Date: 9/24/2002 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
I think that America should do it. I don't think Australia should help though because our federal defence budget is already overblown at the moment.  |
Date: 9/24/2002 9:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
I don't think we would need help anyway, we can take the whole country with a couple of planes.  |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Unfortuantly SOH their are more nuclear weopans in the Middle East than their are in the rest of the world. If they wanted to they could take you out whenever they wanted. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
And where did you get the evidence that they already have nuclear weopons? Since when was Russia part of the Middle East? |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Ummm I'm not talking about Russia! It is very well documented that there are thousnads of weopans of mass destruction in underground bunkers. All they need is the slightest hint of an unprovoked attack and they will come out and go haywire. |
Date: 9/24/2002 9:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 52866
And since when did you question the knowledge of an adult? Clay, you said you were TWELVE. Kurt is an ADULT. I think he knows what he's talking about  |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Kurt i if they had the weopons they wouldnt wait for us to strike them before using them, they would use them here and now. Theres plenty of hints of un-provoked attack now but it just hasnt happened yet. Even if they did, they would go down with us, you can't strike down the U.S.S without expecting 20 nukes back at you from all over the world. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Melissa thats the worst arguement i've ever seen, Gore doesnt know what he's talking about so does that make him a baby? I'm confused Melissa because that just doesnt work. Please give me your agument sinse you seem to be so smart. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
U.S.* |
Date: 9/24/2002 9:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 40543
Im pretty sure that Kurtvedder is right about this, although im not sure about there being as many as that, its known there is quite a few.  |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
I would like to see those documents before i aprove of anything. I find it very liekly that there are nukes in the Middle East but there being that many is completely unlikely. Can i see those documents on the internet? |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Umm SoH how quick has the rest of the world joined to help the USA at the moment. America are much openly going into there. If weopans are found in Iraq then Iraq will be bombed. If they don't they won't. The other countries are smarter to leave sleeping dogs lie. They are saving them for when they think their own livelyhoods are being affected. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Kurt what i'm syaing is, if 15 nukes start flying toward America, you can't expect the rest of the world to just sit there and wait to get hit. If they would strike America its likely they would striek your country too, they hate everything about western culture. So the point is that if 10 nukes were sailing toward the U.S. then theres gonna be alot more sailing back. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
strike* |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
The numbers may be off but I know this that there are more than 1500 nukes in underground bunkers all around the place as far away as Egypt. I don't know if these documents are on the net. I was taught this at university in a course called the history of warfare. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But if America gets trigger happy and starts attacking before they have gone inside Iraq to check properly other western countries will say that it serves them right for attacking unprovoked. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Well although it could happen sinse there havent been inspection in 10 years, i think it unlikely and i'm not gonna believe it but its not to say it couldnt happen. Hmm maybe this is Mystery Babylon, striking the Middle East and getting nuked by suprise. Maybe we're closer to the end times than i think. lol |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Only the communists of western countries would say that. I know if France got nuked I'm not go running around saying "It serves them right!". And every other western country would be scared out of their wits if nukes hit America. Without America the western world does not have fully capable military power to withhold their enemies. It may be stupid of us to not have inspections first but not many will go around yelling "It serves them right!" |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
You'd be surprised. You obviously haven't heard the cries over hear of leave America to fight their won fight. A lot of people (not me) think that Bush is grandstanding. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:43:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Sorry but i didnt understand that first sentence. State it differantly. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
I said you haven't heard what people are saying in Australia. They are saying that countries should leave America to fight their own fight. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:47:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
The only person i can see that would say we deserved it would be the communists in Germany, America, and the rest of the world. No sane person would say that America deserves to be hit by nukes while trying to take out a dictator. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But see already the thoughts are jumbled. Are America trying to take out a dictator or make sure Iraq aren't holding or manufacturing nukes. It started off as the latter but if it has gone to the former then Bush may be grandstanding and I may be wrong about him. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:54:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Well an insane dictator + Nukes= Not Fun. So we have an insane disctator here, now there is proof that he is trying or already has nukes, we know he has bio-chemical weopons. I don;t see Bush trying to take out other dictators, so i think its about the latter. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But if they attack unprovoked they will. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 9:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
