The one & only War On Terror thread

[Guest DeputyHawk]

As the one-year anniversary amazingly rolls around and the Iraq Attack looms ever closer, there's going to be a lot of conflicting opinion thrown around concerning 9/11, Bush, Blair, the U.N, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, Al-Queda, etc, so let's try to contain it all within one thread instead of having it engulf the whole board.

 

Just to kick things off, the international state of affairs is fundamentally this: Bush & Blair are convinced Hussein must be removed, the rest of the world remains unconvinced. The prevading reason for this skepticism is that there's no concrete proof Saddam is close to having nuclear capability or that he would even use it if he did. Pre-emptively attacking Iraq unprovoked, many argue, is an illegal act of war which could not be tolerated. Others argue that Hussein is a derranged despot who must be stopped, and stopped quickly before he really does assemble the means to unleash mass destruction on the western world.

 

I personally have switched my stance on the Iraq Attack over the last week. I retain the belief that America has acted arrogantly, inappropraitely and disrespectfully towards her international allies, however the following facts speak for themselves: way back when the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country they had already discovered ...

 

a) a blueprint for a nuclear bomb which would weigh under a tonne and could fit on a scud missile

 

b) a dummy bomb with a non-nuclear core had already been tested

 

c) 30 nuclear research and production facilities, including a plutonium separation program and radiological weapon development

 

d)enough precursor chemicals to produce 200 tonnes of VX nerve agent, as well as immense stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum, clostridium and mustard gas.

 

The CIA also has evidence that L-29 training jets were being customised into unmanned aircraft capable of spreading the chemical & biological weaponary; several Iraqi defectors have indicated that Hussein's nuclear program has intensified dramatically and he could have a fully working nuclear bomb within a matter of months should he acquire the depleted uranium he needs from either the black market or other rogue states; and also the man himself has publicly called for a 'nuclear mujahideen' to defeat his enemy.

 

Hussein certainly is a danger to the world, and he certainly needs to be removed. The only tricky thing now is doing it with precision, limited civilian casualties, a rock-solid follow-up plan to put into effect when he is deposed, and international support. What we don't need is for the U.S. to simply bomb hell out of the county, install an ineffectual puppet regime which will not stay the course of time, allow the old forces to regroup, and not even know whether Saddam was killed in the conflict or not.

 

President Bush's forthcoming address to The U.N. will be of vital importance, but for now my thoughts and prayers (as I'm sure will be those of everyone else who uses this board) go out to all those who lost friends and loved ones a year ago today.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

For a start, let's avoid borrowing the silly "one and only" crap from the idiots who infest the rest of the board. I don't like 500+ page threads. Also, I think most people are interested in specific, topical, and timely threads, rather than one huge trench-latrine of a thread for everyone who wanders in and decides to take a dump.

 

Apart from that, I don't have much of a problem with what you said.

[Guest Kingpk]

I find it funny that there are sattelite pictures of rebuilt chemical plants in Iraq and a UN spokesperson says that "there is no proof that there are any WMDs in them."

 

Well, why the fuck do you think they rebuilt them for?!

[Guest DeputyHawk]

I find it funny that there are sattelite pictures of rebuilt chemical plants in Iraq and a UN spokesperson says that "there is no proof that there are any WMDs in them."  

 

Well, why the fuck do you think they rebuilt them for?!

your answer's in your quote there, kingpk. there is no proof that there are wmd's in the plants, only massive circumstancial evidence. the big debate here is the legality of going to war with someone based on circumstancial evidence (however overwhelming) rather than concrete proof.

 

oh and marney, i can see your point about 500+ page posts but i asked dr tom about making a 'one & only' type thread for this, and he gave it the thumbs up. it just makes more sense to have the core debates on this contained in one place instead of repeated over & over throughout five or six different threads. there'll obviously continue to be related spin-off topics as well. if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, you have a point; we do tend to cover a lot of the same material in different threads. I know I've been getting tired of repeating myself recently.

[Guest MrRant]

But then that would mean certain people would be getting things through their heads and not posting the same shit over ... and over... and over... and over... and over... (and just for fucks sake) and over.

