of the world around by telling them they should destroy theirs. Weapons of mass destruction are a ridiculous fancy of the past; we have much more practical ways of slaughtering our enemies now. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-27-2003, 12:25 PM	#71 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Nice reconmike, I love your perspectives on the military and military related posts. Anyways, yeah, the United States and Russia frequently check up on each other, so there isn't really a need for the UN to audit the United States, because whatever we find in Russia, and whatever Russia finds here is made public. Plus, the P5 of the UN can't really do anything without being under a microscope anyways. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-27-2003, 01:10 PM	#72 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	WOW!!! The posts on this thread got a little overheated and off subject. As far at the poll, no I do not think the U.S. should be audited for weapons of mass distruction(does anyone else HATE this term?) by the U.N. The U.S. has not signed any U.N. treaty requiring that they allow such inspections and in my opinion, no nation should be required to give up parts of its sovereignty at the mere whim of the U.N. That being said, if a nation or group of nations can convince or coerce a nation to agree to such inspections, then they have every right to do so. As has been said, Russia and the U.S. do have scheduled and regular inspections. These inspections exsist becaue they are in the best interests of both countries. Iraq agreed to inspections after the Gulf War. The U.N. carried out those inspections as they should have. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-27-2003, 01:30 PM	#75 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	While I don't think the U.S. should have begun a policy of unilateral, preemptive agression, it would be foolish to not try and keep the genie in the bottle. Nuclear weapons and chemical/biological weapons are horrific and every attempt should be made to prevent the further development and proliferation of them. The U.S. recently destroyed old stockpiles of WMD's stored in Alabama(I think it was Alabama) and there are ongoing reductions in our nuclear arsenal. Can the U.S. do more? Of course we can, but we did not build up the arsenal overnight and we will not be getting rid of it anytime soon. To not try to limit proliferation would be "Ostrich Politics" , just sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the best - not a reall good plan when the stakes are so high. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-27-2003, 02:10 PM	#76 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Heh, why don't you just hire some Iraqi experts? It seems those guys are great at getting rid of supposed WMD's incredibly fast.

10-27-2003, 02:35 PM	#78 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I don't understand some peoples logic: 1) They admit that we, the US, gave Saddam WMDs. 2) They also claim that Saddam never had any WMDs. 3) They claim that because Saddam never had any WMDs, though we gave him some, the war is not justified. What? If nothing else, the war in Iraq is the US cleaning up the mess that it started years and years ago. It should serve as a learning experience for our higher-ups to not make deals with murderous dictators. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-27-2003, 02:48 PM	#79 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets not forget that the US also stopped our dealing with Iraq, while many of our 'allies' went for the money. BTW those missles that hit the hotel in Baghdad the other day were made in France. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-27-2003, 03:24 PM	#80 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Psycopaths in charge? How about coke heads? Even a stroke victim, not everything can be firing right in the thought plant after one of those. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...