They will what? Nukes us? im suprised they dont nuke us anyway. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 10:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
If they nuke you anyway they won't be in the right, but if they nuke you when attacked unprovoked they succeed in turning America into the bad guys and then they not only blow you up but they also win because the rest of the world see's it as self defence. See what I'm getting at. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 10:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
No i don,t i personally think your living under a rock. Ya see either way, i dont even think Russia would be saying "Ohh well so what its just a 1000 nukes and it all in self-defence. So lets all sing kum-ba-yah for the lost souls and go home knowing this whole thing is fine and jolly." I see that what your saying is that if we attack first they have the right to defend themselves, but using nuclear weopons is totally out of the question, we've already un-provokanly attacked Iraq with 100 British and U.S. bombers and no one is upset yet, and i don't see any stray nukes in the air. The point i'm making of this is either way your not just gonna get away with firing a nuke, no matter who shot it first or who did this and that first. No one would ever let Suddam or anyone else get away with blowing millions of people to dust. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 10:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Ummm didn't america get away with it in 1945. |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 10:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Whoah!Whoah!Whoah! Lets not jump around the map here we're talking about one thing. If you would take the time to look at the differnce its pretty obvious. Japan was trying to take over the world. America isn't. Big difference there. America tried to protect the civilized world, the un-civilized world is instead interested in taking over the world and bringing complete destruction. Two toally different things so lets not lose our socks. |
Date: 9/24/2002 11:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
It's only the last month that the push has been on to oust sadaam... why didn't bush nuke him when he kicked out the inspectors in 98? Has anybody realised the media is gearing up for a smallpox 'outbreak' - smells of Wag the Dog video. The US and Russia are the only ones who 'officially' have the smallpox virus in their labs. - Coolade  |
|
Date: 9/24/2002 11:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
I didnt get the point you were tyring to make but Bush never kicked out any inspecters. |
Date: 9/24/2002 11:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
First off there are 8 countrys with nuclear weapons, China-400, France-350, India-60, Israel-200, Pakistan-24 to 48, Russia-10,000, United Kingdom-185, United States-10,656. That info is from http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/index.cfm If you would like to check it. If the U.S. was attacked by nuclear weapons we would not stand alone and the world would not turn its back on us for a few simple reasons. Were is most of the worlds money? The U.S. Were do must country sell there goods to support there economy? The U.S. Were do a lot of countrys get the tecnology they need for many different things? The U.S. Also a country could destory many of the U.S.'s cities but the military would still be at 80-90%. As for Iraq, the U.N. had a whole list of demends that they were supposed to comply with, so far they have not compled with very many. If the U.N. wont do anything then the "worlds police force" the U.S. should. MI23  |
Date: 9/25/2002 2:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 28899
So, everyone that you don't like should be blown to kingdom come, eh, SoH? They have done little to you, except exist, and now that they have the means to fight back, you decide to prevent something that everyone but you knows wouldn't happen anyway. Saddam may be nuts, but he isn't stupid. He knows that he can't make the first move, he knows the states are coming for him, and he knows that during an attack will be the best time to use what he's got. It has become clear that the states are going around the UN, and Saddam is just waiting for their troops to show up en masse. You see, the only way to harm your people with any weapons -nuclear or otherwise- is to send U.S. troops over to him. And, yes, it would serve you right if this were just a big trap. You'd think a country with centuries of combat experience would know better than this.  |
Date: 9/25/2002 1:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Youre right Tiger, i'm sorry. I'm gonna wait till he blows a city up before i decide to go againt him.  Now tell me? Did 9/11 hapopen or not? Because with some people its like it never happed. Osama Binladen has far less power than Suddam and he took down two very large buildings. Just to refresh your bad memory thats what happened. So what your saying is we wiat, let him get stronger. And eventually he will attack us or we will attack him, and now he has more power, or if one of nutty relatizes take over? Perfect idea! Not 5 cities but 10! Your killing 10 cities with 1 stone! *Clap[s* And i wonderful communist statmenet at the end. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 1:19:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Lol! I laugh everytime i read that! I'm gonna save that in a file and laugh at it later. |
Date: 9/25/2002 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
If I had the US breathing down my neck I'd be after a nuke or two as well...  |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 2:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
Must I keep bringing up CNN footage? Do you remember the "awesome military power" that Iraq had back in the early '90's? Apparently what qualifies as "awesome military power" is a bunch of quick-to-jump-ship, rag-clad men with AK47s and a bunch of SCUDs. Ohhhhhhhhh...big threat to the US there. I could see Iraq kicking the backside of, say, the Gambia. But to suggest that Iraq has a prayer against the US is just...ridiculous... |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 4:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