[Guest EricMM]

Well here's to hoping nothing happens today.

 

We all need to move on. All the TV specials are pissing me off. It's not news. Iraq is news, 9/11 is not news.

[Guest bob_barron]

What do you mean by move on??? We just forget what happened??

[Guest MrRant]

Well here's to hoping nothing happens today.

 

We all need to move on. All the TV specials are pissing me off. It's not news. Iraq is news, 9/11 is not news.

::Smack::

 

Awaits the return of Marney to see her wrath displayed for her Reverend.

[Guest EricMM]

No of course not.

 

But not having news specials about it. Showing the same clips over and over. Noone's going to forget. They're trying to use it for ratings IMO, and I don't think that's right. All the news shows should be talking about the current news, not a year ago. I can understand talking about threats today, but it just seemed like everyone wanted to interview everyone who was in New York. I think that time has passed.

 

Of course not forget. Why would I want to forget.

[Guest meanmaisch]

I think what EricMM is trying to say is that there is an oversatuation of media coverage of 9/11. I really don't need to see 9/11 specials on ESPN. I expect to see sports on ESPN, that's what the network is for after all.

[Guest Kingpk]

Eh, I just bought a few new DVDs, so I'll be all set.

 

I understand some coverage, but from 7AM to 11PM? Leave that to the cable news networks.

[Guest razazteca]

no song and dance from me

 

I just wonder if all of this sudden patroitism is going to hurt some innocent store clerk or taxi driver or church/temple/religious center? Last year there were several situations where vigalantes used patroitism as an excuse to attack innocents in the DFW area.

 

[Guest Vern Gagne]

So Espn is showing the ceremony at ground zereo Wednesday morning. The only thing people will miss is SportsCenter.

[Guest Ken]

At the risk of being unpopular:

 

The war in Afghanistan was a proper reaction to a horrifying, cowardly act.

It was justified and has been of benefit to Afghanistan and the world.

 

-BUT-

 

A war with Iraq has nothing to do with terror, but even Bush admits that. It is simply a war for oil, and to boost Bush in the opinion polls.

The fact is, in 1988 Iraq was a much greater threat to the world. He even used chemical weapons to kill innocent Kurds. What did America, and Bush mk.1 do? Nothing. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was destroyed during the Gulf War and the follow up airstrikes over the last decade or so. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was 98% destroyed in the Gulf war.

 

Sanctions just breed more Anti-Americanism. Saddam simply uses it to demonstrate how America oppresses Iraqis, and this breeds more terrorists. If America wants to avoid more 9/11's, it should take a good long look at itself, because there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist.

[Guest MrRant]

Sanctions just breed more Anti-Americanism. Saddam simply uses it to demonstrate how America oppresses Iraqis, and this breeds more terrorists. If America wants to avoid more 9/11's, it should take a good long look at itself, because there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist.

Yes you can. It just takes some rednecks with shotguns, some hunting dogs and a whole lotta beer swillin'.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

QUOTE (Ken @ Sep 11 2002, 01:32 AM)

"Sanctions just breed more Anti-Americanism. Saddam simply uses it to demonstrate how America oppresses Iraqis, and this breeds more terrorists. If America wants to avoid more 9/11's, it should take a good long look at itself, because there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist."

 

<<<Yes you can. It just takes some rednecks with shotguns, some hunting dogs and a whole lotta beer swillin'.>>>

 

 

-Christ, Amen to that.........

[Guest MrRant]

Note: I think it would be a good idea to get some rednecks with shotguns, hunting dogs and beer to hunt them down.

[Guest Ken]

Note:  I think it would be a good idea to get some rednecks with shotguns, hunting dogs and beer to hunt them down.

Statistics suggest they are more likely to kill themselves or one of their friends.

[Guest MrRant]

Well if their friend is a big asshole then lets just call it 2 for 1.

[Guest Ken]

Well if their friend is big asshole then lets just call it 2 for 1.

Er, in English please.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

Well if their friend is big asshole then lets just call it 2 for 1.

Er, in English please.

Indeed

[Guest MrRant]

Well if their friend is big asshole then lets just call it 2 for 1.

Er, in English please.

Indeed

There... asshole.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

A war with Iraq has nothing to do with terror, but even Bush admits that. It is simply a war for oil, and to boost Bush in the opinion polls.

Wrong. There is a major al Qaeda stronghold in northern Iraq. It has everything to do with the war against radical Islam and the terror it breeds.

 

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was 98% destroyed in the Gulf war.

I suppose you've been there recently so you'd know.

 

Sanctions just breed more Anti-Americanism. Saddam simply uses it to demonstrate how America oppresses Iraqis, and this breeds more terrorists.

Which is why we need a war. Saddam's personal fortune is valued at $18 billion, most of it oil money which should have gone to feeding children. You want to find the man responsible for destroying Iraq? Look no further than Hitler redux, down to the asinine moustache and the impotence.

 

there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist.

Fucking watch us.

[Guest MrRant]

It hurts the Reverends feeling that Marney never pays attention to my wonderful jokes.

[Guest PlatypusFool]

Seriously, I don't understand what the fuck is going on with America at the moment. Most of you are all 'lets show love for our country and the freedom it promises by bombing the other side of the world, and killing everyone with different beliefs to our own!'.Some of you remain intelligent, and well done to you, but really, there is more 'patriotic' twats.

 

The sense of what is wrong about this whole thing for me comes with the consideration that America have had nuclear weapons for yonks. All Saddam has done (if he's done anything) is create nuclear weapons exactly the same as America have - I didn't hear any complaints about America's nuclear capability.

 

The other thing I don't understand is how exactly Bush thinks he can solve anything. The one advantage to everyone having nuclear weapons is that everyone is too scared to do anything for fear that one country is gonna bitethe bullet and unleash fire and destruction on everyone else. He has two choices if he doesn't get his way;

 

1) Declare war and send ground troups to Iraq. As soon as he does this, Saddam is gonna know due to the overwhelming media attension focussed on this. What do you think Saddam is gonna do then? Sending troops is only gonna make it more likely for Saddam to decide to actually launch his nuclears at America in retaliation! He knows that if he counters ground troops with ground troops, he will lose, so why not just bomb America?

 

2) Bush could bomb Iraq. The perfect solution - kill off millions of perfectly innocent people, commiting a much worse act of terrorism than 9/11/01 ever was.

 

Seriously, what else is Bush gonna do exactly? If he does anything he'll cause a war, and haven't we learnt yet that those are bad things?

 

I just think that the worse terrorists of all are the Americans, creating terror in a nation that has done nothing to anyone for many years, and doing so in retaliation for an attack the probly had nothing to do with them.

[Guest bob_barron]

2) Bush could bomb Iraq. The perfect solution - kill off millions of perfectly innocent people, commiting a much worse act of terrorism than 9/11/01 ever was.

 

Seriously, what else is Bush gonna do exactly? If he does anything he'll cause a war, and haven't we learnt yet that those are bad things?

 

I just think that the worse terrorists of all are the Americans, creating terror in a nation that has done nothing to anyone for many years, and doing so in retaliation for an attack the probly had nothing to do with them.

Nothing to anyone for many years???

 

How about Kuwait?

Or the fact that Saddam is funding suicide bombers who are causing havoc in Israel?

 

If that plane had taken off and flown into Big Ben, I don't think you'd be posting what you just did.

[Guest PlatypusFool]

I certainly would be posting what I just said.

 

Well I would in princible, but if they had targetted a big clock rather than the world trade centre, none of this would be happening...

 

Alright, so Saddam has done some bad things. The point is that America is on the borderline of doing something much worse - and what did he actually do to America?

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

And as for Saddam having nuclear weapons comparing to the US having nukes? When since WW2 have we used them? Saddam would be only thrilled to put a nuclear warhead into America and one of any places. We fought with him, yes, but we certainly didn't turn his country into a nuclear wasteland. The big difference? We wouldn't use them unless there were no other options.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Well, there are the low-yield weapons you are developing. If you used one of those, the political fallout would be around the same