A prayer against the U.S.? And thats supposed to mean? Yeah i would say Usama's "Army" is about 1/3 of that. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 6:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
I'd rather be a realistic commie than a naive nazi. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 7:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Oh im the nazi now? Guess that makes us both nazis. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 7:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Ok let me say this again for the people that did not read it. The U.N. was the group that laid down what Iraq had to do, NOT the U.S. So now that Iraq has not complyed with these rules what has the U.N. done? Nothing. Now that the U.S. wants to make Iraq comply we are the bad guy for trying to inforce what the U.N. wants. Wow does that sound dumb or what! As for all this being a trap I highly doubt that. Must of the people in Iraq would love to see Sadam gone but they know better then to say or even try anything. MI23 |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 7:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Yeha i heard you MI29 and your right, but some people just don't understand it. I think alot of people double op on their medication pills in the middle of the month and run out toward the end so.... we get visable results. |
Date: 9/25/2002 7:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
I know SoH I wasnt talking about you. Some people just need to read a newspaper and know world history a little better. MI23
|
|
Date: 9/25/2002 7:19:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Yeah, really. I still think its because of medication issues but thats just me. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
Nope, SoH, I'm the commie, remember? Anyway, Saddam should not be in power, but it is not Georgie boy's place to push him out. That is why I'm against it. If the states continue acting like the world's police, then they will be the ones deciding what is right and wrong, and making even more powerful people very angry. This is why those towers were attacked in the first place. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 8:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
By the way, when resources are down, as they are in the mid east, the only real power anyone can have is over the people. With that, Bin is actually more powerful than Saddam. The states are only wasting time, and distracing the public from the original mission. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
So if it isn't Gearge's job to push him out? Who's is it? There is a big line between right and wrong and wanting put gasoline down someone's throat and lighting them on fire is wrong. I think your dilerious. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Ok, its the 1940's and Hitler has invaded pasrts of Europe. Do we wait for him to take over the rest of it or do we do something? This question will go against your score on the sanity level. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
What on earth makes you think it's your job? |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:37:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
No No! Answer the question i gave you. If we're gonna play the game we'll play it right. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Germany is attacking Europe, now is it our job to be the police of the world and stop everyone from turning into lamp shades, or do we do nothing. Answer the question. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
Lmao! The states didn't do squat until Japan dropped the bomb... Maybe you should look into getting one of those things, you know, with pages. What are they called? Oh, yeah, books! Get some of those. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:40:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Ths is the scenario, your the president of the United States and Germany has started to take over Europe, what do you do? |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
For starters, Germany wouldn't invade the rest of Europe. Democratic countries have only one goal: wealth. And the biggest expense a country can undertake is war. There has not been a single war against two democratic countries. The democratic world does not need police. To make a country democratic takes an effort on the part of citizens. It cannot be put in motion with a simple invasion or coup. It just doesn't work that way. If Georgie boy really wants Saddam out, he'd rally the international community behind the people. But, he doesn't just want Saddam out, he wants his puppets in. This whole thing is just so messed up. |
|
Date: 9/25/2002 10:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
Lol, i can tell your off the medication. Your brain has trouble processing the question doesnt it. Stop avoiding the question and answer it. |
Date: 9/25/2002 10:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
It's no one's job. Iraq wouldn't even be in this situation if "someone" didn't play cop. It took me this long to come up with a response that wouldn't get me banned from this site  |
|
Date: 9/26/2002 10:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 43250
So then what you are saying Tiger, if I understand you is the world does not need the U.S. as a "police force". Is that correct? MI23 |
|
Date: 9/26/2002 1:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 28899
The UN was doing fine until someone found out that the Kurds in northern Iraq might -possibly- have had brief contact with the al-Qaeda network. There were stand-offs, which isn't unusual. But, the UN works. So, what I'm saying is that it should not be the states, or any other single country, that imposes it's rule on foreign governments. |
|
Date: 9/26/2002 1:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 54429
*Still waiting for brain to process the question* |
Date: 9/26/2002 7:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
Aren't we sending missiles over there right now? I thought I heard this on the news. And I think that the reason Bush is so gung-ho on war is because he wants to take attention away from our economy.  |
